Appeal No.116 of 2021
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, through Appeal No.116 of 2021 dated 14 November 2022, considered K. Indira's challenge to the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority decision in C.No.114 of 2020 dated 17 March 2021 concerning construction, payment and project registration issues in the S & P Signature Villas project. The supplied text records the dispute and the Tribunal's examination of whether the project required registration, but ends before the Tribunal's final findings and directions.
What the appeal concerns
Appeal No.116 of 2021 concerns a dispute between allottee K. Indira and promoter M/s. S & P Foundation Private Limited over Villa No.218 in the S & P Signature Villas project. The appeal was filed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 against the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority decision in C.No.114 of 2020 dated 17 March 2021.
The allottee entered into a tripartite sale and construction agreement dated 14 March 2019. The plot measured 1,306 sq. ft., while the promoter agreed to construct a villa with a carpet area of 1,190 sq. ft. and total built-up area of 1,828 sq. ft. The stated total sale consideration, including registration charges, GST, amenities and construction costs, was Rs.89,00,214.
Main issues raised
The appellant told the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chennai that:
- She had paid Rs.43,24,984, excluding registration charges and other expenses.
- Construction progressed only to the basement or foundation stage.
- A later proposed agreement reduced the carpet area from 1,190 sq. ft. to 1,177 sq. ft.
- The promoter demanded additional payment for the septic tank and underground sump.
- The promoter sought interest of Rs.4,08,933 on amounts claimed as overdue.
- The project had not been registered with the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
The promoter denied the allegations, said the septic tank and sump had already been constructed, and claimed that the allottee sought changes contrary to the approved plan. The promoter also claimed Rs.13,33,919 as overdue payment and default interest.
Regulatory Authority decision and appeal request
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority rejected the requests concerning the septic tank, sump and rescheduling of additional construction costs. It directed the promoter to follow the construction agreement.
During the appeal, the allottee asked to withdraw only from the villa construction arrangement, retain the registered plot, receive a refund after deductions, and appoint another builder.
Project registration issue
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chennai noted that the agreement referred to an entire development of 350 villas, common amenities and a residents' association. It criticised the failure to consider the project in its totality when the registration application was returned unregistered. The supplied text ends during this analysis and does not include the final operative decision.
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 order the promoter to refund the allottee?
The supplied text records the allottee's request for a refund after deductions, but it ends before the Tribunal's final decision. A refund direction cannot be confirmed from this extract.
Was S & P Signature Villas registered with the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority?
The promoter stated that it applied for registration on 15 May 2019, but the application was returned unregistered by a letter dated 22 August 2019. The Tribunal questioned that approach because the agreement described a project of 350 villas.
Could the allottee keep the plot and use another builder?
The allottee asked the Tribunal to let her retain the plot registered in her name, withdraw from construction by the promoter and appoint another builder. The supplied text does not contain the Tribunal's final answer to that request.
What did the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority originally direct?
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority rejected the requests concerning the septic tank, sump and rescheduling of additional construction costs. It directed the promoter to adhere to the construction agreement.
