9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to as 'the Appellate Tribunal'] in Appeal No. 105/REAT/2022 titled as "Paras Arora vs M/s Agarwal Associates". 6. We may note that the appellant had approached the Appellate Tribunal assailing the order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for NCT of Delhi [hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority'] dismissing his Complaint No. 03/2019 on the grounds that the Completion Certificate cum Occupancy Certificate for the project was issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in favour of the respondent on 08.03.2007 i.e., much before the RERA came into force, and that the Authority did not have jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint. 7. At the outset, we may note the brief factual matrix of the matter as emerging from the record. The appellant claims to have booked space no. SS-40 on the second floor of a building known as Aditya Mega Mall, Plot No.9D, Central Business District, East Delhi constructed by the respondent on 26.01.2003 for a total cost of Rs. 8,75,270/-. The said building was completed in 2006 and a Completion Certificate was issued by the DDA to the respondent on 08.03.2007. It appears that the appellant had certain grievances r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that both the Authority and the Appellate Tribunal were justified in holding that the complaint filed by the appellant would not fall within the purview of the RERA. He submits that the RERA was not meant to apply to projects which were completed much before the same came into force. In the present case, the project was already completed in 2006, with the completion certificate having been issued to the respondents on 08.03.2007. The appellant's complaint did not fall within the ambit of RERA and was, therefore, rightly rejected. In support of his plea, he seeks to place reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in New Tech Promoters and Developers Private Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2021) 18 SCC and submits that the Apex Court has categorically held that the application of the RERA is retroactive in character. 12. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we may begin by noting the relevant extracts of the impugned order, as contained in paragraphs 10 to 13, which read as under: "10. The appellant had withdrawn his appeal filed by him before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 04.02.2019 against the order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) of the Act cannot be resorted to. 11. There is another important reason as to why the Adjudicating Officer was right in dismissing the complaint viz. the reliefs sought by the complainant before the Adjudicating Officer were delivery of possession of the unit and grant of interest at the rate of 18% for the amount paid to the respondent. Very clearly, the said reliefs are outside the power of the Adjudicating Officer and could not have been granted by him. The reliefs claimed by the appellant in this appeal are identical. 12. We have also carefully gone through the judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant at the Bar and we do not find them applicable to the facts before us. 13. The project with respect to which the appellant wishes to raise a complaint was admittedly completed in the year 2007, when the Completion-cum occupancy Certificate was issued by the DDA. The RERA rightly rejected the complaint of the complainant vide order dated 21.12.2021 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction* and the Adjudicating Officer also, by way of the impugned order dated 31.10.2022 rightly dismissed the complaint. We do not find any infirmity in either of these two orders, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oject within a period of three months from the date of commencement of this Act: Provided further that if the Authority thinks necessary, in the interest of allottees, for projects which are developed beyond the planning area but with the requisite permission of the local authority, it may, by order, direct the promoter of such project to register with the Authority, and the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder, shall apply to such projects from that stage of registration. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no registration of the real estate project shall be required- (a) where the area of land proposed to be developed does not exceed five hundred square meters or the number of apartments proposed to be developed does not exceed eight inclusive of all phases: Provided that, if the appropriate Government considers it necessary, it may, reduce the threshold below five hundred square meters or eight apartments, as the case may be, inclusive of all phases, for exemption from registration under this Act; (b) where the promoter has received completion certificate for a real estate project prior to commencement of this Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RERA. In the present case, when it is evident that there was no requirement for the respondent to be registered under RERA, the appellant cannot seek any remedy against the respondent under RERA. 20. At this stage, we may also refer to the decision in the case of New Tech Promoters & Developers vs. State of U.P., (2021) 18 SCC 1, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court once elaborated that RERA would not be applicable to projects which have been already completed with Completion Certificates having been issued before RERA came into force. The relevant observations of the Apex Court read as under:- 44. At the given time, there was no law regulating the real estate sector, development works/obligations of promoter and allottee, it was badly felt that such of the ongoing projects to which completion certificate has not been issued must be brought within the fold of the 2016 Act in securing the interests of allottees, promoters, real estate agents in its best possible way obviously, within the parameters of law. Merely because enactment as prayed is made retroactive in its operation, it cannot be said to be either violative of Article 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. To the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry, who is or has been a District Judge to be an adjudicating officer for holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner, after giving any person concerned a reasonable opportunity of bearing heard: Provided that any person whose complaint in respect of matters covered under sections 12, 14, 18 and section 19 is pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission, established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), on or before the commencement of this Act, he may, with the permission of such Forum or Commission, as the case may be, withdraw the complaint pending before it and file an application before the adjudicating officer under this Act." 23. No doubt, the above provision provides for withdrawal of a pending complaint under the Consumer Protection Act with the liberty to approach the authorities under RERA. This liberty, however, cannot clothe the appellant with a right to invoke RERA, which right, he otherwise does not have under RERA. 24. We are unable to find any such provision in the RERA, which grants liberty to a person, who had been pursuing any remed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
