Joydeep Majumder v. Sudip Kumar De

The present appeal has been preferred against an award of the West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

Learned Counsel for the appellant argues that in view of the specific bar embodied in Section 212(2) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, no person shall occupy or permit to be occupied any such building or use or permit to be used any building of any part thereof affected by any such work as mentioned therein until permission has been granted by the Municipality on such behalf in accordance with the rules and regulations made under the said Act.

It is submitted that the completion certificate of the building in question could not be obtained due to certain technical glitches. The sanction plan was of the year 2016, which was obtained in offline mode. 2 Since the present portal i.e. OBPAS permits only online sanction process, the application for completion certificate made by the appellant is not being being accepted offline. It is submitted that due to such technical difficulties, the completion certificate could not be obtained. Learned Counsel also submits that although the construction of the building has not been entirely completed, even if the same is completed, possession cannot be given to the allottee/respondent in terms of the impugned award, in view of the bar under Section 212 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993.

However, the question as to whether the completion certificate could not be obtained due to technical glitches and/or online-offline incompatibility and as to whether, even if the said construction is completed, possession cannot be granted immediately, pertain to the facts and circumstances of the case.

The said questions, at best, can be termed as mixed questions of fact and law and do not qualify even as pure questions of law.

As mandated by Section 58 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the parameters of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to appeals under the said Section. We are, however, unable to find any substantial question of law involved in the case and, 3 as such, are not inclined to admit the appeal for hearing.

Accordingly, SMAT 6 of 2025 is dismissed without any order as to costs.

Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2025 stands dismissed as well.

Urgent photostat copies of the order, if applied

for, be supplied to the parties. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Uday Kumar, J.)