##PAGE1##

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Order reserved on : 28.09.2026 Order pronounced on : 30.10.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CRP.No.5206 of 2026 M/s.Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Represented by its Authorised Representative Mr.A.Senthil Kumar, Having registered office at

5^th Floor, Times Tower, Kamala Mills Co S.B.Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai – 400 013. .. Petitioner Vs.

1.M/s.PNB Techwaves Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Having registered office at No.7/4, Baroda Street Extension, West Mambalam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India – 600 033.

2.M/s.PNB Exporters Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Having registered office at No.7/4, Baroda Street Extension, West Mambalam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India – 600 033.

3.M/s.PNB Realty Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Having registered office at Aurick Hotel, 598, 15^th Cross, 35^th Main, 6^th Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore, Karnataka, India – 560 078.

Having its Branch office at No.14, Gulmohar Avenue, Velachery Main Road, Guindy, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 032.

4.M/sArtha Real Estate Corporation Limited, Represented by its Authorised Representative, Having registered office at No.110/37, Solitire Building, Service Road, Outer Ring Road, Marathahalli, Bangalore – 560 037.

Having its Branch office at Door No.167-169, Second Floor, Anna Salai, Near Checkers Hotel, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. .. Respondents Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 15.07.2026 passed in C.C.P.(SR).No.38 of 2026 by the learned Adjudicating Officer, TNRERA and consequently direct the Registry of the learned Adjudicating Officer, TNRERA to take the Compensation Complaint bearing C.C.P(SR).No.38 of 2026 on file and assign an appropriate case number.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkat Raman for M/s.TATVA Legal, Chennai.

For Respondents : No appearance

ORDER

The complainant before the Adjudicating Officer of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Chennai, is the revision petitioner.

2.Despite service of notice on the respondents and the names of the respondents also being printed in the cause list, there has been no appearance on the side of the respondents either in person or through counsel. In fact, I have also directed the counsel for the petitioner to effect paper publication as well and paper publication has also been effected, in compliance with the order dated 11.09.2026. The respondents were therefore called and set ex-parte.

3.I have heard Mr.R.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner states that the Adjudicating Officer has erroneously dismissed the complaint filed by the revision petitioner, without adverting to the legal position with regard to the jurisdiction of the authorities under TNRERA. He would further state that the order of the Adjudicating Authority, dismissing the complaint on the ground of maintainability is clearly erroneous and unsubstantiated. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would take me through the brief facts. The petitioner, as a property developer entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with the land owners on 06.11.2012. Agreements were also entered into between the parties. However, by consent, the Joint Venture Agreement stood terminated and there was a role reversal in the sense that the land owner proposed to put up the construction and the petitioner, though originally had agreed to develop the property, desired to purchase an apartment in the proposed construction. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that an agreement of sale was also entered into in respect of the undivided share and the land to be conveyed in proportion to the area to be constructed by the land owners in favour of the petitioner, apart from a separate construction agreement also.

5.The grievance of the petitioner