Common Order, Appeal Nos. 7 & 11 of 2021

What the case concerns

The Common Order in Appeal Nos. 7 and 11 of 2021 was delivered by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal on appeals filed by Serene Senior Living Private Limited, the promoter, and Columbia Pacific Communities Private Limited, the service provider. The respondent was the Serene Rose Residents Welfare Association.

The residents’ association complained that the Serene Rose project had not been completed as planned. It sought completion of infrastructure and facilities, including the boundary wall, medical centre, staff quarters, sewage treatment plant, roads and gardens. It also sought transfer of common facilities, including the club house and gardens, to the association, and attention to leakage, plumbing and painting defects covered by warranty.

Regulatory Authority decision under appeal

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority found that the project had not been completed as on 1 May 2017, when Section 3 commenced. It therefore treated the development as an ongoing project and directed the promoter to register Blocks A and C together with the promised common amenities and facilities.

The Regulatory Authority also found that the sale of the undivided share of land and club house to the service provider contravened Section 17 of the Real Estate Regulation And Development Act 2016 and violated provisions of the construction agreement. Its directions included:

• Handing over the common areas, amenities and facilities to the association of allottees.
• Vesting ownership of the club house and the related undivided share in the association.
• Returning to the service provider the value received for the land and the construction cost.
• Conveying the property to the association of allottees.

Main grounds of appeal

The promoter argued that Blocks A and C had been completed and handed over, that the project arrangement predated the legislation, and that buyers’ undivided shares and payments did not include the club house or senior care facilities. It also argued that the service provider had purchased the club house property for a stated consideration and that the sale could not be reversed without first being declared void.

The service provider argued that its services were distinct from project maintenance, that its agreement predated the legislation, and that the Regulatory Authority lacked jurisdiction over the requested relief. It also questioned who would pay stamp duty and registration charges for any reconveyance.

The supplied text identifies the issue as whether the appeals should be allowed, but it does not include the Tribunal’s final decision on that issue.