Common Order, Appeal Nos. 35 to 37 of 2020
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, covering Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, issued the Common Order in Appeal Nos. 35 to 37 of 2020 on 22 December 2021. It considers a promoter’s appeals against directions to register blocks B, C and D of the Today project with the Regulatory Authority and to hand over possession after completion within the stipulated time. The supplied text does not include the Tribunal’s final decision on the appeals.
What the appeals concern
The Common Order in Appeal Nos. 35 to 37 of 2020, issued by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal on 22 December 2021, concerns the Today housing project at Thaiyur Village, Kelambakkam, Chengelpet Taluk, Kanchipuram District. M/s. Akshaya Private Limited is the promoter. The respondents are home buyers C. Saravanan, Raja Kaliyamurthy and Krishnamurthy Natarajan.
The promoter challenged three Regulatory Authority orders arising from home buyer complaints. The Regulatory Authority had directed the promoter to register blocks B, C and D and to hand over possession after completion within the stipulated time.
Main registration issue
The dispute is whether the project qualified for exclusion from the definition of an ongoing project under the Tamil Nadu Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.
Key arguments recorded by the Tribunal include:
- The promoter argued that structural completion, meaning erection of columns, beams and slabs, was enough to claim exemption from registration.
- The promoter argued that structural completion of common areas should not be required.
- The home buyers argued that the basement car park and podium in the interconnected common areas had not been erected, so the exemption did not apply.
- The Tribunal identified the distinction argued between projects within the Chennai Metropolitan Area and projects outside that area.
For projects outside the Chennai Metropolitan Area, Rule 2(h)(iii) refers to structural completion certified by the architect, structural engineer or licensed surveyor associated with the project, supported by photographs. It also requires intimation to the relevant planning authority within the period stated in that rule.
Delay and compensation issues
The order records that the promoter agreed to deliver the apartments within 42 months from the Bhoomi Pooja held on 18 January 2013, with a further grace period of three months. It also records that the promoter later informed buyers that completion would be by September 2019.
The construction agreement provided monthly rental compensation for delay, with the amount depending on apartment size and subject to the buyer making payments on time. The promoter also raised concerns about statutory interest, refunds and compensation affecting its finances and project progress.
Practical relevance
The Common Order in Appeal Nos. 35 to 37 of 2020 is relevant to buyers and promoters assessing whether structural completion alone can remove an unfinished project from registration requirements. The supplied text ends while reproducing and discussing the relevant provisions, so it does not reveal whether the appeals were allowed or dismissed.
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 decide that the Today project did not need registration?
The supplied text does not include the Tribunal’s final conclusion. It records the competing arguments about structural completion and registration but ends before stating whether the appeals were allowed or dismissed.
Which parts of the Today project were directed to be registered?
The Regulatory Authority directed the promoter to register blocks B, C and D with the Regulatory Authority.
Does structural completion mean only columns, beams and slabs?
Rule 2(h)(iii), as reproduced in the order, describes structural completion for projects outside the Chennai Metropolitan Area as erection of all columns, beams and slabs, supported by certification and photographs. The parties disagreed about whether unfinished common basement and podium areas prevented the promoter from relying on that provision.
Were the home buyers promised compensation for delayed possession?
Yes. The order records that the construction agreement provided monthly rental compensation based on apartment size, subject to the stated causes of delay and the home buyer making all required payments on time.
