Appeal No. 47 of 2020, SP Arulappaa and G. Premalatha v. M/s. A.N. Builders
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, for Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, issued its order in Appeal No. 47 of 2020 on 4 November 2020 concerning compensation claimed by flat owners from M/s. A.N. Builders. The supplied text confirms a plinth area shortage of 61 square feet and recalculates the owners’ reduction in consideration as Rs.5,96,126.22, but it does not include the final operative conclusion of the appeal.
What the appeal covers
Appeal No. 47 of 2020 was heard by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016. The appellants, SP Arulappaa and G. Premalatha, are flat owners. The respondent, M/s. A.N. Builders, represented by proprietor N. Narayanan, is the builder.
The owners had sought Rs.37,25,893 before the Adjudicating Officer for construction defects, shortage of plinth area, return of excess payment, mental agony and litigation costs. The Adjudicating Officer awarded Rs.6,53,483 and allowed the builder’s counterclaim for Rs.4,99,900. The owners appealed against those findings.
Findings on the flat area
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal examined the approved building plan and physical measurement evidence.
- The parties referred to an agreed area of 963 square feet.
- The approved plan showed a plinth area of 960 square feet.
- Physical measurement showed that only 899 square feet was available.
- The Tribunal therefore confirmed a shortage of 61 square feet, calculated from 960 square feet to 899 square feet.
- The owners’ claim that the shortage should be treated as 64 square feet was rejected.
Calculation of the reduction in price
The flat owners argued that compensation should be calculated at Rs.14,800 per square foot. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that this rate appeared in an email quotation but not in the joint venture agreement or construction agreement.
The construction agreement fixed Rs.1,26,63,000 as the total construction amount, including the car park, service tax and deposits towards electricity and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board services. After excluding the identified amounts, the Tribunal calculated the construction cost as Rs.1,14,82,760 for 1,175 square feet, producing a rate of Rs.9,772.561 per square foot.
The construction agreement also provided for a proportionate reduction in consideration if the apartment area was less than the scheme plan. Applying that clause, the Tribunal calculated the reduction for 61 square feet as Rs.5,96,126.22 and held that the owners were entitled to that amount.
Other disputed amounts
Appeal No. 47 of 2020 also records disputes about alleged excess payment, extra work, taxes, registration expenses and the builder’s claimed balance of Rs.4,99,900. The supplied text ends while examining these accounts and does not provide the Tribunal’s final operative decision on the entire 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 accept that the flat was short by 64 square feet?
No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal used the approved plan area of 960 square feet and the measured area of 899 square feet, confirming a shortage of 61 square feet.
Did the Tribunal use Rs.14,800 per square foot to calculate compensation?
No. It found that Rs.14,800 appeared in an email quotation but not in the construction agreement or joint venture agreement. It calculated the applicable construction rate as Rs.9,772.561 per square foot.
How much did the Tribunal calculate for the plinth area shortage?
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal calculated Rs.5,96,126.22 for the shortage of 61 square feet.
Was the builder’s counterclaim for Rs.4,99,900 finally upheld?
The supplied text records the counterclaim and the owners’ challenge to it, but it ends before providing the final operative conclusion on that issue.
