The Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's orders are invalid if not composed according to statutory requirements, necessitating both a Judicial Member and a Technical Member for valid adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Bhatia, J.

1. Heard Shri Apoorva Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appeal in question was admitted vide order dated 22.04.2025, wherein the following three questions of law were framed by the Court while admitting the appeals and the same is recorded herein-under:

“(i) Whether the REAT (Real Estate Appellate Tribunal) was justified in holding that the complaint was premature, and if so, then a finding on the issue of cancellation could not have been decided especially without any evidence and finding on the point of any breach committed by the appellant of the allotment order or its term?

(ii) Whether the judgment passed by the appellate tribunal suffers from vice of being coram non judice in light of Section 43 (3) read with Section 45 of the RERA Act, 2016.

(iii) Whether findings recorded by the appellate tribunal can be sustained in absence of material placed before the RERA relating to the issue of consideration paid towards the allotment of the units and breach of the terms of allotment by the appellant.”

3. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that question No.2 has been framed with regard to the jurisdiction is a contentious issue and can be decided. He, however, suggests that even if, the Court decides the question No.2 in favour of the appellant and against the respondent, this Court should still go into the other two questions to avoid any multiplicity and future course of litigation as the litigation is old one and would bring unnecessary misery on the parties in view of the pendency.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argues that issue No.2 is of huge importance and can be decided and should be decided against the appellant in view of the submissions which are being considered herein.

5. The appeal in question has been filed challenging the judgement dated 14.05.2024 passed by the RERA Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos.39 of 2024, 59 of 2024, 60 of 2024, 61 of 2024, 62 of 2024, 63 of 2024, 64 of 2024, 65 of 2024, 66 of 2024, 67 of 2024, 68 of 2024 and 69 of 2024. The appeal was barred by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded that the Technical Member demitted the office on 26.09.2023 and as such, the functioning of the Tribunal came to a stand still w.e.f. 27.09.2023. It further records that after the issuance of the notification dated 28.11.2023, whereby a Judicial Member was appointed. It was considered in the interest of public at large to resume the judicial function of the Tribunal with the Chairman and the Bench comprising of a Judicial Member appointed on 28.11.2023 and an office order was issued to that effect. It further records in pursuance of the office order that the Appellate Tribunal was continuing with the Chairman and one Judicial Member on account of non-appointment of a Technical Member.

6. In the backdrop of the said, the Bench of Tribunal comprising of Chairman and Technical Member decided the appeals. While deciding the appeals, the Tribunal held that the claim of the appellant before the Tribunal was premature, inasmuch as, the date of possession was yet to arrive. As such, the appeals preferred by the