Appeal No. 4 of 2018, Dakshin Homes Apartment Owners Association v Dakshin Home Developers and others
In Appeal No. 4 of 2018, dated 11 July 2019, the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal reviewed whether the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority had jurisdiction over complaints concerning the Dakshin Homes project in Coimbatore. The dispute centred on whether an apartment project occupied since 2015 could be treated as an ongoing project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, despite complaints about documents, amenities and incomplete work.
What the appeal concerns
Appeal No. 4 of 2018 was filed by the Dakshin Homes Apartment Owners Association against Dakshin Home Developers and two other respondents. The association challenged the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority order dated 27 November 2017, which advised it to approach the Consumer Forum or a civil court because the project was completed and occupied and therefore fell outside the Authority's jurisdiction.
The apartment sale and construction agreement was entered into on 14 December 2012. Both sides accepted that purchasers had taken possession and that residents had occupied the flats since 2015. The project contained 76 flats and had been assessed for property tax by the Corporation of Coimbatore.
Complaints raised by the owners
The Dakshin Homes Apartment Owners Association alleged that the promoter had not completed all work or supplied important approvals and project records. Its complaints included:
- No completion certificate, occupancy certificate or approved building plan had been given to the association.
- Parts of the undivided land share and open terrace rights were allegedly retained by the builder.
- The corpus fund and a land acquisition amount were allegedly not transferred.
- Piped gas, Siruvani water and a connection to the Corporation drainage canal were allegedly not provided.
- Common area and super built-up area calculations were allegedly misleading.
- Project documents were allegedly not furnished to allottees.
- The project was not registered with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
Tribunal's consideration
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered whether the occupied project came within the registration provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and whether the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority could hear the complaint.
The Tribunal noted admissions that all 76 flats had been completed, possession had been taken more than two years earlier and residents were occupying them. It also recorded that the drainage was connected to a septic tank, although the association objected to its location. The text states that the Authority had rightly treated the development as completed rather than an ongoing project.
Why it matters
Apartment owners with similar complaints should note that occupation, possession, tax assessment and the project's completion status may affect whether the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority has jurisdiction. The supplied text ends during the Tribunal's discussion and does not reproduce the final operative directions.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Did the apartment owners already have possession of the flats?
Yes. Both sides accepted that purchasers had taken possession and that allottees had occupied the apartments physically or constructively in 2015.
Why did the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority refuse to hear the complaint?
The Authority considered the project completed and occupied, and therefore outside its jurisdiction. It advised the association to approach the Consumer Forum or an appropriate civil court.
What missing documents did the owners complain about?
The association complained that the builder had not provided a completion certificate, occupancy certificate, approved building plan and other project documents.
Does the supplied decision show the final result of the appeal?
The supplied text records the Tribunal's view that the project was completed rather than ongoing, but it ends before reproducing the final operative directions.
