Supreme Court in the said decision upheld the delegation of power to decide the complaints by single members in terms of Section 81 of the Act.

 The decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was challenged before the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of UP and Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s).6745-6749/2021) decided on 11.11.2021.. Several questions were raised and answered. One of the questions was whether Section 81 of the Act authorizes the authority to delegate its power to single member to hear complaints instituted under Section 31. After referring to the statutory provisions and relying upon several decisions of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court in the said decision upheld the delegation of power to decide the complaints by single members in terms of Section 81 of the Act.

The conclusion of the Supreme Court in this respect can be noted as under:-

“120. In view of the remedial mechanism

provided under the scheme of the Act 2016, in our considered view, the power of delegation under Section 81 of the Act by the authority to one of its member for deciding applications/complaints under Section 31 of the Act is not only well defined but expressly permissible and that cannot be said to be dehors

the mandate of law.”

Grant of relief of compensation can only be adjudicated by the adjudicating officer,if compensation is provided as a part of the multiple reliefs, the complaints have to be placed before the adjudicating officer.

 In the Matter of Sameer Mahawar Vs. MG Housing Pvt. Ltd. Complaint no. appeal no. 6/2018 decided on 02.05.2019  before Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

In this order after taking into consideration the provisions of Sections 11(4), 12, 14, 18, 19, 31, 34(f),  37, 38 and 71 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter called the Act) and rule 28 & 29 of Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter called the rules). The Honourable Appellate tribunal added that. “ Thus, as a result of our aforesaid discussions, we conclude and sum up our considered view in following manner :-

(i) That violations and causes of actions arising out of the same bundle of facts/rights giving rise to the multiple reliefs shall be placed before one and the same forum for adjudication in order to avoid the conflicting findings. 

(ii) The complaints for the grant of relief of compensation can only be adjudicated by the adjudicating officer as per the provisions of section 71 of the Act and rule 29 of the Rules. 

(iii) Similarly, if compensation is provided as a part of the multiple reliefs alongwith refund/return of investment with interest flowing from the same violation/violations and causes of action, the complaints have to be placed before the adjudicating officer exercising the powers under 3 Sections 31, 71(1) read with rule 29 of the Rules as only the adjudicating officer is competent to deal with the relief of compensation.”

Land Owners can’t be Punished in Joint Ventures – Tamil Nadu RERA

 In a complaint filed by Shankari Sundararaman (“Complainant”) against Sree Vardhana Builders Private Limited (“Company”), 265 of 2020 its directors and landowners of the Project named ‘Vardhana Constellation’ in Coimbatore, for claiming refund of amounts paid towards the purchase of the flat under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“Act”), the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Chennai (“TNRERA”) stated that since directors are actively involved in the affairs of the Company and have received money and corresponded with the Complainant, they would be liable for violations under Section 69 the Act which deals with offences by companies and people responsible for the conduct/business of the company. 

However, with respect to landowners of the project site (being the other respondents), TNRERA stated that the landowners had just entered into joint venture agreements and had executed general power of attorney with the Company. The sale deeds for the undivided share of land was only executed by the Company and not the landowners. 

Further, it was stated that it was the Company that had launched the project and had entered into various agreements with the Complainant for construction and delivery of the constructed apartment on receiving consideration. 

Henceforth, the landowners would not come under the definition of “promoter” and only the Company would fall under the definition of “promoter” to be made liable for contravention under Section 31 read with Section 71 of the Act