The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17358-DB RERA.A No. 30 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF RERA APPEAL NO.30 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MR. A.V.BHASKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SITE NO. 25-20, 'RAMKY HOUSE', 2ND CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, HENNUR RING ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 043. 2. MR. NANDA KISHORE M., AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, 25-30, 'RAMKY HOUSE', 2ND CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, HENNUR RING ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 043. Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka 3. M/S. RAMKY ESTATES AND FARMS LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SITE NO. 25-20, 'RAMKY HOUSE', 2ND CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, HENNUR RING ROAD, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17358-DB RERA.A No. 30 of 2025 KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 043. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. A.V. BHASKAR REDDY. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHASHANK S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. ANUPAMA NAVEEN SHENOY AGE: MAJOR, 101, ODESSY APARTMENTS, ARYA SAMAJ ROAD, MANGALURU-570 002. 2. THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, 1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK, UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND, 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE 560027. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS THIS RERA.APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 58 OF THE REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT 2016, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPEAL NO.(K-REAT)55/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL IN APPEAL NO.(K- REAT)55/2024, THEREBY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN CMP/220101/0008761 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17358-DB RERA.A No. 30 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, [in short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Appeal No. (K- REAT) 55/2024, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal by up-holding the order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bengaluru. 2. The facts as noted are, the Respondent No.1 had entered into an agreement of sale and construction dated 08.03.2013 to purchase a Flat bearing No.304 on the 3rd Floor under the Real Estate Project known as RAMKY ONE NORTH PHASE-2 by Appellant No.3 herein. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17358-DB RERA.A No. 30 of 2025 3. It was the case of the Respondent No.1 that, a total consideration of Rs.50,76,793/- has been paid and as per the terms of the agreement, the Appellant No.3 was to hand-over the possession of the Flat on or before 30.06.2015 including the grace period of six months. It was the case of the respondent No.1 that the Appellant No.3 has failed to deliver the possession before the stipulated date. The possession was only given on 18.02.2017. The Authority before whom, the complaint was filed, directed the 3rd appellant-promoter to pay interest for every month delayed period at the rate of SBI MCLR+2% from 30.06.2015 till 18.02.2017 i.e., the date when the possession was given, on the principal amount of Rs.50,76,793/- to the Respondent No.1. 4. The appeal was filed by the appellants before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Authority dated 14.05.2024 in CMP/220101/0008761. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17358-DB RERA.A No. 30 of 2025 As noted from the said impugned order, the case of the appellants was that, the Occupancy Certificate in respect of the project was issued by the Bengaluru Development Authority on 30.05.2018 and the project is not required to be registered under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It was also stated that, as per the declaration-cum-undertaking dated 18.02.2017 given by the Respondent No.1 to the extent, she has no claim of any sort or nature against the Appellant No.3 and as such, the authority could not have granted the interest on delayed period on the principal amount at the rate of SBI MC LR+2%. In fact, it was stated that the allottee-Respondent No.1 had received an amount of Rs.47,910/- on 17.06.2019 towards the compensation and as such, having received the compensation the authority could not have granted interest for the delayed period. The - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17358-DB RERA.A No. 30 of 2025 Tribunal has in Paragraphs No. 12 to 16 of the impugned order, stated as under:- “12. It is not in dispute that, on 21.12.2018 the 1st appellant being the Authorised Signatory of appellant No.3 executed a Registered Sale Deed in favour of the Allottee. On perusal of the recitals incorporated in the said sale deed, there is a clear recital with respect to the Sale Agreement and Construction Agreement dated 08.03.2013. But nothing is forthcoming with respect to the alleged Declaration-cum-Undertaking dated 18.02.2017. Since the appellants are very much relying on said document, the burden lies upon them to prove the execution of Declaration-cum-Undertaking. But, on perusal of the signatures forthcoming on the copy of Declaration-cum-Undertaking dated 18.02.2017 and Sale Deed dated 21.12.2018, it is apparently clear that, one who put signatures on the Registered Sale Deed before the Senior Sub-Registrar was not the signatory to the alleged Deed of Declaration-cum- Undertaking relied by the appellants. As such the execution of alleged Deed of Declaration-cum- Undertaking by the Allottee is in serious dispute. It is relevant to mentioned that, the witness column in the alleged Deed of Declaration-cum-Undertaking is kept it as blank. Even if the Allottee was the signatory to the document in question, there was no impediment to the appellants to obtain the signatures of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17358-DB RERA.A No. 30 of 2025 persons, who are well acquainted with the Allottee, as attesting witness. But no such attempt was made. Further, it does not contain the seal and signatures of any of the appellants. Since the execution of Deed of Declaration-cum-Undertaking is not proved, it cannot be said that, the Allottee herself waived the claim towards compensation. Even though it is the prerogative of the Civil Court to give findings on the veracity of the document, incidentally the Tribunal can also look into the evidentiary value attached the document. 13. As and when the execution of Deed of Declaration-cum-Undertaking is not proved, no reasons to hold that, the Allottee is estopped from making her claim for compensation before the Authority.
