case law

Appeal No. 81 of 2020

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands), in Appeal No. 81 of 2020 dated 26 April 2021, considers M/s. Aknam Finvest Private Limited's appeal against the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's maintainability order in C.No.408 of 2019 dated 10 February 2020. The Tribunal examines whether a project handed over in 2012 could still be treated as ongoing because of alleged incomplete common amenities and untransferred corpus funds, but the supplied text ends before the Tribunal's final decision.

Category
Tribunal and court orders
Effective
1 January 2020
Pages
14
Status
In force
Open the source document The official copy, as published. Opens in a new tab.
Source document Preview loads as you scroll

What the appeal concerns

Appeal No. 81 of 2020 concerns an agreement dated 3 May 2012 between M/s. Aknam Finvest Private Limited and M/s. Natesan Housing Private Limited for the sale of land and construction. Possession was handed over on 6 September 2012, and the admitted total cost was Rs.62,37,600.

The appellant alleged that the promoter had not provided the promised club house and sewage treatment plant. It also alleged that the promoter retained control over maintenance, did not provide expenditure details and had not transferred the corpus fund to the association of allottees.

Earlier regulatory decision

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority dismissed the complaint as not maintainable in C.No.408 of 2019 dated 10 February 2020. The Authority treated the project as completed and handed over in 2012, meaning that the complainant could not invoke the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

The appellant argued that handing over individual possession did not complete the project when promised common facilities remained unfinished. The promoter responded that all common facilities had been provided and that transfer of the corpus fund was delayed by disagreements among apartment owners.

Evidence considered

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal reviewed 24 documents from the appellant and 10 from the promoter. These included the sale and construction agreement, possession certificate, property tax receipts, email communications, association records, balance sheets and a Trichy Corporation letter.

The Tribunal stated that the 34 documents did not disclose anything establishing that the club house or sewage treatment plant remained incomplete, or that the development was an ongoing project. It also noted that photographs and compact discs listed by the appellant were not available with the filed materials.

Registration issue

The Tribunal considered Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the definition of an ongoing project in the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Rules, 2017. The quoted provisions address project registration, completion certificates and certain projects outside the Chennai Metropolitan Area that were structurally completed.

The supplied text ends during the Tribunal's discussion of these provisions. It does not contain the final finding on maintainability or state whether Appeal No. 81 of 2020 was 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 Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal allow the appeal?

The supplied text does not show the final result. It ends while the Tribunal is discussing the definition of an ongoing project.

Why did the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority reject the original complaint?

The Authority found that the project had been completed and handed over in 2012. It therefore held that the complaint under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was not maintainable.

What unfinished work did the buyer allege?

The appellant alleged that the club house and sewage treatment plant had not been completed. It also complained about the corpus fund and the promoter's continuing control over maintenance.

Did the documents prove that the project was still ongoing?

The Tribunal stated that the 34 documents produced by both sides did not establish anything about an incomplete club house, sewage treatment plant or ongoing project.