Shubham Singhal – The Ranker’s Way

Chapter 2 – Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act, 2016
Case 1:M/S M3M India Pvt Ltd. &Anr. v/s Dr. Dinesh Sharma &Anr. [Delhi HC – 2019]
[Refer Case 10 before this]

Issue Whether proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 can be commenced after
commencement of RERA,2016?
Key Ratio  Reference was made to the judgement of Supreme court in “Pioneer Urban land and
Decidendi Infrastructure Ltd. vs Union of India” case. [Refer Case 10] where it was held that
remedies that are given to allottees under RERA are concurrent remedies
 The conclusion in the aforementioned order of SC cannot be said be Obiter Dicta.
 High Court cannot disregard judgement of SC as being per incuriam (as held by SC in
Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra)
Conclusion Remedies available to the respondents herein under CPA and RERA are concurrentto
remedies under IBC.

Case 2: [Important]
Forum for People’s Collective Efforts &Anr. v/s the State of West Bengal [Supreme Court – 2021]

Issue Whether the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act [ WB-HIRA] is
constitutionally valid?
Key Ratio  While the definition of word “Repugnant” is not clear in Article 254, but for critical
Decidendi interpretation, provisions of WB-HIRA are repugnant to the RERA Act and hence
require presidential assent.
 WB-HIRA had not sought the President’s assent by virtue of Article 254(2) of the
Constitution
 Section 88 and 89 of RERA Act did not implicitly permit the States to create their
own parallel regime.
Conclusion  WB-HIRA is constitutionally invalid and hence striked down.
 Striking down of WB-HIRA shall not be considered revival of older acts
 Registrations, sanctions and permissions under WB-HIRA prior to this judgement
will NOT be affected.

Case 3: Lavasa Corporation Limited vs. Jitendra Jagdish Tulsiani [Bombay HC – 2018][Important]
(Refer CS 8 of CSD)

Issue Whether provision of RERA would apply to Agreement for Lease (and not sale)?

Whether definition of term “Promoter” would include Lessor?

Key Ratio In an agreement for lease – Lessee does not ~80% of the consideration, the rent

Decidendi cannot be Rs. 1 per annum, the registration charge and stamp duty is not required to
be paid, the lease period cannot be 999 years. In reality, it’s an agreement for sale.
 Mere nomenclature of the document will not take away the rights given to
Homebuyers by the Statute.
Conclusion The terms of the Agreement of Lease shows that in reality it is an agreement for sale.

11
Summary of Significant Case Laws
 Shubham Singhal – The Ranker’s Way

And hence, the promoters are not lessor in substance. Hence, RERA applies.

Case 4: Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltdvs Union of India [Bombay HC – 2017]

Issue Builders and developers are aggrieved of the provision of RERA and have challenged that
the provisions of RERA are violative of Article 14,19 and 20 of Constitution of India.
Key Ratio  The provision of Sec 18 of RERA (refund of money with interest) is not oppressive or
Decidendi unreasonable. It is merely compensation for the use of money.
 RERA is not a law relating to only regulating concerns of the promoters, but its
object is to develop the real estate sector, particularly the incomplete projects,
across the country.
Conclusion Provisions of RERA is constitutional, valid and legal

Case 5: IREO Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Abhishek Khanna & Others [Supreme Court – 2021] Important
[Refer Case 1&7 before this]

Issue 1. For handing over possession, the relevant period (42 months) is to be calculated from
which date – Date on which building plans were approved or issuance of Fire NOC?
2. Whether one sided terms and conditions in the agreement for sale of flat amounts to
unfair trade practice?
Conclusion 1. As the Fire NOC was pertinent to initiate the development works, the period of 42
months would be calculated from the date of obtaining fire NOC and not approval of
business plan
2. The incorporation of one-sided and unreasonable clauses in the Apartment Buyer‘s
Agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the
Consumer Protection Act and held that the Developer cannot compel the apartment
buyers to be bound by the one-sided contractual terms contained in the Apartment
Buyer‘s Agreement

