Common Order in Appeal Nos. 77 and 82 of 2020
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands) delivered the common order in Appeal Nos. 77 and 82 of 2020 on 1 December 2021, concerning a promoter’s appeals against compensation awarded to home buyers for delayed possession. The Tribunal declined to send the cases back to the Adjudicating Officer and decided to examine them using the available records, although the supplied text does not include the Tribunal’s final decision on the appeals.
What the common order concerns
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered two appeals filed by M/s. Kgeyes Residency Private Limited and, in one appeal, its Managing Director. The respondents were home buyers who had entered into construction agreements and undivided share sale deeds for flats.
The appeals challenged a common order dated 28 February 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Officer in C.C.P. Nos. 253 and 254 of 2019. The Adjudicating Officer had partly allowed the buyers’ complaints and awarded delay compensation, compensation for mental agony and hardship, and litigation expenses.
Main dispute
The dispute concerned delay in handing over possession and whether the promoter was responsible for that delay.
The promoter argued that:
- Construction had been completed and an application for a completion certificate was made on 31 May 2017.
- The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority later rejected the application.
- A completion certificate was issued on 3 July 2019 after an appeal to the Government.
- The delay resulted from proceedings before competent authorities and fell within the conditions of the construction agreements.
- Some buyers had not paid all amounts required under their contracts.
The home buyers argued that the promoter had a duty to ensure clear title without encumbrances before construction. They claimed that the promoter’s failure caused the delay and made the promoter liable for interest and compensation.
Evidence and procedure
The promoter had attended only the first hearing before the Adjudicating Officer and later remained absent. In Appeal Nos. 77 and 82 of 2020, the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal accepted additional documents after the buyers raised no objection.
The documents included the rejection of the completion certificate application, correspondence involving the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and revenue authorities, and the completion certificate dated 3 July 2019. The records also showed that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority requested additional charges and revised site drawings before issuing the certificate.
Practical significance
Promoters and home buyers may find the common order relevant where possession is delayed because a completion certificate was rejected or remained under consideration. The supplied text records the competing arguments and the Tribunal’s decision not to remand the cases, but it ends before stating whether the appeals were ultimately allowed or dismissed.
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 send the complaints back to the Adjudicating Officer?
No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal decided not to remand the disputes and stated that it would decide the appeals using the records available before it.
Why did the promoter say possession was delayed?
The promoter said the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority rejected its completion certificate application and that proceedings continued until a completion certificate was issued on 3 July 2019. It argued that this delay was caused by competent authorities rather than by the promoter.
What compensation had the home buyers received from the Adjudicating Officer?
The Adjudicating Officer awarded delay compensation, compensation for mental agony and hardship, and litigation expenses.
Were the promoter’s appeals allowed or dismissed?
The supplied text does not include the final outcome. It ends after describing the completion certificate records and does not state whether Appeal Nos. 77 and 82 of 2020 were allowed or dismissed.
