2024 (11) TMI 601 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of complaint - respondent had obtained Occupation/Completion Certificate for the project much before the RERA came into force - Jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) concerning projects completed before its enactment - forum shopping/hunting - HELD THAT - The learned Authority as also the learned Tribunal have dismissed the appellant s complaint and appeal by holding that once the project stood completed in the year 2007, the Authority under the RERA would have no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint qua such a project. The learned Tribunal also found that the appellant had vigorously pursued his initial complaint before the District Forum and it is only at the stage when his appeal before the State Commission was pending adjudication that he chose to withdraw. This, according to the learned Tribunal amounted to forum hunting. Further the learned Tribunal observed that it was an admitted position that the project had been completed in the year 2006 with the Completion Certificate by the DDA being issued on 08.03.2007, i.e., much prior to the RERA 2016 coming into force. In the light of this admitted position, the learned Tribunal was correct in holding that the RERA cannot be applied to projects, which stood completed before the enactment thereof. If complaints pertaining to projects, which were completed before the RERA was enacted were to be entertained, the same would amount to giving retrospective effect to the RERA, which the Legislature never intended. The complaint of the appellant was per se not maintainable under the RERA as the project of the respondent had been completed with the Completion Certificate having been issued by DDA on 08.03.2007 i.e., much prior to RERA coming into force. There are no such provision in the RERA, which grants liberty to a person, who had been pursuing any remedy under the Consumer Protection Act to file a complaint under RERA in respect of a project, which stood completed before the Act came into force. The Real Estate Regulatory Authority, the adjudicatory officer / authority and the learned Tribunal have rightly rejected / dismissed the complaint of the appellant on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as the RERA itself was not applicable to the project, which not only was completed but also had received the Completion Certificate much before the enactment of the RERA - Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Condonation of delay in refiling the appeal.
2. Jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) concerning projects completed before its enactment.
3. Allegations of forum shopping by the appellant.
4. Applicability of RERA to ongoing projects and projects with issued Completion Certificates.
5. Interpretation of Section 71(1) of RERA regarding withdrawal of complaints from consumer forums.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Refiling the Appeal:

The appellant filed an application seeking condonation of a 26-day delay in refiling the appeal. The court allowed the application for condonation of delay, recognizing the reasons provided by the appellant as sufficient. This procedural aspect was resolved without further contest.

2. Jurisdiction of RERA for Projects Completed Before Enactment:

The primary issue was whether RERA had jurisdiction over a project completed before the Act came into force. The appellant's complaint was dismissed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal because the Completion Certificate for the project was issued on 08.03.2007, long before RERA's enactment. The court affirmed that RERA does not apply retrospectively to projects completed before its commencement, as doing so would contravene legislative intent. The court emphasized that RERA is applicable only to ongoing projects without a Completion Certificate at the time of its enactment.

3. Allegations of Forum Shopping:

The appellant initially pursued a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which was dismissed. Subsequently, he withdrew his appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to approach the RERA Authority. The court perceived this as an attempt at forum shopping, as the appellant sought to change jurisdictions after an unfavorable outcome. The court highlighted that once a jurisdiction is invoked, the appellant should pursue remedies within that jurisdiction rather than switching forums, which could lead to forum hunting.

4. Applicability of RERA to Ongoing Projects and Projects with Completion Certificates:

The court analyzed Section 3 of RERA, which mandates registration for ongoing projects without a Completion Certificate at the time of RERA's commencement. The court clarified that projects completed with a Completion Certificate before RERA's enactment are exempt from its purview. The legislative intent was to regulate ongoing projects and not those already completed. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in New Tech Promoters & Developers vs. State of U.P., affirming that RERA's application is retroactive only for ongoing projects lacking a Completion Certificate.

5. Interpretation of Section 71(1) of RERA:

The appellant argued that under Section 71(1) of RERA, he had the right to withdraw his complaint from the consumer forum and file it under RERA. The court acknowledged this provision but clarified that it does not grant the right to invoke RERA for projects completed before the Act's commencement. The withdrawal provision does not extend RERA's jurisdiction to such projects, as the appellant's case did not fall within RERA's scope.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, reiterating that RERA's jurisdiction does not extend to projects completed before its enactment, and the appellant's actions were indicative of forum shopping. The court upheld the decisions of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and the Appellate Tribunal, affirming the lack of jurisdiction and imposing costs on the appellant for pursuing the appeal.

← Previous Next →