Appeal No. 58 of 2019

What the appeal concerns

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered an appeal by Sare Squires, an association of apartment owners. Sare Shelters Project Private Limited was the promoter, and Dewy Terraces (Phase I) Flat Owners' Welfare Association was added as the second respondent.

Sare Squires had asked the Regulatory Authority to require registration of the Sare Squires Crescent ParC Dewy Terraces OMR Road project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Regulatory Authority rejected the complaint as not maintainable after accepting the promoter's claim that construction and possession had been completed before the Act came into force.

Issues raised by apartment owners

Sare Squires alleged that important facilities and obligations remained incomplete or unresolved:

• The community hall and shops had not been commenced.
• The clubhouse was partly complete, unfit for use and partly occupied as the promoter's marketing office.
• The sewage treatment plant was incomplete and inoperable.
• There was no permanent water source, leaving owners dependent on tanker water at their cost.
• Owners had lost access over the approved approach road.
• The promoter had not produced evidence showing possession of M Block in Phase 4.

Dewy Terraces (Phase I) Flat Owners' Welfare Association supported the allegations concerning access to the main road.

Promoter's response

Sare Shelters Project Private Limited argued that construction was completed, possession was handed over and a completion certificate had been issued before the Act commenced. It also argued that responsibility for public roads rested with the local authority, and that it could not be responsible for defects in the original layout approval because it had purchased only part of the layout.

The promoter stated that maintenance of common amenities had been handed over. It also maintained that M Block was structurally complete and outside the Act.

Tribunal's legal approach

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal framed two questions, whether the owners' complaint was maintainable and whether the appeal should be allowed. It stated that execution of conveyance deeds alone does not end a promoter's responsibilities, particularly regarding structural or other defects, essential services, completion or occupancy documentation, and common areas.

The Tribunal also reviewed official findings concerning the disputed approach road and noted the promoter's admission that part of the road involved temple land. The supplied text ends during this analysis and does not contain the Tribunal's final ruling.