Appeal No. 70 of 2019, Order dated 22.05.2020
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, covering Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, issued its order in Appeal No. 70 of 2019 on 22 May 2020, concerning a developer's appeal against compensation awarded to two Chennai home buyers. The Tribunal found that the project came within the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 because its stated land area exceeded 500 square metres, but the supplied text ends before the final result of the appeal.
What the case concerns
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered a dispute between M/s. Devinarayan Housing Board and Property Developments Private Limited and two associated developers, and home buyers Manu Karan and Archana Karan. The dispute concerned a third-floor apartment in the project called “Devi Narayan's Saisagar” at Jayaram Avenue, Vannanthurai, Sastrinagar, Chennai.
The sale and construction agreements were dated 20 July 2017. The apartment price was fixed at Rs.3,30,00,000, of which the home buyers had paid Rs.3,06,00,000. Possession was to be handed over on 30 August 2017 after full payment.
Earlier decision under appeal
The Adjudicating Officer directed the developers to pay:
- Rs.13,31,644 as compensation.
- Rs.25,000 as litigation expenses.
- Both amounts within 30 days from receipt of that decision.
The developers challenged the decision before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. They argued that the complaint was not maintainable because the project had been completed before the real estate law came into force. They also claimed money remained payable by the home buyers.
Tribunal's findings in the supplied text
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal addressed whether the development was an ongoing project and whether registration was required. Its key observations were:
- The project had four dwelling units.
- The stated project land area was 5,935 square feet, or 551.38 square metres.
- Because the area exceeded 500 square metres, the Tribunal found that the project came within the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and required registration.
- The Tribunal rejected the developers' argument that having no complaints from other purchasers strengthened their case. It treated the dispute as one between these particular home buyers and developers.
- The developers said they had applied to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority for a completion certificate on 10 February 2016. The home buyers said the completion certificate was issued only on 19 February 2018.
Practical significance
The reasoning indicates that a project may fall under the real estate law when its total land area exceeds the stated threshold, even if it contains only four apartments. The supplied extract stops while considering the completion certificate issue and does not contain the Tribunal's final direction allowing or dismissing 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
Did the Tribunal treat this four-apartment project as requiring registration?
Yes. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that the stated land area exceeded 500 square metres and therefore treated the project as coming within the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
What compensation had the Adjudicating Officer awarded the home buyers?
The Adjudicating Officer awarded Rs.13,31,644 as compensation and Rs.25,000 for litigation expenses, payable within 30 days from receipt of that decision.
Did the lack of complaints from other buyers help the developers?
No. The Tribunal said that complaints by other home buyers were not relevant because the case concerned the dispute over this particular apartment.
Was the developers' appeal finally allowed or dismissed?
The supplied text does not show the final result. It ends while the Tribunal is considering the developers' claim that they applied for a completion certificate before implementation of the Act.
