Appeal No. 142 of 2021

What the case covered

Appeal Number 142 of 2021, dated 24 June 2022, was decided by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. E. Sundaravadivelu appealed against the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority’s order in Complaint Number 36 of 2021, dated 6 October 2021, which had disposed of his complaint without granting relief against M/s BSR Builders Engineers and Contractors.

The buyer had purchased Flat Number E6 with an undivided share through a sale deed dated 25 July 2019. He complained about the absence of metro water and sewerage connections, alleged poor construction and cracking, the lack of a Goods and Services Tax receipt, and the failure to hand project documents to the allottees association.

Tribunal findings

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal reached the following findings:

• No construction agreement had been entered into between the buyer and promoter.
• The buyer and his wife had purchased adjacent flats, Flat Numbers E6 and D6, and the buyer had combined them and carried out flooring, plastering and painting alterations without consulting the promoter.
• The promoter could not be held responsible for the buyer’s alterations or their consequences.
• The project had drinking water facilities through 14 deep bore wells and a water treatment plant under the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority sanctioned plan.
• Metro water and sewerage connection facilities were not available from the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board in that locality.
• The buyer did not identify any document in which the promoter agreed to provide metro water and sewerage connections.
• There was no proof that the buyer paid Rs.2,00,000 for those connections, so repayment was not ordered.
• There was no proof that Goods and Services Tax had been collected or paid, so the promoter was not required to issue a tax payment receipt.
• The project documents, including the original plan and stability certificate, were stated to have already been handed to the allottees association. The association had not complained about them.

Outcome and practical effect

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal and directed both parties to bear their own costs. Any connected miscellaneous applications were closed.

The Tribunal also refused to consider a car parking complaint because the buyer had not raised it before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority. For buyers and owners, the decision shows the importance of proving a promoter’s written commitment, producing evidence of payments, and raising all relevant issues in the original complaint.