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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 3046

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
M/s. Devinarayan Housing & Property Developments Private Limited, Represented by Managing Director, Chennai & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Manu Karan & Ors. - Respondents
C.M.S.A. Nos. 23 & 24 of 2020, CMP(MD). Nos. 9226 & 9236 of 2020 & 5221, 5219, 9499 & 21214 of 2022
Decided On : 20-09-2023

For the Appellants :L. Maithili, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 & R2, U. Vinay Metha, R3, P. Veena Suresh, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the exemption from registration under RERA and the applicability of RERA provisions to unregistered real estate projects.

Headnote:

Real Estate Regulation and Development Act - Real Estate Project - Section 3(2)(a)

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, developers, failed to hand over possession of a property to the home buyers despite receiving the required payments. The home buyers filed complaints for compensation and execution of the sale deed. The Adjudicating Officer awarded compensation to the home buyers, which was upheld by the TNREAT. The home buyers also filed a complaint for registration of the sale deed, which was initially dismissed by the Regulatory Authority but allowed by the TNREAT.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the appellants' project was not required to be registered under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act (RERA) as it did not fall within the purview of the Act. It also ruled that the allottees of an unregistered project cannot address their grievances before the Regulatory Authority or Adjudicating Officer under RERA.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the applicability of RERA to the appellants' project, the exemption from registration under RERA, and the rights of allottees of unregistered projects to address their grievances under RERA.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the provisions of Section 3(2)(a) of RERA and held that the appellants' project did not require registration under RERA. It also clarified that the provisions of RERA apply only to registered real estate projects and do not extend to unregistered projects.

Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals were allowed, and the judgments of the TNREAT were set aside, with liberty given to the respondents to approach the appropriate forum to adjudicate their grievances.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer:These Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals are filed under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, against the orders passed in Appeal Nos.70 of 2019 and 39 of 2020, dated 22.05.2020, by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate TNREAT, Chennai.)

Common Judgment:

1.These Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals have been filed against the orders passed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter, referred to as 'TNREAT') in Appeal Nos.70 of 2019 and 39 of 2020, dated 22.05.2020.

2. The facts, which led to the filing of these Appeals in brief are as follows:-

2.1 The appellants herein are the developers and the respondents 1 and 2 are home buyers. Both of them entered into a sale and construction agreement on 20.07.2017, with regard to the purchase of a property, bearing T.S.No.8, Block No.39, Door No.5, comprised in R.S.No.102 of 116, situated at Uruur Village, Jayaram Avenue, Vannanthurai, Sastrinagar, Chennai 600 020, measuring an extent of 5935 sq.ft.; bounded on the North by a house, bearing D.No.157, Selva Vinayagar Avenue; East by house, bearing D.No.7; South by Jayaram Avenue Road; and West by house, bearing D.No.3; that within the above four boundaries, 3 bed rooms residential apartment on the 3rd floor, measuring 2835 sq.ft. of built up area with common area and undivided share, measuring 1483 sq.ft; out of above 5935 sq.ft and that, the building to be known as 'Devi Narayan's Saisagar'', together with two covered car park.

2.2. In the said sale and construction agreement, the cost of the apartment was fixed at Rs.3,30,00,000/- and time for handing over possession of the property was fixed on 30.08.2017 and the said agreement contains a specific clause that after receipt of all payments, interior work at the choice of home buyers would be done. Out of the said amount, home buyers had paid a sum of Rs.3,06,00,000/- and the balance was Rs.24,00,000/- and after deducting TDS, stamp duty, registration charges, interest, etc., the cost of charge of scope in work comes to the tune of Rs.66,35,000/-. As per the said calculation, the developers have to refund a sum of Rs.42,35,000/- to the home buyers. Despite the home buyers have paid the required amounts as per the sale/construction agreement, the developers failed to hand over possession of the property. Hence, the home buyers sent a legal notice, calling upon the developers either to register the property in their names or to refund the amount paid by them. On receipt of notice, the developers denied all the allegations and the claim of the home buyers as illegal and also demanded Rs.9,21,356/- from the home buyers. Hence, the home buyers filed a complaint in C.C.P.No.46 of 2019 before the Adjudicating Officer for compensation and another complaint before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority in C.No.358 of 2019 for executing the sale deed.

2.3. In C.C.P.No.46 of 2019 filed before the Adjudicating Officer, the developers took a defence that the complaint itself is not maintainable, since before the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter, referred to as 'RERA' or 'Act') came into force, the project has been completed and completion certificate was also issued. Furthermore, the developers denied the allegation with regard to the demand of cost and expenses of Rs.9,21,356/- from the home buyers.

2.4. The Adjudicating Officer, after hearing both the pleas of the home buyers and the developers, came to the conclusion that the developers are liable to pay a sum of Rs.13,31,644/- to the home buyers as compensation, Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses and directed the same to be paid by the developers within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and accordingly, disposed of C.C.P.No.46 of 2019, on 27.08.2019. Against which, the developers preferred an appeal in A.No.70 of 2019 before the TNREAT and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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