Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 28495
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JUSTICE, J
Promoter of the Project – Appellant
Versus
Allottees of the Project – Respondent
Miscellaneous Second Appeals | MSA Nos.8/2025, 9/2025, 10/2025, 11/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.C.S.Manu
For the Respondents: Sri. C.M. Nasar
The RERA does not explicitly provide a right for the Promoter to claim compensation from Allottees, limiting such claims to general law remedies.
Headnote:(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Sections 19(6), 19(7), 31, and 79 - The right of the Promoter to claim compensation from the Allottee is not provided under the RERA, as the liability to pay compensation is not included within the provisions of the Act. The Promoter may seek relief based on general law in case of delay by Allottee. (Paras 9, 16)
(B) Jurisdiction - The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred under Section 79 for claims of compensation by the Promoter against the Allottee, as such claims are not within the adjudicatory powers of the Adjudicating Officer. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The Promoter filed complaints for compensation against Allottees, which were deemed not maintainable by the Adjudicating Officer and affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the RERA does not grant the Promoter a right to claim compensation from Allottees.
Issues: Primarily whether the RERA allows the Promoter to claim compensation from the Allottee and the jurisdictional powers therein.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of a provision allowing the Promoter to claim compensation under the RERA indicates the jurisdiction of adjudication lies elsewhere.
Result: Miscellaneous Second Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appeal (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding compensation rights (Para 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT
[MSA Nos.8/2025, 9/2025, 10/2025, 11/2025]
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2025
1. These four Miscellaneous Second Appeals are filed by the same Appellant who is the Promoter of the Project, under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RERA’) read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The appellant was the complainant in the Complaint before the Adjudicating Officer claiming compensation from the Allottees of the Project. The Allottees filed Applications challenging the maintainability of the Complaints, and the Adjudicating Officer considered all the Applications together and passed a Common order allowing the Applications, holding that the Complaints filed by the Promoter for compensation under Sections 19 (6) & 19(7) of the RERA from the Allottees are not maintainable. The complainants filed Appeals before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, and the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Appeals by a common order confirming the common order of the Adjudicating Officer.
3. The issue to be considered in these MSAs is whether the Promoter is entitled to file a Complaint before the Adjudicating Officer claiming compensation from the Allottee.
4. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.C.S.Manu and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority(K-RERA), Sri. C.M. Nasar.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Promoter has the right to claim compensation from the Allottees under Sections 19 (6) & 19(7) of the RERA. Section 19 (6) mandates an obligation to the Allottees to make necessary agreed payments within the agreed time, and hence the corresponding right in favour of the Promoter to claim compensation from the Allottee in case of breach of such obligation is implicit in the said provision. If such obligation is violated and some damage, loss, or injury is caused to the Promoter, the Promoter is definitely entitled to claim compensation under (6) by filing a Complaint under Section 31 . The learned counsel further contended that any aggrieved person can file a complaint before the Adjudicating Officer against Allottees under of the RERA. ‘Any aggrieved person’ referred to in would also include the Promoter, as complaints against the Allottees are provided therein. The learned counsel further referred to Section 72, in which various factors which are to be taken into consideration for adjudging the compensation or interest are stated and, all of which specifically refer to ‘the default.’ The default may happen either from the Promoter or from the Allottee. It would indicate that in case of default on the part of the Allottee, the Promoter is entitled to claim compensation from the Allottee by filing a complaint before the Adjudicating Officer under . The learned counsel further contended that in view of the bar of the jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 79 , if the Promoter is not allowed to file a complaint claiming compensation before the Adjudicating Officer, the Promoter will be remedy-less when he is legally entitled to get compensation from the Allottee. The RERA is enacted for the purpose of protecting both the interests of the Allottees as well as the promoter. The learned counsel concluded the arguments by praying to admit the MSAs as it involved Substantial Questions of Law.
6. The learned Standing Counsel contented that though the aggrieved person referred in Section 31 includes the Promoter, there is no provision in the RERA enabling the Promoter to claim compensation from the Allottee in any case.
7. In view of the contentions addressed before me, the following questions emerge for consideration.
. Whether any of the provisions in the RERA gives substantive right to the Promoter to claim compensation from the Allottee?
. Whether Section 31 of the RERA
