Miscellaneous Application No.158 of 2021 in Appeal No. 115 of 2021

What the application concerns

Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2021 arose within Appeal No. 115 of 2021 before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, covering Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016. The applicants were home buyers Somasundaram Gopalakrishnan and Meenakshi Shunmugam, acting through their power holder, and the respondent was M/s. Ozone Projects Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Vasudevan Sathyamurthy.

The home buyers asked the tribunal to receive an additional document as Exhibit A12. They stated that the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority had missed the relief sought in paragraph 5(iv) of their complaint and that the document would provide better clarity.

Arguments and findings

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal recorded the following positions and findings:

• The home buyers argued that the additional document was necessary to decide the issue.
• M/s. Ozone Projects Private Limited argued that the document was unnecessary because the promoter had already addressed the matter in its counter.
• The tripartite agreement in the appellants’ typed set referred to pre EMI interest payments by the promoter.
• A promoter’s letter dated 10 April 2015 also recorded the matter.
• The promoter had admitted the pre EMI reimbursement in paragraphs 3 and 21 of its counter affidavit.
• Because the relevant facts had already been admitted, the tribunal concluded that the home buyers did not need to prove them through the proposed additional document.

Outcome and practical relevance

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2021 and made no order as to costs. The ruling decides only the request to receive the additional document within Appeal No. 115 of 2021. It does not record the final outcome of the underlying appeal.

For the named home buyers and promoter, the additional document was not accepted because the tribunal considered the relevant pre EMI reimbursement facts already admitted. For readers examining the dispute, the important point is that dismissal of the application was based on the lack of need for further proof, rather than a finding that the pre EMI reimbursement had not been acknowledged.