Appeal No. 59 of 2021
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal issued its order in Appeal No. 59 of 2021 on 22 November 2021, concerning compensation claimed by a home buyer against M/s. G.K.S. Properties Private Limited for delayed possession and alleged deficiencies in a flat. The Tribunal found that access given for interior work and a house warming was not proper handover because essential services were incomplete, and held that the buyer was entitled to interest for every month of delay until formal possession on 18 October 2019.
What the case concerns
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered Appeal No. 59 of 2021, filed by M/s. G.K.S. Properties Private Limited against home buyer M. Palaniappan. The dispute concerned Flat No. A-301 in Dakshin Apartments at Iyyappanthangal village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District.
The parties entered into a construction agreement on 20 April 2018. The flat had a built-up area of 1,575 square feet and an undivided land share of 849.75 square feet. The Tribunal recorded that the buyer had paid the entire sale consideration and had no outstanding dues.
Claims and earlier compensation
The home buyer complained about delayed delivery, a corridor measurement shortfall and failure to install a reverse osmosis plant. The Adjudicating Officer partly allowed the complaint and directed the promoter to pay:
- Rs.3,18,523 as delay compensation.
- Rs.50,000 for the corridor width shortfall.
- Rs.50,000 for deficiency in the water treatment facility.
- Rs.50,000 for mental agony.
- Rs.15,000 as litigation costs.
The promoter challenged these awards before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
Finding on possession and delay
The construction agreement required completion by March 2019, with a grace period of three months. The Tribunal therefore treated June 2019 as the due date for possession. Under the agreement, possession had to be ready to move into, habitable and complete in all respects.
The promoter argued that possession had been given on 17 April 2019 so the buyer could carry out interior work and arrange a house warming, although formal possession was recorded only on 18 October 2019. However, email correspondence showed that electricity was temporary and that water supply, drainage and sanitary arrangements were not complete in May 2019.
The Tribunal concluded that this earlier access did not meet the agreement's standard for proper possession. It treated 18 October 2019 as the actual handover date and held that the buyer was entitled to interest for every month of delay.
Other disputed deficiencies
The promoter argued that the two-inch corridor difference resulted from plastering and painting, and that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority had not found a measurement fault before issuing the completion certificate. It also maintained that the promised centralised filtration system had been provided. The supplied text records these arguments but does not include the Tribunal's final conclusions on those two issues or the final disposal of the appeal.
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
Does giving a buyer access for interior work count as handing over possession?
Not in this case. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that the flat was not ready to move into because essential electricity, water and drainage arrangements were incomplete.
What date did the Tribunal treat as the proper possession date?
The Tribunal treated 18 October 2019, the date of formal handover, as the proper possession date.
Was the home buyer entitled to interest for delayed possession?
Yes. The Tribunal held that the buyer was entitled to interest for every month of delay because proper possession was given after the June 2019 due date.
What deficiencies did the home buyer complain about?
The complaints concerned delayed delivery, a shortfall in the corridor width and failure to install a reverse osmosis plant. The buyer also sought compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.
