Appeal No. 03 of 2021, Dr. Vandana Parvez v. IVR Hotels & Resorts Private Limited
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, covering Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, issued its order in Appeal No. 03 of 2021 on 27 September 2021. It examines whether the Aavisa project required registration under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016, despite the purchaser taking temporary possession of a villa in June 2015. The supplied extract ends before the Tribunal records its final decision on the appeal.
What the appeal concerns
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered Dr. Vandana Parvez's appeal against the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order in C.No.336/2019 dated 21 November 2019. The Regulatory Authority had dismissed her complaint seeking registration of the project promoted by IVR Hotels & Resorts Private Limited.
The property was a plot and villa in the Aavisa project at Santhavelur Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District. The purchaser alleged that promised common facilities were incomplete or had not been started, construction defects remained, and the project had not been completed as promised.
Main facts recorded
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal recorded the following matters:
- The purchaser entered into a sale agreement on 9 December 2011 and later obtained a sale deed for the land.
- A construction agreement covered a villa of about 2,150 square feet on plot number 262.
- The total quoted cost for the land and villa was Rs.60,99,000, of which Rs.56,47,500 had been paid.
- The purchaser took temporary possession around June 2015 for interior work and essential household arrangements.
- The purchaser alleged roof cracks, water leakage, poor construction and missing amenities.
- IVR Hotels & Resorts Private Limited admitted that some final finishing work remained, but attributed this to an unpaid stage payment.
Regulatory Authority's view
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority treated the project as completed before the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 commenced because the purchaser had taken possession in June 2015. It therefore found that registration was not required and dismissed the complaint as not maintainable. It also found no merit in including respondents 2 to 4, whom it described as financial investors in the first respondent.
Issue examined by the Tribunal
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered whether temporary possession made the project a completed project, despite admitted pending work and allegations that common amenities had not been provided.
The Tribunal quoted Section 3, which requires registration of an ongoing project where a completion certificate has not been issued. It also quoted Section 2(q), defining a completion certificate as certification by the competent authority that development complies with approved plans and specifications. The supplied extract does not state whether a completion certificate existed or reveal the Tribunal's final ruling.
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 finally direct the Aavisa project to be registered?
The supplied extract does not include the Tribunal's final decision. It ends while the Tribunal is examining the registration provisions and the meaning of an ongoing project.
Why did the Regulatory Authority reject the purchaser's complaint?
The Regulatory Authority found that the purchaser had taken possession in June 2015, before commencement of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016. It therefore treated the project as completed and held that registration was not required.
Did the promoter admit that work on the villa was unfinished?
Yes. IVR Hotels & Resorts Private Limited admitted that certain final finishing work remained, but said this was because the purchaser had not paid a pending stage payment.
Does taking temporary possession automatically prove that a project is complete?
The supplied extract does not give a final answer. The Tribunal was examining whether temporary possession was enough when finishing work was pending, amenities were allegedly incomplete and project registration depended on completion status.
