The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the RERA Act, 2016 and the Limitation Act require the demonstration of sufficient cause for condonation of delay, and the diligence of the aggrieved party in pursuing litigation in a timely fashion.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 against the judgment and order dated 01.11.2021 passed by the appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.374/2019 (U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Smt. Manju Singh) which arose from the order dated 30.07.2018 passed by the Regulatory Authority in complaint preferred by the private-respondent.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in taking a pedantic view of the provisions regarding condonation of delay. It is further urged that contrary finding has been recorded by the Tribunal which ought to have been construed in favour of the appellant.

4. It is the specific case of the appellant that the Regulatory Authority had passed an order on 30.07.2018. It is urged that in terms of Section 44 sub-section (5) of RERA Act, 2016, the appeal is to be preferred within a period of sixty days. It is also stated that in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the RERA Act, 2016, the period of sixty days is to commence from the date when the order passed by the Authority or Adjudicating Officer is received by the aggrieved person.

5. It is pointed out that the Tribunal while passing the impugned order in Para-21 has specifically stated that the certified copy of the order dated 30.07.2018 was received by the present appellant on 12.07.2019. Thus, once the order was received on 12.07.2019 and the appeal was preferred on 30.07.2019, hence, it was clearly within sixty days and this aspect of the matter has clearly escaped the attention of the Tribunal while passing the order rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay, consequently the appeal.

6. It is light thereof that the substantial question of law as proposed is that the word sufficient cause as postulated in Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been incorrectly considered.

7. Moreover, the provisions of Section 44(2) and (5) of the Act of 2016 have also not been properly applied and this gives rise to the substantial question of law, proposed in the memo of appeal.

8. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, at the outset, it may be noted that the Tribunal while passing the order dated 01.11.2021 has taken note of the manner in which the orders first were being provided to the parties free of costs on making applications. Thereafter, it has also noticed that the orders are being uploaded on the email I.D., given by the parties concerned. After noticing the aforesaid facts the Tribunal has also taken note of the application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay and its accompanying affidavit, which has been brought on record as Annexure No.2 with the paper-book of the instant appeal and Paragraphs 3 to 10 of the said affidavit is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:-

"3. That it is pertinent to clarify that after hearing the parties on 26/06/2018, the learned Authority had reserved the judgment in the case.

4. That order dated was pronounced and uploaded on the website of the Authority on 30/07/2018.

5. That thereafter advocate was appointed for filing the present appeal.

6. That officer was sent to advocate at Lucknow, with record from Ghaziabad office, but documents were lost in train, as such First Information Report was lodged.

7. That thereafter much time was wasted in arranging the record, to file the appeal.

8. That the counsel informed the deponent to get the demand draft of Rs.1000/-prepared in the name of Appellate Authority, as such the deponent got the draft prepared.

9. That after getting the Draft prepared the deponent came to Lucknow for signature and filing of the appeal.

10. That delay which has occurred is not deliberate or willful nor intentional and the same has caused due to situation beyond the control of the deponent."

9. Having noticed the aforesaid, it would indicate that the