Karnataka REAT Affirms RERA Order, Says No Grounds To Demolish Parts Of L&T Raintree Boulevard Project

The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (KREAT) has dismissed an appeal filed by homebuyers seeking demolition of parts of the L&T Realty Raintree Boulevard project, thereby affirming the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order in favour of L&T Realty Developers Limited.

A coram of Judicial Member Justice Santhosh Kumar Shetty N and Administrative Member Mahendra Jain, on November 26, 2025, held that the allottees had “no legal foundation to challenge the decision and that RERA had issued a “well-reasoned" and "sound" order requiring no interference.

The dispute arose from a registered sale agreement of August 27, 2018, for an apartment in the Raintree Boulevard project. A sale deed was executed on June 5, 2020, and possession handed over on June 22, 2020, to the allottees, Arshi Ahmed and E Suhail Ahmed.

They later approached RERA alleging multiple violations by the promoter, including unauthorised plan changes, premature payment demands, failure to provide promised amenities, and other grievances.

RERA's January 20, 2024 order partly allowed the complaint, granting only one relief out of the twelve sought, which was the direction to allot an additional car-parking space. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the homebuyers filed an appeal.

Before the tribunal, the homebuyers argued that RERA had failed to appreciate serious violations. They alleged that L&T modified plans without obtaining mandatory two-thirds consent under Section 14(2)(ii) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. They also claimed that the Occupancy Certificate dated August 21, 2019, was illegal for having been issued without fire clearance.

The homebuyers further alleged inadequate amenities and unfair trade practices in the purported removal of the L&T brand name. According to them, the order was contrary to RERA's interim directions.

L&T Realty denied all allegations and submitted that the apartment had been delivered well before the agreed deadline of December 31, 2020. The promoter noted that one of the allottees who is a practising attorney, had signed the agreement with full knowledge of its contents. The promoter also stated that all project documents were available at its office and on the RERA portal.

Upholding RERA's findings, the tribunal said there was no justification to interfere with the authority's order. As a result, the direction requiring L&T to allot an additional parking space, or refund Rs 5 lakh if it cannot, continues.

On the allegation of unauthorised modifications, the tribunal held that Section 14(2)(ii) that mandates builders take consent of 2/3rd homebuyers before making any material changes could not be invoked when the agreement for sale, which was validly executed, permitted specific alterations.

Citing the Bombay High Court's ruling in Neelkamal Realtors Pvt. Ltd., the bench noted, “if the registered agreement for sale itself permits certain modifications or alterations and the allottees have consented to such terms in advance, then; the Promoter's action in making such modifications is not violative of Section 14(2)(ii).”

Regarding the request for demolition of structures in the project, the tribunal held that neither RERA nor the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to order demolition. It clarified that such authority lies exclusively with municipal bodies.

It also rejected the claim for delay interest, stating that the demand “holds no water,” as possession had been handed over well in advance of the contractual deadline.