Appeal No.07 of 2019

Background

Appeal No. 07 of 2019 arose from a complaint by two purchasers against Pacifica (Chennai Project) Infrastructure Private Limited and Sylvanus Builders and Developers Limited. The purchasers had agreed to buy Villa No. 176 in Aurum Villa at Pudupakkam Village and claimed that construction was not completed within the agreed period. They sought a refund with interest and action for failure to comply with registration requirements.

The purchasers later settled the matter and withdrew their complaint before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. While allowing withdrawal, the Authority directed the promoter to register the project because it considered the development to be ongoing. The promoter appealed against that direction.

What the Tribunal examined

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered whether Aurum Villa Phase I was completed or ongoing when the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Rules 2017 took effect. The promoter relied on a completion certificate from the President of Pudupakkam First Grade Panchayat, an entry on the Directorate of Town and Country Planning website, and its reply to the purchasers.

The Tribunal found:

• The Panchayat certificate relied on planning permission, a local planning permit and a building permit.
• It did not rely on certification from an architect, structural engineer or licensed surveyor associated with the project.
• The required supporting photographs were not shown to have been considered.
• The Directorate of Town and Country Planning website stated that interior work was under process.
• The promoter's reply to the purchasers acknowledged delay, although it attributed the delay to natural calamities and an act of God.

Decision on project status

Appeal No. 07 of 2019 found that the Panchayat completion certificate was not reliable for the purpose of rule 2(h)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Rules 2017. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence showed Aurum Villa Phase I was not a completed project and was instead an ongoing project when the rules took effect.

The Tribunal also stated that completion requires the property to be usable by the allottee. A completion certificate by itself was insufficient where the required technical certification and photographs were missing.

Who may be affected

The reasoning in Appeal No. 07 of 2019 is relevant to promoters and buyers of projects outside the Chennai Metropolitan Area who rely on structural completion to determine registration status. The supplied text ends before recording the Tribunal's final answer on whether the appeal itself was allowed.