Legal Maxim: Functus Officio

Legal maxim: Functus Officio

"Functus officio" is a Latin term meaning "having performed his or her office."

 In legal contexts, it signifies that an officer or official body no longer has further authority or legal competence because their original duties and functions have been fully accomplished.

For Example: A trial where a judge presides over a civil case. After the trial concludes, the judge renders a judgment, settling the dispute between the parties. Once the judgment is given, the judge becomes "functus officio." This means that the judge's authority to make changes to the decision ends.

Any further modifications or challenges to the judgment must be pursued through the appellate process, where other judges preside in higher courts of appeal.

The sole member of the RERA Authority & RERA APPETITE Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to dispose of order and appeal.

 In the case of man global limited vs ram prakash joukani (Second Appeal No. 14840 Of 2019 Alongwith Civil Application No. 785 Of 2019) the Bombay high court observed that “the sole member of the said Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to dispose of appeal or any application including even an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal.”

Reliance was made on the earlier matter of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (2017 SCC OnLine Bom9302) where the Bombay high court has held that two member bench of the Tribunal shall always consist of a judicial member. It is also held that in the constitution of the Tribunal, the majority of the members shall always be judicial members.

In the matter of Altus Space Builders Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India And Others CWP No.32437 of 2019 decided on 16 October, 2020 before Punjab & Haryana High Court the Court struck down Regulations 7 and 8 of the Punjab RERA Procedure Regulations as being ultra vires the Act.

the Court ruled that “A Single Member of the Authority cannot validly pass orders on a complaint under the Act.” 

the Court also ruled that “A Single Member of the Appellate Tribunal cannot validly pass orders in the appeals before it.”

Once registration of the Real Estate project lapses on non-completion of project or on revocation,the Authority is enjoined upon the duty to consult with the appropriate Government to take such action as it may deem including the carrying out of the remaining development works by competent authority or by the association of allottees or any other manner

 In the Matter of  Bikram Chatterji vs Union Of India Complaint no. WRIT PETITION (C) NO.940/2017 decided on  23.07.2019 before Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court Observed that

112. Once registration lapses on non-completion of project within the time stipulated or it is revoked the consequence ensue as enumerated in Section 8 of RERA, the Authority is enjoined upon the duty to consult with the appropriate Government to take such action as it may deem including the carrying out of the remaining development works by competent authority or by the association of allottees or any other manner as may be determined by the Authority. The development work has to be completed and cannot be left in between. Section 8 reads thus;

“8. Obligation of Authority consequent upon lapse of or on revocation of registration.- Upon lapse of the registration or on revocation of the registration under this Act, the Authority, may consult the appropriate Government to take such action as it may deem fit including the carrying out of the remaining development works by competent authority or by the association of allottees or in any other manner, as may be determined by the Authority:

Provided that no direction, decision or order of the Authority under this section shall take effect until the expiry of the period of appeal provided under the provisions of this Act:

Provided further that in case of revocation of registration of a project under this Act, the association of allottees shall have the first right of refusal for carrying out of the remaining development works.”

The Authority is not bound by the declaration of the Promoter under section 4(2)(1)(c),Authority is not powerless if the promoter’s declaration is arbitrary and unreasonable.Promoter cannot be given free run in deciding time for completion of a project thereby adversely impacting the interest of the prospective Allottees.

 In the Matter of M/s. Parador Promoters Amritsar Private Limited vs. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Complaint no.Appeal no. 113 of 2019 decided on 03.07.2020 before Punjab Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

Facts of the case: 

• The Promoter obtained license on 13.06.2019 to develop a residential colony within a period of 5 years. 

• The period commenced from 13.06.2019 and ended on 12.06.2024 with a stipulation that the development work must be completed within the said period. 

• The Promoter applied to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab for registration of the project. Order passed by Punjab Authority: 

• The Authority accepted the registration of the project but allowed the timeline for completion of the project up to 12.06.2023 i.e a period of 4 years instead of 5 years. 

