The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal and upheld the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal’s (“Tribunal”) order requiring the appellant-promoter to pre-deposit the entire amount received by him from the flat allottee and the housing financier, along with interest, as a condition for hearing its RERA appeal.
The case was initiated when an allottee lodged a complaint before the Maharashtra RERA seeking refund of sums paid under a subvention scheme for a flat booked in 2014, before any registered sale agreement, and for which a large part of the payment was sourced from a housing loan provided by a financier. The primary grievance was project delay and incomplete delivery. Though the Occupancy Certificate (OC) was finally granted in June 2018, the complaint and refund claim before RERA predated the OC. RERA allowed the homebuyer to withdraw and directed the appellant-promoter to refund all moneys paid, including the financier’s loan component, with interest, subject to moratorium notifications issued during the pandemic.
Challenging this, the appellant-promoter appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the directions of RERA. The appellant-promoter’s contention was that only the sums personally paid by the allottee should be considered, since according to them, the refund for loan amounts is governed by a separate contract with the financier.
The Bench comprising Justice Madhav J. Jamdar affirmed the Tribunal’s ruling, finding that Section 43(5) RERA plainly requires the entire sum paid “to the allottee including interest and compensation” to be pre-deposited before the appellant-promoter’s appeal is entertained. Noting that the RERA mechanism does not permit the Tribunal to revisit the merits or validity of the refund order at the admission stage, the Court held that the deposit condition was mandatory and non-negotiable.
Ultimately, the appeal and all connected applications were dismissed. The order clarifies that developers cannot curtail a buyer’s refund or delay appellate proceedings through technical apportionment of sources.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate a/w Vikramjit Garewal, Abir P. & Kartik Joshi
For Respondent No. 1: Mr. Manish Gala a/w Nilesh Gala, Minil Shah, Samyak Dedhia & Khyati Bora
For Respondent No. 2: Ms. Rahila Memon i/b S.I. Joshi & Co