The court determined that unresolved factual disputes regarding project completion and jurisdiction require the Developer to pursue statutory remedies rather than direct writ petitions.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHU BAKHRU, C.J.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 15.06.2023 [the impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 15133/2020 (GM-RES).

2. Respondent No.1, M/s. Provident Housing Limited [The Developer] had filed the said writ petition impugning an order dated 28.05.2020, passed by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority [KRERA], whereby it was directed to pay compensation at the rate of 2% of the amount paid by the appellant from April, 2017 till delivery of possession. Additionally, KRERA also directed the Developer to execute the sale deed in respect of the flat in question within a period of one month and also to pay the cost quantified at Rs.5,000/-. The said order was passed pursuant to the complaint filed by the appellant alleging failure on the part of the Developer to register the project named ‘The Tree by Provident’ and deliver possession of the apartment booked by the appellant in the said project.

3. The Developer had challenged the said order on the ground that KRERA did not have any jurisdiction to pass the said order. It claimed that the project in question (The Tree by Provident) which is located at Herohalli Village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, was a completed project (not an ongoing project) and therefore was exempted from registration under the Karnataka Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 [the Act]. The Developer claimed that it had obtained the completion certificate/occupancy certificate prior to Section 3 the Act coming into force and thus was exempt under Rule 4 of the Karnataka Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 [the Rules]. The Developer further claimed that the complaint made by the appellant under Section 31 of the Act, was not maintainable.

4. The Developer had applied for occupancy certificate on 10.04.2017 and the same was granted on 12.12.2017. The learned Single Judge held that although the said certificate was issued after 01.05.2017, it would relate back to the date of application, that is 10.04.2017. Since Section 3 of the Act, which provides for registration of projects, came into effect from 01.05.2017, the same would be inapplicable for the project in question. Accordingly, the order dated 28.05.2020 passed by KRERA was set aside.

5. The appellant had booked a residential flat in the project in question ('The Tree by Provident') on 23.01.2015 and he paid the booking amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). Thereafter, on 11.02.2015, the appellant and the Developer entered into a Sale Agreement and Construction Agreement and the appellant paid the entire agreed sale consideration amount of Rs.55,27,569/- (Rupees Fifty-five lakhs Twenty-seven thousand Five hundred and Sixty-nine only) in terms of the said agreement. The appellant claims that in terms of the agreement, the Developer was required to complete the project and construction on or before 30.07.2017, however, it failed to do so. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred a complaint (CMP/191025/0004556) before the KRERA, which was allowed in terms of the order dated 28.05.2020.

6. The Developer had resisted the said complaint on several grounds including that, it was not liable to pay any compensation since it was exempted from registration under Rule 4(1)(iv) of the Rules.

7. The learned KRERA did not accept the said contention. It found that the project was not