The commercial advertisement cannot have the same decree of constitutional protection as in case of social or political speeches.”

 The Apex Court in Hamdard Dawakhana (WAKF) Lal Kuan, Delhi v Union of India 1960 AIR 554, 1960 SCR (2) 671 held that an advertisement is no doubt a form of speech but its true character is reflected by the object for the promotion of which it is employed. In this judgment, the court primarily relied on the judgment of the United States Supreme Court in Valentine v Chrestensen for the proposition that "purely commercial advertising" is not protected by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.

In the Matter of Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal reported in (1995) 5 SCC 161 The Supreme Court held that “commercial advertisement no doubt is a form of speech but its true character is reflected by the object for promotion of which it is employed. Only when an advertisement is concerned with the expression or prorogation of ideas that it can be said to be related to freedom of expression and speech. The object and purpose for which advertisement is published is the determining factor. When propagation of ideas and thoughts is inconsequential, but the real purpose and object is the promotion of sales of goods and services and personal benefit without any social purpose, the commercial advertisement cannot have the same decree of constitutional protection as in case of social or political speeches.”

In the Matter of Real Estate Authority, Punjab on its own motion Vs. Singla Builders and Promoters limited, 6 0f 2018 Decided on 08.02.2018 the Authority Penalised the promoter for Rs. 10,000/- for not displaying the registration number in the advertisements.

In the suo moto Matter of Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority Vs. Sai Estate Consultant Chembur (P) Ltd.(Case No. 1 of 2017) the MahaRERA Authority directed the respondent who is  a registered Real Estate Agent, to withhold the advertisements with immediate effect and rectify all the hoardings by putting MahaRERA registration number on the same. The respondent was directed to  pay a fine Rs.10000/- per day of the violation and accordingly for a violation of 12 days he was directed to pay Rs.120000/-

As per Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority Circular number GujRERA/ Circular/18/2020 of date 04.01.2020 , “The font size of RERA registration number and website address in the advertisements should be mandatorily equal to or larger than the contact details of the proposed project.”  

As per the  Karnataka Rera Circular “The length and breadth of the “RERA REGISTERED'' information must not be less than 10% of the length and breadth (whichever is higher ) of the advertisement issued in print media”

In the Matter of Chandra Shekhar singh Vs. Kul Developers (P) Ltd. Complaint no. AT00500000000004, The Maharashtra appellate tribunal held that when the developer has made a promise of providing 30 Feet road through its brochure and advertisement,though it was the obligation of Municipal corporation,it would become the responsibility of the promoter to provide that.

MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal: There can be no forfeiture on withdrawal before sale agreement

 The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, on March 17, 2021 set aside the order dated October 3, 2019 (“impugned order”) passed in Complaint No. CC006000000089770 in the matter of Mr. Dinesh R. Humane and Mrs. Ranjana D. Humane (“Appellants/Allottees”) v. Piramal Estate Private Limited (“Respondent/Promoter”) by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“MahaRERA”). The order dated March 17, 2021 directed the Promoter to refund the total amount paid by Allottees on the cancellation of flat reservation.

Facts of the Case:

The Allottees agreed to purchase, and the Promoter agreed to sell Flat No. 807 in the project namely Vaikunth Cluster- 2 at Thane. The Allottees submitted form of ‘request for reservation’ of Flat on 29th January 2019 and paid an amount of Rs. 1,12,393/- as booking amount to the Promoter. The Allottees  also paid Rs. 4,49,574/- on March 1, 2019 towards price of the Flat to Promoter. On account of medical emergency in the family of Allottees, they decided to cancel the flat booking. Accordingly, they sent an   e-mail to the Promoter requesting to cancel the flat booking and to refund the total amount of Rs.5,61,967/-. The Promoter replied vide e-mail dated May 20, 2019 that the amount paid by Allottees is forfeited on account of cancellation. The Allottees filed a Complaint before MahaRERA for recovery of amount of Rs. 5,61,967/- from the Promoter. The impugned order was passed by MahaRERA whereby the Promoter/ Respondent was directed to refund the booking amount in accordance with the booking form. The Allottees filed an appeal before MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal challenging the order passed by MahaRERA.

Issues:

Whether the MahaRERA order directing the Promoter to refund the booking amount to Allottees in accordance with booking form signed by both the parties is correct?

