NewKerala.com

MP High Court Directs Homebuyer to RERA Tribunal for Flat Possession Order

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed a homebuyer to approach the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal to execute an order for delayed possession of a flat. The court clarified that the original RERA order had merged with the Appellate Tribunal's directive, making the Tribunal the correct forum for enforcement. The builder had failed to comply with an order to deliver possession and pay interest on the homebuyer's investment. The Appellate Tribunal has been directed to decide any execution application within 90 days.

Key Points: MP HC: Homebuyer Must Go to RERA Tribunal for Possession Order

  • Court clarifies execution forum under RERA Act
  • Appellate Tribunal orders supersede original RERA orders
  • Builder failed to deliver flat and pay interest
  • Homebuyer granted liberty to file execution plea
3 min read

MP HC guides homebuyer to approach RERA Tribunal for delayed flat possession enforcement

MP High Court rules homebuyers must seek execution of delayed flat possession orders from the RERA Appellate Tribunal, not the RERA authority.

"The fact remains that the original order has merged into the appellate order. - Justice Vishal Mishra"

Jabalpur, Feb 14

In a ruling that clarifies procedural pathways under the Real Estate Act, 2016, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has directed an aggrieved homebuyer to approach the appropriate forum for executing a delayed possession order against a builder.

A bench of Justice Vishal Mishra; presiding over the Writ Petition, disposed of the case on Thursday, emphasising the doctrine of merger in appellate orders.

The dispute originated from a homebuyer GP Gupta's complaint to the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against the builder, who neither completed the flat on time nor paid contractual interest.

RERA initially ordered possession within three months and referred compensation to an adjudicating officer, who favoured the complainant.

Appeals followed, culminating in the Appellate Tribunal's November 19, 2020, directive; "directed the builder to deliver possession within two months and to pay interest at the rate of 9 per cent on Rs 40 lakh till possession."

Despite execution proceedings at RERA, compliance lagged, prompting the complainant's High Court plea for a mandamus to enforce the Tribunal's order dated 19.11.2020 and a subsequent RERA member order from July 10, 2024, or alternatively, a reasoned decision on his representations.

Respondents, including RERA and the builder, contested maintainability. They invoked Section 57 of the RERA Act, which states: "Every order made by the Appellate Tribunal under this Act shall be executable by the Appellate Tribunal as a decree of civil court, and for this purpose, the Appellate Tribunal shall have all the powers of a civil court."

The court concurred, noting Gupta had "approached the wrong forum i.e. RERA authority" for execution.

Justice Mishra observed, "The fact remains that the original order has merged into the appellate order. It is for the Appellate Tribunal to consider the application filed by the petitioner for execution of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal."

He added, "Under these circumstances, no direction can be issued to the RERA authority to expedite the proceedings of the execution of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal."

Granting liberty, the court said, "However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the MP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal seeking execution of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law."

Gupta, appearing in person, committed to filing within 15 days, requesting a time-bound decision.

With no objections from respondents, the court directed, "If such an application is filed, the Appellate Tribunal is directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of 90 days thereafter."

This judgment may guide similar cases, reinforcing that appellate orders supersede originals under RERA, potentially streamlining enforcement for homebuyers facing builder non-compliance.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priyanka N
Feeling so bad for Mr. Gupta. He won at every stage - RERA, Adjudicating Officer, Appellate Tribunal - and still had to fight for years just to get possession. The system is so complex for a common person. RERA was supposed to simplify things, but the execution loophole is a major flaw.
A
Aman W
Good judgment. The doctrine of merger is a basic legal principle. The original RERA order merged into the Appellate Tribunal's order. So obviously, you go back to the Tribunal for execution, not to RERA. Saves everyone's time. Hope homebuyers take note.
S
Sarah B
As someone who works in the development sector, I see both sides. Builders face genuine delays due to approvals and funds. But not paying the contractual 9% interest is plain wrong. The court has given a clear path. Now the Tribunal must act swiftly.
V
Vikram M
The real issue is the builder's audacity. They lost at every forum since 2020 and still didn't comply. What strong action is RERA taking against such builders? Just directing the homebuyer to another forum isn't enough. There should be automatic penalties for non-compliance of Tribunal orders.
K
Kriti O
This is why people are afraid to buy under-construction flats. Your life's savings are stuck, and you're running from RERA to Tribunal to High Court. Kudos to Mr. Gupta for fighting in person. Most of us would have given up by now. 💪

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50