Bombay High Court Quashes MahaRERA Ruling And Rules That A Single Member Bench Can’t Decide RERA Appeals
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Bombay High Court recently quashed and set aside a ruling by an administrative member of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.The High Court ruled that as per Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) provisions, a sole member of a tribunal bench has no jurisdiction to dispose of appeals or applications.The court ruling came after hearing two appeals...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Bombay High Court recently quashed and set aside a ruling by an administrative member of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
The High Court ruled that as per Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) provisions, a sole member of a tribunal bench has no jurisdiction to dispose of appeals or applications.
The court ruling came after hearing two appeals be real estate developer Man Global Ltd (MGL) against Bharat Prakash Joukani and Ram Prakash Joukani.
Earlier, MGL had appealed against an order dated May 2, 2019 passed by an administrative member of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, refusing to condone a delay of 62 days in filing an appeal against a MahaRERA order.
On September 24, 2018, MahaRERA had directed MGL to pay each of the two complainants a 10.5% interest on a sum of Rs 5.14 crore from July 2016 till the date of handing over possession of their flats, and refund Rs 61.73 lakh for lift lobby area of 118 square feet.
MGL had filed an appeal against the directive with the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, but there was a 62-day delay which it requested the tribunal to condone. This was refused and its application was rejected, after which MGL filed a second appeal with the Bombay High Court.
MGL’s lawyer cited Section 43 (3) of the RERA which states that “every bench of the Appellate Tribunal shall consist of at least one Judicial Member and One Administrative or Technical Member”.
He also cited paragraph 339 of the December 2017 judgment by the High Court in the Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt Ltd vs Union of India case to support his submission that the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal must always consist of two members. He submitted that the entire order thus passed by one the sole member of the Tribunal is without jurisdiction and should be set aside.
After haring all sides, Justice Dhanuka of the Bombay High Court quashed as well as set aside the May 2 Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal order, and asked a two-member bench of the Tribunal to hear MGL’s application again.
