UPREAT Appellate Tribunal

Right to Refund even if OC/CC issued in Real Estate Project and other buyers taking Possession

by
up real estate appellate tribunal

This judgment by the U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal clarifies a critical legal position under the RERA framework: the mere issuance of an Occupation Certificate (OC) or Completion Certificate (CC), or possession taken by other allottees, does not extinguish the statutory right of an allottee to seek refund under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Where there is inordinate delay, incomplete development, or absence of promised amenities, an allottee cannot be compelled to accept possession in a partially developed or non-habitable project. The Tribunal reaffirmed that the right to exit the project and claim refund with interest is an independent and enforceable remedy, irrespective of the stage of construction or selective occupancy by other buyers.

This ruling has significant implications for homebuyers facing delayed real estate projects, particularly in cases where developers rely on partial OC/CC to deny refund claims.

There should be an end of litigation. Delay Condonation Rejected.

by

In the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal† (Before D.K. Arora, Chairman and Tej Bahadur Singh, Member (Judicial) and Rajiv Misra, Member (Administrative)) Appeal No. (D) 480/2020 Lucknow Development Authority … Appellant; Versus Anupama Singh … Respondent. And Appeal No. (D) 481/2020 Lucknow Development Authority … Appellant; Versus Murli Manohar Verma … Respondent. Appeal No. (D) 480/2020 and Appeal No. (D) 481/2020 Decided on June 11, 2021, [Disposal … Read more

Return of Money order can be made only at the interest rate prescribed in the RERA Act and Rules at MCLR+1%

by

The U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal clarified that interest on refund under the RERA framework must align with the statutory rate prescribed in the Act and Rules, i.e., MCLR + 1%, and not arbitrary contractual rates such as 24%. Emphasising the consumer-protective scheme of the Act, the Tribunal held that interest under Section 18 is compensatory in nature and must balance equities between promoter and allottee, ensuring fairness while rejecting one-sided contractual stipulations.

Promoter’s Appeal can’t be heard till it deposits the full amount.

by

A promoter’s appeal under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 cannot be entertained unless the statutory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) is first complied with. This decision of the U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal reiterates that deposit of the entire amount payable to the allottee—including interest and compensation—is a mandatory condition precedent, leaving no discretion with the Tribunal. The ruling reinforces the consumer-protective framework of RERA by preventing promoters from delaying enforcement through appeals without first securing the allottee’s dues.

Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 2019

by

UTTAR PRADESH REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGULATIONS 2019 Download PDF or .docx file WHEREAS it is expedient to frame regulations, the Uttar Pradesh Real State Appellate Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section 2 of Section 53 of the Real Estate (Regulations and Development) Act, 2016, read with Sub-rule (3) of Rule 25 … Read more

Best Legal Practices to Execute RERA Orders

by

Best Legal Practice to Execute RERA Order in Uttar Pradesh This article contains video explanation. Watch video How to execute UPRERA Order? Under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act 2016 (“the RERA Act) it is provided that if the Promoter is unable to deliver the Flat or Plot to the Allottee as per the … Read more