SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 1682

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
M/s. Shwas Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Premchand Surendran – Respondent
M.S.A. No. 22 of 2024
Decided On : 05-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : S.S. Aravind, P.B. Krishnan

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act mandates registration for ongoing projects, where completion certificates are absent, emphasizing consumer protection in real estate transactions.

Headnote:(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2006 - Sections 3, 36, 59, and 81 - Registration of real estate project - Imposition of penalty - K-RERA determined that the project required registration under Section 3 of RERA; found that the project was ongoing and not completed before the commencement of the RERA - Appellants challenged the order of K-RERA on grounds of jurisdictional error and claimed the project was completed prior to RERA's commencement. (Paras 5, 15, 21)

(B) Complaints against builders - Legal remedy for allottees - RERA aims to protect interests of allottees until the completion and delivery of the project. (Para 16)

(C) Appeal powers - K-RERA's power to delegate authority to single members under Section 81 is valid and actionable; when reviewing jurisdictional matters, such delegation must comply with natural justice principles. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged defects and delays in the 'Epcot County' project and sought compensation. Under K-RERA's order, respondents were directed to register their project and paid a penalty for non-compliance, later partially upheld by the Tribunal.

Findings of Court:
K-RERA found the project ongoing, requiring registration and allowing a month for compliance post-judgment.

Issues: The key issues were the necessity of project registration under RERA and procedural adherence by K-RERA.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the focus should be on project completion, not land title transfer for registration under RERA, asserting K-RERA’s authority was sufficiently clear to mandate registration.

Result: Miscellaneous Second Appeal dismissed without costs.

Table of Content
1. background of the complaint and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. initial orders and proceedings of k-rera. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. appeal to the tribunal and its decisions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. arguments regarding status and obligations of the respondents. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. court's analysis of k-rera's jurisdiction and procedural adherence. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
6. final orders and implications for the respondents. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.

1. The respondents 1 to 4 in Complaint No.37/2023 of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (the K-RERA) are the appellants in the Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development Act, 2006 (the RERA). The respondent is the complainant in the said complaint.

2. The parties are referred to according to their status before the K-RERA.

3. The complainant is an allottee in the Villa Project by name ‘Epcot County’ launched by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is a private limited company engaged in the business of development and construction of real estate projects. The respondents 2 to 4 are its Directors. The 4th respondent is the landowner of the Project also. The 5th respondent is another private limited company, which is a sister concern of the 1st respondent.

4. The complainant filed the complaint claiming amounts under various heads from the respondents alleging various defects, deficiency and delay from the part of the respondents with respect to the real estate project.

5. When the complaint was taken on file, the K-RERA found that the Real Estate Project of the 1st respondent requires registration under S.3 of the RERA and accordingly issued Show Cause Notice dt 06.03.2023 in the Complaint itself calling upon the respondents to explain why action should not be initiated for violation of S.3 of the RERA.

6. The Respondents did not file a Reply to the Show Cause Notice. The K-RERA found that the Building Permit was issued on 28.11.2015 and since no documents were produced by the respondents to prove that the villas and common areas in the real estate project were completed before 01.05.2017, the K-RERA issued Interim Order dt 25.04.2023 directing the respondents to appear in person on 30.05.2023 at 11.00 a.m. at its Head Office along with all the relevant documents to explain as to why penalty as per S.59(1) of the RERA shall not be imposed. The respondents filed a Reply to the Show Cause Notice on 29.05.2023.

7. After considering the contentions of the respondents the K-RERA passed interim order dt 05.07.2023 ordering the respondents to register the real estate project within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order, imposing a penalty of Rs.2.59 lakhs, being 0.5% of the estimated cost of the real estate project and further ordering that if the promoter fails to pay the penalty and continue to violate S.3 even after 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order, proceedings under S.59(2) shall be initiated.

8. The respondents filed Appeal before the Kerala Real EstateAppellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) as REFA No. 48/2023 challenging the said order dt 05.07.2023 of the K-RERA. The Tribunal vide its order dt 28.06.2024 allowed the appeal in part confirming the order with respect to the registration of the real estate project, setting aside the imposition of penalty and exonerating the 5th respondent. It is also ordered that K-RERA shall take appropriate steps under S.59(1) of the K-RERA at the appropriate stage if the contravention is brought to its notice. The respondents are given one month’s time from the date of the Appellate Order to register the real estate project with the K-RERA. The penalty was set aside on the ground that penalty could not be imposed simultaneously with the direction for registration. The 5th respondent was exonerated from the liability on the ground that it has no connection whatsoever with the real estate project launched by the 1st resp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top