A project with a completion certificate issued prior to RERA's enactment is not considered ongoing under the RERA Act, thus not subject to its jurisdiction.

ORDER :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

The Petitioner Association, aggrieved by the return of the complaint, as without jurisdiction, has come up by way of this Revision.

2. I have heard Mr.Ralph Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Chandru, learned counsel for the first respondent, Mr.C.Kaveen, learned counsel for R2 and R3 and Mr.A.R.Balaji, learned counsel for R4.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the petitioner’s Association compirses of owners of various Apartment in M/s.Serene Adinath Retirement Community Apartment Owners and that most of them are senior citizens who have invested their hard earned savings and monies for acquiring their respective apartments in the said project. He would state that the respondents have not honoured any of their commitments and the project has not been completed as promised by the Developer. He would further state that the project is still an ongoing project and therefore, the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short 'RERA Act') would definitely apply and come into play to the rescue of the complainant's assoiciation.

4. The learned counsel for the petiitoner would also place reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s.Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited Vs. State of Uttarpradesh and others , reported in CDJ 2021 SC 906 and the decision of this Court in M/s.SARE Shelters Projects Private Limited Vs. SARE SQUIRES and another , in CMSA. No.27 of 2020 dated 16.02.2021. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to the correspondence between the parties where according to him, there is a clear admission with regard to the non provision of various amenities that have been promised. He would also submit that even the electricity supply has not been regularised and therefore, by no strech of imagination the respondents can get away stating that the project is completed and they are out of the purview of the provisions of the RERA Act itself.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the promoters/respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the project has been completed in two stages viz., 25.03.2015 and 31.08.2015 and CMDA has already issued completion certificates on both these dates, evidencing the fact that the project has been completed and therefore, the project will not come within the purview of the provisions of the RERA Act.

6. The learned counsel would also take me through the various definition Clauses relating to the terms “ongoing project”, “occupancy certificate”, “completiton certificate”, etc. The first respondent is the erstwhile promoter who may not have any serious say in the matter. However, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would also argue similar points that have been agitated by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.

7. The learend counsel for the 4^th respondent who is the service provider would state that project contemplated construction of eight blocks and three blocks were completed in the first phase and five blocks were completed in the second phase and CMDA has aleady certified that the project is complete even as early as on 31.08.2015, well before the promulgation of RERA Act itself and therefore, he would also contend that there is no scope for entertaining the complaint of the revision petitioner. He would also state that there are two Associations formed in respe