Analysis:

The MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal held that:

Form of ‘request for reservation’ is signed by Allottees only and not by the Promoter. The terms and conditions recited in Annexure “A” thereto are to be followed and observed by Allottees only. As per the impugned order, amount is to be refunded in accordance with the booking form signed by both the parties. Annexure “A” is not styled as booking form and there is no document having nomenclature as "booking form” which is signed by Allottees or by both the parties. Thus, the impugned order is passed based on such document which does not exist on record.

The only document signed by the Allottees is the printed form styled as ‘request for reservation’, which consists of 33 different terms and conditions to be observed by Allottees only. Clause 17 providing forfeiture of 10% amount of the total price of flat or the amount paid till the date, whichever is lesser, in case of withdrawal by Allottees is ex-facie unreasonable, unfair and inequitable. Existence of such a condition in the printed form of ‘request for reservation’ is against the object and purpose of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) and the same being against statute of RERA is not binding on the parties and such unreasonable and unfair transaction cannot be enforced.

The Supreme Court in the case of Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure v. Govindan Raghavan, [Appeal No. 12238 of 2018, decided on April 2, 2019] held that the court will not enforce an unreasonable, unfair contract or an unreasonable and unfair clause in a contract where contracting parties are not equal in bargaining power and where a man has no choice or rather a meaningful choice but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form as a part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rule may be.

The agreement for sale was not executed between the parties. Parties never reached to the stage of executing agreement for sale. There was no attempt to execute the agreement on the part of either the Promoter or Allottees. The refund of amount paid to promoter can be demanded as per Section 18 of RERA on the ground that promoter fails to give possession on agreed date or fails to complete the project as per terms and conditions of agreement for sale. However, in this peculiar matter though the claim of refund is not governed by any specific provision of RERA, it cannot be ignored that the object of RERA is to protect the interest of the consumer.

Regulation 39 of Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General Regulation), 2017 and Regulation 25 of Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Regulation, 2019 are in respect of the inherent powers of the regulatory authority and the appellate tribunal to pass such orders which are necessary to meet the ends of justice.

The MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal, thus, set aside the impugned order and directed the Promoter to refund the full amount paid by Allottees.

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 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

If the tax amount is credited to the State Government in the name of the allottee the predominant role is of the allottee and for that the Promoter cannot be held responsible to refund the VAT payment.

  In the Matter of Ashutosh Suresh Bagh v/s. The Member & Adjudicating Officer & Ors. Complaint no. AT005000000000120 decided on 02.05.2018 before Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

The Appellate Authority Held that 

"While deciding claims between the allottees and meeting with controversies, or the difficulties faced by the Promoter, a harmonious approach is imperative to be adopted. This is moreso the cumulative effect of the Statute coupled with Sections 71(3), 72, 38, Preamble and impetus of Section 18 of

RERA Ad is to be coherently considered. Going by these provisions and reading the order under challenge, it is apparent that refund of VAT could not be from the Promoter as the tax amount is credited to the State Government at the credit ,/ in the name of the allottee. Whatever would be the refund, would be available subject to termination of existing agreement between the parties and on an application to the concerned authorities by the allottees. In both these situations, the predominant role is of the allottee and for that the Promoter cannot be held responsible to refund the VAT payment. 

Statutory payments like stamp duty, VAT, service tax are to be deducted and flat purchaser is not entitled for the same

In the Matter of Bhoomi And Arcade Associates vs Alistair Gomes, Appeal No. AT 005000010880

Mumbai Rera Authority ordered the promoter to refund the entire amount of Rs.3,40,491/- expended by the complainant with regard to the ancillary expenses borne towards registration, stamp duty, processing fees, and finance company charge.

The Mumbai RERA Tribunal overruling the order of the Authority held that in the proposition settled in the case of Ashutosh Suresh Bagh v/s. The Member & Adjudicating Officer & Ors. and conjunctive reading of clauses 6 and 10 of the Agreement entered between the parties, it is clear that statutory payments like stamp duty, VAT, service tax are to be deducted and flat purchaser is not entitled for the same.

Authority is competent only to deal with violations or contraventions of the Act.,Authority is not the appropriate forum for settlement of disputes between the land owner and the promoter or between partners in business

 In the Matter of Raghunath Prasad Jain Vs Arihant Dream Infra Projects Ltd. Complaint no.RAJ-RERA-C-2017-2105 decided on 12.06.2019 before Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority.

• The Rajasthan Real Estate Authority presided by Shri Nihal Chand Goel and Shri Rakesh Jain held that the promoter has no obligation towards the land owner or his partners in business. 

• All the obligations of the promoter enumerated under the Act are either towards the allottees or towards the Authority, but there is no obligation the promoter has towards the land owner or his partners in business. And, the Authority is competent only to deal with violations or contraventions of the Act. 

