Appeal No. 71 of 2020
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal issued Appeal No. 71 of 2020 on 2 November 2021 in the dispute between N. Sriram and R. D. Dhanalakshmi and Casa Grand Builder Private Limited concerning the Bloom villa project at Thirumudivakkam. The Tribunal found that the promoter’s claim that the project was not a group development building project was unsustainable, based on the development agreement, project brochure and plans to develop 159 villas across the larger property.
What the case concerns
Appeal No. 71 of 2020 was decided by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal on 2 November 2021. The home buyers had purchased a plot measuring 1,327 square feet in the Bloom project at Thirumudivakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District, and entered into a construction agreement with Casa Grand Builder Private Limited for a villa.
The appeal challenged an order of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority in C.No.480/2019 dated 3 September 2020. The buyers complained about delayed possession, project registration, certificates, shortage in built up area, sewage treatment capacity, club house rights, water seepage and other issues.
Earlier directions under challenge
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority had directed the promoter to:
- Hand over possession with an electricity connection or an alternative arrangement on or before 30 September 2020.
- Register the Bloom project.
- Refund excess land and construction costs collected for the club house to the allottees of 159 villas.
- Avoid extending the Bloom club house facility outside the project.
- Refund any excess amount collected because of a shortfall in actual built up area.
The Authority accepted the promoter’s explanation regarding the sewage treatment plant, wall dampness and water seepage. The buyers appealed, seeking further restrictions, penalties and directions.
Tribunal’s finding on project classification
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal rejected the promoter’s argument that the development was merely a plotted layout or an individual villa development. Its reasons included:
- A development agreement dated 23 December 2015 required the developer to construct a group of residential villas and develop the entire property.
- The agreed development covered 9 acres and 51 cents.
- The promoter’s brochure advertised 159 units over about 10 acres.
- The promoter, rather than the individual allottee, obtained building approval for a single villa.
- The development of buildings or land into plots for sale, including common areas, was treated as a real estate project under the legislation quoted by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal therefore found that the promoter could not rely on the single villa approval to claim that the project was not a group development building project. The supplied text does not include the Tribunal’s final decision on whether the appeal as a whole 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
Did the Tribunal accept that Bloom was only a plotted layout or individual villa development?
No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found the promoter’s claim unsustainable because the documents showed an agreement and advertised intention to develop 159 residential villas across the larger property.
Why did the single villa building approval not exempt the promoter?
The Tribunal noted that the promoter obtained the approval, while the development agreement covered the entire property and the brochure advertised 159 units. It said the position might have been different if the allottee had independently obtained approval for the allottee’s own plot.
What refunds had the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority directed?
The Authority directed refunds of excess club house land and construction costs to the allottees of 159 villas. It also directed a refund of any excess amount collected because of a shortfall in actual built up area.
Does the supplied decision show that the buyers won the entire appeal?
The supplied text confirms the Tribunal’s finding that the promoter’s project classification argument was unsustainable. It does not include the final determination of whether the appeal as a whole was allowed.
