ORDER :

K.P. Dinesh, Member

1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both applications a common order is passed in order to avoid repetition.

It is not necessary to narrate the facts of the case in detail for the purpose of disposing of the present applications. Suffice it to say that the respondents-flat purchasers entered into registered agreements for sale and construction with appellants in Appeal No. (K-REAT) 113/2020 on 8-4-2015 and Appeal No. (K-REAT) 117/2020 on 6-4-2014 to purchase a Flat bearing No. 807, block 11, Alston Sale and 806, Block-Greenwich Sale in the project "Blue Waters Phase 1" respectively. The due date for completion of the projects as per the agreements was June 2017 with a grace period of 6 months. As promoter failed to complete the project and deliver possession of the flat in time and complaints came to be filed before Adjudicating Officer for payment of delay compensation under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Adjudicating Officer by his orders dated 30-1-2019 and 25-4-2019 allowed the complaints by granting compensation. The appellants aggrieved by the impugned orders of the Adjudicating Officer preferred the above appeals before this Tribunal.

2. The appellants-developer/applicants aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 30-1-2019 and 25-4-2019 passed by the Adjudicating Officer preferred the above appeals in which the present applications came to be filed under Section 53 read with Section 43 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter called "the Act") to waive 100% pre-deposit of the compensation amount awarded by the Adjudicating Officer. The contention of the appellants/applicants is that the applicants have already deposited 50% of the compensation amount in both appeals and the respondent 1 have sought for dismissal of the appeals on the ground that appellants required to deposit 100% of the pre-deposit amount as per Section 43(5) of the Act. It is contended that the Tribunal has recorded during the proceeding that the appellants to deposit the entire compensation awarded by the Adjudicating Officer before this Tribunal. The appellants were attempting to ascertain the quantum of compensation to be deposited before this Hon'ble Tribunal and was not certain of how much should be deposited to maintain appeals and therefore made such submission on an erroneous understanding of the law. It is further contended that the appellants/applicants may be permitted to withdraw the statement so made before this Tribunal and permitted to maintain the appeals on the basis of the deposit already made or such percentage as this Tribunal may determine. It is contended that 100% deposit of the amount awarded by the Adjudicating Officer is opposed to the letter and spirit of the Act. It is contended that the Act being a welfare legislation the right of the promoter would be undermined if the appellants are forced to make good the compensation awarded by the Adjudicating Officer during the pendency of the appeals and the entire purpose of the appeals itself would stand vitiated. The impugned orders itself is under challenge and asking for deposit of entire compensation during the pendency of the appeals are grossly unjust. It is contended that appellants should not be made to suffer by making a deposit of 100% pending adjudication of the appeals and for which it is necessary to waive the requirement to deposit 100% in the place of 30% as envisaged under the Act. It is contended that respondents approached this Tribunal seeking dismissal of the appeals on the understanding that 100% deposit is a pre-requisite for any appeals. It is submitted that the said understanding is incorrect and bare reading of the Act itself shows that if the appellants makes 30% deposit before this Hon'ble Tribunal at the time of preferring an appeals, provided this Hon'ble Tribunal permit such deposit. For all the reasons narrated above appellants/applica