Heard learned counsel for appellants in both the appeals.

2. Notices to the sole respondent in both these appeals were issued by the Court; on 04.09.2018 in Second Appeal No.250 of 2018 and on 05.09.2018 in Second Appeal No.251 of 2018. As per the office report submitted on 27.10.2018, notice on the sole respondent in both these matters is deemed sufficient.

3. Since both these second appeals have been filed on similar grounds and the Court finds that similar substantial questions of law are involved in both these matters, these appeals are being decided by a common judgment and order.

4. Substantial questions of law involved in these appeals which merit determination by this Court are:

A. Whether finding recorded by the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in respect of the appellant having failed to show sufficient cause for not filing First Appeal before it within limitation prescribed under section 44(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is based on wrong notion and on gross misconception of law?

B. Whether the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant had acted negligently and filed the appeal beyond limitation period?

5. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are necessary for appropriate adjudication of the issue involved in these cases are that the appeals filed in both these cases by the appellants under section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, 2016') have been dismissed only on the ground of delay of 37 and 22 days respectively. The complainants-appellants in both these matters had invoked the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as ''the Authority') established under section 20 of the Act, 2016 by making complaints relating to their grievances in the matter of delivery of possession of flats in Project Glory-46 (Phase-1 to Phase-7) being developed by the respndent-M/s Gardenia Aims Developers Pvt. Ltd. at Sector-46, NOIDA. The complaints made by the complainants-appellants was partly allowed and promoter-respondent was directed to give physical possession of the flats to the appellants within six months. The promoter was also directed to make payment of a sum at the rate of Rs 5 per square feet of the super area per month for the period of delay. However, since certain other grievances stood unredressed by the order passed by the Authority, the complainants-appellants preferred First Appeals under section 44 of the Act, 2016 which have been dismissed only on the ground of delay of 37 days and 22 days respectively in preferring the appeals under section 44 of the Act, 2016. The order by the Authority in Second Appeal No.250 of 2018 was passed on 25.01.2018 whereas in Second Appeal No.251 of 2018 the said order was passed on 22.02.2018.

6. In Second Appeal No.250 of 2018, against the order of the Authority dated 25.01.2018 the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was filed on 02.05.2018, whereas in Second Appeal No.251 of 2018, the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Authority dated 22.02.2018 was filed on 15.05.2018. Since the limitation for filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal as prescribed under section 44(2) is 60 days from the date on which a copy of the order made by the Authority is received by the aggrieved persons, hence it was found by the Appellate Authority that there was a delay of 37 and 22 days respectively in filing the said appeals.

7. Section 44 of the Act, 2016 provides for a statutory remedy of appeal to be filed before to the Appellate Tribunal against any direction or order or decision of the Authority, which may be preferred by the person aggrieved. Sub section 2 prescribes that such appeal may be preferred within a period of 60 days from the date on which a copy of direction or order or decision made by the Authority is received by the aggrieved person. However, the proviso appended to sub section of