Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
Common Order in Miscellaneous Application Nos. 203 of 2021, 22 of 2022 and 26 of 2022
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal issued the Common Order in Miscellaneous Application Nos. 203 of 2021, 22 of 2022 and 26 of 2022 in Appeal No. 86 of 2021 on 9 February 2022. The Tribunal dismissed all three applications to receive additional documents, finding that the documents were not relevant to deciding whether the builder's sale of common area was legally sustainable.
What the order covers
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered three miscellaneous applications filed in Appeal No. 86 of 2021. The applications were filed by the appellants, the first respondent and the fourth respondent, each seeking to place additional documents before the Tribunal.
The underlying appeal questioned an order of the Regulatory Authority. The Tribunal identified the relevant issue in the appeal as whether the builder's sale of common area was legally sustainable. The Common Order in Miscellaneous Application Nos. 203 of 2021, 22 of 2022 and 26 of 2022, dated 9 February 2022, deals only with whether the proposed additional documents were useful for deciding that issue.
Documents the Tribunal refused to receive
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered the following material:
- The appellants produced no objection letters from 24 apartment owners, dated between 1 September 2021 and 10 November 2021. The letters stated that the owners had no objection to the appellants residing in plots C401 and C402, enjoying the interconnected area, or retaining that area without demolition. The Tribunal found that the letters were obtained while the appeal was pending and were not relevant to the legality of the common area sale.
- The first respondent produced a notice issued to the builder and the builder's reply. Because both came after the Regulatory Authority's order, the Tribunal found that they did not help decide whether the common area sale was legally sustainable.
- The fourth respondent produced Form M, an interlocutory application, a counter and the Regulatory Authority's order in C.No.113/2020. The Tribunal noted that the Regulatory Authority had stated that the requested reliefs had already been granted in C.No.1/2020, whose order was under challenge in the appeal. The documents were therefore considered unhelpful.
Outcome and practical effect
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal concluded that none of the three applications presented relevant additional documents. It also found that the reasons given in the supporting affidavits were insufficient.
- Miscellaneous Application No. 203 of 2021 was dismissed.
- Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 2022 was dismissed.
- Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 2022 was dismissed.
- No costs were awarded.
The decision affects the parties to Appeal No. 86 of 2021. It does not itself decide whether the builder's sale of common area was legally sustainable.
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 accept the no objection letters from the 24 apartment owners?
No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that the letters were obtained during the appeal and were not relevant to deciding whether the sale of common area was legally sustainable.
Did the order decide whether the builder could legally sell the common area?
No. The order dismissed applications to receive additional documents. It identified the legality of the common area sale as the issue to be decided in the appeal.
Why were the builder's notice and reply rejected?
The notice and reply were issued after the Regulatory Authority's order. The Tribunal found that they did not help decide the issue in the appeal.
Were any costs imposed when the applications were dismissed?
No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed all three miscellaneous applications without costs.
