In a significant ruling under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has allowed delay condonation of 394 days in filing an appeal by homebuyers seeking a refund from Shree Sukhakarta Developer Pvt Ltd, the developer of the Ruparel Ariana project in Parel, Mumbai. The decision paves the way for the buyers’ refund claim to be examined on merits, highlighting the Tribunal’s emphasis on substantial justice over procedural technicalities.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute concerns flat purchasers who had booked units in Ruparel Ariana. On 27th July 2023, MahaRERA dismissed the buyers’ claim for a refund with interest. The Authority held that the buyers failed to follow proper cancellation procedures stipulated in the agreement for sale and relevant laws.
Unhappy with the outcome, the buyers filed a review petition on 20th September 2023, arguing that the original order was issued without considering their rejoinder and written submissions. However, MahaRERA rejected this review on 12th June 2024.
The buyers then filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 31st October 2024, seeking to overturn the original order. However, this appeal was filed 394 days beyond the statutory limitation period, raising a critical legal issue about whether such a delay could be condoned.
Buyers’ Grounds for Delay
The appellants argued that:
-
They did not receive a copy of MahaRERA’s order immediately and only came to know of it during a personal visit on 4th August 2023.
-
They received the physical copy of the order the same day.
-
The delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence but arose from genuine efforts to secure the order and pursue legal remedies.
-
The time spent pursuing the review petition should be excluded from the computation of delay.
Developer’s Objections
The developer strongly opposed condonation, arguing that:
-
The delay was excessive and unexplained.
-
The buyers were negligent and lacked due diligence.
-
The buyers explored other legal options, possibly amounting to forum shopping, and filed the appeal as an afterthought to prolong proceedings.
Tribunal’s Analysis and Ruling
In evaluating whether to condone the delay, the Tribunal referred to key Supreme Court precedents:
-
Mst. Katiji & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1987): Encouraging a liberal approach to condonation if sufficient cause is shown.
-
Basawaraj vs. Land Acquisition Officer: Emphasizing that the law should not defeat substantial justice merely due to procedural delays.
While noting that the limitation period begins from the date of communication of the original order—even if a review petition is pending—the Tribunal acknowledged that the buyers made bona fide efforts to pursue remedies. The Tribunal found no evidence of deliberate delay or mala fide intentions.
Final Order
Concluding that substantial justice demanded flexibility, the Tribunal ordered:
“The delay of 394 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal shall now be heard on merits.”
This outcome provides significant relief to the appellants, keeping alive their hopes of securing a refund.
Significance for Homebuyers
This decision is a critical example of how RERA authorities and appellate forums are willing to adopt a pragmatic and equitable approach, ensuring that procedural delays do not deny homebuyers the chance to seek justice.
As delays in real estate projects remain widespread, the ruling may embolden other aggrieved buyers to approach the Tribunal—even if their claims are technically time-barred—provided they can show genuine reasons for delay.
