Even Appeal Against Consequential Execution Order Requires Full Decretal Deposit Under RERA : UP REAT

The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has recently held that where a decree has attained finality between the parties, a promoter cannot maintain an appeal against a consequential order passed in execution proceedings without first depositing the entire decretal amount, including interest, as mandated under the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Dismissing the appeal filed by Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Private Limited, a coram of Chairman Justice Suneet Kumar and Administrative Member Rameshwar Singh relied on the statutory mandate under Section 43(5).

The tribunal observed:

“Sub-section (5) of Section 43 confers upon any person aggrieved to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal. The proviso to Sub-section (5) provides where a promoter files an appeal with the Tribunal, 'it shall not be entertained' without the promoter 'first having deposited' with the Tribunal, the 'total amount to be paid to the allottee, including interest' before the said appeal is heard. In other words, promoter, assailing a consequential order in execution proceedings of an unchallenged judgment/decree, is required in the first instance to deposit the decretal amount granted in favour of the allottee being the total amount to be paid to the allottee. ”

The dispute arose from a judgment and order dated December 16, 2020, passed in favour of the homebuyer. A decretal amount was granted against the developer. The decree attained finality between the parties.

The developer did not deposit the accrued amount. Execution proceedings were initiated. A Recovery Certificate was issued to recover the amount.

On January 19, 2026, the Tribunal directed the developer to deposit the decretal amount. The developer did not comply. Instead, it chose to file the present appeal, challenging some consequential order passed in the execution proceedings.

Counsel for the developer argued that the appeal was not against the original judgment but only against the consequential execution order. Since the impugned order did not itself direct payment to the allottee, it contended that the requirement of depositing the decretal amount should not apply at this stage.

Counsel also informed the Tribunal that the January 19, 2026, order had been appealed before the High Court, though the matter was yet to be listed.

The allottee appeared in person and opposed the appeal.

Rejecting the submissions, the tribunal held that mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay of the decree. It noted that the judgment of December 2020 had attained finality between the parties.

The tribunal observed:

“In the given facts, the decree, inter se, parties has attained finality, therefore, the amount as per the decree, till the date of filing appeal is required to be deposited by the appellant promoter before the said appeal is heard.”

It further held,

“The appellant cannot be permitted to circumvent the decree indirectly and bypass the mandate of Section 43(5) of RERA Act, 2016, contending that the order under challenge does not direct payment of money to the allottee.”

Accordingly, the tribunal held that the appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance with the mandate of the proviso to Section 43(5). It further directed that the executing authority shall proceed to execute the judgment and decree passed in December 2020.

For Appellant (Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd.): Advocates Syed Mohammad Abid, Snigdha Singh.

For Respondent (Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority): Allottee appeared in person.