• Thus, the Authority is not the appropriate forum for settlement of disputes between the land owner and the promoter or between partners in business;and this complaint of the land owner against the promoter is not maintainable under the Act.

• In this case, the agreement for sale executed between the allottees and the non-complainant, it was promised to deliver the possession of the project by October, 2016. Promoters challenged the maintainability of the complainant as it has been wrongly invoked under RERA as the complainant is not an allottee, but the land owner and business partner, who has been duly shown as a co-promoter in the application for registration filed before the Authority, under his consent. 

• The Act provides for remedial action for the allottees or customers being buyers of the developed property; and the disputes inter-se between the developer and the owner of land are not under the ambit and jurisdiction of RERA.

x

Even when the Agreement does not contain the Date of Possession the Complaint is maintainable for refund. when no date of possession is mentioned in the agreement the Promoter is expected to hand over the possession within reasonable time.

 In the Matter of Vrajesh Hirjee v/s Skyline Construction Company Complaint number CC006000000057101 decided on 21.02.2019

the matter was before Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Parties have entered into agreement for sale but there is no mention of the date of possession. The learned advocate of the respondents therefore submits that  the date of possession is kept blank with the consent of the Parties and no date of possession was agreed upon The respondents have pleaded not guilty and have filed their reply to contend that the complaint is not maintainable because there is no agreed date of possession mentioned in the agreement

According to the Honorable court Section 13(2) of RERA  the promoter is liable to enter into a written agreement for sale and mention in it the date by which the possession of the flat is to be handed over to the Purchaser, Hence, the respondents cannot take disadvantage of their own wrong. In this case the Honorable court relied upon the matter of Fortune Infrastructure-v/s-Travor D'lima (2018) 5 SCC 442 so The respondents were directed to pay the aforesaid amount with simple interest at the rate of 10 55% per annum from the date of receipt till their repayment.

If the Redevelopment project involves the Sale of flats to outside parties, then the builder becomes promoter under the act and the project is to be registered

 In the Matter of Indira Nagar Kaveri Apartments Owners Welfare Association v/s Navin Housing & Properties Pvt. Ltd. Complaint number 433/2019 ,

The Hon’ble Tamil Nadu  Real Estate Regulatory Authority observed that 

• an Agreement between existing flat owners and Builder intending to do redevelopment of the Society where the sale of flat to outside parties are also involved., “Very much constitute the standard joint development agreement for redevelopment  which is entered into between the existing flat owners and the promoter builder for demolition of the existing flats and construction of new flats in the said property. Therefore the day existing flat owners sign the deed of agreement with the promoter builder, the existing flat owners become an allottee and the respondent builder becomes the promoter under this act.”

• The Hon’ble Tribunal further added that it is the responsibility of the promoter to get the consent from the remaining flat owners to take up the redevelopment project.

• The Hon’ble Tribunal further declined to transfer the matter for arbitration adding that  “after the commencement of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) act, 2016 the real estate disputes and complaints will have to be adjudicated by the authority constituted under the act.” 

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

Complaints can be instituted against promoters in relation to both projects which have been registered with the authority or which are not registered with the authority

Simmi Sikka V/s M/S EMAAR MGF LAND LTD Complaint number RERA-GRG-7-2018

Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority Gurugram 

The judgement contains the following conclusions

• The RERA Act, nowhere mentions anywhere that it is applicable only for the registered projects.

• The RERA Act, provides certain categories of projects which are not required to be registered but these are within the ambit of the Act. These projects mentioned in section 3(2) have been taken out of the registration requirement but not out of the purview of other provisions of the Act.

• The provisions regarding registration and obligation during registration are applicable only for the registered projects.

• The obligations of the promoter’s post expiry of the validity of the registration provided in the Act are applicable to even the real estate projects exempted from the registration.

• The projects which were completed and handed over during the last 5 years are 

covered for the purpose of workmanship and structural defect liability.  A complaint may be filed by the allottee in such matter in case the possession of the real estate was within 5 years prior to the date of the complaint.

• All real estate projects are covered for land title defect liability

• A complaint pertaining to violation of the provisions of RERA Act, Haryana RERA Rules, and regulations thereunder, may be filed by any aggrieved person in respect of any real estate project as per the definition given in section 2(zn) of RERA Act.

Based on the above judgment, it may be concluded that registration of project and filing RERA complaint, both are separate activities. A RERA case can be filed even against the non-registered projects.