High Court of Karnataka Considers Validity of RERA Order on Complaint Maintainability and Project Exemption. The Court Examines Whether a Project with Occupancy Certificate is Exempt from Registration Under Rule 4 of Karnataka Real Estate Rules.

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging an order of the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority rejecting an interlocutory application seeking rejection of a complaint on ground of exemption from registration.

Petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order dated 05-07-2023 passed by respondent No.1 and declaration that the complaint is not maintainable.

The Authority rejected the petitioner's application under Sections 35 and 36 of the Act holding the complaint maintainable and declaring the project as an on-going project, contrary to petitioner's claim of exemption under Rule 4.

The Authority had rejected the petitioner's interlocutory application on 05-07-2023; prior to that, the 2nd respondent had filed a complaint before the Authority seeking to declare the project as on-going and seeking other reliefs.

Whether the complaint before the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority was maintainable and whether the project was exempt from registration under Rule 4 of the Rules. Whether the Authority had jurisdiction to declare the project as an on-going project despite the petitioner's claim of having obtained occupancy certificate.

Petitioner argued that under Rule 4 of the Rules, the project is exempt from registration as it had obtained completion and occupancy certificates before the Act came into force, thus the complaint was without jurisdiction. Relied on M/s Provident Housing Limited v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Another (ILR 2023 KAR 777). Respondent No.2 argued that the petition suffered from suppression of material facts, as the petitioner did not produce the completion and occupancy certificates on record; the project was incomplete and the occupancy certificate was fraudulently obtained; the project was an on-going project and the senior citizens were made to suffer.

The petitioner claims to be a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and is a promoter of several real estate projects. Likewise the petitioner promotes a project in the name and style of ‘Serene Urbana’ exclusively developed for retirement community... The 2nd respondent Serene Urbana Apartment Owners’ Welfare Association knocks at the doors of the Authority by registering a complaint seeking to declare the project ‘Serene Urbana’ as an on-going project... The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner … would take this Court through the provisions of the Act and the Rules, to contend that under Rule 4 of the Rules the petitioner is exempted from registering ... It is his submission that the petition suffers from suppression of material facts. ... Neither the completion certificate nor occupancy certificate is placed on record by the petitioner.

2nd respondent filed complaint before RERA seeking to declare project as on-going and other reliefs. During pendency, petitioner filed application under Sections 35 and 36 of RERA Act seeking rejection of complaint on ground of exemption under Rule 4. Authority rejected the application on 05-07-2023, holding complaint maintainable and declaring project as on-going. Petitioner filed writ petition challenging said order. Matter heard on 01.02.2024 and reserved for orders, pronounced on 08.02.2024.

• Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016: 2(m), 2(n), 2(q), 2(t), 2(zb), 2(zf), 35, 36
• Karnataka Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017: Rule 4
• Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
• Companies Act, 1956:
• Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960: