Appeal No.61 of 2023 and M.A.Nos. 183, 184 & 204 of 2023
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal delivered its order in Appeal No.61 of 2023 and M.A.Nos. 183, 184 and 204 of 2023 on 8 November 2023 concerning the Victoria Court project in Puducherry. The Tribunal upheld findings against the promoter relating to plan changes without allottee consent, advertised amenities and promoter responsibilities, but set aside findings and directions based on the mistaken view that an Occupancy Certificate had not been obtained.
What the case concerns
Appeal No.61 of 2023 concerns Victoria Court at Karuvadikuppam Revenue Village, Puducherry. Shankar Karikar, proprietor of M/s. Cornerstone Builders, appealed against an order dated 13 March 2023 passed by the Puducherry Real Estate Regulatory Authority on a complaint from the Victoria Flat Owners' Welfare Association.
The association had sought amenities stated in the brochure, including a swimming pool, gym and municipal water. It also sought maintenance payments for unsold flats and the handover of original documents.
Findings that were upheld
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere with findings concerning the following matters:
- The promoter obtained an initial building plan approval on 8 October 2014 and a revised approval on 5 October 2018, but did not obtain the allottees' consent before making alterations.
- The brochure advertised a swimming pool on a membership basis, and the agreement for sale referred to completing apartments according to the brochure specifications. No swimming pool area appeared in either approved plan.
- The builder remained a promoter under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 even though he was not the landowner.
- The Tribunal upheld the finding concerning the promoter's responsibility for the transfer-related issue involving rectification deeds for differential undivided share, despite the promoter's argument that only the landowner or his legal heirs could execute them.
Findings and directions set aside
The promoter produced an Occupancy Certificate issued by the Puducherry Planning Authority on 14 May 2019. Based on that certificate, the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal set aside the finding that the promoter had failed in the responsibility relating to obtaining an Occupancy Certificate.
The Tribunal also set aside directions concerning:
- Pumping sewage water, because the Occupancy Certificate stated that basic necessities, including sewage facilities, had been complied with.
- Applying for an extension of project registration, because the Occupancy Certificate had already been issued.
- Restricting the sale of unsold flats until completion of civic amenities and receipt of an Occupancy Certificate, because that certificate was already available.
Who is affected
The proceedings directly concern the Victoria Court promoter, its joint promoter or landowner, and the Victoria Flat Owners' Welfare Association. The findings are also relevant to buyers and professionals reviewing whether plan changes had allottee consent, whether brochure promises matched approved plans, and whether an Occupancy Certificate had already been issued.
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 accept that Victoria Court had an Occupancy Certificate?
Yes. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that the Puducherry Planning Authority had issued the Occupancy Certificate on 14 May 2019.
Did the Tribunal uphold the finding about changing the approved plan without allottee consent?
Yes. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the finding because the allottees' consent had not been obtained before alterations were made to the approved plan.
What did the Tribunal say about the swimming pool advertised in the brochure?
The brochure mentioned a swimming pool on a membership basis, but neither the original nor revised approved building plan earmarked space for it. The Tribunal therefore upheld the Puducherry Real Estate Regulatory Authority's finding of a violation concerning the promoter's obligations.
Was the promoter still required to apply for an extension of project registration?
No. The Tribunal set aside that direction because an Occupancy Certificate had already been issued on 14 May 2019.
