Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
Appeal No.11 of 2022
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, issued its decision in Appeal No.11 of 2022 on 23 September 2022, partly allowing an appeal by M/s. TVH Estates Chennai Private Limited concerning delayed possession of a flat in the TVH-OURANYA BAY project. The Tribunal confirmed compensation of Rs.2,00,000 for the allottee but set aside the Adjudicating Officer's direction for refund and interest, holding that those claims must be decided by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
What the case concerns
Appeal No.11 of 2022 arose from the allotment of Flat No.5252 on the 25th floor of Tower 5 in the TVH-OURANYA BAY project at Kazhipattur Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kanchipuram District. The allottee, P. Jai Narayanan Raj, agreed to a total sale consideration of Rs.49,49,590 and paid Rs.47,00,000.
The construction agreement and agreement for sale of an undivided share were executed on 4 February 2013. The promoter, M/s. TVH Estates Chennai Private Limited, did not deliver possession by the agreed period and later postponed delivery to 15 August 2015.
Findings on delayed possession
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that the promoter had not sent a valid possession intimation. A letter dated 16 October 2015 only asked allottees to prepare to pay the balance when possession was offered. It did not provide a possession date and stated that a separate intimation would follow.
The Tribunal noted that:
- The promoter collected Rs.47,00,000, approximately 95 per cent of the stated flat cost.
- Emails demanding the balance payment did not state that the apartment was ready for possession.
- No possession intimation was given to the allottee.
- The prolonged delay caused mental agony after the allottee had paid nearly half a crore rupees.
The Tribunal therefore confirmed the compensation of Rs.2,00,000 awarded by the Adjudicating Officer.
Refund and interest claims
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Officer could determine compensation but did not have jurisdiction to direct refund of Rs.47,00,000 or interest on that amount. Based on the Supreme Court judgment discussed in the decision, refund and interest claims must be examined by the regulatory authority.
The Tribunal consequently set aside the refund and interest portion of the Adjudicating Officer's decision. It allowed the allottee to file a separate complaint in Form M before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority for refund and interest.
Who may be affected
Appeal No.11 of 2022 is relevant to Tamil Nadu homebuyers and promoters dealing with delayed possession, refund, interest and compensation claims. It distinguishes between compensation decided by an Adjudicating Officer and refund or interest decided by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
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
Did the Tribunal order the promoter to refund Rs.47,00,000?
No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Officer's refund and interest direction because those claims must be decided by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
Was the allottee's compensation upheld?
Yes. The Tribunal confirmed compensation of Rs.2,00,000 for the mental agony caused by the prolonged failure to hand over possession.
Can the allottee still seek a refund and interest?
Yes. The Tribunal expressly allowed the allottee to file a separate complaint in Form M before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
Did the Tribunal accept the promoter's October 2015 letter as a possession notice?
No. The Tribunal found that the letter was only preparatory, gave no possession date and stated that a separate possession intimation would be sent.
