JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. Heard Sri Sudeep Kumar along with Mahima Pahwa and Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri Azhar Ikram along with Sri Manish Singh, learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents-allottee. Sri Azhar Ikram also appears on behalf of the appellant-allottee in RERA Appeal No.70 of 2025.

2. The RERA Appeal Defective No.18; RERA Appeal Defective No.19 of 2025; RERA Appeal Defective No.20 of 2025 and RERA Appeal Defective No.25 of 2025 have been filed along with an application for condonation of delay. The cause shown are sufficient. The applications for condonation of delay are allowed. The delay in filing the appeals are condoned.

3. All the abovesaid appeals arise out of the same judgment passed by the U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, as such, are being decided by means of this common judgment.

4. For the brevity, the facts as emerge from the RERA Appeal No.72 of 2025 are that the respondent was allotted an apartment by the appellant at NOIDA under a builder buyer agreement on 22.01.2019. It is stated that on 16.09.2022, completion certificate was issued by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority in favour of the promoter. It is further stated that on 11.10.2022, the respondent filed a complaint for grant of interest and compensation under Form-N prescribed under The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the RERA Act”) before the Adjudicating Officer, Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority at Gautam Budhnagar. In the said complaint, the allegations of incorrect and false information; delay in possession and failure to discharge duties as per the Act, Rules and Regulations were made. In the said complaint, it is also stated that the possession was not provided as per the agreement and the allegation of mental harassment was also made and on these grounds, the respondent sought compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. The said complaint/ application was resisted by the appellant by filing an objection and the objections were raised with regard to the jurisdiction to grant delay interest or compensation, which according to the appellant could be done only by the Regulatory Authority. After considering the complaint and objections filed, the compensation was awarded by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 10.02.2023. The said order of the Adjudicating Authority was challenged by the appellant in Appeal No.438 of 2023 before the Real Estate Appellant Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) seeking quashing of the judgment dated 10.02.2023 on various grounds. It is stated that the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 43 of the RERA Act was also fulfilled at the time of filing of the appeal.

5. From the perusal of the appeal memo filed before the Tribunal, a copy whereof is on record as Annexure-5 to the RERA Appeal No.72 of 2025, what transpires is that while filing the appeal, one of the main grounds taken before the Tribunal was that the interest and compensation has been awarded by the Adjudicating Authority, whereas, the power to grant compensation for delay is vested only with the Regulatory Authority in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P. (Civil Appeal No.6745-6749 of 2021). In paragraph 3 of the appeal filed before the Tribunal, it was stated that the grant of compensation was not justified as the same was without jurisdiction and was liable to be dismissed. In paragraph 6, it was specifically st