Legal Reasoning
14. Since the counsel for the appellant has very much relied upon the judgment rendered by the High Court in RERA Appeals No.26/2021 and 27/2021, we have taken a careful look at the findings given in the said judgment. It is relevant to mention that, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The State of U.P. and others reported in (2021) 18 SCC 1 has clearly held that, as far as dispute regarding compensation is concerned, the Authority is required to decide the complaint and the Adjudicating Officer has no jurisdiction to determine the same. The corresponding complaints referred in RERA Appeals - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17358-DB RERA.A No. 30 of 2025 No.26/2021 and 27/2021 were decided by the Adjudicating Officer. Hence taking note of the authoritative findings given in the case of Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd, the aforementioned appeals were allowed and cases have been remanded to the Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Further, those appeals were not decided on merits. But in the case on hand, the complaint was decided by the Authority and not by the Adjudicating Officer. Hence the findings given in those appeals are not coming in the way of this appeal. 15. On perusal of the impugned Order, it is clear that after going through each and every aspect of the points in controversy, the Authority has given its findings. It is relevant to mention that, under Section-18 of RERA Act, as and when the Allottee is able to establish the delay in handing over possession, the Authority is having every right to award interest for the delay period. Considering the date of payments made by the Allottee in periodical installments, interest has been awarded. Further, it was clearly held that, as the project undertaken by the Promoters is an ongoing project, the Promoter was required to register it before the Authority as contemplated under Section-3 of the Act. As such looking from any angle, there is no merit in the appeal. Hence, no grounds are made out to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the Authority and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17358-DB RERA.A No. 30 of 2025 consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, inasmuch as, the same is devoid of merits. 16. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the point (i) in the negative holding that the Appellant- Promoter has failed to prove that the Authority was not justified in directing the Promoter to pay interest for delay period on the principal amount of Rs.50,76,793/-at the rate of SBI MCLR + 2% from 30.06.2015 to 18.02.2017 i.e., till the date of handing over of possession to the 1st Respondent- Allottee. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER (a) The appeal is dismissed; (b) The impugned order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the 2nd Respondent-RERA in complaint CMP/220101/0008761 is hereby confirmed; No. (c) The Registry is directed to release the amount in deposit before this Tribunal, including the interest accrued thereon by issuing a Bankers cheque/DD, in favour of 1st Respondent-Mrs. Anupama Naveen Shenoy, after the expiry of the appeal period and by the due procedure; following (d) In view of disposal of the main appeal, pending I.As., if any, shall stand disposed for of, as consideration; they do not survive (e) Registry is directed to comply with the provisions of Section 44(4) of the Act and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17358-DB RERA.A No. 30 of 2025 to return the records to RERA, if any received. There is no order as to costs.” 5. The submission of Mr. Shashank S., the learned counsel for the appellants is that, the Authority did not had the jurisdiction under the provisions of the RERA Act, to entertain the complaint. According to him, the one Tower, where the Flat in question is situated has been constructed before the Act, had come into effect. So, in that sense, no dispute connected with that tower could have been the subject matter of the claim before RERA. That apart, it is his submission that the allottee- Respondent No.1 having executed the declaration- cum-undertaking on 18.02.2017 and having received Rs.47,910/- pursuant thereto on 17.06.2019, she was estopped to make a claim before the Authority. According to him, regrettably the Authority entertained the said claim and decided the same in - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17358-DB RERA.A No. 30 of 2025 favour of allottee, which is un-called for. He also stated that the declaration-cum-undertaking having been executed on 18.02.2017, the claim having been filed in the year 2022, was clearly hit by delay and latches. So, even on that ground, the authority could not have entertained the complaint. That apart, it is his submission that initially complaint was filed against the Directors of the Appellant No.3-Company. But on a memo filed by the counsel for the Appellant No.1 impleading the Respondent No.3, without notice to Appellant No.3, the Appellant No.3 has been impleaded and the complaint has been decided against the Appellant No.3. 