##PAGE1## ##PAGE2##

REAT allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 and set aside the order dated 31.07.2024 of Real Estate Regulatory Authority Chhattisgarh (Hereinafter referred to as “the RERA”).

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that Respondent No. 1/applicant filed a complaint before the RERA against the non-applicants, alleging that the appellant/non-applicant had entered into an oral agreement to sell Shop No. J-03, admeasuring 1,280 sq. ft., situated in “Rama World” at High Street, Swarn Bhoomi, Raipur, with Respondent No. 1 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 75,00,000/-. It was alleged that Respondent No. 1 paid a booking amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the appellant on 31.12.2020 through cheque, followed by a further payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 03.02.2021 through cheque and another payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 06.09.2022. It was further alleged that, despite receipt of the aforesaid amounts, the appellant/non-applicant failed to hand over possession of the said shop to respondent No. 1 and did not execute any sale deed in his favour. Respondent No. 1/applicant thereafter issued a legal notice to the appellant/non-applicant on 05.04.2024. Subsequently, respondent No. 1/applicant came to know that the said shop had been taken by Non-Applicant No. 2 and the amount paid by respondent No. 1/applicant to appellant had been illegally returned to him. It was also alleged that respondent No. 1/applicant had paid a total amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the appellant towards the purchase of the said shop. However, after a period of approximately three years, the appellant/non-applicant returned the said amount to respondent No. 1/applicant instead of providing possession of the aforesaid shop or executing the sale deed in his favour.

3. The allegations made by respondent No. 1/applicant in the complaint were specifically denied by the appellant/non-applicant. It was stated that complaint had been filed on false and fabricated grounds, with the ulterior motive of securing an illegal benefit. It was further submitted that respondent No. 1 had not approached the RERA with clean hands and had suppressed material facts. The claim of respondent No. 1/applicant was false, baseless and frivolous. It was specifically denied that any oral agreement to sell had ever been entered into between the appellant and respondent No. 1/applicant in respect of the said shop. It was further stated that no shop was allotted to Respondent No. 1/applicant and no sale agreement of any kind oral or documentary was even executed with him in respect of any shop.

4. After hearing both parties and considering the documents on record, the RERA dismissed the complaint filed by respondent No. 1/applicant vide order dated 31.07.2024 holding that there was no written agreement between the parties. It was held that there is no clear evidence to show that any sale consideration had been paid for the said transaction. The RERA further held that the complaint filed before it was not within the jurisdiction of the RERA under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2016”).

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the RERA, respondent No.

1/applicant preferred an appeal before the learned REAT. Learned REAT, vide impugned order, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the RERA holding that an oral agreement could be considered under the scheme of the RERA and that respondent No.

1/applicant was an aggrieved person within the meaning of the Act, 2016. Learned REAT, accordingly, remitted the matter to the RERA for fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law. Hence, this appeal is filed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned REAT is contrary to law, based on an erroneous appreciation of the facts and material available on record, and is therefore perverse and unsus