• The Punjab Authority observed that even though the license to develop the colony is valid up to 12.06.2024, the license of the Promoter is valid only up to 19.12.2022 . Secondly, though Change of land use is for 93.265 Acres, only 70.264 Acres is proposed to be developed in Phase I. Balance 23.001 Acre is proposed in Phase 2. Since the Promoter is not taking up the entire Group Housing in one phase, the date of completion should be 12.06.2023.

• Aggrieved by the said order of the Authority, the Promoter filed appeal before the Punjab RERA Appellate Tribunal. 

Issue before Appellate Tribunal: 

•     Whether the Act entitles the Authority to reduce the completion period of the project while registering the project? 

Promoter’s contentions: 

1. Promoter relied on section 5(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It challenged the ability of the RERA authority to vary the period applied by the promoter in the application. 

2. Reference was also made to section 6 of the RERA Act stating that a license granted to the Promoter for 5 years could not have been varied to its disadvantage while registering the project. It necessarily had to be commensurate with the period prescribed in the license. Any other interpretation would render the provision of section 6 of the Act illusory. 

3. Promoter claimed that it has now been deprived of the right to seek extension which had it not been restricted to 4 years 1 2018 (1) ABR 558 by the Authority, would have given the Promoter 6 years by including the extended period of one year. 

4. Referring to Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Ors v. Union Of India 1 , it stated that the observations of this judgment can only be applied to ongoing projects. 

5. Promoter lastly contended that no reasoning was given by the Authority while reducing the period and hence decision has to be revisited. Authority’s contentions: 

The Authority opposed the Promoter’s appeal stating: 

1. Under Section 18 of the Act the Authority may, based on facts of each case and for reasons recorded in writing, extend the registration granted to a project. 

2. That extension of registration is not a matter of right but it is dependent on circumstances that the Promoter has to establish to be beyond his control i.e due to force majeure.

3. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Ors v. Union Of India (supra) holding that in case the promoter mentions unreasonable period to complete construction, certainly the authority would not register such an application of the promoter, taking into consideration the facts of each case. 

Verdict of Appellate Tribunal: 

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of Authority in reducing the period of completion of project and dismissed the appeal of the Promoter. It observed that:

(i) The Authority is not bound by the declaration of the Promoter under section 4(2)(1)(c). It placed reliance on Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Ors v. Union Of India (Supra) and stated that Authority is not powerless if the promoter’s declaration is arbitrary and unreasonable. Promoter cannot be given free run in deciding time for completion of a project thereby adversely impacting the interest of the prospective Allottees. 

(ii) The Tribunal rejected the Promoter’s contention that the observation of the judgement of Neelkamal case is only applicable to the ongoing project. The tribunal stated that no such distinction manifests from the provisions of Act or the observation of the judgment. 

(iii) The RERA Act does not specifically say that the period of license and the declaration made by the Promoter in terms of section 4(2)(1)(c) have to be coterminous. 

(iv) The Tribunal held that the one-line reason given by the authority for reducing the time period is sufficient. Merely because it is not set out in detail cannot ipso facto be a ground to hold it a non-speaking order.

x

The complaints under Section 12 were thus held to be required to be filed only before the Adjudicating Officer, being the authority empowered to grant compensation under the Act

 In the Matter of Sandeep Mann vs. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab and Anr. Complaint no. Appeal No. 53 of 2018 decided on 27.02.2019 before  Punjab Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

