Common Order in Appeal Nos. 68 and 69 of 2019
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands) issued the common order in Appeal Nos. 68 and 69 of 2019 on 8 December 2020, reviewing directions to register the Margosa Tower project and hand over two flats to an allottee. The supplied text sets out the dispute and questions considered by the Tribunal, but does not include the Tribunal's final findings or disposal of the appeals.
What the appeals concern
The common order in Appeal Nos. 68 and 69 of 2019 concerns Flats 601 and 906 in Margosa Tower. Fifth Estate Communications Private Limited claimed that Sabari Realtors Private Limited and related companies owed substantial unpaid advertising bills and agreed to settle the liability by allotting the two flats.
The record refers to allotment letters, construction agreements and an undivided share sale deed. It also contains acknowledgements of outstanding advertising bills and statements that consideration for the properties had already been paid.
Parties and earlier direction
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal describes:
- Sabari Realtors Private Limited as the promoter.
- Fifth Estate Communications Private Limited as the allottee and complainant.
- Pioneer Homes as the promoter's financial partner.
Fifth Estate Communications Private Limited complained that the project had not been completed and had been handed to Pioneer Homes without notice to the allottees. The Regulatory Authority, Chennai, in C.No.219/2019 dated 4 September 2019, directed registration of the project and handover of the flats. Sabari Realtors Private Limited and Pioneer Homes filed separate appeals against that decision.
Questions considered by the Tribunal
The common order identifies these main issues:
- Whether consideration was paid for the two flats, including through adjustment of unpaid advertising bills.
- Whether the Regulatory Authority could direct the promoter to complete the project and hand it over within a fixed time.
- Whether the financial partner was also a promoter or fell outside the categories against which the complaint could be made.
- Whether Appeal Nos. 68 and 69 of 2019 should be allowed.
On consideration, the Tribunal referred to documents acknowledging the debts, construction agreements and a sale deed recording receipt of consideration. It also discussed the principle that a recital in a sale deed may create a presumption of payment, while the seller may still seek to prove that payment was not actually made.
What buyers should take from the supplied text
The supplied extract does not contain the Tribunal's final answers to the identified questions. It therefore does not establish from the available text whether the earlier directions were confirmed, changed or cancelled.
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 the promoter to hand over the two flats?
The Regulatory Authority, Chennai, directed registration of the project and handover of the flats. The supplied text does not include the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's final decision on whether that direction remained in force.
Were the advertising dues treated as payment for the flats?
Fifth Estate Communications Private Limited relied on unpaid advertising bills as consideration for the two flats, supported by debt acknowledgements and property documents. Sabari Realtors Private Limited disputed that consideration had actually passed, and the supplied text does not contain the Tribunal's final finding.
Was Pioneer Homes treated as a promoter?
Pioneer Homes argued that it was only a financial partner, not a promoter, allottee or real estate agent. Whether it was a promoter was one of the questions identified for consideration, but the final answer is not present in the supplied text.
Does the common order affect every buyer in Margosa Tower?
The proceedings described in the supplied text concern Fifth Estate Communications Private Limited and Flats 601 and 906 in Margosa Tower. The text does not state that the proceedings determine the rights of every buyer in the project.
