Court affirms inherent jurisdiction of Maha RERA Appellate Tribunal to condone delay and restore appeals, emphasizing principles of natural justice and statutory objectives under RERA, 2016
In a significant judgment dated July 22, 2026, the Bombay High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by Hubtown Ltd., affirming the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's (Appellate Tribunal) inherent power to restore proceedings that were dismissed in default. The case arose out of a dispute where the Respondent, Smitesh Shivaji Patil, had filed a complaint under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA, 2016), which was dismissed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Maha RERA).
The Respondent subsequently filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal with a delay of 25 days. However, due to non-appearance, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The Respondent then sought restoration of the appeal along with condonation of delay. The Appellate Tribunal allowed both applications, leading to Hubtown Ltd.'s challenge before the High Court.
The appellant contended that the Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to restore the proceedings once dismissed in default, arguing that the Tribunal's powers under Section 53(4) of RERA, 2016 were limited and did not include inherent powers akin to those of a Civil Court. The appellant also challenged the exercise of discretion in condoning delay, claiming it was without justifiable cause.
The Court, however, rejected these submissions, holding that the Appellate Tribunal is not bound by the strict procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and is instead governed by the principles of natural justice as per Section 53(1) of RERA, 2016. The Court emphasized that the powers conferred under Section 53(4), while specific, do not restrict the Tribunal from exercising ancillary and necessary powers to fulfill its statutory mandate effectively. The power to restore proceedings dismissed in default is implicit and vital for the just adjudication of disputes under RERA.
The Court relied on authoritative Supreme Court precedents including New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan and Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd., which established that tribunals possess inherent powers to dismiss and subsequently restore proceedings in the interest of justice, unless expressly prohibited by statute. The judgment further referred to the principle that all procedural powers should be presumed permissible unless explicitly forbidden by law.
On the issue of condonation of delay, the Court noted that the Appellate Tribunal had exercised its discretion after careful consideration of the facts and documents presented by the Respondent. Following the settled legal position in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, the High Court held that such discretion would not be lightly interfered with unless found to be perverse or without reason.
The High Court concluded that the Appellate Tribunal's decision to restore the appeal and condone delay was well within its jurisdiction and aligned with the objectives of RERA to provide speedy and just resolution of real estate disputes. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the second appeal filed by Hubtown Ltd. and upheld the restoration of the Respondent's appeal.
This landmark ruling reinforces the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's inherent jurisdiction to regulate its proceedings in a manner that promotes justice and equity, thus strengthening the enforcement mechanism under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Bottom Line:
Real Estate - Appellate Tribunal under RERA has inherent power to restore proceedings dismissed in default, provided such power is ancillary and necessary to achieve the objectives of the Act and the principles of natural justice.
Statutory provision(s):
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Sections 18, 53(1), 53(2), 53(4); Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 2019 Regulation 25; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for procedural principles referenced)
Hubtown Ltd. v. Smitesh Shivaji Patil, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971281