Case 6:Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd. vs. Anil V Tharthare& Others [Supreme Court – 2019]

Issue Is there a need for Fresh Environmental clearance for expansion beyond limits approved
by prior EC?
Key Ratio  On the date of the order, construction at the project site had already been
Decidendi completed. A core tenet underlying the entire scheme of the EIA Notification is that
construction should not be executed until ample scientific evidence has been compiled
so as to understand the true environmental impact of a project.
 The expansion of a property in any form necessarily puts a strain on the local
environment and infrastructure and such activities need to be evaluated
 If such an interpretation was not given, a project proponent may incrementally keep
increasing the size of the project area over time resulting in a significant increase in
the project size without an assessment of the environmental impact resulting from
the expansion
Conclusion The court confirmed the directions of the National Green Tribunal and directed that the
committee continue its evaluation of the appellants project so as to bring its
environmental impact as close as possible to that contemplated in the EC dated 2 May

12
Summary of Significant Case Laws
 Shubham Singhal – The Ranker’s Way

2013 and also suggest the compensatory exaction to be imposed on the appellant.

Case 7:M/S Imperia Structures Ltd v/s Anil Patni &Anr. [Supreme Court – 2020]Important

Issue Once RERA Act has been imposed, can Consumer Protection Act, 1986 be invoked for
property related complaints?
Key Ratio Remedies under Consumer protection Act are additional or concurrent remedies.
Decidendi
Conclusion Yes, case can be invoked under Consumer Protection Act even after enactment of RERA

Case 8:Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs Manjit Kaur and Others[Supreme Court – 2019]

Issue 1. Whether a person claiming the title by virtue of adverse possession can maintain a
suit under Article 65 of Limitation Act for declaration and Permanent Injunction?
2. Whether Article 65 only enables a person to set up a plea of adverse possession as a
defendant and connect protect possession as plaintiff? (Here possessor was
plaintiff)
Key Ratio A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of
Decidendi law and once 12 yearsperiod of adverse possession is over, even owner’s right to eject
him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the
outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed.

Once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as
well as a shield by the defendant within ken of Article 65 of the Act and any person who
has perfected title by way of adverse possession, can file a suit for restoration of
possession in case of dispossession.
Conclusion Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 not only enables a person to set up a plea of adverse
possession as a shield as a defendant but also allows a plaintiff to use it as a sword to
protect the possession of immovable property or to recover it in case of dispossession.
Note -Article 65 to Schedule I of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a timeline of 12 years, within
which an aggrieved person may file a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property or any
interest therein based on proprietary title (i.e. title bases on documents).

Case 9:Bikram Chatterji & others vs. Union of India & Others [Supreme Court – 2019]Important

Facts A writ petition was filed by home buyers of various projects aggrieved by the CIRP being
initiated by NCLT on application made by Bank of Baroda against M/s Amrapali Silicon
City Private Limited.

The home buyers stated that by initiating the CIRP against M/s Amrapali Silicon City
Private Limited and by virtue of the Moratorium issued thereon, the interest of 1000s of
home buyers of various projects, being developed by the Amrapali Group, were being
affected adversely.

The SC after hearing the grievances of the homebuyers and in light of the allegations of
siphoning of funds being made against the Amrapali Group, decided to take cognizance of

13
Summary of Significant Case Laws
 Shubham Singhal – The Ranker’s Way

the Petition and ordered a Forensic Audit to be conducted of all the entities under
Amrapali Group.

Before the SC, in addition to the Amrapali Group, the pleas of the home buyers were
challenged by the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities (the “Authorities”) with whom
Amrapali Group had executed Lease Deeds on the parcel of lands over which the projects
were being developed, and the Banks who had financed loan to the Amrapali Group under
various Mortgage Deeds, by claiming that their right over the projects take precedence
over any right of the home buyers under their respective Lease Deeds and Mortgage
Deeds.