6. We are not impressed by the submissions made by Mr.Shashank for the simple reason that, in sofar as plea No.1 is concerned, no plea as urged was advanced before the Authority. This we say so because, no such plea has been recorded by the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17358-DB RERA.A No. 30 of 2025 Authority. At least the copy of the appeal memo filed along with this appeal in support of the plea does not show, such a plea was taken. In the absence of plea before the authorities below, the submission of Mr.Shashank, by referring to the proposed substantial questions of law, shall not help the case of the appellants, as such an issue is a mixed question of fact and law. Secondly in the absence of such a plea before the authorities it shall mean, that the appellants have accepted and submitted to the jurisdiction of RERA. The Tribunal has in Paragraph- 12, which we have re-produced above has held, by such a declaration-cum-undertaking it cannot be said that the Respondent No.1 has waived her right to claim compensation. There is a justification for the Tribunal to come to the said conclusion. This we say so because, the declaration-cum-undertaking having been executed on 08.02.2017, the compensation - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17358-DB RERA.A No. 30 of 2025 thereof was paid only in the year 2019, that too after more than two years and the amount paid was Rs.47,910/- as compensation. It is a very meager amount, otherwise the Respondent No.1 was entitled to interest on the complete amount paid by the Respondent No.1 of Rs.50,76,793/-, which has been granted by the Authority and up-held by the Tribunal. The Chronology of events suggest, that it is after the declaration-cum-undertaking was signed that the sale deed was signed by the appellants, which shows the modus to get the declaration signed so as to prevent the Respondent No.1 from filing a claim for compensation. Possibly it can be argued, the declaration was forced to sign by coercion/pressuring the Respondent No.1. 7. In so far the plea that, Appellant No.3 was not made a party initially is concerned, the finding of the Tribunal in that regard is, though the complaint - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17358-DB RERA.A No. 30 of 2025 was lodged before the Authority against Appellants No.1 & 2 only, the Appellant No.3 was arrayed thereafter. By Responding to the notice, the Appellants No. 1 & 3 appeared before the Authority through their counsel and the 1st Appellant alone submitted his statement of objections. The Appellant No.3 against whom the liability has been fastened, has not even filed objections to the complaint. So, in that sense, the contents of the complaint have gone un-rebutted by the Appellant No.3, the Company. This plea of Mr. Shashank is also without any merit. 8. In sofar as the last submission of Mr. Shashank regarding delay and laches in filing the complaint after a period of 05 years from the date of execution of declaration-cum-undertaking is concerned, the same was executed on 18.02.2017, whereas the complaint was only filed in the year 2022, but one intervening factor has some relevance - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:17358-DB RERA.A No. 30 of 2025 that is, in terms of the declaration-cum-undertaking (though not proved), the compensation was only paid on 17.06.2019 i.e., after more than 02 years. The appellant having filed the complaint in 2022, in that sense, there was no undue delay and latches, which can disentitle the complainant from invoking the remedy of filing complaint before the Authority. In any case the limitation (if any) for a money claim/ compensation is three years and the complaint was filed within three years. 9. Mr. Shashank during his submission did concede to the fact that there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for an allottee to approach the Authority. If that be so, there is no delay in filing the complaint. We do not see any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:17358-DB RERA.A No. 30 of 2025 10. In view of dismissal of this appeal, IA No.1/2025 for Stay does not survive for consideration and stands dismissed. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE KGR* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9