Appeal Nos. 62 and 63 of 2019, Common Order

What the appeals concern

The Common Order in Appeal Nos. 62 and 63 of 2019 concerns two registrations granted by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority for projects described as AMDCPL, Prozone, Palm Phase I and Prozone, Palms, Phase 1B. Both registrations, dated 29 May 2019, limited validity to 21 February 2022.

M/s. Alliance Mall Developers Company Private Limited challenged that limit. The promoter had proposed 540 apartments across three towers and declared different completion dates for each tower.

Promoter's position

The promoter relied on planning permission dated 22 February 2017 and permission from the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation dated 12 March 2018. It argued that construction had not begun because of GST, demonetisation and a slowdown in the real estate market.

The promoter's registration application declared these proposed completion dates:

• Tower A, 21 February 2025.
• Tower B, 30 September 2022.
• Tower C, 31 March 2023.

The promoter expected to obtain an extension of the building plan approval and argued that completing the projects by 21 February 2022 was not possible. It also referred to another project registration that included an instruction to apply for fresh planning permission after the existing permit expired.

Tribunal's discussion

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal explained that a promoter must declare the period within which the project or each phase will be completed. That declaration binds the promoter, but the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority does not have to accept a completion period that it considers unreasonable.

Key points discussed by the Tribunal include:

• The Authority may assess the facts of each project and balance the relevant interests.
• A promoter's declared completion period may be independent of a date in an existing agreement for sale.
• The Authority may reject an unreasonable proposed period and issue appropriate directions.
• An extension may be considered in reasonable circumstances, without promoter default, based on the facts and with written reasons.
• Parties must be heard when an extension application is considered.

The Tribunal allowed M.A. No. 16 of 2020, through which the promoter produced documents concerning another company's planning permit and registration certificate. The supplied text does not contain the final operative decision on whether the registrations were extended.