Sushma Choudhary v. WTC Noida Development Company Pvt. Ltd.
Forum: UPREAT
Facts:
The appellant purchased 500 sq. ft. of non-lockable/virtual commercial space in the WTC Noida project and paid approximately 80% of the consideration. She alleged delay and sought refund with interest.
Issue:
Whether non-lockable or virtual commercial space constitutes an “apartment” for purposes of RERA.
Held:
UPREAT held that the purchased space was not a physical, identifiable and demarcated apartment. Consequently, the transaction did not fall within the relevant RERA framework and the complaint was not maintainable.
Ratio:
The statutory concept of an apartment requires a real and identifiable physical unit. A purely virtual or non-lockable space cannot automatically be treated as an apartment merely because it has been sold as commercial real estate.
Practical Impact:
Purchasers of innovative or fractional/virtual commercial products should carefully establish whether the product falls within the statutory definition of real estate/apartment before relying on RERA.
Relevant RERA Sections:
Section 2(e) — apartment; Section 2(k) — carpet area; Section 2(j) — building; Section 31 — complaints.