The issue that arose in the batch matter of fifteen appeals was as to the forum (as between the Real Estate Regulatory Authority constituted under Section 20, and the Adjudicating Officer appointed under Section 71) before which a person aggrieved by violations and contraventions enumerated in Section 11(5), 12, 14(3), 18(1), 18(2), 18(3), 19(4) and 19(7) of the RERA, 2016 or the agreement for sale, praying for reliefs of refund, return of investment including compensation, setting aside of order of cancellation of allotment, compensation, compensation and interest, compensation or interest and interest as a separate relief may file a complaint.The question arose on account of two circulars issued by the Authority declaring that complaints for compensation shall be filed before and adjudged by the Adjudicating Officer whereas all other complaints shall be filed before and adjudicated by the Authority. Following these circulars, one set of orders came to be passed by the Adjudicating Officer, whereby the complaints claiming relief of refund, interest and compensation came to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Another set of orders were those which the Authority passed, rejecting the complaints which alleged

violations and contraventions of the Act, while granting liberty to approach the Adjudicating Officer. All these orders were subject matter of the appeal decided by the Appellate Tribunal.

The Appellate Tribunal after considering the provisions of the Act came to the conclusion that:

(i) In case of Section 11(5), no difficulty arose, in view of the fact that the said provision specifically mentioned the Authority as the forum, before which a complaint could be filed by a complainant aggrieved by cancellation of allotment by the promoter;

 

(ii) Section 12 provides for compensation on account of false advertisement, and also for refund of investment along with interest, in case of a complainant who desires to withdraw from the project on account of false advertisement. The nature of relief being different, the circulars issued by the Authority provided for adjudication of the complaint based on the same cause of action (viz., false advertisement) by two different authorities (viz., the Adjudicating Officer for compensation and the Authority for refund of investment). The Appellate Tribunal held this mechanism to be flawed, inter alia, on account of the fact that it raised the possibility of differing orders being passed by the two authorities. Further, the cause of action being the same, the fact that the complainant had a choice of relying would not change the nature of the proceedings. The basis of the proceedings was adjudication of the proof of default. The complaints under Section 12 were thus held to be required to be filed only before the Adjudicating Officer, being the authority empowered to grant compensation under the Act;

(iii) Section 14(3), like Section 11(3), was held not to pose any problem on account of the fact that the use of the words ‘shall be entitled to receive appropriate compensation in the manner as provided under this Act’ could only mean that the appropriate forum was the Adjudicating Officer, viz., the authority empowered to award compensation under the Act;

(iv) Section 18(1), the cause of action for which is the inability of the promoter to give possession due to any of the reasons specified therein, provides an option to the buyer to withdraw from the project and seek return of investment with interest including compensation in the manner prescribed in the Act, thereby meaning that the Adjudicating Officer shall have power to adjudicate the complaint. In a case covered by the proviso, however, viz., one where return of investment is not sought and the allottee is entitled to interest till possession, the appropriate forum was the Authority; (v) Sections 18(2) and (3) provide for compensation in terms of the Act for the default of the promoter for the reasons specified therein, and therefore the appropriate forum was the Adjudicating Officer, it was held by the Appellate Tribunal;

(vi) A complaint under Section 19(4), which made a reference to award of compensation, was held to be required to be placed before the Adjudicating Officer, while one under Section 19(7), which imposed a liability upon the allottee to pay interest on delayed payments to the promoter, was required to be filed before the Authority.

Based on the above findings, the appeals came to be allowed. The Appellate Tribunal did however clarify that the decision of the Tribunal was not to apply to matters which had attained finality. The pending complaints/ applications were to be transferred to the appropriate forum as per the findings set out above.

The Complete order can be accessed at https://rera.punjab.gov.in/pdf/OrdersJudgementsPbAT/20190405PbATAppealNo11to56of2018.pdf

The Authority has Jurisdiction to decide the matters between the Allottee and promoter , though their agreement has an arbitration clause in it.

In the Matter of Sarita Bhairu Chandekar & oth Vs Prashant Bhandari Complaint number CC005000000022925 decided on 11.11.2019  before  Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

The Authority Relied on the Judgment by Supreme Court in the matter of HDFC Bank Ltd-v/s-Satpal Singh Baxi (MANU/DE/5308/2012) in which the Supreme Court also held that if particular enactment creates special rights and obligations and gives special power to the Tribunal which are not in Civil Court such as tribunal constituted under Rent Control Act and the Industrial Disputes Act, the dispute arising under the said enactments cannot be arbitral otherwise other disputes are arbitral.

