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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1985

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J.Nisha Banu, R.Kalaimathi, JJ.
M/s. SM Nirman Private Limited - Appellant
Vs.
Olympia Grande Apartments Owner's Welfare Association, Pallavaram Registration No.569/2016, No.328, GST Road, Pallavaram, Chennai - Respondent
C.M.S.A.No.38 of 2021 and C.M.P.Nos.7284 & 4209 of 2021 & 15035 of 2022
Decided On : 20-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Isacc Mohanlal, Senior Counsel for the Mrs.M.V.V.N.Sivanthy
For the Respondent: Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan

The RERA Act applies to ongoing projects regardless of completion dates, ensuring consumer grievances are addressed under its provisions.

Headnote:(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Sections 3, 11, 14, 71, and 79 - Appeal against order of Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal - The Tribunal set aside the Regulatory Authority's dismissal of a complaint regarding a completed project, ruling the complaint maintainable under RERA despite completion certificates being issued prior to the Act's enforcement. (Paras 6, 8)

(B) Maintainability of Complaints - The court held that the respondent Association's complaint regarding the promoter's obligations under RERA is maintainable, emphasizing the Act's intent to address grievances in the real estate sector. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The appellant completed a real estate project before the RERA Act came into force, obtaining partial completion certificates. The respondent Association filed a complaint regarding maintenance and corpus fund issues, which was initially dismissed by the Regulatory Authority.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal confirmed the complaint's maintainability, directing the Regulatory Authority to address the complaint on merits.

Issues: Whether the complaint was maintainable under RERA for a project completed before the Act's enforcement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the RERA Act applies to completed projects, allowing grievances to be addressed under its provisions.

Result: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(Judgment of the Court was made by J. NISHA BANU, J.)

Challenging the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (TNREAT) in Appeal No.75 of 2019, dated 09.11.2020, the aggrieved respondent therein/Developer, has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, set aside the order in C.No.327/2019 dated 6.11.2019 and directed the Regulatory Authority to dispose the complaint on merits.

2. The necessary facts leading to the filing of this appeal would run thus:

2.1.The appellant herein, M/s.KSM Nirman Private Limited, presently known as M/s.Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Private Limited, commenced the project in the year 2012 (16 residential towers with 744 apartments and 1 commercial tower). On 26.04.2012, the appellant has obtained the planning permit and also obtained the building plan approval from CMDA, which is the competent authority. The appellant completed the construction and obtained completion certificates in a phased manner in three phases as stated below:

    (i) For the 1st phase of 9 Blocks, the 1st Partial Completion Certificate was issued by the competent authority CMDA dated 13.05.2015;

    (ii) For the 2nd phase LIG (2 blocks), the 2nd Partial Completion certificate was issued by the competent authority CMDA dated 06.11.2015;

    (iii) For the 3rd phase of 7 blocks 3rd Partial completion Certificate was issued by the competent authority CMDA dated 15.02.2016.

The term "Partial" was used in the above Completion Certificates because the completion of the project was in a phased manner as contemplated in the Explanation to Sub Section 2 of Section 3 of RERA Act, read with Section 2 (q) thereof.

2.2. The apartments were handed over to the respective purchasers in a phased manner, after completion of the phases during the period from the years 2015 to 2016. The apartment purchasers created an Owners' Welfare Association in the year 2016 (Olympia Grande Owners Welfare Association)/ the respondent herein and registered it with the Registrar of Societies vide registration certificate dated 23.11.2016.

2.3. The respondent Association took control of the common area and its maintenance in June 2017 and it is now under the control and maintenance of the Association since then. As far as the 17th tower (Commercial) is concerned, a revised planning permission was obtained from CMDA and the Project Completion Certificate for the entire project was obtained on 06.12.2017.

2.4. Mr.Isacc Mohanlal, Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Mrs.M.V.V.N.Sivanthy, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as 'RERA') was notified with effect from 26.03.2016, and so far as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, it became operational from the date of framing and notification of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate (Regulation and Development Rules), 2017 with effect from 22.06.2017. As such, the main contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the said Act and the rules which came into operation in Tamil Nadu from 22.06.2017 cannot operate in respect of the Real Estate Projects which were completed on or before the said date i.e. 22.06.2017, in as much as the projects in the present case (16 residential towers) came to be completed and handed over to the allottees on the strength of Completion Certificates dated 13.05.2015, 06.11.2015, & 15.02.2016.

2.5. According to the learned Senior Counsel, registration for the Real Estate Projects is mandatory under the Act only in respect of ongoing projects and for "future projects, and not, in respect of the projects which are already completed and received Completion Certificate as provided under Section 3 (2) and the Explanation thereto.

2.6. Meanwhile, the respondent Association has filed a complaint before the Regulatory Authority, mainly for corpus fund and for certain rectifications in the project. The entire corpus fund of Rs.2,18,07,755/-drawn on H

      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 telegram-icon
      whatsapp-icon Back to top