IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on: 12.08.2024 Delivered on: 03.01.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU &

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI CMSA.Nos. 2 to 4 of 2021 S.Jayalakshmi Proprietrix of M/s.Lakshmi Builders Rep. By her Power Agent Mr.V.T.Selvan Having office at N.R.B. No.2, Aurabindasalai Block 20, Neyveli-607 803 ... Appellant in CMSA.Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2021 Vs.

1.S.Ramar ...R1 in CMSA.2/2021 2.M.Sakthivel ...R1 in CMSA.3/2021 3.D.Prabanandhan ...R1 in CMSA.4/2021

2.The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA), Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 ...R2 in CMSA.2, 3, 4/2021 Prayer : Appeal suit filed under Section 58 of Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulation Authority Act r/w.Section 100 of CPC, praying to set aide the common order dated 18.03.2020 passed in Appeal No.14 of 2019 by the TNRERAT, which confirmed the order dated 16.04.2019 passed in C.No.2 of 2019 by Real Estate Regulatory Authority.

For Appellant : Mr.V.Kuberan for M/s.Rank Associates For Respondent : Mr.R.Karthikeyan for R1 Mrs.P.Veena Suresh for R2.

COMMON JUDGMENT

J.NISHA BANU, J.

The above CMSAs are preferred by the Builder as against the common order passed in Appeal No.14 of 2019 on the file of Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, whereby, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority dated 16.04.2019 passed in Complaint No.2 of 2019 that the construction is a group development thereby coming under the ambit of Section 3 of the Act, the extent of the land exceeds 500 sq.mts and also the number of dwelling units exceeds 8 Nos., and directed the Builder to register the project with TNRERA.

2. The Appellant is the builder and the respondents are the allottees. The allottees preferred separate complaints against the builder for the relief of registration of project, handing over of possession, compensation for the delay and for costs.

3. The Adjudicating Authority passed orders with regard to the maintainability of the complaint and given a finding that the complaint is maintainable and directed the builder to register the project within two weeks.

4. As against the said direction, Builder preferred appeals before the TNREAT raising several grounds and the Tribunal answered the issues raised before it as under:-

A] First Ground:-

(i) The first contention of the appellant is that the Builder/proprietrix is not at all a promoter and he is only a contractor to construct the flats. The said contention was rejected by the Tribunal answering as under:-

(ii) The Tribunal held that as per Section 2(zk)(i) and 2(zk)(5) of the RERA Act and clause (6), the person who construct any building or apartment for sale to the general public comes under the definition of promoter, so the appellant who is doing construction work through her power agent/contractor constructing apartments for sale is designated as the contractor or builder.

(iii) The husband of the appellant V.T.Selvan has acted as power agent for the owners of the lands. As per Section 2(zk)(5), the power of attorney for the owner of the land is also a promoter.

(iv) In the explanation of Section 2(zk)(6), the person who constructs any building or apartments for sale and the person who sells apartments are different persons both of them shall be deemed to be the promoters and shall be jointly liable under RERA. B] Second Ground:-

(i) The second contention is that there is no building approval for 7 plots, there is only a sub division approval; a sub division approval cannot be termed as building approval.

(ii) On the date of planning permission, allottees are not the owners of the 'C” Schedule property. So, for all the 7 plots, the planning permission was obtained in the name of the promoter V.T.Selvan and not in the name of the individual purchasers. Though planning permit was obtained for sub division of property and obtained sub division order, planning permission order in his name only. After obtainin