9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment demanded by the respondent and therefore, he approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum) on 27.12.2010, which complaint came to be dismissed on 03.08.2012. 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) by way of an appeal in 2012 itself, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.02.2019 with a liberty to approach the Authority. It is in these circumstances that the appellant initially approached the Adjudicating Officer under the RERA on 19.03.2019 and, therefore, approached the Authority by way of his complaint dated 17.02.2021. The said complaint came to be rejected by the Authority on 22.12.2021 by holding that in the light of the admitted position that the respondent had obtained Occupation/Completion Certificate for the project much before the RERA came into force, the complaint was not maintainable. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the Appellate Tribunal, which had, vide the impugned order, rejected the appeal. 9. In support of the present appeal, Mr. Madhu Mukul Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the RERA itself envisages that any person whose c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sumer Disputes Redressal Forum, dismissing his complaint dated 03.08.2012. The withdrawal of appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was on 04.02.2019 and the subsequent filing of the complaint before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority was on 17.02.2021, i.e. more than two years after the withdrawal of the appeal. The purport of the proviso to Section 71(1) of the Act clearly is that any change of forum for adjudication of any dispute must happen at the base level of adjudication which in this case was the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and once that jurisdiction had been invoked, the concerned Appellate Authority should ideally be the next forum for adjudication. By withdrawing his appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and thereafter filing a fresh complaint on the same grounds before another authority at the first level of adjudication, which in this case was the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, the appellant exercised each of the concurrent jurisdictions available to him in the two forums and, hence, abused the process of law. As noted above, we are not disputing the right of the respondent to invoke either of the ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the appeal and the same is dismissed and keeping in view the conduct of the appellant, the appellant is burdened with cost of Rs. 1 0,000/- to be deposited with the RERA. 13. From a perusal of the aforesaid extracts of the impugned order, it is evident 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. 14. 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, in our view, correct in holding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment which does not involve marketing, advertising selling or new allotment of any apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, under the real estate project. Explanation. For the purpose of this section, where the real estate project is to be developed in phases, every such phase shall be considered a stand alone real estate project, and the promoter shall obtain registration under this Act for each phase separately. 16. From a reading of the foresaid provision of RERA, it is clear that RERA projects would fall in two categories; (i) projects that are launched after coming into force of the RERA and (ii) the projects which were launched before coming into force of RERA and for which Completion Certificate had not been issued i.e. the ongoing projects . 17. It is manifest from the first proviso to Section 3(1) of the RERA that the term ongoing projects on the date of commencement of RERA would encompass only those projects where Completion Certificate had not yet been issued. Projects which had already been completed and had received a Completion Certificate were neither effected nor required any registration under RERA. Further, the provisions of RERA are applicable only to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fold the pre-existing contract and rights executed between the parties in the larger public interest. 45. The consequences for breach of such obligations under the Act are prospective in operation and in case ongoing project, of which completion certificate is not obtained, are not to be covered under the Act, there is every likelihood of classifications in respect of underdeveloped ongoing project and the new project to be commenced. 51. Parliament intended to bring within the fold of the statute the ongoing real estate projects in its wide amplitude used the term converting and existing building or a part thereof into apartments including every kind of developmental activity either existing or upcoming in future under Section 3(1) of the Act, the intention of the legislature by necessary implication and without any ambiguity is to include those projects which were ongoing and in cases where completion certificate has not been issued within fold of the Act. 53. From the scheme of the 2016 Act, its application is retroactive in character and it can safely be observed that the projects already completed or to which the completion certificate has been granted are not under its fold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
