Home buyers can maintain a suit for injunction against developers for non-structural grievances despite potential jurisdictional claims under real estate regulations.

ORDER :

M. Nagaprasanna, J.

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court which rejects the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. Heard Shri K. R. Krishnamurthy learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Suraj Sampath, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2.

3. The petitioner is the developer, respondents No.1 and 2, a home buyers. On certain agreements are entered into between the petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2 with regard to purchase of the apartment along with the car park. It transpires that after usage of the car park space for about two years, the developer is wanting to construct a multi level car parking over and above the car park allotted to the plaintiffs and is said to have allotted the same to other purchasers of car park. On the said score, respondents No.1 and 2 - plaintiffs approaches the concerned Court in O.S.No.6775/2023 seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant before the concerned Court in respect to the schedule property. In the aforesaid OS, the petitioner - defendant files an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The concerned Court rejects the application holding that the plaint was maintainable. The rejection of the application is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application before the concerned Court on the ground that the suit was not maintainable, as the plaintiffs had to approach the RERA under Section 14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ('the RERA Act' for short) and if the remedy is available only under Section 14 of the RERA Act, Section 79 of the RERA Act bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Therefore, the suit was not maintainable. Notwithstanding the same, the application comes to be rejected. He would therefore seek rejection of the plaint on the question of jurisdiction.

5. Per contra, Shri Suraj Sampath, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 would vehemently refute the submission contending that there is no warrant to go before the RERA all over again in a project that had stood completed. It is his right that is taken away and what is being sought is a mandatory injunction against the petitioner. He would submit that against seven others, the petitioner had preferred several suits, all of which are settled. If the petitioner himself has approached the concerned Court seeking permanent injunction against them, he cannot now contend that the suit was not maintainable.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have pursued the available material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass as to whether the suit is maintainable before the concerned Court or the petitioners have to go before the RERA under the RERA Act. The plaintiffs are a home buyers, while the purchase of apartment allotment is made in favour of the petitioner. The allotment reads as follows:

"Mr. Sumitra Ghosh
Ms. Uttama Ghosh
Flat No.C 104,
Georp The Icon,
Thanisandra Main Road,
Bangalore - 560077
Dear Mr. Sumitra Ghosh and Ms. Uttama Ghosh

Sub: ALLOTMENT LETTER

G:Corp Residences - Apartment No.B-205

We are pleased to allot you apartment No: B-205 on Second Floor at "G: Corp Residences", at S T Bed Layout, Srinivagilu, Kormangala, Bangalore 560 034.

1. Apartment bearing No.B-205 on the Second Floor Three Bedroom having saleabl