Appeal No. 23 of 2022, M/s. SPR & RG Constructions Private Limited and others v. V.K. Vijayaraghavan
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, in Appeal No. 23 of 2022 delivered on 12 June 2023, dismissed the promoters’ challenge to the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority order in Complaint No. 442 of 2019 dated 21 March 2022. The Tribunal upheld relief concerning restoration of the promised club house area and other amenities at the Osian Chlorophyll project in Porur, finding that the promoters had unilaterally altered the approved plan and could not reopen an issue that had become final in connected proceedings.
What the case concerns
Appeal No. 23 of 2022 concerns the Osian Chlorophyll residential project at Karambakkam village, Chennai Bye-pass Road, Porur. M/s. SPR & RG Constructions Private Limited and its representatives appealed against an order obtained by allottee V.K. Vijayaraghavan from the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
The allottee complained about changes to the original approved plan, structural stability and reductions in common amenities. The complaint was not based on delayed possession.
Changes to the project
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal recorded the following details:
- The original plan approved by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority provided for 950 dwelling units.
- The revised plan increased the number to 1,050 dwelling units.
- Car parking spaces reduced from 1,245 to 1,062.
- Two wheeler parking spaces reduced from 1,264 to 257.
- The promised club house area reduced from 5,432.35 square metres to 2,071.67 square metres, a reduction of 3,360.68 square metres.
- The revised plan application was made without the knowledge and consent of the allottees, and construction continued while approval was pending.
The Tribunal found that the unilateral alteration violated the construction agreement and the initial approved plan. It also found that the changes seriously affected allottees’ rights over the undivided share area, club houses and other common amenities.
Outcome and practical effect
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority had directed the promoters to restore the club house area to 5,432.35 square metres, after obtaining approval from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and subject to permissible floor space index. It also issued directions concerning other amenities.
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal refused to interfere and dismissed the appeal as having no merit. Connected appeals concerning the same club house issue had already been withdrawn by the promoters, making the regulatory authority’s common order in those cases final. The Tribunal held that the promoters could not raise the same issue again in this appeal.
The decision directly concerns the promoter, complainant and allottees of Osian Chlorophyll whose promised club house, parking and other common amenities were affected by the revised plan.
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 decision require the Osian Chlorophyll club house area to be restored?
Yes. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere with the direction to restore the club house area to 5,432.35 square metres, after Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority approval and subject to permissible floor space index.
Why was the promoter’s appeal dismissed?
The Tribunal found that the promoter had unilaterally altered the approved plan and reduced promised common amenities. It also held that the same club house issue had become final after the promoter withdrew connected appeals.
Was this case about delay in handing over apartments?
No. The source states that the allottee complained about serious violations of the original approved plan, structural stability and reductions in common areas, rather than delayed possession.
Did the revised plan increase the number of homes in the project?
Yes. The number of dwelling units increased from 950 under the original approved plan to 1,050 under the revised plan, while the recorded car and two wheeler parking numbers decreased.
