Common Order in Appeal Nos. 8, 18 to 28 and 39 to 50 of 2021

What the appeals concern

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered 24 appeals arising from a common Regulatory Authority order dated 5 November 2020. The underlying complaints were filed by Unity Enclave allottees against the State Bank of India Officers Association Chennai Circle and M. Mohan, the former Chairman of its Housing Committee.

The allottees had sought:

• Registration of the project under the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
• Relief for delay in handing over possession.
• Sale deeds for the remaining undivided share of land.
• Completion and handover of common amenities.
• Other related reliefs.

The Regulatory Authority treated the association and the former Chairman as responsible for executing the project and meeting its legal obligations. Both challenged that finding before the Tribunal.

Project and people affected

Unity Enclave is a housing project at Mambakkam village, Chengelpet Taluk, Kanchipuram District. The source describes 21 residential blocks, a clubhouse and a commercial complex, with a total construction area of 35,66,144 square feet. The project was promoted on a no profit, no loss basis for members of the State Bank of India Officers Association Chennai Circle and their spouses.

The source states that possession was due by 1 March 2017 after the agreed construction period and grace period. Keys were handed over during May 2018, but the allottees alleged that common amenities remained incomplete.

The proceedings directly affect the named allottees, the association and the former Chairman. They may also be relevant to buyers assessing whether an association that arranges a housing project can be treated as its promoter.

Main issues considered

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal identified these questions:

• Whether the State Bank of India Officers Association Chennai Circle was a promoter.
• Whether the project qualified for the exemption claimed under the Tamil Nadu Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.
• Whether the association's appeals should be allowed.
• Whether the former Chairman was personally responsible for executing the project.
• Whether the former Chairman's appeals should be allowed.

The association argued that it only represented its members, that the residential buildings had been completed and that the builder should be responsible for defects. The former Chairman argued that he served only for a limited period and should not be treated as a promoter. The supplied extract ends while discussing the meaning of promoter, so it does not show the Tribunal's final findings or directions.