West Bengal REAT Dismisses RERA Complaint As Complainants Had Already Filed Identical Case Before State Consumer Commission

West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”) bench comprising of Justice Rabindranath Samanta (Chairperson) and Dr. Subrat Mukherjee (Administrative Member) held that a complainant cannot simultaneously pursue identical reliefs before the State Consumer Commission (“Commission”) and the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority”). The Tribunal applied the doctrine of election and dismissed the complaint before Authority since the same reliefs were already sought before the Consumer Commission. Background Facts The appellants entered into a Development Agreement on 17.08.2015 with the respondents, who were joint owners of 19 cottahs 33 sq.ft. of land at Italgacha Road, Dumdum, North 24 Parganas, Kolkata. As per the agreement, the landowners were required to execute a supplementary agreement determining owners allocation within a month of sanction of the building plan. Due to internal disputes among the landowners, the supplementary agreement was never executed and some owners obstructed the development. Despite this the appellants completed construction of three buildings (Block A, B and C). The appellants claim they requested the respondents to take possession of their allocated flats but they refused. One co-owner accepted possession but the others did not. The respondents first filed a case before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal seeking possession, rent arrears, damages and compensation. While that matter was pending the respondents filed a second complaint before the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority seeking the same reliefs. The appellants challenged this second complaint as not maintainable as Since identical reliefs were already being sought before the Consumer Commission. The Regulatory Authority through its order dated 14.05.2025 rejected their objection and proceeded further on the complaint. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal before the Tribunal seeking to set aside the order of the Authority. Observation and Direction by Tribunal Tribunal noted that the cause of action in both the complaints (one before the Consumer Commission and the before the Regulatory Authority) was substantially identical. In both proceedings the complainants sought possession of their flats, arrears of rent, damages and compensation. Tribunal observed that the complainants were attempting to pursue the same reliefs in two different forums at the same time. This, if allowed could result in conflicting decisions and unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. Tribunal referred to Sections 88 and 89 of the RERA Act. Section 88 makes it clear that RERA remedies are in addition to other laws but Section 89 gives it overriding effect in case of inconsistency. Together they indicate that while RERA does not bar remedies under other laws and a party cannot pursue identical remedies simultaneously. Tribunal held that Section 18 of RERA also supports this interpretation. It says that the remedies under RERA are “without prejudice to any other remedy,” meaning that the allottee has a choice. But once the allottee chooses a forum, he cannot pursue both for the same grievance. Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in Pioneer Urban Land v. Union of India (2019) where it was clarified that remedies under RERA are additional but not exclusive. Similarly, in Imperia Structures v. Anil Patni (2020), the Court held that there is no bar on consumer proceedings even after RERA came into force. Tribunal further relied on IREO Grace Realtech v. Abhishek Khanna (2021). In that case, the Supreme Court explained the doctrine of election, when two remedies are available for the same grievance the party must choose one. It cannot pursue both at the same time. Tribunal observed that Authority had summarily rejected the appellants objection to maintainability without giving proper reasons. It should have examined the legal position in detail before allowing the complaint to continue. Tribunal held that the complainants must elect either to continue with their consumer case or their RERA complaint. Since they had filed the RERA complaint later and intended to continue with both, the complaint before the Regulatory Authority could not be sustained. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appellants appeal and set aside the Authority's order dated 14.05.2025. Case Title – M/s. Sreeram Enterprise & Anr Versus Champak Bhattacharjee & others Citation - WBREAT/Appeal No. – 018/2025 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

West Bengal REAT Dismisses RERA Complaint As Complainants Had Already Filed Identical Case Before State Consumer Commission

Aryan Raj

Tags