Appeal No. 45 of 2020, M/s. Casagrand Builder Private Limited v. Mr. M. Ramesh
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands) issued its order in Appeal No. 45 of 2020 on 8 December 2020, considering M/s. Casagrand Builder Private Limited's challenge to a Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority decision that imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. The case concerns allegations that one Real Estate Regulatory Authority registration number was used in advertisements for multiple projects, and whether an intending buyer who was not an allottee could make the complaint.
What the case concerns
Appeal No. 45 of 2020 arose from advertisements issued by M/s. Casagrand Builder Private Limited. Mr. M. Ramesh alleged that registration number TN/01/Building/040/2018, which related to Supremus Phase I at Thalambur, was also presented as covering Supremus Phase III at Thalambur and properties at Medavakkam and Perumbakkam.
Mr. M. Ramesh said he had followed up for more than one month about buying a flat and discovered the issue while checking the builder's website. He complained to the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority and sought to have any applications treating the projects as registered under that number set aside.
Regulatory Authority decision
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority found that Mr. M. Ramesh was an aggrieved person. It imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on M/s. Casagrand Builder Private Limited for contravening Section 7 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
M/s. Casagrand Builder Private Limited appealed against that decision. The appeal challenged both the complainant's right to file the complaint and the finding of misrepresentation.
Builder's arguments
M/s. Casagrand Builder Private Limited argued that:
- Mr. M. Ramesh was a third party, not a purchaser or allottee, and had no contract with the builder.
- The advertisement was intended to attract customers living within seven kilometres of Thalambur.
- Any error was inadvertent and did not amount to misrepresentation.
- The builder had obtained separate registrations numbered 40/2018, 41/2018, 101/2019 and 102/2019 on the dates stated in the appeal.
- The penalty was excessive and the complaint could not be treated as public interest litigation.
Issues considered by the Tribunal
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal identified two questions:
- Whether Mr. M. Ramesh's complaint was maintainable.
- Whether the builder's appeal should be allowed.
In discussing maintainability, the Tribunal noted that the advertisement invited members of the public to buy homes. It also noted the complainant's statement that he intended to purchase an apartment and checked the website for that reason. The supplied text then begins examining the meaning of a complaint and the Authority's power under Section 7, but it does not include the Tribunal's final conclusions or state whether the appeal was allowed.
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
Was the Rs. 10 lakh penalty cancelled?
The supplied text does not state the final outcome of Appeal No. 45 of 2020. It confirms that the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs and that the builder appealed.
What was allegedly wrong with the project advertisements?
The complaint alleged that registration number TN/01/Building/040/2018 was shown for Supremus Phase III at Thalambur and properties at Medavakkam and Perumbakkam, although the number related to Supremus Phase I at Thalambur.
Can someone who is not yet an allottee file a Real Estate Regulatory Authority complaint?
That was a central issue in the case. The Tribunal noted that the advertisement invited the public and that Mr. M. Ramesh claimed to be an intending buyer, but the supplied text does not include its final ruling on maintainability.
Why does this case matter to a property buyer?
The case concerns whether project advertisements accurately identify the applicable Real Estate Regulatory Authority registration. Buyers can compare the registration number used in an advertisement with the specific project being offered.
