Whether RERA Is Authorised To Prefer Appeal To HC Against Decision Of Appellate Tribunal?: Supreme Court To Consider

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider the question of law whether the scheme of the RERA Act envisages the Authority, RERA, as being empowered or authorised to prefer an appeal before the High Court against a decision passed by the Appellate Tribunal.The bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari was hearing an SLP by Satyam Infracon against a March order of the Gujarat High Court holding that the Gujarat RERA would be included in the definition of 'Person' on a conjoint reading of Section2(zg) and 2(o) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; and that the Authority falling within the definition of the word 'Person' is therefore empowered to challenge a decision of the Appellate Tribunal before the High Court under Section 58 of the Act. An order passed by the Presiding Officer, Gujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Gandhinagar was sought to be assailed by Gujarat RERA in the appeal before the High Court under Section 100 of the CPC read with Section 58 of the 2016 Act. The SLP petitioner had taken a primary objection before the High Court with regard to maintainability of the appeal, contending that the scheme of the Act does not envisage RERA being empowered or authorised to prefer an appeal before the High Court against a decision passed by the Appellate Tribunal.On Friday, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Satyam Infracon, told the bench headed by Justice Nazeer, "A very interesting question of law arises in this matter- whether RERA can maintain an appeal under the Act. We say that it cannot"He took the bench through section 58 of the Act which states that "Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, may, file an appeal to the High Court..." He indicated that section 2(zg) of the Act defines "person" as including an individual; a Hindu undivided family; a company; a firm; a competent authority; an association of persons or a body of individuals whether incorporated or not; a co-operative society registered under any law relating to co-operative societies; or any such other entity as the appropriate Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf.Next, Mr. Rohatgi submitted that as per section 2(p), "competent authority" means the local authority or any authority created or established under any law for the time being in force by the appropriate Government which exercises authority over land under its jurisdiction, and has powers to give permission for development of such immovable property."I concede that RERA might fall under clause (p)", said the Senior Advocate.However, he continued to argue that section 2(i) defines "Authority" to mean the Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Act."RERA, which is the opposing party in my case, and is the 'Authority' under the Act, cannot also be a 'competent authority' to be able to maintain an appeal. Since RERA is defined separately as the 'Authority' under clause (i), it cannot also fall under a second clause! And therefore, it is not a 'person' and has no right to file an appeal!", advanced Mr. Rohatgi.SG Tushar Mehta, for the respondent- Gujarat RERA, submitted. "RERA is a statutory body serving manifold purposes, including proper development of the city and ensuring that home buyers are not cheated. The petitioner had applied for permission to construct a multi-storey in 2000 but the application remained pending. Subsequently, they were granted approval as per the old Act. Now because the city of Surat has a history of floods every year and the petitioners have not complied with building safety regulations, including fire safety etc, we said that we will not register them. They joined me as a respondent before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority allowed their appeal. It is my duty to challenge that order. My appeal before the High Court is pending and they can oppose me on merits. But on whether I could have filed an appeal...?""Mr. Rohatgi, you will not build the structure, that is certain", Justice Nazeer told Mr. Rohatgi."But here is a question of maintainability. We may have to examine the question of law", added the judge.The bench issued notice on the petition, granting 4 weeks' time to file the counter-affidavit.Proceedings before the High CourtIn its impugned order, the Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court noted that questions which arise for consideration of this Court in view of the preliminary objection are that (i) whether the words "any person" mentioned in Section 58 of the Act includes the appellant i.e. the Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority, and (ii) whether the Authority (Real Estate Regulatory Authority) is empowered to challenge a decision of the Appellate Tribunal before the High Court under Section 58 of the Act.The first question being whether the term/word 'person' as occurring in Section 58 of the Act would include the Authority or not, the Court found that the word 'Person' as defined in...

Whether RERA Is Authorised To Prefer Appeal To HC Against Decision Of Appellate Tribunal?: Supreme Court To Consider

Mehal Jain

Tags