Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56810
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, J
MR.JAVAD KUTTIKARAN HASSAN – Appellant
Versus
AJISH ASLAM KOTTATHARA – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 961 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.H.ASIF ALI, SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF, SHRI.ARAVIND T RAMESH, SHRI.ASHIK ALI M.H.
For the Respondents: SRI.T.MADHU, SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI, SHRI.RENJISH S. MENON, SMT.ALEENA JOSE, SMT.AVANTHIKA R., SHRI.KARTHIK KRISHNA M.
The applicability of Section 43(5) of the RERA Act depends on whether the petitioner is classified as a promoter.
Headnote:The petition challenges the order of the Kerala Real Estate Appellate Authority, asserting that Sections 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not apply to the petitioner as he appeals in an individual capacity. The court finds the existing appeal to be valid, allowing the petitioner to re-approach the Appellate Authority. Ultimately, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn, permitting the petitioner to argue the matter further.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging compliance with rera (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. jurisdiction of appellate authority (Para 4) |
| 3. outcome of petition withdrawal (Para 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT This original petition is filed by the petitioner/appellant by challenging the order passed by the Kerala Real Estate Appellate Authority in REFA No 20/2025, directing the petitioner to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 43 (5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (the RERA Act for short)
directing him to deposit the same.
2.The learned counsel for the respondent did not object.
3.The petitioner came before this Court challenging the same on the ground that the petitioner has filed an appeal in his individual capacity and not as a promoter, therefore, Section 43 (5)
of the RERA Act is not applicable to him.
4.On perusal of the impugned order, Kerala Real Estate Appellate Authority has not yet passed any order on the ground urged by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is required to urge the said ground before the appellate authority, and the appellate authority has to decide the issue, whether the petitioner is a promoter or not, for the purpose of compliance with the mandatory requirement under Section 43 (5) of the RERA Act.
5.At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition with a liberty to approach the appellate authority to argue the matter regarding the applicability of Section 43 (5) of the Act to the petitioner.
6.The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been placed on record.
Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Kerala Real Estate Appellate Authority to urge and argue the matter as to whether Section 43 (5) of the Act is applicable to the petitioner or not.
