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

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1917

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Saera Auto India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sunil Yadav And Laxman Yadav & Ors. – Respondents
RERA Appeal No. 52 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-11-2022

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Mansi Chatpalliwar, Mr. Pranay Proothi, Mr. Satyam Aneja and Mr. Reshabh Bajaj, Advocates, for the Appellant

The main legal point established in the judgment is the broad and expansive nature of the definition of 'Promoter' under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and the joint liability of the person who constructs and the person who sells the apartments.

Headnote:

Promoter - Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 - Section 2(zk) - [Section 2(zk) of the 2016 Act] - The court discussed the definition of 'Promoter' under Section 2(zk) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and its broad and expansive nature. The court highlighted the inclusion of a person who constructs or causes to be constructed a building for the purpose of selling apartments, and the assignee of such work, within the ambit of the term 'Promoter'. The court emphasized the joint liability of the person who constructs and the person who sells the apartments, as well as the need to interpret statutory provisions in line with the object of the enactment.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, owner of a parcel of land, engaged a contractor to construct a multi storeyed building for the residence of the appellant's workers. The contractor, without authorization, entered into agreements for the sale of apartments. The appellant claimed exemption from pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the 2016 Act, arguing that it does not fall within the definition of 'Promoter'.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant, by engaging the contractor and authorizing the sale of apartments, falls within the definition of 'Promoter' under the 2016 Act. The court dismissed the appeal and held the appellant liable.

Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant, as the owner of the land engaging a contractor for construction, falls within the definition of 'Promoter' under the 2016 Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the broad and expansive definition of 'Promoter' under Section 2(zk) of the 2016 Act, and the appellant's actions in engaging the contractor and authorizing the sale of apartments.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding the appellant liable as a 'Promoter' under the 2016 Act.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - In the opinion of this Court, the following question needs adjudication:-

    'Whether the owner of a parcel of land who, with a view to construct multi storeyed apartments, engages a contractor to construct, market and sell such apartments, would fall in the definition the expression 'Promoter' defined under Section 2(zk) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2016 Act')?

    2. The Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has dismissed the appeal which challenged the dismissal of appellant's application for grant of waiver from the statutory condition of pre-deposit of the amount as mandated under Section 43(5) of the 2016 Act.

    3. It is important to note that the appellant, while filing the application under Section 43(5) of the 2016 Act, claimed that they are not required to comply with the condition of pre-deposit as it has entered into a compromise with the respondents and the amount due has already been paid. However, neither the aforesaid agreement nor any material evidence has been produced before the Tribunal or before this Court to prove the fact of payment having been already made. It is equally important to note that before the Tribunal, the appellant did not claim exemption from the payment of pre-deposit of the amount on the ground that the appellant does not fall within the definition of the expression 'Promoter', however, since this objection was taken and discussed before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority'), hence, the appellant has been permitted to take the said objection before this Court.

    4. Heard the learned counsel representing the appellant at length, and with her able assistance, perused the perused the paper-book.

    5. Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to take note of Section 2(zk) of the 2016 Act defining the expression 'Promoter', which reads as under:-

      '(zk) 'promoter' means,-

      (I) a person who constructs or causes to be constructed an independent building or a building consisting of apartments, or converts an existing building or a part thereof into apartments, for the purpose of selling all or some of the apartments to other persons and includes his assignees; or

      (ii) a person who develops land into a project, whether or not the person also constructs structures on any of the plots, for the purpose of selling to other persons all or some of the plots in the said project, whether with or without structures thereon; or

      (iii) any development authority or any other public body in respect of allottees of-

      (a) buildings or apartments, as the case may be, constructed by such authority or body on lands owned by them or placed at their disposal by the Government; or

      (b) plots owned by such authority or body or placed at their disposal by the Government, for the purpose of selling all or some of the apartments or plots; or

      (iv) an apex State level co-operative housing finance society and a primary co-operative housing society which constructs apartments or buildings for its Members or in respect of the allottees of such apartments or buildings; or

      (v) any other person who acts himself as a builder, coloniser, contractor, developer, estate developer or by any other name or claims to be acting as the holder of a power of attorney from the owner of the land on which the building or apartment is constructed or plot is developed for sale; or

      (vi) such other person who constructs any building or apartment for sale to the general public.

      Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause, where the person who constructs or converts a building into apartments or develops a plot for sale and the person who sells apartments or plots are different person, both of them shall be deemed to be the promoters and shall be jointly liable as such for the functions and responsibilities specified under this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder."

      6. The learned counsel represent

              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