Common Order, Appeal Nos. 48 and 49 of 2020
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, covering Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, delivered the Common Order in Appeal Nos. 48 and 49 of 2020 on 11 January 2021. The Tribunal dismissed both appeals because the appellant developers had not deposited the amount required by its conditional orders for compliance with section 43(5) of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016.
What the case concerns
The Common Order in Appeal Nos. 48 and 49 of 2020 was delivered by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal on 11 January 2021. It concerns appeals against orders passed by the Adjudicating Officer in C.C.P. Nos. 159 and 160 of 2019 on 3 October 2019.
The home buyers and developer had entered into an agreement for sale and construction on 14 December 2011. According to the Tribunal's account, the developer failed to deliver the row houses within the stipulated time even after receiving the sale consideration. The home buyers then sought a refund with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The Adjudicating Officer partly allowed their complaints.
Who is affected
The Common Order directly affects the following appellant developers:
- M/s. Oragadam City Developers Pvt. Ltd.
- M/s. New Town Housing.
- M/s. Value Build Homes.
- M/s. Vilagam Housing.
- M/s. Frontier Housing Private Limited.
The respondents were Mrs. Anitha Arun and Bharathi Arun, who filed through their power holder Adithya Arun, and Mrs. Sunitha Nandakumar, who also filed through Adithya Arun.
Why the appeals were dismissed
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal directed the appellants to comply with section 43(5) of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016, under conditional orders made in Waiver Application Nos. 83 and 85 of 2020.
Key points recorded by the Tribunal are:
- The appellants had to comply with the conditional orders for the appeals to be entertained.
- Compliance was required on or before 10 January 2021.
- The required amount was not deposited.
- Both appeals were therefore dismissed for non-compliance.
- No costs were awarded.
- The connected miscellaneous applications were closed.
Practical significance
The Common Order leaves the appeals unentertained because the required deposit was not made. For the named home buyers and developers, the result is that the challenges to the Adjudicating Officer's partly allowed complaint orders were dismissed on that procedural ground.
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 developers' appeals?
No. Appeal Nos. 48 and 49 of 2020 were dismissed because the appellants did not comply with the conditional deposit orders.
Why were the developers required to make a deposit?
The Tribunal directed the appellants to comply with section 43(5) of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016, for the appeals to be entertained.
What relief had the home buyers sought?
The home buyers sought a refund of the sale consideration with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The Adjudicating Officer partly allowed their complaints.
Did the Tribunal award costs?
No. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals with no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous applications.
