Appeal No.39 of 2020
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, covering Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, delivered Appeal Number 39 of 2020 on 22 May 2020. The appeal concerns whether the Devi Narayan's Saisagar apartment project in Chennai was an ongoing project requiring registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and challenges the earlier dismissal of the Home Buyers' complaint. The supplied text ends before the Tribunal's final decision is recorded.
What the appeal concerns
Appeal Number 39 of 2020 before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal arose from agreements between Home Buyers Mr. Manu Karan and Mrs. Archana Karan and the Developers, M/s. Devinarayan Housing Board and Property Developments Private Limited, N. Nandakumar and V. Srinivasan.
The Sale and Construction Agreements dated 20 July 2017 concerned a three bedroom apartment on the third floor of a project called Devi Narayan's Saisagar at Jayaram Avenue, Vannanthurai, Sastrinagar, Chennai. The agreement included common area, an undivided share of land and two covered car parks.
Dispute between the parties
The Home Buyers stated that:
- The apartment price was Rs.3,30,00,000, of which Rs.3,06,00,000 had been paid.
- Possession was due on 30 August 2017 after full payment.
- The Developers failed to hand over possession and register the apartment.
- Their calculations resulted in a refund claim of Rs.42,35,000 from the Developers.
- The project was ongoing because its completion certificate was issued only on 19 February 2018.
- The project exceeded 500 square metres and was not exempt from registration.
The Developers stated that:
- The project contained only four apartments and was exempt from registration.
- The Home Buyers received keys for interior work and then occupied the apartment without registration of the undivided share and without paying the balance.
- The building was already completed, while the later completion certificate was needed for electricity and water connections.
- The Home Buyers owed Rs.9,21,356.
Earlier decision and issues considered
The Adjudicating Officer dismissed the original complaint as not maintainable after the Developers argued that the project had been completed before the Real Estate Act came into force. The Home Buyers appealed that dismissal.
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered whether the project was ongoing when Section 3 came into force and whether the appeal should be allowed. It reproduced the registration exemptions for projects not exceeding 500 square metres or eight apartments, and for projects that had received a completion certificate before commencement of the Act. It also reproduced the definition and exclusions relating to ongoing projects under Rule 2(h).
The supplied extract stops while discussing the earlier authority's finding. It does not include the Tribunal's final ruling or relief granted.
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 Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal allow the Home Buyers' appeal?
The supplied text does not include the final decision. It ends while the Tribunal is examining whether the development was an ongoing project.
Why did the Home Buyers say the project required RERA registration?
They argued that the completion certificate was issued only on 19 February 2018 and that the project exceeded 500 square metres. On that basis, they claimed it was an ongoing project and was not exempt from registration.
Why did the Developers claim the project was exempt?
The Developers said the project consisted of only four apartments and had been completed before the Real Estate Act came into force. They also said the later completion certificate was obtained for electricity and water connections.
What relief had the Home Buyers originally requested?
The Home Buyers sought registration of the project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and handover of possession. They had also issued a legal notice seeking registration of the apartment and a refund.
