Hubtown Ltd. v. Smitesh Shivaji Patil
Case No.: Second Appeal No. 221 of 2026
With: Interim Application No. 3411 of 2026
Court: Bombay High Court
Coram: Justice N. J. Jamadar
Date of decision: 22 July 2026
1. Facts of the Case
Smitesh Shivaji Patil, the allottee, filed a complaint before MahaRERA seeking relief under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016. MahaRERA dismissed the complaint by order dated 23 April 2024.
Aggrieved by the dismissal, Patil filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) along with Miscellaneous Application No. 472 of 2024, seeking condonation of a 25-day delay in filing the appeal.
The allottee subsequently failed to appear before the Tribunal. Consequently, on 3 July 2025, MahaREAT dismissed the delay-condonation application for want of prosecution, and the appeal also stood disposed of.
Patil thereafter filed:
an application seeking restoration of the delay-condonation application and the appeal; and
a separate application seeking condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.
On 5 March 2026, MahaREAT allowed both applications. The Tribunal relied upon Regulation 25 of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 2019, and found sufficient cause for restoration and condonation of delay.
Hubtown Ltd., the promoter, challenged this order before the Bombay High Court.
2. Main Issue
The principal question before the High Court was:
Whether the RERA Appellate Tribunal has inherent power to restore proceedings which had been dismissed for non-appearance/default, even though Section 53(4) of the RERA Act does not expressly confer such power?
A connected issue was whether the Tribunal had properly exercised its discretion in condoning the delay.
3. Arguments of Hubtown Ltd.
The promoter argued that the Appellate Tribunal is a creature of statute and therefore can exercise only those powers expressly conferred upon it by RERA.
It was contended that:
Section 53(4) specifies the powers of a Civil Court available to the Tribunal;
the provision permits dismissal for default or proceeding ex parte but does not expressly provide a power of restoration;
Regulation 25 could not independently confer a substantive jurisdiction which was absent in the parent statute; and
the Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to restore proceedings dismissed for want of prosecution.
4. Findings of the Bombay High Court
The High Court rejected the promoter's narrow interpretation of the Tribunal's powers.
A. Tribunal is guided by natural justice
The Court emphasised Section 53(1) of RERA, which provides that the Appellate Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but is guided by the principles of natural justice.
Further, Section 53(2) permits the Tribunal to regulate its own procedure, subject to RERA.
Therefore, the powers specified in Section 53(4) cannot be treated as an exhaustive catalogue of every procedural power available to the Tribunal.
B. Power to restore follows from power to dismiss
The Court made the central observation:
“The power of restoration is implicit in the power of dismissal unless specifically proscribed.”
In other words, when a Tribunal has the power to dismiss proceedings for non-prosecution, it necessarily possesses the ancillary power to restore those proceedings when sufficient cause for the default is demonstrated.
The Court held that denying such a power would impair the Tribunal's ability to administer justice effectively.
C. Necessary and ancillary powers
The High Court observed that although the Appellate Tribunal is a statutory body with defined jurisdiction, it cannot be deprived of powers that are necessary, ancillary and concomitant to the effective discharge of its statutory functions.
The Court stated that confining the Tribunal strictly to the powers expressly mentioned in Section 53(4) would undermine its ability to adjudicate matters effectively and justly.
5. Supreme Court Precedents Relied Upon
The High Court relied upon several important Supreme Court decisions.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan
The Supreme Court recognised that a judicial or quasi-judicial body having the power to dismiss a proceeding for non-prosecution also possesses the inherent power to restore the proceeding when sufficient cause is shown.
Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that a statutory Tribunal possesses not only expressly conferred powers but also implied powers that are incidental and ancillary and reasonably necessary to make its jurisdiction effective.
Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal
The Supreme Court recognised that a Tribunal may possess ancillary or incidental powers necessary to discharge its functions effectively and to do justice between the parties, even where such power is not expressly stated in the statute, provided there is no statutory prohibition.
6. Delay Condonation
The High Court also considered the challenge to MahaREAT's decision to condone the delay.
It declined to interfere because the Tribunal had examined the applicant's averments and supporting documents before exercising its discretion.
The High Court referred to N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123, observing that once a lower forum exercises positive discretion in condoning delay, an appellate court ordinarily should not interfere unless the decision is perverse or unsupported by reasons.
The Court found no such circumstances in the present case.
7. Held
The Bombay High Court dismissed Second Appeal No. 221 of 2026 and consequently disposed of Interim Application No. 3411 of 2026.
Thus, the order of MahaREAT dated 5 March 2026, restoring the proceedings and condoning the delay, remained undisturbed.
8. Ratio Decidendi
The ratio may be stated as:
A RERA Appellate Tribunal possesses inherent and ancillary power to restore proceedings dismissed for default, even in the absence of an express provision conferring such power, because such power is necessary for the effective exercise of its statutory jurisdiction and for advancing the principles of natural justice.
The power of restoration is therefore treated as a necessary corollary of the power to dismiss proceedings for default, unless the statute expressly prohibits restoration.
9. Relevant RERA Provisions
Section 53(1), RERA Act, 2016
The Appellate Tribunal is not bound by the procedure under the CPC and is guided by the principles of natural justice.
Section 53(2)
The Tribunal may regulate its own procedure, subject to the provisions of RERA.
Section 53(4)
Confers specified powers of a Civil Court upon the Appellate Tribunal.
Section 18
Provides remedies to an allottee where the promoter fails to complete the project or give possession in accordance with the agreement.
Regulation 25, Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 2019
Recognises the Tribunal's power to pass orders necessary to meet the ends of justice.
10. Practical Significance
The judgment is significant for RERA appellate proceedings dismissed for non-appearance.
It establishes that:
A dismissal for default is not necessarily final.
MahaREAT can restore proceedings where sufficient cause for non-appearance is established.
The Tribunal's procedural powers are not confined only to the powers expressly enumerated in Section 53(4).
Natural justice is a central consideration governing proceedings before the RERA Appellate Tribunal.
A party seeking restoration must nevertheless establish good/sufficient cause for its earlier non-appearance and delay.
Key Takeaway
The RERA Appellate Tribunal's power to restore a proceeding dismissed for default is inherent and ancillary to its statutory jurisdiction; Regulation 25 reinforces that power but is not its sole source.
