Complaints not maintainable against promoter whose project is not registered: Punjab RERA

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) in a landmark order has held that complaints against promoter sin relation to the projects that are not registered with the Authority will not be maintainable before it.

In the order, the Authority also cleared the ambiguity regarding the maintainability of any complaint where the alleged builder violations took place prior to the commencement of the R ERA Act. It laid down three conditions that must be fulfilled for such complaints to be considered by it.

Firstly, the alleged violations, though commencing before the

enforcement of the RERA Act, must be continuing till date. Secondly, the alleged violations must also constitute a contravention of the RERA Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder. Thirdly, the issue should not have been decided or be pending in any forum/court before approaching this Authority.

This is necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

The order reads, “Only if all the three conditions are fulfilled, and the onus would be on the complainant to prove these, would any alleged violations that took place before the coming into force of this Act (RERA Act) be considered by this Authority.”

The order came in the case of Bi kr amj it Sing hand others( complainants) versus M/s HP Singh and others. The complainants had filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana high court alleging that M/s HP Singh (respondent) had violated the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1996 (PAPRA Act) and also failed to deliver the amenities and facilities promised to them. The alleged violations related to the period before the coming into force of the Rera Act.

The HC did not issue notice to any respondents but instead directed that since the Authority has been setup, the matter should be referred there for appropriate decision. Thereafter, complain- ants approached the Authority.

In its reply to the authority, the respondent raised preliminary objections contending that the complaint was not maintain able and that it was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Authority. The two parties agreed that the preliminary objections regarding maintainability need to be decided first.

The Authority rejected the complaint as not maintainable, “having been filed in relation to a project that is not registered with this Authority.” In the order, the Authority also observed that it “would have to accordingly strengthen its regulatory mechanism and examine all cases in which the liability to register under the Act is denied”.