Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 396
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, JJ.
CJ Infrastructure Pvt Ltd & Anr. - Appellant
Vs.
Real Estate Appellate Tribunal For Nct Of Delhi And UT Chandigarh & Ors. - Respondent
RERA Appeal 5 Of 2024 and CM Appl. 25924 Of 2024, RERA Appeal 6 Of 2024 and CM Appl. 25926 Of 2024
Decided On : 29-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sh. Mandeep Singh Vinaik, Mr. S.K. Sagar, and Mr. Gaikhuanlung, Advs.
For the Respondent:Mr. Siddharth Panda, Adv, Mr. A. S. Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate, along with Ms.Chakshu Thakral, Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Ms. Riya Seth, Mr. Varun Chandhiok, Advs, Ms. Mansi Bajaj and Ms. Nidhi Tyagi, Advs.
The obligation of pre-deposit under Section 43(5) RERA is a condition precedent for hearing appeals, designed to protect buyers' rights.
Headnote:(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Section 43(5) - Appeal dismissed for failure to make prescriptive pre-deposit as mandated - Appellants argue their application for OCC was deemed granted due to no response from DDA - Court holds proof for completion inadequate due to lack of required documentation and failure to rectify shortcomings - The provision is protective of consumers and mandates pre-deposit - Appeals dismissed. (Paras 27, 28)
(B) Jurisdiction - The tribunal's requirement for pre-deposit is a legal prerequisite to entertain appeals from promoters under RERA Act, protecting buyers' interests against potential exploitation by promoters. (Paras 19, 22)
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. Through the present two Appeals, the Appellants, namely, M/S CJ Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant Company'], assails correctness of two similar orders passed on 27.03.2024 [hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order'] by the learned Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Delhi & Union Territory of Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as 'REAT'], whereby REAT, while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [(2021) 18 SCC 127], has dismissed the Appeal of the Appellants on account of failure to make the pre-deposit in terms of Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 [hereinafter referred to as 'RERA Act'].
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both Appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For convenience, the facts are primarily drawn from RERA APPEAL 5/2024, captioned CJ Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal for NCT of Delhi & UT Chandigarh & Ors.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. In the year 2010, the Appellant Company acquired a freehold area at 21, District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, where it has constructed a commercial complex (Metroplex East) which comprises 197 units besides common areas like entrance lobby, elevators, staircases, etc. The construction was allegedly completed on 14.02.2013. A licensed Architect issued a certificate declaring the same as fit for occupation. The Appellant Company is alleged to have applied for an Occupancy-cum-Completion Certificate [hereinafter referred to as 'OCC'] by submitting applications vide purported letter dated 14.02.2013, 31.10.2013 and 02.01.2014. However, since no response was received from DDA, it was presumed by Appellants that a sanction was granted under the deemed provision.
4. Further, between 2013 to 2015, the Appellant Company sold or allotted 149 units/shops/apartments to the respective purchasers and registered conveyance deeds were duly executed in their favour. At the time when the office spaces were sold, the market was booming and property prices were rising. Thereafter, there was a downfall in property prices and the market plummeted owing to factors beyond the control of the Appellants and this fall was actuated by market forces. This led to a situation where some purchasers who invested their money as an investment could not get good returns on their investment due to the slump in the market.
5. Further, two associations, Metroplex East Welfare Association [hereinafter referred to as 'MEWA'] and the other as Metroplex East Owner Association, which is arrayed as Respondent No.7 herein and which have been formed to look after the interest of the flat buyers and which is their own cooperative and conjoint venture, came into existence. In the month of September 2015, the office bearers of the MEWA entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Appellant Company, in the form of a settlement of some pending grievances that they claimed to have. The Appellants state that they have fulfilled and have already performed all their obligations, and that they are not in default of any of their obligations.
6. Eventually, some individual flat buyers, acting in their individual capacity, have petitioned the authority under RERA Act, which was notified on 1st May 2017. Respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 are some of these purchasers. They have been arrayed as parties as they are the prime movers in the actions impugned. The principal grievance is that there is no formal OCC of the said building obtained by the Appellant Company. It is the case of the Appellants that the Adjudicating Authority under RERA [hereinafter referred to as 'RERA AA'], while ignoring the objection as to maintainability, passed numerous orders adverse to the interest of the Appellants, without jurisdiction, and has committed a fundamental error in passing the said order.
7. Thereafte
