Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
N.J. JAMADAR, J
Sana Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Madan Kishan Gurow – Respondent
Special Civil Suit No.774 of 2023
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Jurisdiction of Civil Courts: The court emphasized that civil courts retain jurisdiction over disputes involving title between allottees, as the authorities under RERA lack the authority to resolve such issues (!) .
Scope of RERA Authority: RERA authorities are empowered to determine matters related to the regulation of real estate transactions, including issues of possession and contractual obligations, but they are not competent to adjudicate disputes that primarily concern the validity of title or ownership rights between allottees (!) .
Remedies under RERA: The remedies provided by RERA, such as orders for possession and interest, are without prejudice to other legal remedies available under general law. Section 18 of RERA allows for concurrent remedies, indicating that a party can pursue relief under RERA and other legal avenues simultaneously or sequentially (!) (!) .
Bar of Civil Court Jurisdiction: Section 79 of RERA explicitly bars civil courts from entertaining suits or proceedings that the RERA authorities are empowered to determine. However, this bar applies only to matters within the scope of RERA’s jurisdiction. Disputes that involve questions of title, ownership, or contractual validity that are not within RERA’s jurisdiction are not barred from being litigated in civil courts (!) (!) .
Nature of Dispute in the Case: The core dispute involves the validity of a sale agreement and the rights of different allottees regarding the same property. Such disputes are inherently civil in nature and require investigation into facts and legal rights that are outside the scope of RERA’s adjudicatory powers (!) .
Role of RERA Orders in Enforcement: While orders passed by RERA or its appellate tribunal can be executed as decrees with the powers of a civil court, this does not transform RERA into a civil court nor does it authorize RERA authorities to decide on matters of title or ownership rights that are not within their jurisdiction (!) (!) .
Effect of Orders Passed by RERA Authorities: Orders by RERA authorities are final within their scope but do not preclude civil courts from adjudicating disputes concerning ownership rights or contractual validity, especially when such issues are not expressly within RERA’s jurisdiction (!) .
Conclusion on Jurisdiction: The court reaffirmed that disputes of a civil nature, such as title and ownership rights, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts and are not barred by the provisions of RERA, which primarily deals with regulatory and enforcement issues related to real estate projects (!) .
These points collectively clarify the legal principles governing the jurisdictional boundaries between RERA authorities and civil courts, emphasizing that civil courts retain authority over disputes concerning ownership, title, and contractual validity that are beyond the scope of RERA’s powers.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision application context. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. bar under rera jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. arguments (Para 7) |
| 4. arguments regarding authority limits. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 5. understanding of the rera mechanisms. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. analysis (Para 24) |
| 7. validation (Para 27) |
| 8. final ruling regarding plaint rejection. (Para 30 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This revision application is directed against an order dated 22nd March, 2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Belapur, whereby an application filed by the applicant – defendant No.2 for rejection of the plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”), came to be rejected.
2. Shorn of necessary details, the background facts can be stated as under:
2.1 For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are hereinafter referred to in the capacity which they are arrayed before the Civil Court.
2.2 Defendant No.2 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013. Mrs. Sushila Malge is the Proprietress of M/s. Mount Mary Builders - defendant No.1. A real estate project, “Green World” was developed by defendant No.1 (“the promoter”). Under a Sale Deed dated 23rd March, 2016, defendant No.1 sold a flat being Flat No.1703 situated on the 17th floor in “G” Wing of the said project for a consideration of Rs.44,00,000/-.
2.2 As defendant No.1 did not deliver the possession of the subject flat in accordance with the terms of the contract, defendant No.2 was constrained to file a complaint before Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“MahaRERA”) being Complaint No.89795. By an order dated 5th November, 2019, the MahaRERA directed defendant No.1 to pay interest for the delay in delivery of possession. However, as MahaRERA did not issue a direction for delivery of possession of the subject flat, defendant No.2 filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (“the Appellate Tribunal”). By an order dated 10th December, 2021, the Appellate Tribunal disposed the appeal by issuing directions to defendant No.1 to hand over the possession of the subject flat to defendant No.2 within a period of 60 days, with a stipulation for payment of interest in the event of default.
2.4 In the meanwhile, defendant No.2 caused a title search of the subject flat. It transpired that defendant No.1, allegedly in connivance with respondent Nos.1 and 2 – the plaintiffs, had created third party rights in respect of the subject flat in favour of Plaintiffs under a registered Agreement dated 7th August, 2017, subsequent to the execution of the Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.2.
2.5 Defendant No.2 apprised the plaintiffs about the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, and called upon the plaintiffs to deliver possession of the subject flat. As defendant No.1 did not comply with the orders of the Appellate Tribunal, defendant No.2 filed Execution Application No.16 of 2022 for execution of the order dated 10th December, 2021 passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The plaintiffs came to be impleaded as parties in the said execution application.
2.6 The plaintiffs, in turn, approached the Civil Court by instituting a suit for declaration that, the agreement dated 7th August, 2017 executed by and between defendant No.1 and plaintiffs is valid and subsisting, the plaintiffs are bona fide purchasers of subject flat without notice and the Sale Deed dated 23rd March, 2016 executed between defendant Nos.1 and 2 was null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs.
Consequential injunctive reliefs were also sought.
2.7 The plaintiffs assert that, they had parted with valuable consideration, inter alia, by availing loan from HDFC Bank. They were unaware of the execution of the Sale Deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. Upon being confronted, defendant No.1 assured them that, defendant No.2 was an investor and defendant No.1 would return the amount invested by defendant No.2. Thus, the plaintiffs were constrained to institute the suit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
