Limitation Act Not Applicable To Homebuyer Complaints Before RERA: Chhattisgarh High Court

The High Court of Chhattisgarh has recently held that complaints filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) or its Adjudicating Officer are not subject to the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Setting aside a tribunal's suo motu order that had dismissed a homebuyer, Nidhi Sao's complaint as time-barred, the court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on its merits. The tribunal had proceeded on the basis of the respondent developer's contention that the complaint, filed on September 4, 2018, was beyond three years from the alleged cause of action arising around May 25, 2015.

The court held that RERA, being a specialized regulatory body, does not fall within the ambit of a “court” so as to attract the application of Article 137.

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed, “In the case at hand, the appellant filed a complaint before the RERA under Section 31 (1) of the Act, 2016 which is a creature under the special Act wherein there is no provision of limitation and even there is no express provision or implication of applicability of the Limitation Act. Thus, the Tribunal committed gross error by applying the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act to the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 31(1) of the Act before the RERA"

Noting the absence of any legislative intent to prescribe a limitation period, the Court added, “It is pertinent to mention here that from the language of the Act 2016, the intention of the legislature to exclude the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act is manifestly clear. The provisions of the Limitation Act, which the legislature did not incorporate in the Act, 2016, cannot be imported into it by analogy.”

The dispute arose from a sale agreement dated May 26, 2012, between Nidhi Sao and Greenearth Infraventures Private Limited for the purchase of a flat in the “Green Earth City” project in Durg.

Sao approached RERA alleging failure to complete construction within time, substandard quality of work, and pressure from the developer to take possession while demanding additional payments. She sought a refund and compensation by filing a complaint.

RERA dismissed her complaint on November 22, 2018, but directed the developer to complete the finishing work and hand over possession within two months, while also directing the buyer to deposit the balance amount.

Aggrieved, she filed an appeal before the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The tribunal, however, without examining the merits, dismissed the appeal on September 15, 2023, by taking suo motu cognisance of limitation and holding the complaint to be time-barred.

Challenging this, Sao approached the High Court under Section 58 of the Act.

Before the High Court, she argued that the Limitation Act applies only to courts and not to quasi-judicial authorities like RERA unless expressly provided. The developer supported the tribunal's view, contending that the complaint was barred by limitation based on the timeline of the cause of action.

Rejecting this, the court held that importing limitation provisions into the RERA framework “would be entrenching upon the preserves of Legislature.”

It further observed that RERA is a statutory authority headed by a government-appointed chairperson and cannot be equated with a civil court, which alone falls within the scope of the Limitation Act.

“A careful reading of the Act reveals that there is no prescribed period of limitation for filing a complaint under Section 31 before the Authority or the Adjudicating Officer," the court said.

The court also found fault with the tribunal for raising the issue of limitation on its own at the appellate stage, noting that neither the developer had raised such an objection before RERA nor had the authority framed any issue on limitation.

Holding that this amounted to a procedural irregularity, the court set aside the tribunal's order and directed it to decide the appeal afresh on its merits, without insisting on the question of limitation.

For Appellant (Nidhi Sao): Advocate Manish Nigam.

For Respondent (Greenearth Infraventures Private Limited): Advocate Mayank Kumar.