The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act empowers TNRERA to investigate ongoing projects and financial dealings, safeguarding buyers' interests.

JUDGMENT :

V. Lakshminarayanan, J.

Since all these appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “TNREAT”), they were clubbed together and heard by us.

2. The issues being varied, we will divide the judgment as per the issues presented in the appeals.

Facts leading to the appeal:-

3. M/s IVR Hotels and Resorts Limited (hereinafter referred to as “IVR”), purchased about 700 acres of land, in and around Santhavellore and Papankuzhi villages, situated in Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. It applied for and obtained a layout approval from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning (hereinafter referred to as “DTCP”) on 16.08.2010. The layout was developed into several plots and were advertised for sale. The plots were also sold. The 1^st respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as PIP) is one such purchaser. A sale agreement was entered into between IVR and the PIP on 09.12.2011. A sale deed was registered in Document No.49/2012 on 04.01.2012 in favour of PIP.

4. PIP had purchased plot no. 262 in a layout called SAMTEN-B. On the very date the agreement of sale was entered into, the parties also entered into a construction agreement. As per the agreement, IVR agreed to construct a villa for the PIP to an extent of 2150 sq.ft. The cost of construction was to be borne by the PIP.

5. Disputes arose between the parties thereafter. PIP lodged a complaint with the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as “TNRERA”) on 10.09.2019. She alleged that IVR had advertised, in print and on the internet, making tall claims of promoting premium residential complex with world class amenities, a golf course, club house, hotel, schools, etc,. on the aforesaid properties and called upon prospective purchasers to await the offer. Lured by these advertisements, she had entered into the agreement. At that time, IVR assured her and family members, membership to use the golf course that was being developed by them, as a part of the project. She asserted that she had paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on 09.12.2011 and a further sum of Rs.11,84,000/- on 26.12.2011 for the purchase of the land. In addition, she stated that she had paid a sum of Rs.45,15,000/- for construction of the villa on the plot purchased by her. She alleged that the villa had been constructed in a sub-standard manner with rain water oozing into the villa. She further added that construction of other facilities like golf course, club house, hospitals, golf academy, multi cuisine restaurant, schools, etc,. were either incomplete or not initiated at all.

6. In June 2015, the complainant had taken possession of her villa. This was in order to furnish and provide household consumable durables, which she felt are necessary for living therein. After the completion of the interior work, heavy rains occurred in the area. The rainfall revealed the sub-standard quality of the materials used and manner of construction used by IVR from multiple standpoints. Despite the project was promised to be delivered at the end of 18 months from the date of the agreement, it was not completed even after the lapse of several years. This caused the PIP to issue a letter to the promoters on 15.11.2017.

7.On receipt of this letter, IVR sent a reply on 09.02.2018, stating that it had completed the major construction work of the villa and despite their follow up with PIP to make the payment of Rs.5,25,680/-, she had failed to pay the outstanding amounts and had taken possession of the building. Due to evasive reply issued by IVR, PIP filed a complaint before TNRERA.

8. The authority took on file this complaint in C.No.336 of 2019. After hearing both sides, TNRERA came to a conclusion that as the PIP had taken possession of the villa, even prior to the commencement of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act), the complaint is not maintainable. It further held that the agreement of sale, the sal