JUDGMENT :

JITENDRA JAIN, J.

1. This appeal is filed under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short “RERA Act”) challenging the order of Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Appellate Tribunal) dated 22nd July, 2022. The questions of law raised in the appeal memo are reframed as under:

“Q.1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Regulatory Authority on payment of interest under Section 18(1) of the RERA Act?

Q.2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in adjudicating the issue of termination of the agreement without any application by any of the parties for setting aside the termination?”

Narrative of Events:

2. The Appellant is a promoter of a project called “Swaroop Harmony” located at Santacruz (East), Mumbai. The Respondents are allottees of a flat in the aforesaid project developed by the Appellant promoter.

3. On 2nd June, 2010, the Respondent allottees booked the flat for a total consideration of Rs.51,00,000/- by paying a booking amount. The agreement for sale was executed in the year 2011 between the Appellant promoter and the Respondent allottees. In the complaint, the Respondent allottees stated that as per the agreement, the Appellant promoter was to handover the possession of the said flat to the Respondent allottees within a period of 30 months. However, no possession was handed over till the date of filing the complaint although, the Respondent allottees paid a substantial amount of Rs.46,83,788/- to the Appellant promoter.

4. Since the Appellant promoter did not handover the possession as per the agreements, the Respondent allottees filed a complaint with the Regulatory Authority for claim of interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act. On 20th February, 2020, the Regulatory Authority disposed of the complaint filed by the Respondent allottees and passed order giving following reasons:

(a) As per the agreement produced by the complainant there is no mention about the date of possession and therefore the authority rejected the contention of the Respondent allottees that the date of possession should be within 30 months from the date of registration of the agreement.

(b) However, in the absence of any date of possession mentioned in the agreement for sale, the date of completion mentioned in Maha-RERA registration would be considered as the date of possession which is 31st December, 2017 and since the possession is not given as per the said date, the Appellant promoter is liable to pay interest from 1st January, 2018 till the date of actual possession.

(c) The contention of the Appellant promoter on termination of the agreement vide notice dated 20th January, 2020 is rejected since the same did not form part of the pleadings during the course of the hearing before the authority.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, Appellant promoter filed an appeal with the Appellate Tribunal on the grounds set out in the appeal memo. No appeal was filed by the Respondent allottees against the order of the Regulatory Authority.

6. On 22nd January, 2022, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Appellant promoter by giving following reasons and confirmed the order of the Regulatory Authority:

(a) The Regulatory Authority ought to have called for the certified registered agreement in which the date of possession is mentioned as within 30 months from the date of registration of the agreement.

(b) In any case, the Appellate Tribunal observed that the reasonable period of 3 years should be considered as the date of completion of the project and handing over of the possession even if no date is mentioned in the agreement which reasonable period in the instant case would be expiring in December, 2014 but since no appeal is filed by the Respondent allottees, the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the Regulatory Authority’s order for the payment of interest to begin from 1st January, 2018.

(c) The Appellate Tribunal rejected the reasons mentioned by the Appellant