Only Promoter, Allottee Or Agent Can Be Made Party Under RERA: Odisha REAT Removes Site In-Charge From Complaint

The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (OREAT) has held that under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, only statutorily recognised parties such as promoters, allottees, or real estate agents can be made respondents in a complaint, setting aside an order rejecting a site in-charge's plea for deletion from a flat dispute.

The tribunal struck off the name of Soumya Ranjan Jena, described as the in-charge of the building site, holding that he did not fall within any of the categories under the Act and that there was no material linking him to the flat transaction or the development of the “Basera Aangan” project. His presence, the Tribunal said, was not necessary for deciding the case.

A coram of Chairperson Justice P. Patnaik and Members S.K. Rajguru and Dr. B.K. Das observed: “It is also notable that, as per section 31(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, an aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the Adjudicating Officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any promoter, allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be. This means the respondent of a complaint u/sec. 31 of the Act must belong to either of these three categories. In the instant case, there is no material to hold the appellant as a representative of the promoter-company, or an allottee or a real estate agent in respect of the project “Basera Aangan”. The alleged incidents in the complaint even if are true do not place the appellant in the status of representative of the respondent no.2-promoter company"

The dispute arose from a Flat Purchase Agreement dated July 29, 2013, under which Priyata Lipsa was allotted a three-bedroom flat in the “Basera Aangan” project at Patia, Bhubaneswar, by Basera Designs Pvt. Ltd., the promoter company, represented by its Managing Director Manoj Kumar Pattnaik.

Lipsa paid 15 lakh at the time of booking and another 9 lakh within three months. Possession was promised by January 2015, but the project did not meet that timeline.

She was later told construction would be completed by 2018. Even that did not happen.

In January 2020, when Lipsa visited the site, Jena allegedly assured her that finishing work would be completed. But in June 2021, when she returned, she and her husband were allegedly stopped from entering the flat by his uncle, Pramod Jena, who also misbehaved with them and issued threats.

After coming across a newspaper report alleging financial misappropriation by the promoter company, Lipsa approached the Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority seeking registration of the flat and an occupancy certificate.

In her complaint, Lipsa impleaded Jena, alleging that he acted as site in-charge, had assured completion of the flat, and had an interest in the project land, and contending that he was a necessary party.

Jena, however, denied any role. He said he was not connected with the promoter company and was not part of the flat purchase agreement.

By order dated July 1, 2023, the Authority rejected his plea for deletion, relying on allegations of his involvement; an encumbrance certificate dated April 4, 2023 showing allotment of part of the project land to him through a court-ordered partition; and a finding that he had sold another flat in the project in January 2021.

Challenging this, Jena approached the Appellate Tribunal, reiterating that he was neither a director nor connected to the transaction and that no document showed his involvement.

The tribunal noted that the July 29, 2013 agreement was solely between Lipsa and the promoter company. It found no material showing Jena's involvement in the transaction or in developing the project.

The tribunal noted that Jena had been allotted a share in the project land through a family partition, but said that, by itself, did not connect him to the flat dispute.

On that basis, it held that he was neither a necessary party nor someone who could be made a respondent under Section 31, and set aside the July 1, 2023 order, directing that his name be removed from the complaint.

It also asked the Regulatory Authority to take up the case for disposal at the earliest, preferably by the end of May 2026.

For Appellant (Soumya Ranjan Jena): Advocate D.M. Mishra

For Respondent (Priyata Lipsa): Advocate T. Pattnaik