Appeal No. 57 of 2019
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal issued Appeal No. 57 of 2019 on 10 February 2020, recording Benett Property Holdings Company Limited's challenge to a penalty imposed on it as the marketing agent for a delayed villa project. The supplied text examines whether the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016 could apply to the marketing agent, but ends before the Tribunal's final decision, so it does not show whether the penalty was confirmed or set aside.
What the case concerns
Appeal No. 57 of 2019 concerns a villa purchased by Mrs. P. Rani Vellammal from Green Avenue Homes and Gardens, with Benett Property Holdings Company Limited identified as the project's marketing agent. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal heard the appeal under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016.
The buyer entered into a sale-cum-construction agreement with the promoter on 22 March 2012. The agreed sale price was Rs.62,22,500, of which Rs.6,41,448 remained unpaid. The promoter was to deliver the constructed house within 15 months, with a further grace period of three months.
Events leading to the appeal
The buyer complained that the promoter had not completed construction or handed over the house. During the complaint proceedings, the buyer and promoter entered into a compromise on 15 March 2019. The promoter agreed to:
- Complete the remaining villa work within 120 days.
- Hand over the villa after receiving Rs.6,41,448.
- Complete the listed common amenities within six months after handover.
The regulatory authority later directed the promoter to complete construction and hand over possession by 15 July 2019. It also imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000 on the marketing agent.
The promoter separately appealed, later handed over the villa key on 21 November 2019, and its appeal was closed after the compromise was recorded.
Marketing agent's challenge
Benett Property Holdings Company Limited argued that its role was limited to marketing and ended when the villa sale was registered on 1 June 2012. It said it had no responsibility for construction, had no communications with the buyer after 2013, and could not be penalised retrospectively under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016.
The buyer relied on allotment, receipt, payment demand and project communications sent by Artha Property. These included statements about working with Green Avenue Homes and Gardens, assisting customers with escalations, and helping expedite villa handover.
Practical significance
Appeal No. 57 of 2019 is relevant to buyers, promoters and marketing agents where an agent participated in allotment, payment collection or communications about project completion. However, the supplied text ends during the Tribunal's analysis and does not contain the final finding or operative result of the appeal.
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
Was the marketing agent ordered to pay a penalty?
The regulatory authority imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000 on the marketing agent. The supplied text does not show whether the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ultimately confirmed or set aside that penalty.
Did the home buyer receive possession of the villa?
The source states that the promoter handed over the villa key on 21 November 2019. The promoter's separate appeal was then closed after recording the compromise.
Why did the marketing agent say the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016 did not apply?
The marketing agent argued that its marketing role and contractual relationship had ended before the legislation came into force, and that it had no communication with the buyer after 2013. It also maintained that the promoter alone was responsible for construction and delivery.
What evidence did the buyer rely on against the marketing agent?
The buyer relied on an allotment letter, an advance receipt, a payment demand and communications concerning amenities, pending work, customer assistance and villa handover. The Tribunal's text identifies communications from Artha Property between 2012 and 2013, along with meeting minutes from 2015.
