Special appeals against tribunal decisions are barred under Section 100-A CPC, confirming that such tribunals lack the status of a court for appeal purposes.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Bhansali, CJ.

1. This special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (‘Rules, 1952’) is directed against order dated 04.09.2025 passed in RERA Appeal No. 72 of 2025, whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against judgment dated 14.05.2025 passed by the U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow (‘UPREAT’).

2. The facts, in brief, may be noticed thus:

3. The respondent made a booking in the project of the appellant and was allotted a flat/apartment and a builder buyer agreement was executed between the parties in which the expected offer of possession was in December 2019. On account of the delay, the respondent made a complaint for grant of compensation under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (‘Act, 2016’) before the Adjudicating Officer at Gautam Buddha Nagar. The appellant filed objections to the complaint and raised preliminary objections with regard to the absence of jurisdiction.

4. The Adjudicating Officer, by order dated 10.02.2023, granted certain reliefs to the respondent. The appellant assailed the judgment and order dated 10.02.2023 by filing appeal before the UPREAT. The UPREAT, by its judgment and order dated 14.05.2025, quashed and set aside the order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Officer and substituted the same by its own directions for payment of delayed interest on the deposited amount.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal under Section 58 of the Act, 2016 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal.

6. Aggrieved of the order passed by the UPREAT and the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed.

7. The appeal was initially reported to be barred by limitation by the office which delay has been condoned by order dated 19.01.2026.

8. When the appeal came up before the Court for admission, a preliminary objection was raised by counsel for the respondent that special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules, 1952 was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Sheet Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & others: AIR 2010 All 46 (FB).

9. Learned counsel for the respondent made submissions that from a plain reading of provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules, 1952, it is very clear that a special appeal from the judgment passed by one Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court will not lie, as has been laid down by judgment in the case of Sheet Gupta (supra) as well and as neither the adjudicating authority nor the Tribunal are a court, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant made submissions that judgment in the case of Sheet Gupta (supra) as well as provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules, 1952 do not bar filing of the appeal against judgment impugned, inasmuch as the restriction is ‘in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court’ and that the judgment impugned before the learned Single Judge was of the Tribunal and not Court and therefore, the plea raised in this regard has no substance.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant was confronted with the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamal Kumar Dutta & Anr. Vs. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. & Ors.: (2006) 7 SCC 613 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court, based on provisions of Section 100-