63-Day Delay in Filing RERA Appeal Cannot Be Condoned Without Sufficient Cause: UP REAT
Case Title: S.J.P. Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. Arnab Das
Forum: Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (UP REAT)
don
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that a 63-day delay in filing an appeal under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 cannot be condoned in the absence of a satisfactory explanation demonstrating sufficient cause.
The Tribunal considered an application filed by S.J.P. Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. seeking condonation of the delay in challenging an order passed by the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
Delay in Filing Appeal
The appellant acknowledged that it was aware of the impugned RERA order when the order was uploaded on the Authority's portal. However, it applied for a certified copy only after approximately 60 days.
The appellant subsequently relied upon the time taken for consultation, collection and collation of records and preparation of the appeal to explain the delay.
Tribunal Finds Explanation Insufficient
The UP REAT rejected the explanation, holding that the reasons cited did not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant had knowledge of the impugned order and could not satisfactorily explain why it waited for such a substantial period before taking steps to obtain the certified copy and institute the appeal.
The Tribunal therefore declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the appellant.
Limitation Under RERA
The proceedings arose in the context of Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, which prescribes the limitation framework for appeals before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
The decision reiterates that although an appellate forum has discretion to condone delay where sufficient cause is established, such discretion cannot be exercised merely because an appellant cites administrative or preparatory difficulties.
Importance of Prompt Legal Action
The ruling highlights the importance of acting promptly after an adverse RERA order is passed or uploaded.
A litigant seeking condonation of delay must provide a specific and convincing explanation covering the period of delay. General references to consultations, collection of documents or drafting of an appeal may not, by themselves, satisfy the requirement of sufficient cause.
Key Takeaway
The UP REAT decision reinforces that limitation provisions under RERA cannot be treated casually. An appellant who is aware of an adverse order must take timely steps to obtain the necessary documents and file an appeal.
Where the delay remains inadequately explained, the Tribunal may refuse to condone the delay and decline to entertain the appeal on merits.
