IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Bipul Bharali S/o Late Madhab Bharali – Appellant
Versus
Prasanta Das S/o Late Kiran Ch. Das – Respondents
Rera Appeal 3 of 2023
Decided on : 31-05-2024
Real Estate - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Section 58, Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - [19(6), 19(7), 18(1), 19(4), 71, 72, 88] - The judgment discusses the application of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to an ongoing real estate project, the rights and duties of allottees, the refund of amount and compensation, and the jurisdiction of regulatory bodies. It also highlights the duty of a house buyer to make payments as per the agreement, the essential part of a sale covered by Section 54 of the TP Act, and the applicability of the Limitation Act to prevent the misuse of RERA. The judgment emphasizes the distinct remedies provided under the Act, the unqualified right of an allottee to get a refund of the amount deposited with the promoter, and the role of regulatory bodies in enforcing industry accountability and transparency.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a real estate developer, appealed against the dismissal of the appeal filed by the respondent before the Assam Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, alleging non-compliance with the Agreement for Sale and seeking a refund of the advance payment made.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the application of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to the ongoing project, the rights and duties of allottees, and the jurisdiction of regulatory bodies. It found that the appellant failed to show any material illegality by the regulatory authority or the First Appellate Authority warranting entertaining the second appeal. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the unqualified right of an allottee to get a refund of the amount deposited with the promoter and the distinct remedies provided under the Act.
Issues: The issues included the application of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to the ongoing project, the rights and duties of allottees, the refund of amount and compensation, and the jurisdiction of regulatory bodies. The appellant also raised substantial questions of law regarding discrimination, compensation without determining the quantum of loss, and the limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act provides distinct remedies for refund and compensation, and the unqualified right of an allottee to get a refund of the amount deposited with the promoter. It emphasized the role of regulatory bodies in enforcing industry accountability and transparency. The court also found that the appellant failed to show any material illegality warranting entertaining the second appeal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the unqualified right of an allottee to get a refund of the amount deposited with the promoter and the distinct remedies provided under the Act. The appellant was directed to make the payments of Rs. 17,40,774/- as per the calculation made by the regulatory authority and the First Appellate Authority within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of passing of the order.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. P. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This is an appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, preferred by the appellant, against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2023, passed by the Assam Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati in REAT/ASSAM/Appeal No. 13/2022, arising out of RERA Complaint No. RERA/ASSAM/COM/2021/53, whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant is the proprietor of M/S Bipul Construction, a registered proprietorship Firm/Builders/Promoters dealing with Real Estate/Construction of Flats/Apartments/Residential Units and allied business having its registered Office at Bipul Complex, 3rd Floor, Maligaon Chariali, District Kamrup (M), Assam. On the strength of Irrevocable General Power of Attorney vide Deed No. 3710/13, dated 15.10.2013, and 3167/14, dated 29.08.2014, and Deed of Agreement for Development being Deed No. 463/13, dated 15.10.2013, and Deed No. 3167/14, dated 29.08.2014, executed by and between Shri Amal Kumar and Hem Chandra Kumar, both are the son of Late Dambari Dhar Kumar, resident of Maligaon, the said M/S Bipul Construction was empowered and authorized to construct a multi-storied apartment/building/flats on the plot of land.
4. The respondent accordingly executed an individual Agreement for Sale of Flat/Residential Unit with the appellant in the year 2016, whereby, the appellant Firm agreed to sale an individual Residential Unit/Flat, as prescribed in the Agreement dated 30.01.2016, along with proportionate undivided share of plot of land, more specifically described in the Schedule. The said Flat was under the name and style “Radhika Enclave”. As per the Agreement for Sale, the appellant agreed to sale a unit of residential flat in the said “Redhika Enclave”, Flat No. C-1 on 3rd Floor measuring 1022 Sq. Ft. (Carpet area) under certain conditions, as prescribed in the Agreement for Sale dated 30.01.2016, in a total consideration amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs) only and it was agreed by both the parties that the payment of the said consideration will be determined as per the payment schedule stated in the Agreement. The parties also agreed that the respondent/complainant will pay an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) only as advance payment against the total consideration and balance payment will be made as per the terms in the Agreement. Accordingly, the respondent paid an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) only as advance payment by way of 2 (two) bank cheques before the date of execution of the said Agreement. On the basis of the Clause 1 of the Agreement, the respondent is required to pay next payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) at the time of the First Slab Casting. But the respondent failed to comply with the conditions and had not paid any amount to the appellant at the time of First Slab Casting. Alternatively, he has not made any request to extend further time to comply with the said mandate, though the appellant on various occasion requested the respondent to make the payment. Thus, there was no any alternative option left to the appellant apart from presuming that the respondent had abandoned the deal as he is not showing any interest to discharge his duties and responsibilities. But, to utter shock and surprise, the appellant received a notice in the month of November, 2022 from the learned Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Guwahati (in short ‘RERA’) and then only the appellant came to know about the pendency of the RERA Case No. RERA/ASSAM/COM/2021/53 filed by the respondent before the RERA. Immediately, the appellant applied for the certified copies of the impugned orders dated 13.10.2022 and 07.11.2022, which was received by him on 16.11.2022 and 01.12.2022, respective
Imperia Structures Ltd. –vs- Anil Patai & Ors.
State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. S.N. Goyal reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92
The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 provides distinct remedies for refund and compensation, and the unqualified right of an allottee to get a refund of the amount deposited with th....
Section 37 provides that K-RERA for the purpose of discharging its functions under the provisions of Act or Rules or Regulations can issue directions from time to time to promoters allottees or real ....
The distinction between refund of amount and compensation under the 2016 Act, and the power of the Regulatory Authority and the Adjudicating Officer to decide such matters.
The Real Estate Regulation and Development Act applies to ongoing projects and governs existing agreements. Prescribed interest rates do not override the Act's provisions.
Private settlements cannot override statutory obligations established by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; agreements executed under duress or unfair terms are void.
The judgment established the unconditional right of the allottee to seek refund and the application of promissory estoppel in enforcing promises made by the promoter.
The court upheld the requirement for total deposit of compensation and interest before hearing appeals under the Real Estate Act, affirming RERA's jurisdiction over disputes involving landowners as a....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.