Tamil Nadu REAT Upholds Appointment Of Engineer To Probe 'Malles Akankssha' Construction Irregularities

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has upheld an order appointing an independent engineer to inspect alleged defects and irregularities in a villa project developed by Malles Constructions Pvt. Ltd., saying the exercise would help ascertain the alleged irregularities and defects and would not prejudice the developer.

"Further, appointing an independent Engineer will not cause prejudice to the appellant/promoter in anyway. In fact, it will be helpful, not only to the respondent/complainant, but also to the appellant/promoter to find out the irregularities, if any and to rectify the defects found by the independent Engineer.” the Tribunal said.

Dismissing the developer's appeal, Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy, Judicial Member K. Babu and Administrative Member Selvi Apoorva held that the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) had rightly directed inspection of Villa No.55B in the “Malles Akankssha” project.

The dispute arose from a complaint filed by homebuyer Vasa Siva Naga Ganesh Kumar before the authority in 2024 alleging several defects and irregularities in the villa purchased by him in the project.

According to the complaint, the villa suffered from defects in construction and deviations from the layout and design promised in the brochure/prospectus. The homebuyer also alleged non-provision of infrastructure and amenities assured by the developer.

Among the allegations raised was that construction of an adjacent villa, Villa No. 55A, had compromised a first-floor window in the complainant's villa. The homebuyer further alleged that the villa was not in conformity with promised specifications and sought directions for rectification of defects and provision of promised infrastructure.

The complaint sought several reliefs, including rectification of defects, completion of advertised amenities, compensation for delay and mental agony, reimbursement of expenses incurred by the complainant, refund of GST amounts, and other consequential directions.

The tribunal noted that the parties had earlier been involved in proceedings relating to the same project. In an earlier complaint filed in 2021, allegations relating to poor construction and use of low-standard materials had been rejected by TNRERA.

At the same time, TNRERA had clarified that the developer continued to remain under an obligation under Section 14(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act to rectify any structural or other defects brought to its notice.

In 2025, the homebuyer filed an interim application seeking the appointment of an independent engineer to inspect the villa and assess the alleged defects and irregularities. By an order dated February 11, 2026, the authority allowed the plea and directed the appointment of an independent engineer to inspect the villa and submit a report on the alleged defects and deviations.

Challenging the order before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 44 of the Act, the developer argued that the complaint was barred by res judicata since similar issues had already been raised in earlier proceedings before the Adjudicating Officer and in Appeal No.30 of 2024.

The developer also contended that the alleged defects had either already been rectified or were merely issues arising from normal wear and tear. According to the developer, appointing an independent engineer was unnecessary.

The tribunal, however, was not persuaded. Referring to the allegations raised by the homebuyer, it held that an independent inspection was necessary to examine the alleged defects, irregularities, and deviations from the promised infrastructure, layout, and design.

The tribunal also clarified that the appeal before it was confined to examining the validity of the order appointing an independent engineer. It observed that all issues regarding maintainability of the complaint, including objections based on res judicata, could still be independently considered by TNRERA at the appropriate stage.

Finding no infirmity in the order passed by TNRERA, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, vacated the interim stay granted earlier, and directed that the Rs 15,000 deposited by the developer be credited to the proceedings. The connected miscellaneous application was also dismissed.

For Petitioner (Malles Constructions Pvt. Ltd.): Advocate Ms. R. Shreemohanapriya.

For Respondent (Vasa Siva Naga Ganesh Kumar): Party-in-person.