Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5512

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J.
Metrozone Apartment Owners Association, Represented by its President Mr. J.Sathiyamurthy - Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Ozone Projects Private Limited, Represented by Deputy Manager - Respondent
CRP.No.2124 of 2024 & CMP.No.11284 of 2024
Decided On : 29-08-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.N.Nandhakumar
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Venkatraman

Civil suits for permanent injunction are maintainable despite statutory bars under RERA, emphasizing the difference between statutory powers and common law remedies.

Headnote:(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Sections 36, 37, and 79 - Jurisdiction of civil courts - Suit for permanent injunction - The court analyzed whether the statutory bar under Section 79 of RERA applies to common law remedies, concluding that such suits are maintainable in civil court. (Paras 9, 12, 28)

(B) RERA Act - Interpretation of Sections 36 and 37 - The court determined that powers under these sections do not extend to granting permanent injunctions, which should be sought through civil proceedings. (Paras 10, 28)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff approached the civil court seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant developer regarding property possession, asserting that existing procedures under RERA were inadequate for relief.

Findings of Court:
The lower court's dismissal of the application for rejection of the plaint was upheld, affirming that the civil suit was maintainable.

Issues: The key issue was whether a suit for permanent injunction can be instituted in civil courts when there is a statutory bar under RERA.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between statutory powers under RERA and common law remedies, affirming civil court jurisdiction for the suit.

Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

ORDER :

An interesting question that arises for consideration is as to whether a suit for common law remedy, namely a relief of permanent injunction, can be sought before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority or not.

2.I have Mr.N.Nandhakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Venkatraman, learned counsel for M/s.TATVA Legal, for the respondent.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the suit instituted in O.S.No.7244 of 2022 by the respondent / developer is not maintainable, in view of the bar under Section 79 of the RERA Act, 2016. Pointing out to the nature of relief sought for and corresponding provisions under the RERA Act, learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the Tribunal constituted under RERA Act alone is competent to try the issues that have been raised by the respondent/plaintiff. He would also point out that the revision petitioner has already approached RERA with serious complaints against the respondent and the Tribunal has also taken cognizance of the same and therefore, the present suit is nothing but a counter blast to the action already initiated by the respondent.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw my attention to Sections 37 and 38 of the RERA Act and contend that the authority is empowered to grant the relief of injunction and therefore, the suit has to be necessarily struck down as there is a bar under law, invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely on the following decisions:

1. Yadavalli Venkata Gopalam and Another Vs. Sai Siddhant Developers and Another (2003 SCC Online BOM 3196).

2. Lavasa Corporation Limited Vs. Jitendra Jagdish Tulsiani and Another (2018 Online BOM 2074).

3. Joy Deep Roy and Another Vs. Srijan Residency LLP and Others (2023 SCC Online Cal 3408).

4. Imepria Structures Limited Vs. Anil Patni and Another (2020) 10 SCC 783).

5. M.Ahuja Vs. Shakipunj Engineers Privated Limited , High Court of Chattisgarh, Bilaspur (WPC.No.2374 of 2018).

6. Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy and Others (2008) 4 SCC 594).

7. New Tech Promoters and Developers Private Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2021) 18 SCC 1).

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/developer, Mr.R.Venkatraman, would contend that the suit being only for a bare permanent injunction, it is an equitable remedy for which the plaintiff is entitled to approach the Civil Court. Referring to Section 36 and 37 on which reliance was placed on by the counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that both the Sections operate in different spheres and platforms altogether and the authority under the Act is not empowered to grant the relief of permanent injunction.

6. Referring to Section 40 of the RERA Act, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that Section 40 only enables the authority to execute its orders and directions, akin to Order XXI of CPC. He would therefore state that the ouster class in Section 79 does not take away the right of the plaintiff to seek for the relief of permanent injunction. That apart, learned counsel for the respondent would emphasize on the fact that the plaint can be rejected only on placing reliance on the plaint averment and suit documents and not on any other extraneous materials and circumstances. He would further state that in the present case, the plaintiff is admittedly in possession and he only seeks for the said possession not being disturbed, except by due process of law and such a relief would be very well maintainable before the Civil Court and the plaintiff cannot be shunted out, directing him to approach the authority under RERA Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent would place reliance on the following decisions:

1. Tejas Shoor Vs. Godrej Vestamark LLP (2023 SCC Online Dis Crt (Del) 14).

2. Pyramid Saimira Theatre Limited Vs. S.Murugan and Others ( 2009-1-LW 866 ).

3. Kasina