Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
Appeal No. 02 of 2021, M/s. Akshaya Pvt. Ltd. v. Deepak Kumar Agrawal
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, covering Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, issued its order in Appeal No. 02 of 2021 on 24 January 2022, examining a promoter's challenge to directions to register the Akshaya January project and complete its common amenities. The Tribunal found that the Regulatory Authority had not given the promoter a proper opportunity to present its defence, but the supplied extract ends before the final outcome of the appeal.
What the case concerns
Appeal No. 02 of 2021 arose from the Akshaya January residential project at Thaiyur B Village in Chengelpet Taluk. M/s. Akshaya Private Limited was the promoter and Deepak Kumar Agrawal was the home buyer.
The project was launched in 2011 with 688 apartments in four blocks. Under a memorandum of agreement dated 22 February 2012, the home buyer agreed to purchase an undivided share of 288.5639 square feet connected with a 928 square foot apartment in Wednesday Block for Rs.31,03,600.
Regulatory Authority directions
The home buyer complained that promised amenities had not been completed and put into use, although possession had been handed over. On 5 November 2020, the Regulatory Authority directed the promoter to:
- complete all common amenities, including the club house, before 28 February 2021;
- register the project with the Regulatory Authority.
The complaint also referred to defects, warranty, return of flats, compensation, handing over and insurance. The Tribunal observed that the home buyer had not presented a definite case and that the promoter was asked only to file a comprehensive status affidavit, without being called upon to file a counter or objections.
Promoter's challenge
The promoter argued that the project had been completed before the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 became applicable and therefore did not require registration. The extract refers to a claimed completion in 2014, while another paragraph states that a completion certificate dated 26 February 2016 was produced.
The promoter also argued that the complaint improperly raised issues concerning other buyers and that no reasonable opportunity was given before the registration direction was issued.
Tribunal's reasoning and practical effect
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal relied on the requirement that the Regulatory Authority follow natural justice. It explained that a party must receive clear notice of the case it must answer and adequate time to respond before an adverse decision is made.
The Tribunal concluded that the promoter had not received a proper opportunity to present its defence and stated that the Regulatory Authority's decision was liable to be invalidated on that ground. The supplied text stops before the final operative portion, so it does not confirm whether the appeal was formally allowed or what final directions were issued.
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 decide that the Akshaya January project did not need registration?
The supplied extract does not contain a final decision on whether registration was required. It records the promoter's exemption argument and the Tribunal's finding that the promoter was not properly heard before registration was directed.
What amenities was the promoter directed to complete?
The Regulatory Authority directed completion of all common amenities, including the club house, before 28 February 2021. The complaint also referred to matters such as gas connection and lift licensing.
Why did the Tribunal question the Regulatory Authority's decision?
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that the promoter was asked for a status affidavit but was not given a proper opportunity to file its defence before adverse directions were issued.
Does the extract confirm the project's completion certificate date?
No. The extract refers to completion and a certificate in 2014, but another paragraph says that a completion certificate dated 26 February 2016 was produced.
