Appeal No. 77 of 2021

What the case concerns

The Order in Appeal No. 77 of 2021, dated 29 November 2021, concerns a flat in Sadagopan Enclave, Nanmangalam Village, Tambaram Taluk. The project involved about 2,249 square feet of land in Survey Nos. 114/2B and 5.

The home buyer agreed to purchase a first-floor flat and an undivided land share of 1,125 square feet. Separate sale and construction agreements were entered into on 3 August 2012 by the home buyer, builder and landowners.

The home buyer claimed that:

• The total agreed flat cost was Rs.62,96,000.
• She paid Rs.65,00,000 on various dates.
• Possession was handed over on 22 March 2018 with work remaining incomplete.
• The undivided share of land was not conveyed despite her requests.
• She completed the remaining construction work herself.

Earlier Regulatory Authority decision

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority, in C.No.54/2020 dated 19 April 2021, directed the landowners and builder to be jointly and severally responsible for executing the sale deed for the home buyer's undivided share as agreed.

The Regulatory Authority also found that any money claimed by the landowners from the builder could be pursued separately through legal remedies.

Grounds of appeal

The landowners challenged the Regulatory Authority's decision. Their principal arguments were:

• They did not fall within the definition of promoter.
• The home buyer had not produced proof of the claimed payments.
• The builder had not admitted those payments.
• Their obligation to convey the undivided share depended on receiving the balance consideration from the builder.

The builder argued that the landowners remained liable to execute the conveyance. The home buyer argued that the Regulatory Authority had correctly considered the facts.

Promoter issue

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal examined the statutory definition of promoter. The quoted explanation states that when the person constructing or developing property and the person selling apartments or plots are different, both are treated as promoters and are jointly responsible under the legislation.

The development agreement recorded that the landowners would receive 50 per cent of the super built-up area and would convey corresponding undivided land shares to the developer's nominees or purchasers. The supplied text ends during the Tribunal's discussion and does not state whether the appeal was allowed or dismissed.