Appeal No. 61 of 2021
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal issued the order in Appeal No. 61 of 2021 on 29 November 2021 in the dispute between M/s. Casa Grande Civil Engineering Private Limited and home buyers Ajmal Khan and Finozia Farveen. The Tribunal reviewed a Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority decision concerning a mismatch between the project registration and the construction agreement for car parking, and found no infirmity in the direction to refund Rs.2,25,000 for one car park.
What the case covers
Appeal No. 61 of 2021 concerns Apartment No. J-101 in the Casagrande Bellissimo residential project at Alandur. M/s. Casa Grande Civil Engineering Private Limited, the promoter, appealed against the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority order in C.No.45/2020 dated 16 September 2020.
The home buyers, Ajmal Khan and Finozia Farveen, entered into a construction agreement on 26 October 2017. The agreement described the apartment as including one covered car park and one open car park. The promoter had previously registered the project on 23 August 2017 under registration number TN/01/Building/0028/2017, with the registration particulars showing one covered car park and no open car park for the flat.
Who is affected
Appeal No. 61 of 2021 directly affects the promoter and the two home buyers in this dispute. It is also relevant to buyers and promoters comparing promises in a construction agreement with the parking and area details disclosed in a Real Estate Regulatory Authority project registration.
The home buyers also complained that possession had been delayed beyond November 2019. They stated that they were paying rent and bank loan interest while waiting for the apartment.
Key findings and directions
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal recorded the following points:
- The project registration allowed one covered car park and showed no open car park for Apartment No. J-101.
- The later construction agreement promised one covered car park and one open car park, creating a mismatch with the registered project details.
- The promoter's argument that parking charges were only internal cost calculations did not answer the finding that it had charged for two parking spaces while being permitted to provide only one.
- The Rs.25,000 offered by the promoter was not treated as adequate compensation. The Tribunal said the promoter was required to return the amount collected for the unavailable parking space.
- The Tribunal found no infirmity in the direction to refund Rs.2,25,000, representing half of the Rs.4,50,000 collected for two car parks.
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority had also imposed a penalty of Rs.5,00,000 under Sections 60 and 61 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It had directed the promoter to hand over the completed apartment with all amenities before 30 September 2020.
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
Was the buyer promised two parking spaces?
Yes. The construction agreement dated 26 October 2017 promised one covered car park and one open car park, although the registered project details showed only one covered car park and no open car park.
How much did the Tribunal say should be refunded for the unavailable car park?
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the direction to refund Rs.2,25,000, which was half of the Rs.4,50,000 collected for two car parks.
Did the promoter's Rs.25,000 payment settle the parking issue?
No. The Tribunal considered Rs.25,000 inadequate and stated that the promoter had a duty to return the amount collected for the parking space it could not provide.
What penalty had the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority imposed?
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority imposed a penalty of Rs.5,00,000 under Sections 60 and 61 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
