An appeal under Section 58 of the R.E.R.A. is not a second appeal as contemplated by Section 100 C.P.C., and the order of the Appellate Tribunal is not a decree. Therefore, it does not require ad-valorem court fees and should be categorized as an R.E.R.A. appeal.

1. This is a reference under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter the Act) arising in an appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the R.E.R.A.).

2. The appellant is a real estate promoter that has launched a group housing project Renessa (later renamed as Romano) in Sector-119, Noida in the year 2012. The respondent Subrat Sen appears to have booked an apartment in the aforesaid project of the appellant. He made a complaint on 28.12.2017 before the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority under Section 31 of the R.E.R.A. against the appellant.

3. The complaint on contest was decided on 15.03.2018 and the appellant was directed to refund the entire principal amount of Rs.14,12,402/- with 2% interest and to pay compensation of Rs.3,20,000/-to the respondent.

4. The aforesaid order of the R.E.R.A. was challenged by the appellant by filing an appeal under Section 44 of the R.E.R.A. before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Appellate Tribunal). The appeal was filed with the delay of 3 days. The explanation furnished for condoning the delay in filing the appeal was not accepted and hence the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 06.07.2018 as barred by time.

5. The appellant has thus preferred this appeal under Section 58 of the R.E.R.A. which allows filing of appeal against any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal in the High Court on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.).

6. The appellant presented the memo of appeal by affixing court fees of Rs.5/- only. On an appeal being so presented the office of the Stamp Reporter reported deficiency of Rs.1,30,340/-in court fees on the valuation of the appeal as given by the appellant.

7. The appellant took objection to the above report contending that though it is a statutory appeal but not a Second Appeal. Therefore, court fees as payable on a Second Appeal cannot be demanded. The proceedings of R.E.R.A. are of a summary nature to which the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable. The order of Appellate Tribunal is not a decree under Section 2(2) of the C.P.C. and since the R.E.R.A. do not provide for any court fees on such an appeal, the court fees as prescribed in Article 11 of Schedule II to the Act alone is payable thereof.

8. The Taxing Officer by an order dated 21.08.2018 overruled the objections and held that the appeal is a Second Appeal as has also been described by the appellant and since the appellant himself has valued the appeal at Rs.17,32,402/-, he is liable to pay ad-valorem court fee as per Article 1 of Schedule I to the Act.

9. The appellant was not satisfied by the rejection of his objections and the report to pay ad-valorem court fees. He questioned the report as well as the order of the Taxing Officer before the Judge of the High Court, before whom the memorandum of appeal was placed for consideration.

10. The learned Judge in view of Section 5 of the Act by the order dated 10.09.2018 referred the matter to the Taxing Judge nominated by the Chief Justice.

11. Accordingly, the appeal has been placed before me as a Taxing Judge nominated by the Chief Justice as the question is said to be one of general importance which has cropped up for the first time as this appears to be the appeal under Section 58 of the R.E.R.A. coming up for the first time in the High Court.

12. I have heard Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and the Taxing Officer/Presenting Officer.

13. The contention is that this appeal though described as a Second Appeal is not a second appeal in real sense as contemplated by Section 100 C.P.C. It do not arise from a decree of a court. Since R.E.R.A. do not prescribe for any court fees, a fixed court fees of Rs.5/- as prescribed under Article 11 of Schedule II of the Act is payable.

14.