Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
Appeal No. 72 of 2021
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands), in Appeal No. 72 of 2021 dated 19 January 2022, considers an appeal by the Embassy Residency Apartment Owners Association against the regulatory authority’s decision concerning project registration, common amenities and Phase II B. The Tribunal examines whether the association could add nine wider claims through its reply, but the supplied text ends during the Tribunal’s reasoning and does not contain the final decision on the appeal.
What the case concerns
Appeal No. 72 of 2021 concerns the Embassy Residency project promoted by RGE Constructions & Development Private Limited on 25 acres at Perumbakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kanchipuram District. Apartment buyers took possession and formed the Embassy Residency Apartment Owners Association.
The association had complained to the regulatory authority seeking project registration, completion of common amenities by a firm date, and a completion date and registration for the remaining four blocks.
Regulatory authority’s directions
The regulatory authority’s decision in C.No.53 of 2020 dated 19 April 2021 directed the promoter to:
- Complete the clubhouse and swimming pool along with the Phase II B towers, within 24 months from Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority approval.
- Register the Phase II B project, including the clubhouse and swimming pool, with the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
- Work with the apartment owners’ association to resolve other outstanding issues.
The regulatory authority told the association to file a separate complaint if those other issues were not resolved, rather than raising them for the first time in its reply to the promoter’s response.
Additional claims raised by the association
The Embassy Residency Apartment Owners Association asked for nine further remedies, including:
- Compliance with the construction agreement for the remaining phase.
- Return of corpus funds, maintenance charges and clubhouse membership fees, with interest.
- Proper accounts and rectification of seepage.
- Details and drawings for undivided share, open space reservation land, the clubhouse and swimming pool.
- Removal of excess treated sewage water.
- Adequate vehicle parking.
- Restoration of common land allegedly allotted as individual car parking.
The association also alleged quality problems, water stagnation, non-transfer of collected funds and failure to hand over or develop open space reservation land.
Tribunal’s reasoning in the supplied text
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal distinguishes the association’s original three requests from the nine wider remedies later introduced through its reply. It finds that the Supreme Court decisions cited by the association concern different facts and are not relevant to these claims.
The Tribunal also quotes a Rajasthan High Court decision stating that a reply may explain new facts raised by the other party, but cannot introduce an entirely new or inconsistent case. The supplied text stops during this analysis and does not show whether Appeal No. 72 of 2021 was ultimately allowed or dismissed.
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 this case require the Embassy Residency promoter to complete the clubhouse and swimming pool?
The regulatory authority directed the promoter to complete the clubhouse and swimming pool with the Phase II B towers, within 24 months from Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority approval. The supplied text does not include the Tribunal’s final decision on that direction.
Did the apartment owners’ association receive a refund of corpus funds and other charges?
The association requested return of corpus funds, maintenance charges and clubhouse membership fees, with interest. The supplied text does not show that these refunds were granted and records that the regulatory authority required wider issues to be raised through a separate complaint.
Can apartment owners add new claims in a reply to the promoter’s response?
The Tribunal’s discussion says a reply may explain additional facts raised by the other party, but should not introduce an entirely new or inconsistent case. In this matter, the association’s nine additional requests were wider than its three original requests.
Was Appeal No. 72 of 2021 allowed or dismissed?
The supplied text ends during the Tribunal’s reasoning and does not contain the final operative decision. It therefore does not establish whether the appeal was allowed or dismissed.