In Hemangi Enterprise-v/ s-Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia 2017 STPL 13227 SC, the Supreme Court found that the dispute between the parties was that of the tenant and landlord relating to leave and license agreement and therefore exciusive jurisdiction to deal with such dispute is conferred upon the Court of Small Causes and therefore, though there wasthe Arbitral Clause in the agreement, the Court held that the dispute was not arbitral. 

As per the Court

• Section 20 of RERA has special powers

• under Section 31 of it to adjudicate the dispute between the aggrieved person on one hand and the promoter, allottee, real estate agent on the other for violation or contravention of the provisions of RERA, Rules and Regulations made thereunder.

• Section 32,34,35 are the special provisions.

• Section 79 of RERA bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court from entertaining any matter which the Authority is empowered under the Act to determine.

• Section 59 lo 69 relates to the offences and penalties.

• A Special Forum of Adjudicating Officers whose qualification is that of District Judge has been set up by Section 71 of RERA to decide the matters arising out of Section 1.2, 74, 78 & 19.This case arises out of Section 18 of the Act for which a separate special forum has been provided by RERA and hence, the jurisdiction lies with the Authority and it cannot be delegated to the Arbitrator despite the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Arbitration Clause of the agreement. Hence, Court did not find any force in the respondents' submission that this Authority has no jurisdiction. The Court finds that the Authority has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

x

Rajasthan RERA - Complaint under Section 12 will not be dealt by the Authority and has to be compulsorily put before the Adjudicating Officer.

 In the Matter of Amit Kumar Lamba V/s Shekhar home Developers Complaint no.RAJ-RERA-C-2018-2193  decided on 23.04.2019 before Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority

The Bench of Sh. Nihal chand Chairman and and Rakesh jain member held that

Complaint for Relief under Section 12, Section 14(3), Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) are to be filed with and disposed of by the adjudicating officer alone, in the manner prescribed in the Rule 36 of the Rules. 

Complaints for Relief under Section 14(1) , Section 14(2) , Section 19(16) to 19(11) are to be filed with and disposed of by the Authority alone, in the manner prescribed in the Rule 35 of the Rules.

As regards to complaint under Section 18(1), the Complaint is to be filed with and disposed by authority if the complaint pertains to refund, interest , penalty or of other other directions.

The Complaint under Section 18(1) is to be disposed by the Adjudicating officer if the complaint pertains to the compensation only.

The copy of Detailed order can be found at https://rera.rajasthan.gov.in/Content/pdf/2018-2193%20001-converted.pdf

There is no provision in the RERA Act which envisaged either the Authority or the Appellate Tribunal to function with a single member

 The Punjab & Haryana High Court vide its order Janta Land Promoters Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India And Others CWP No. 8548 of 2020, dated 16.10.2020, ruled that there was no provision in the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, (“RERA Act”) which envisaged either the Authority or the Appellate Tribunal to function with a single member while exercising quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functions.

The key points of this judgement are as follows:  

•  The High Court ruled that the adjudicatory power of the Authority could not be transferred to a single member without express provision in the RERA Act.

• While interpreting the provisions provided under Section 21 of the RERA Act, the court held that it is clear that the Authority is a multi member body and that it cannot be considered to be an Authority if it is not comprised of its Chairperson and at least two whole time members. This has to be read along with Section 29 of the RERA Act which deals with the meetings of the Authority.

• Similarly referring to Section 43 of the RERA Act, the Court declared that an Appellate Tribunal was required to have at least two members, out of which, one was to be a judicial and other a technical or administrative member.

•  The court went to hold that any order passed by such Single Member Bench of the Appellate Tribunal would be null and void in law.