Section 79 does not transform RERA into a forum for adjudication of every dispute connected with real estate

 

Sana Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Madan Kishan Gurow & Ors.

Forum: Bombay High Court

Facts:
A flat was first sold by Mount Mary Builders to Sana Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. through a sale deed. The same flat was subsequently covered by another AFS in favour of Madan Kishan Gurow and others, who were put into possession. RERA proceedings resulted in orders concerning possession. The later purchasers instituted a civil suit seeking declarations that their agreement was valid and that they were bona fide purchasers without notice.

Issue:
Whether Section 79 of RERA barred the civil suit involving competing claims of title and bona fide purchase.

Held:
The Bombay High Court upheld the trial court's refusal to reject the plaint. The central dispute concerned title and whether the plaintiffs were bona fide purchasers for value without notice. RERA authorities could not grant the declaratory and injunctive relief sought.

Ratio:
Section 79 does not transform RERA into a forum for adjudication of every dispute connected with real estate. Where the dispute fundamentally concerns title and competing proprietary claims requiring declaratory relief, civil-court jurisdiction remains relevant.

Practical Impact:
Practitioners should distinguish between statutory allottee/promoter disputes and disputes requiring declarations of title or bona fide purchaser status.

Relevant RERA Sections:
Section 79 — bar of jurisdiction; Section 17 — transfer of title; Section 34 — functions of Authority.

Failure by the promoter to register the agreement cannot automatically destroy rights arising from a transaction that has been acted upon

 

Suchitra Sudam Patil v. Kailash Chattrapati Patil

Forum: MREAT

Facts:
The appellant booked a flat in 2011, with possession promised in January 2013. Despite substantial payment, including stamp duty and registration charges, the promoter failed to complete registration and attempted to transfer additional stamp-duty and penalty burdens to the allottee.

Issue:
Whether an unregistered agreement, once acted upon, can support the allottee's statutory rights and whether the promoter can shift additional registration-related costs caused by its own default.

Held:
MREAT held that the delay was attributable to the promoter. The unregistered agreement, having been executed and acted upon, remained binding. The promoter was directed to register the agreement, pay interest and complete the project.

Ratio:
Failure by the promoter to register the agreement cannot automatically destroy rights arising from a transaction that has been acted upon. The promoter cannot benefit from its own failure to complete registration.

Practical Impact:
Allottees should retain proof of execution, payment and possession-related correspondence even where registration was never completed.

Relevant RERA Sections:
Section 13 — Agreement for Sale; Section 18 — delayed possession; Section 17 — transfer of title.

RERA authorities cannot assume the jurisdiction of a civil court to adjudicate proprietary or possessory disputes.

 

Raajyam Realty LLP v. Radhika Ganatra & Anr.

Forum: MahaRERA

Facts:
The promoter complained that the allottees had occupied the property without permission and had failed to pay the balance consideration under a registered sale agreement. The respondents challenged the complaint, pointing out that the promoter did not possess a full and valid OC and had not complied with contractual requirements concerning possession.

Issue:
Whether MahaRERA could grant relief concerning recovery of possession or eviction where the dispute involved proprietary and possessory rights.

Held:
MahaRERA dismissed the complaint. It found that the OC relied upon by the promoter was conditional and subject to outstanding statutory compliances. It further held that eviction and recovery of possession fall outside RERA jurisdiction.

Ratio:
RERA authorities cannot assume the jurisdiction of a civil court to adjudicate proprietary or possessory disputes. A conditional OC may also be insufficient to establish that the promoter has completed its obligations for lawful possession.

Practical Impact:
Promoters should not assume that an RERA complaint can be used as an eviction mechanism. Conversely, allottees facing possession disputes involving title or proprietary rights may need to approach the civil court.

Relevant RERA Sections:
Section 2(zf) — Occupancy Certificate; Section 11 — promoter obligations; Section 17 — transfer of title; Section 79 — bar of civil-court jurisdiction, subject to the limits recognised by law.