The High Court upheld that jurisdiction for RERA to adjudicate complaints exists even if the promoter lacks registration, emphasizing the rights of aggrieved parties under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant writ petition has been directed against the passing of the impugned order (Annexure P-1). Annexure P-1 is a decision recorded on 26.07.2024, thus by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram. The decision supra was made on various complaints which became instituted at the instance of Yuvraj Arora and Vivek Arora, rather against the present petitioners. All the complaints were decided through a common judgment(s) as becomes embodied in (Annexure P-1).

OBJECTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS THAT THE INSTANT WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THE PRESENT PETITIONERS HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY.

2. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has vigorously contended, that since the impugned annexure is appealable through a statutory appeal becoming made, there against before the authority contemplated under Section 43 (5)of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act of 2016 (hereinafter referred to as RERA Act), provisions whereof becomes extracted hereinafter: -

43. Establishment of Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXKXXXX

“(5) Any person aggrieved by any direction or decision or order made by the Authority or by an adjudicating officer under this Act may prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction over the matter:

Provided that where a promoter files an appeal with the Appellate Tribunal, it shall not be entertained, without the promoter first having deposited with the Appellate Tribunal atleast thirty per cent. of the penalty, or such higher percentage as may be determined by the Appellate Tribunal, or the total amount to be paid to the allottee including interest and compensation imposed on him, if any, or with both, as the case may be, before the said appeal is heard.

3. As such, the counsel for the respondents vigorously contends that therebys the instant writ petition is required to be declared as mis-constituted. Moreover, the counsel for the respondents also contends that therebys the instant challenge as becomes cast to Annexure P-1 but is required to be the rejected at the very threshold.

4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has vigorously argued before this Court, that the impugned decision is ridden with a jurisdictional defect, inasmuch as, the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’), rather has proceeded to assume jurisdiction over complaint(s), rather whereovers no valid jurisdiction was so assumable. Consequently he has argued that the impugned annexure is ridden with the vice of coram non judice.

5. The reasons which he so advances are inter alia i) no licence becoming granted to the present petitioners in terms of Section 3 of the RERA Act, whereas, the makings of the registration of the subject project rathe