RERA Tribunal Has Inherent Power To Restore Proceedings Dismissed For Default: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has inherent power to restore proceedings dismissed for default, even though such power is not expressly provided under Section 53(4) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), as the Tribunal is required to be guided by principles of natural justice.

Justice N. J. Jamadar, on 22 July, dismissed developer Hubtown Ltd.'s second appeal and upheld the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's order restoring proceedings that had been dismissed after homebuyer Smitesh Shivaji Patil failed to appear. The Bench observed:

“In a sense, the power to restore a proceeding dismissed in default is a necessary corollary of the power to dismiss the proceeding, in the first place. The power of restoration is implicit in the power of dismissal unless specifically proscribed. When the Appellate Tribunal is to be guided by the principles of natural justice in its determination, it cannot be urged with authority that, the Appellate Tribunal cannot restore a proceeding dismissed in default, where it finds that, the cause of justice and equity would be better subserved by restoring the proceeding dismissed in default.”

The dispute arose from a complaint filed by Patil against Hubtown Ltd. before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), seeking relief under Section 18 of RERA, which deals with the consequences of a promoter's failure to complete or give possession of a real estate project. MahaRERA dismissed the complaint on 23 April 2024.

Patil then appealed to the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal and filed an application seeking condonation of a 25-day delay in filing the appeal.

When Patil failed to appear, the Tribunal rejected the delay condonation application for want of prosecution on 3 July 2025, resulting in disposal of the appeal. Patil subsequently sought restoration of the delay condonation application and the appeal, along with condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.

On 5 March 2026, the Tribunal allowed both applications after finding sufficient cause. It relied on Regulation 25 of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 2019, which recognises its inherent power to pass orders necessary to meet the ends of justice.

Hubtown Ltd. challenged the order before the Bombay High Court in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which permits a second appeal to the High Court where a substantial question of law is involved.

The developer argued that the Tribunal, being a statutory body with limited jurisdiction, could exercise only powers specifically conferred under RERA. It contended that although Section 53(4) permits the Tribunal to dismiss proceedings for default or proceed ex parte, it does not expressly confer power to restore such proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to revive Patil's proceedings.

It further argued that Regulation 25 could not authorise the Tribunal to exercise a power beyond the Act and that Patil had failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Rejecting the challenge, the High Court noted that Section 53(1) provides that the Appellate Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down under the CPC and must instead be guided by principles of natural justice.

Section 53(2), the Court added, permits the Tribunal to regulate its own procedure, subject to the provisions of RERA. It further held that Section 53(4), which confers specified powers of a civil court on the Tribunal, cannot be treated as an exhaustive restriction on its authority.

The Bench said such a narrow interpretation would undermine the broader statutory mandate requiring the Tribunal to adjudicate matters in accordance with principles of natural justice.

It further held that although the Tribunal is a creature of statute, it cannot be stripped of powers that are “necessary, ancillary and concomitant” to effectively discharge its functions and advance the object of RERA. Limiting thee Tribunal only to powers expressly listed under Section 53(4), the Court said, would impair its ability to adjudicate matters effectively and justly.

Therefore, the Bench held that, even independently of Regulation 25, the Tribunal has inherent power to restore proceedings dismissed for default, as such power is necessary for the effective discharge of its statutory functions. It consequently found that no substantial question of law arose regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

It also refused to interfere with the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay, observing that once a lower forum positively exercises such discretion after considering the material before it, an appellate or supervisory court should not ordinarily interfere unless the decision is perverse or unsupported by reasons.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed Hubtown Ltd.'s second appeal and disposed of the accompanying interim application, leaving the Tribunal's restoration order undisturbed.

Appearances for petitioner (Hubtown Ltd.): Advocates Rubin Vakil, Sriraj Menon, Shubham Hundia, Sandesh Panchal i/b Satyaki Law Associates.