Appeal No. 6 of 2018
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, in Appeal No. 6 of 2018, pronounced an order on 11 June 2019 recording a compromise between Rajendran Chingaravelu and Unitech Limited concerning villa number 71 in the Palm Villas project at Nalambakkam Village. The Tribunal allowed the compromise, made the jointly filed compromise petition part of its order and disposed of the appeal according to its terms.
What the case concerned
Appeal No. 6 of 2018 arose from Rajendran Chingaravelu's booking of a villa in the Palm Villas project at Nalambakkam Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District. He complained that Unitech Limited had not provided project documents for legal verification and had not responded to his request for a refund.
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority dismissed his complaint for want of jurisdiction because the booked villa was not part of a project registered with the Authority. Rajendran Chingaravelu appealed that dismissal to the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
What the Tribunal decided
During the appeal, Rajendran Chingaravelu and Unitech Limited reached a compromise and jointly filed a compromise petition. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal read the terms to both parties in open court, recorded their agreement and ordered the appeal according to those terms.
The compromise petition forms part of the Tribunal's order. A compliance hearing was fixed for 8 August 2019.
Main compromise terms
The recorded terms include:
- Unitech Limited agreed to hand over villa number 71 on an "as is where is basis".
- Rajendran Chingaravelu would complete the remaining work with his own funds while keeping the external facade consistent with the existing scheme.
- The parties fixed the net lump sum payable to Unitech Limited at Rs.10,00,000, with no further dues to the company except maintenance and club charges payable directly by the buyer.
- Unitech Limited would execute registration of the UDS and construction agreement upon receiving a demand draft for Rs.10,00,000, on the same day.
- Rajendran Chingaravelu would bear the full registration cost, including the registration fees and stamp duty.
- Registration was to be completed within two months, with both parties cooperating.
- Unitech Limited agreed to provide documents needed for registration, working drawings, plumbing and electrical diagrams, utility connection information and documents required for occupation of the villa.
- After Unitech Limited completed its obligations, Rajendran Chingaravelu agreed to withdraw the identified High Court writ petition and complaints or petitions pending before other statutory authorities, including the Directorate of Town and Country Planning.
- The buyer retained the right to pursue lawful remedies for other lapses, including issues relating to common amenities or the unit, but agreed not to raise again the issue that led to the appeal.
Who is affected
Appeal No. 6 of 2018 records a settlement specifically between Rajendran Chingaravelu and Unitech Limited concerning villa number 71. Its stated payment, registration, handover and withdrawal obligations apply to those parties.
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 Tribunal order Unitech Limited to refund the buyer's advance?
No. The parties instead agreed that villa number 71 would be handed over on an "as is where is basis", with the buyer paying a final lump sum of Rs.10,00,000 under the compromise.
Who must pay the stamp duty and registration costs?
Rajendran Chingaravelu must bear the entire registration cost, including the registration fees and stamp duty.
Why had the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority dismissed the original complaint?
The Authority dismissed it for want of jurisdiction because the villa booked by the complainant was not part of a project registered with the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
Could the buyer raise other defects or amenity issues later?
Yes. The compromise preserved his right to seek lawful remedies for other lapses involving common amenities, project facilities or his unit, but he agreed not to raise again the issue that gave rise to the appeal.