Issue 1. Validity of the charge being claimed by the Noida Authorities over the projects being
developed by Amrapali Group
2. Validity of the charge being claimed by the Banks over the projects being developed
by Amrapali Group
3. Whether the registration (“RERA Registration”) obtained by the Amrapali Group
under the RERA Act was liable to be cancelled?
4. What relief can be provided to the home buyers in light of the present facts and
circumstances?
Key Ratio  SC ordered a forensic audit to look into affairs of Amrapali Group.
Decidendi  Audit report confirmed diversion of funds.
 There were delay in payment of lease rental by the Amrapali group (Lessee) to the
Noida Authorities (Lessor) and hence, as per the lease agreement, no valid mortgage
has been created in favor of the banks (to whom the leased land was given as
mortgage)
Conclusion The Supreme Court held that:
1. The RERA Registration of Amrapali Group under RERA Act shall stands cancelled and
the various projects shall now henceforth be completed by NBCC (India) Ltd;
2. The various lease deeds granted in favor of Amrapali Group Authorities for projects
in question stand cancelled and all rights shall henceforth vest in Court Receiver
(Senior Advocate, Shri R. Venkataramani);
3. The Authorities and Banks shall have no right to sell the flats of the home buyers or
the land leased out for the realization of their dues and all their dues shall have to
be recovered from the sale of other properties of Amrapali Group which have been
attached;
4. The right of the lessee shall vest in the Court Receiver and he shall execute through
authorized person on his behalf, the tripartite agreement and do all other acts as
may be necessary and also to ensure that title is passed on to home buyers and
possession is handed over to them

Case 10:Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. vs Union of India [SC – 2019]Important

Issue 1. Whether IBC (Second Amendment) Act, 2018, constitutionally valid as it infringes
Articles 14, 19, or 300A of the Constitution of India?
2. Whether the amendment is disproportionate to RERA, 2016?

14
Summary of Significant Case Laws
 Shubham Singhal – The Ranker’s Way

Key Ratio Cover Case 2 of IBC

Decidendi
Conclusion The Supreme Court held that:
1. The Amendment Act to the Code does not infringe Articles 14, 19(1)(g) read with
Article 19(6), or 300-A of the Constitution of India.
2. The RERA is to be read harmoniously with the Code, as amended by the Amendment
Act. It is only in the event of a conflict that the Code will prevail over the RERA.
3. Remedies that are given to allottees of flats/apartments are concurrent remedies,
such allottees of flats/apartments being in a position to avail of remedies under the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, RERA as well as the triggering of the Code.
4. Section 5(8)(f) as it originally appeared in the Code is a residuary provision, always
subsumed within it allottees of flats/apartments. The explanation together with the
deeming fiction added by the Amendment Act is only clarificatory of this position in
law.

Additional Important Case Laws

Case A1:Jatin Mavani vs Rare Township Pvt. Ltd. [Maha RERA – 2018]Important

Issue Whether multiple Proceedings on same issue are Permissible under RERA 2016?(a
complainant filed two applications with RERA simultaneously, one in capacity of allottee
and the other as a member of association of allottee)
Key Ratio “The record shows that the complainant was also one of the members of the said
Decidendi Association. The said fact has not been denied by the complainant. The said complaint
was filed with the MahaRERA by 'the allottees seeking directions from MahaRERA to
allow cancellation of the flat bookings by the allottees who want to do so without
cancellation fees and direct the respondent to refund the amount paid by the allottees
along with interest and compensation. In the said complaint, after hearing arguments of
both sides, the MahaRERA has already given verdict directing the respondent promoter
to execute the registered agreements for sale with the members of the Rising City
Ghatkopar Association. Since the complainant is also a party, to the said proceeding, he
cannot separately agitate thiscomplaint before the MahaRERA, as it will amount to
multiple proceedings on the same issue, which is not permissible in the RERA Act, 2016.”
Conclusion Maha RERA held that multiple proceedings on the same issue cannot be allowed under the
Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.

15
Summary of Significant Case Laws