Back
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
Santhosh T. N. , S/o. T. K. Narayanan – Appellant
Versus
Permanent Lok Adalath, Rep. By Its Secretary, Ernakulam – Respondent
Certainly. Here are the key legal points derived from the provided document:
The jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, to entertain disputes relating to housing and real estate services is not ousted by the enactment of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). This is because RERA explicitly states that its provisions shall be in addition to and not in derogation of other laws in force (!) (!) .
The inclusion of "housing and real estate services" within the definition of "public utility service" under Section 22A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, grants the PLA jurisdiction to entertain complaints related to such services, even after the commencement of RERA. The notification declaring this inclusion was published in the gazette, and the Act's overriding provisions reinforce that existing jurisdiction remains intact (!) (!) .
RERA's Section 79 bars civil courts from entertaining matters that fall within the jurisdiction of authorities or adjudicating bodies established under RERA. However, the PLA is not a civil court; it is a statutory authority created under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Therefore, the bar does not apply to the PLA's jurisdiction (!) (!) .
Section 88 of RERA clarifies that the Act's provisions are in addition to other laws, indicating that the existence of RERA does not automatically exclude or override the jurisdiction of other competent authorities, such as the PLA, in matters related to housing and real estate services (!) (!) .
The legal framework supports a concurrent jurisdiction where both RERA and the PLA can entertain disputes concerning housing and real estate services, and the initiation of proceedings under one does not preclude the other. This is reinforced by the specific provisions of the respective statutes and their interpretative principles (!) (!) .
Given these legal principles, the initial dismissal of the complaint by the PLA on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was incorrect. The proper course is to remand the matter for the PLA to consider the complaint on its merits, respecting its jurisdiction under the applicable laws (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
[Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.]
1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is ousted by the advent of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short, “RERA”) in dealing with matters relating to housing and real estate services.
2. The impugned judgment dated 08.07.2020 rendered by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.14425/2019 is the subject matter of challenge in this intra court appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. The appellant is the writ petitioner and the respondents are the respondents in the writ petition.
3. The appellant/petitioner has filed the writ petition with the following prayers;
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to proceed with Exhibit P1 complaint and to pass an award on merits after hearing the parties, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”
4. The facts of the case ar
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
