9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by RERA Appellate Tribunal. Respondent No.1 was the original complainant before the adjudicating officer- RERA, whereas the Appellant was the respondent-promoter in the complaint, and who had challenged the order of the adjudicating officer before the Appellate Tribunal. 3 It was the case of the complainant that he had purchased six plots of land together with pre-engineered steel portal framed rectangular building, termed as 'warehousing building', from the respondent promoter under an agreement for sale dated 10 December 2009. It was submitted that possession of the suit premises was to be handed over to the complainant-allottee on or before 9 March 2010. It was submitted that since the possession was not so handed over, as per Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 20 March 2019. These three orders are the subject matter of challenge in the present second appeal. 4 Mr. Dani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant, submits that the Appellant was not liable to make any pre-deposit under the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Act. Learned Counsel urges three grounds in support of his submission. Firstly, it is submitted that the Appellant is not a promoter, since the agreement between the parties, which gave rise to the complaint, was not an agreement for sale, but an agreement in lieu of the Respondent's share in the partnership of the Appellant. It is submitted that Respondent No.1 was an erstwhile partner in the Appellant firm and upon his retirement, the agreement of 10 December 2009 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tance of allotment and sale of constructed premises with land, its consideration being satisfaction of the allottee's claim in the business and assets of promoter partnership. The project is very much a real estate project; it is being developed by the Appellant as a promoter; and the Respondent is an allottee, to whom plots of land together with a building have been allotted and agreed to be sold (free-hold or lease- hold) or otherwise transferred by the promoter. Prima facie all ingredients of promotership of the Appellant are satisfied in the present case and there is no reason why its appeal before the Appellate Tribunal should not be treated as an appeal filed by a promoter. 6 The two other grounds urged by Mr. Dani also do not suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
