In the Matter of Air Force Naval Housing Board Air Force Station Versus U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority And Another Complaint no. RERA APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 6 of 2021 decided on 16.03.2021 before Allahabad High court
Fact of the Case
The present appeal was filed against the order passed by the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal in short) in Appeal/Misc. Case No.360 of 2019 dated 28.02.2020 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed that appeal filed by the appellant, under Section 44(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016. Undisputedly, the above-described appeal came to be filed by the appellant against the order of the RERA, dated 10.04.2019 whereby penalty @ MCLR + 1% w.e.f. 01.07.2012 was imposed on the appellant.
at the time of filing the aforesaid appeal to the Tribunal, the appellant furnished a demand draft for an amount of Rs.6,33,000/- towards 30% of the penalty amount awarded by the RERA.
By an order dated 28.01.2020, the Tribunal required the appellant to deposit the balance amount i.e. the entire amount of penalty awarded by the RERA as a pre-condition to maintain the appeal.
Thereafter the matter was listed before the Tribunal on 28.02.2020 .the instant case was dismissed due to non compliance of Tribunal's order dated 28.01.2020.
The Tribunal has relied on the observations made by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Second Appeal No.364 of 2018 (Radicon Infrastructure And Housing Private Limited Vs. Karan Dhyani) and Second Appeal No. 367 of 2018 (Radicon Infrastructure And Housing Private Limited Vs. Dhaneshwari Devi Dhyani), decided on 26.07.2019, to require the appellant to deposit the entire amount of disputed penalty as a condition to maintain the appeal.
Question of Law
Whether deposit of the entire disputed demand of penalty is a condition precedent to maintain the appeal against penalty, under Section 44(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016?"
Argument from Appellant
The appellant is a zero-profit organization, registered as a society of retired personnel of the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy. It exists and operates only for the purpose of providing affordable housing to the members of the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy and the widows of such personnel.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal has completely misread the law and/or mis-applied itself to reach a very harsh conclusion that the appeal filed by the appellant was not maintainable because the appellant did not deposit the entire disputed demand of penalty.
it has been submitted, Section 43(5) of the Act does not mandate pre-deposit of the entire disputed demand of penalty as a pre-condition to maintain an appeal under Section 44(2) of the Act.
Also, the decision of this Court in Second Appeal Nos.364 of 2018 and 367 of 2018 (Radicon Infrastructure And ... vs Karan Dhyani ) does not lay down as a proposition of law that the entire disputed demand of penalty must be deposited before an appeal is entertained or maintained under Section 44 of the Act.
Argument by defendant
Right of appeal granted under Section 34 of the Act is circumscribed and conditioned by Section 43(5) of the Act.
According to him, there is no right vested in the appellant to maintain its appeal by depositing 30% of the disputed penalty. The Tribunal could determine a higher amount and, as has been done in the present case. The right of appeal would arise only upon deposit of that higher amount. Since the appellant did not make the necessary deposit, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed its appeal.
Decision of Court
the first conclusion that may be safely drawn is Reading Section 43 (5) of the Act strictly, no appeal may be filed by a 'promoter' against the order of the RERA imposing penalty unless a minimum of 30% of the demand of penalty is pre-deposited by such 'promoter'. There is absolutely no discretion vested in the Tribunal to reduce that amount below the statutorily defined minimum of 30% of the penalty imposed by the RERA. That condition is absolute. It has also been met, in the facts of this case. Neither that percentage or amount can be reduced by the Tribunal nor an appeal filed without deposit of that amount be entertained by the Tribunal.
Second, a discretion is vested in the Tribunal to determine an amount more than 30% of the penalty - to be deposited as a condition to maintain such appeal by a 'promoter'. The legislature has referred to the same as such higher percentage "as may be determined by the Appellate Tribunal.
If the Tribunal were to require a particular 'promoter'-appellant to deposit an amount that be more than 30% of the penalty amount imposed by the RERA in the order impugned before the Tribunal, as a pre-condition to maintain its appeal, it would have to first determine the same.
In the context of Section 43(5) of the Act, the Tribunal must form its opinion on the facts and material before it - why a higher percentage of the disputed penalty be deposited by a 'promoter'-appellant as a condition to entertain its appeal.this would involve exercise of judicial discretion.
the appeal before the Tribunal is the first and the only appeal on facts. The further appeal to this Court is an appeal on substantial question/s of law. Thus, the Tribunal may never place a condition so onerous or burdensome, on the appellant before it, as may shut out the only remedy of appeal on fact, available under the Act.
The judicial discretion thus vested on the Tribunal must be exercised with extreme care and it must not appear to have been exercised on whims or fancies. It may be exercised only in extreme cases. Only by way of illustration, that discretion may be exercised where it appears to the Tribunal, even on a prima facie basis, that the penalty imposed by RERA is too less/insignificant to the infraction found or that the appellant before it is a repeat or habitual or wilful offender or the facts appear to involve large scale infractions of the law, by way of an organised activity. In such and other cases, for which judicially sound reasons may be recorded as may compel or commend to the Tribunal to require a particular appellant to deposit an amount higher than the statutory pre-defined limit of 30% of the penalty.
Unless careful application of mind is first made by the Tribunal to the facts of the individual case and unless the Tribunal records specific reasons to determine the higher amount required to be deposited by the 'promoter'-appellant, to maintain its appeal against the order imposing penalty passed by the RERA, the entire exercise made by the Tribunal may be questioned as arbitrary or unreasoned. That would be wholly undesirable and an avoidable course in the context of the quasi-judicial power exercised by the Tribunal.
Normally, the legislature provides a right of appeal without a condition of pre-deposit. However, in financial matters, the modern legislative trend has been to provide for a minimum deposit as a pre-condition to maintain the appeal. Unless the orders of the Tribunal requiring pre-deposit at higher rates (30% of penalty) are informed with reasons, such practice, if allowed, would amount to taking away the right of appeal before the Tribunal, by an order passed by the Tribunal that has been vested with the jurisdiction to decide such appeals on merits. It would be a uniquely odd process and result, factually and juris prudentially. The appellant in that situation may end up being pre-judged by the Tribunal.
Consequently, the order dated passed by the Tribunal dated 28.02.2020 is set aside.
