RERA Cases Annual Digest- Part 2

HIGH COURTSALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RERA Tribunal Has Appellate & Revision Powers; Interest Payable Only After Pre-Deposit U/S 43(5): Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Greater Noida, Gautambudh Nagar through its Authorized Representative v. Raj Kumar Goyal Case No: RERA Appeal No.124 of 2023While entertaining a set of appeals regarding the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, the Appellate Tribunal could award interest or compensation only after mandatory pre-deposit is made for entertaining such appeal.Further, it held that the RERA Appellate Tribunal has both appellate and revisional powers for examining the legality and propriety and correctness of any order or direction of the Authority or the Adjudicating Officer. Regarding the issue of jurisdiction that was framed in another connected set of appeals, the Court relied on Ratan Buildtech to hold that as per Section 44 and 45 of the RERA Act, the Appellate Authority is entitled to exercise the powers of the authority against whom the appeal has been preferred. It was held that this would find greater merit in cases where no appreciation of evidence is required and only a mechanical exercise was to be performed. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RERA Orders Not Decrees, Cannot Be Executed Through Civil Courts: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Snil Pathiyam Veetil & Ors. Case No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 417The Karnataka High Court ruled that an order passed by a Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) does not amount to a civil court decree and cannot be executed through civil execution proceedings, holding that RERA orders must be enforced only through the statutory recovery mechanism provided under the Act. A single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said the statutory scheme shows that RERA is a 'self-contained code' whose decisions do not conform to any of the requirements of a decree as defined in Section 2(2) CPC, and therefore its orders cannot be executed as civil decrees. It held that "On a coalesce of the judgments noted above, what would unmistakably emerge is, the order of the Adjudicating Officer or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, constituted under the Act, does not assume the mantle of a decree, within the contemplation of Section 2(2) of the CPC. Therefore, such an order/orders cannot traverse the path of execution delineated under Order XXI of the CPC. The Courts have, in the afore-quoted judgments have illuminated that the proceedings before the RERA are not conceived in the mould of a civil suit, though the Act provides the procedure to be followed, as if it is a civil Court and therefore, cannot culminate in a decree in the classical sense. In that light, the applications so filed by the petitioner invoking Section 47 of the CPC to hold that the concerned Executing Court did not have jurisdiction was in tune with law."BOMBAY HIGH COURT RERA Authorities Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Issue Declarations and Injunctions Like Civil Court : Bombay High CourtCase Title: Sana Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Madan Kishan Gurow & Ors.Case No: Civil Revision Application No. 606 of 2024The Bombay High Court held that authorities and tribunals under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) cannot adjudicate title disputes between allottees or grant declaratory and injunctive reliefs, ruling that such powers lie exclusively with civil courts. Clarifying the limits of RERA jurisdiction, the court held that disputes concerning the validity of title instruments “is not a matter which the authorities under the RERA are empowered to adjudicate. Consequently, the reliefs of declaration and injunction sought by the Plaintiffs in the instant suit, may not be granted by authorities under RERA"Single bench of Justice N J Jamadar emphasized that the presence of execution powers does not transform the Appellate Tribunal into a civil court. It said “ At best, it can be said that, while executing an order, the Appellate Tribunal may have the trappings of the civil Court, but it cannot be called a Civil Court, in the sense that, it can grant reliefs which can be granted by the Civil Court as the court of plenary and residuary jurisdiction while determining a suit of civil nature.”Bombay High Court Upholds Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's Decision To Impose Interest On Keyana Estate For Delayed PossessionCase Title: Keyana Estate LLP (Earlier Known as Kiyana Ventures LLP) Versus Paresh Parihar & AnrComplaint No - Second Appeal No. 537 of 2025 With Interim Application No. 11757 Of 2025The Bombay High Court (“High Court”) bench, comprising Justice N. J. Jamadar, upheld the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's (“Tribunal”) decision holding Keyana Estate liable for the delay in handing over possession.High Court observed that under RERA, interest on delayed...

RERA Cases Annual Digest- Part 2

Shivani Ps

Tags