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.”

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.”

The Allahabad High Court - A single member of RERA can also adjudicate the complaints of home buyer.

 The Allahabad High Court  in the Matter of M/S K.D.P. Build Well Pvt Ltd vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others WRIT - C No. - 2248 of 2020 Decided on 4 February, 2020 has held that a single member of RERA can also adjudicate the complaints of home buyer.

It was pleaded that one member of RERA has passed the order in violation of the provisions of the Act of 2016. Section 21 provides for formation of Authority consist of Chairperson along with two whole time Members. The impugned order is by one Member alone going against the mandate of Section 21 of the Act of 2016.

The Court refused to accept the submission of Petitioner Counsel that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a different view. Further the court observed that the Petitioner did not raised any objection before the single Member about his competence to adjudicate the complaint. In absence of objection, the Authority proceeded with the matter. If the objection would have been taken and was sustainable, the complaint could have been decided by the Authority consisting of three Members. The petitioner has challenged the order in reference to the composition only when he lost in the complaint

Referring to Section 21, 29 and 30 of the Act observed that it is not necessary that the adjudication of the complaint has to be made by the composition of Authority, as given under Section 21 of the Act of 2016 though as per Section 29 also, it should be by two Members in absence of the Chairperson. Further Section 30 protects proceedings from invalidation due to any vacancy. 

it was held that 

"We are further not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders on the ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by a single member is without jurisdiction as contemplated under Section 21 of the Act and has not been passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears us to be misconceived. The proposition of Section 21 is not that the complaint could not be decided by a single member of the Authority, whereas it could be decided by a single member or by two members, whichever is better in the interest of justice as per availability of the members and we further observed that Section 81 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 provides "delegation", which says that "The Authority may, by general or special order in writing, delegate to any member, officer of the Authority or any other person subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order, such of its powers and functions under this Act ( except the power to make regulations under section 85), as it may deem necessary" and having regard to the provision of Section 81 of the Real Estate ( Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the authority vide their 5th meeting dated 5.12.2018 as per Agenda 1 delegated the power to a single member to decide the cases in both the Benches sitting at Lucknow and Gautam Budh Nagar, the delegation of power of the 5th meeting dated 5.12.2018 of U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority is quoted as under:"

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.