The court clarifies the discretionary powers of the Appellate Tribunal to execute orders under RERA as civil court decrees.
In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court set aside an order by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, thus allowing amendments in execution applications filed by allottees of a delayed real estate project. The appeals were made by Rajan Chandiramani and others against Swadhinta Builders LLP concerning the execution of the Tribunal's order under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
The case revolves around the stalled construction of the "Shri Vallabh Residency" project in Mumbai, where the appellants were allotted apartments. Due to delays and non-compliance by the builder, the allottees sought execution of the Tribunal's orders, which directed the builder to complete the project and execute agreements for sale.
The Appellate Tribunal had previously rejected the appellants' request to amend their execution applications to include a clause under Order XXI Rule 32(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, allowing the decree-holders or appointed persons to complete the construction at the cost of the judgment debtor. The Tribunal's decision was based on the grounds that other allottees were not before it and that the appellants could seek remedies under Sections 7 and 35 of RERA.
Justice N.J. Jamadar, presiding over the appeals, highlighted that the Tribunal erred by considering the merits of the amendment application rather than focusing on its necessity to resolve the real dispute. The court emphasized that amendments in execution applications should not be dismissed on grounds unrelated to their procedural validity.
The judgment clarified that the Appellate Tribunal has the discretion to execute its orders as decrees of a civil court, including directing specific performance under Order XXI Rule 32(5). It was noted that this remedy is independent and not barred by RERA's Sections 7 and 35, which deal with regulatory measures like project registration revocation.
The High Court's decision underscores the Tribunal's authority to adopt various execution modes, ensuring compliance with its orders. This ruling is expected to expedite the execution process for many allottees facing similar delays, providing a robust mechanism to enforce rights under RERA.
Bottom line:-
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) - Appellate Tribunal has discretion to execute its own orders as a decree of a civil court under Section 57 of RERA, including utilizing the provisions of Order XXI Rule 32(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for specific performance, independent of remedies under Sections 7 and 35 of RERA.
Statutory provision(s):
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Sections 7, 8, 35, 57; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order XXI Rule 32(5).
Rajan Chandiramani v. Swadhinta Builders LLP, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2929684
