Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from complaints filed by allottees under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), seeking interest for delayed possession of apartments in the project ‘Gundecha Trillium’ developed by M/s Sea Princess Realty. The allottees had paid substantial consideration but possession was not delivered by the agreed date of 31 December 2016. The Chairperson of MahaRERA, by order dated 16 January 2018, partly allowed the complaints, directing the promoter to pay 10% interest for six months and to hand over possession within 30 days, with adjustment of the interest amount against balance payment. Both the promoter and the allottees appealed to the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The promoter contended that the delay was due to factors beyond its control under clause 22 of the agreement, and sought full waiver of interest. The allottees challenged the partial concession and the genuineness of the completion certificate. The Appellate Tribunal, after examining fresh evidence including a joint inspection report and the promoter’s own disclosure on the RERA portal showing incomplete construction, found that the project was not fully complete and that the architect’s completion certificate was factually incorrect. By order dated 4 April 2018, it allowed the allottees’ appeals, dismissed the promoter’s appeals, directed interest from 1 January 2017 until actual possession, and requested the Secretary to initiate action against the architect. The promoter then filed second appeals under Section 58 of the RERA before the High Court. The primary legal issue was whether the appeals raised any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 CPC, since the impugned order largely turned on factual findings. The promoter argued that the Tribunal wrongly admitted fresh evidence, exceeded its jurisdiction in directing action against the architect, ignored the occupancy certificate, and misapplied Section 18 of RERA. The respondents maintained that the challenges were purely factual and no question of law arose. The court analysed each objection, noting that under Section 53(1) of RERA the Tribunal can regulate its own procedure and is not bound by the CPC, and thus admission of additional evidence did not give rise to a legal issue. It held that the finding on the certificate’s unreliability and the computation of interest were based on appreciation of evidence, not perverse, and therefore could not be interfered with in a second appeal. The direction against the architect was a mere request with no bearing on the parties’ rights. Consequently, the court found no substantial question of law, dismissed the second appeals with no order as to costs, and disposed of the connected civil applications.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100; Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Section 58 - The High Court held that under Section 58 of RERA, a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law as specified in Section 100 CPC, and factual findings of the first appellate court cannot be interfered with unless perverse. No such question arose as the challenges were purely factual. (Paras 13-14, 26-27) B) Real Estate Law - Appellate Tribunal Procedure - Admission of Evidence - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Section 53(1) - The Appellate Tribunal is empowered to regulate its own procedure and is not bound by the CPC; it can admit fresh evidence such as joint inspection reports and employee status reports even if they are contested. This does not raise a substantial question of law. (Paras 23-24) C) Real Estate Law - Interest for Delayed Possession - Computation of Interest - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Section 18 - The Tribunal’s finding that the delay was not due to reasons beyond the promoter’s control and the direction to pay interest from 1.1.2017 were factual determinations not open to challenge in second appeal. The rate and period of interest involve no substantial question of law. (Paras 29-30) D) Real Estate Law - Architect’s Certificate - Direction to Initiate Action - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Section 53 - The Tribunal’s request to the Secretary to initiate action against the architect was merely administrative and did not determine any substantive right of the parties; thus, it raised no substantial question of law. (Para 25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeals under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 raise any substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the Appellate Tribunal’s order on interest and admission of evidence is legally sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeals, finding no substantial question of law. The Tribunal’s findings on evidence, delay, and interest were factual and not perverse. The direction against the architect was a mere request. Consequently, the civil applications also stood disposed of. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 58 of RERA limits second appeal to substantial question of law
- Section 53(1) gives Tribunal power to regulate procedure
- admission of fresh evidence is permissible
- factual findings cannot be interfered unless perverse
- Section 18 mandates interest for delay in possession
