Jurisdiction of Regulatory Authority

Where interest is sought as interest simpliciter and not by way of compensation per say, the RERA Authority has necessary jurisdiction to deal with such claim under Section 18 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 | Delayed in possession due to delay in granting permissions/ sanctions from various competent authorities etc. cannot be construed as force majeure – Spenta Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Ashlesh Gosain – Maharashtra REAT

(i) If the Allottee chooses to continue in the project, he is entitled only interest on delayed possession and not compensation. Therefore, in this Appeal, the Authority has considered his claim limited to interest on delayed possession, therefore, no adjudication in nature of decree is involved to attract the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer.
(ii) Under Section 71 of the RERA Act, the Adjudicating Officer primarily has jurisdiction to decide the case where the adjudication is required for awarding compensation and or interest where the interest being sought qua compensation falls under the sway of compensation. Where interest is sought as interest simpliciter and not by way of compensation per say, the Authority has necessary jurisdiction to deal with such claim under Section 18 of the Act.
(iii) Delay in granting permissions/ sanctions from various competent authorities, etc. as contended by the Promoter cannot be construed as force majeure.
(iv) The language employed in Section 18(1)(a) makes it clear that the Promoter is obligated to handover the possession of flat as per the agreement for sale by the date specified therein.
(v) Even if, force majeure factors as demonstrated by the Promoter are given some consideration, we are of the view that the Promoter is not entitled to get benefit of the same for the reasons that the same are not attributable to the Allottee nor is the case of the Promoter that the Allottee in any way has caused delay in possession.

Where interest is sought as interest simpliciter and not by way of compensation per say, the RERA Authority has necessary jurisdiction to deal with such claim under Section 18 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 | Delayed in possession due to delay in granting permissions/ sanctions from various competent authorities etc. cannot be construed as force majeure – Spenta Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Ashlesh Gosain – Maharashtra REAT Read Post »

Jurisdiction to decide claim for interest under Section 18(1) is with the Regulatory Authority(RERA) whereas the jurisdiction to decide issue of compensation u/s 18(3) is in the realm of Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of the RERA Act – Karan Chopra Vs. Skystar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. – Bombay High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Jurisdiction to decide claim for interest under Section 18(1) is with the Regulatory Authority(RERA) whereas the jurisdiction to decide issue of compensation u/s 18(3) is in the realm of Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of the RERA Act – Karan Chopra Vs. Skystar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. – Bombay High Court Read Post »

Whether RERA Appellate Tribunal has the power to award interest for the first time, when such relief is rejected by the Adjudicating Authority, in the light of Section 71(3) and Section 72 of the RERA Act? | Whether RERA Appellate Tribunal erred in not remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Officer for consideration and adjudication of compensation as per the provisions of Section 18 read with Section 71(3) and Section 72 of the RERA Act? – Forefront Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Rujuta Mandar Thatte and Anr. – Bombay High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Whether RERA Appellate Tribunal has the power to award interest for the first time, when such relief is rejected by the Adjudicating Authority, in the light of Section 71(3) and Section 72 of the RERA Act? | Whether RERA Appellate Tribunal erred in not remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Officer for consideration and adjudication of compensation as per the provisions of Section 18 read with Section 71(3) and Section 72 of the RERA Act? – Forefront Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Rujuta Mandar Thatte and Anr. – Bombay High Court Read Post »

Landmark judgment in RERA, 2016 – Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of UP & Ors. etc. – Supreme Court

This judgment covers: A. Object and Reasons of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. A.1 Statement of object and reasons. A.2 Interpretation of Section 18 of the RERA Act. A.3 Unconditional absolute and Unqualified Right of the Allottee to seek Refund: Section 18(1) and Section 19(4) of the RERA Act. A.4 Section 71 of the RERA Act. B. Whether Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is retrospective or retroactive in its operation and what will be its legal consequence if tested on the anvil of the Constitution of India?. C. Whether the Regulatory Authority(RERA) has jurisdiction to direct return/refund of the amount to the allottee under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 of the RERA Act or the jurisdiction exclusively lies with the adjudicating officer under Section 71 of the RERA Act?. C.1 Refund of Amount. C.2 The interest of the promoter is equally safeguarded. C.3 Scope and functions of the Adjudicating Officer. C.4 If Regulatory Authority (RERA) and Adjudicating Officer either come to different conclusions on the same questions or in a single complaint?. C.5 If single complaint is filed seeking a combination of reliefs. C.6 Regulatory Authority disposes of the application expeditiously and not to restrain the mandate of 60 days as referred to under Section 71(3) of the Act. C.7 Conclusion. D. Whether Section 81 of the RERA Act authorizes the Regulatory Authority to delegate its powers to a single member of the authority to hear complaints instituted under Section 31 of the RERA Act?. E. Whether the condition of pre-deposit under proviso to Section 43(5) of the RERA Act for entertaining substantive right of appeal is sustainable in law?. E.1 Determination of Refund amount. E.2 Right of appeal which is a creature of the statute. E.3 Pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of RERA Act is not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. F. Whether the authority has the power to issue recovery certificates for recovery of the principal amount under Section 40(1) of the Act?. G. Disposed of

Landmark judgment in RERA, 2016 – Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of UP & Ors. etc. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Whether the words “any person” used in Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 includes Real Estate Regulatory Authority? | Whether Regulatory Authority is empowered to challenge a decision of Appellate Tribunal before the High Court under Section 58 of the RERA Act? – Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority Vs. Satyam Infracon – Gujarat High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Whether the words “any person” used in Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 includes Real Estate Regulatory Authority? | Whether Regulatory Authority is empowered to challenge a decision of Appellate Tribunal before the High Court under Section 58 of the RERA Act? – Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority Vs. Satyam Infracon – Gujarat High Court Read Post »

Power to waive of pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of RERA | Constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 43(5) | Adjudication of Interest, Compensation, Penalty etc. under RERA | Powers and Jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Adjudicating Officer – Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others – Punjab & Haryana High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Power to waive of pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of RERA | Constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 43(5) | Adjudication of Interest, Compensation, Penalty etc. under RERA | Powers and Jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Adjudicating Officer – Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others – Punjab & Haryana High Court Read Post »

Section 2(za)(ii) of RERA, 2016 does not restrict or provide that interest is payable only after the commencement of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 – Habitech Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. – Allahabad High Court

Section 2 (za) (ii) does not restrict or provide that interest is payable only after the commencement of the Act, and it takes care of the fact that once the allottee had made deposit with the promoter he is liable to pay the interest from the date of deposit of the entire amount or part of the amount. Similarly on the reading of Section 71 it is crystal clear that Adjudicating Officer has been adorned with the power of adjudicating compensation only under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 of the Act and not in regard to the refund of the amount or grant of interest on the amount deposited by the allottee with the promoter. Thus, power of refund of amount alongwith interest which has been provided under Section 18, with the authority was rightly exercised by it in the interest of justice.

Section 2(za)(ii) of RERA, 2016 does not restrict or provide that interest is payable only after the commencement of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 – Habitech Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. – Allahabad High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top