Limitation Act Doesn't Apply To RERA Complaints: Haryana REAT

The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (HREAT) has recently held that complaints filed before the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority cannot be dismissed as time-barred merely because they were filed after possession was handed over.

It ruled that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not prescribe any limitation period for such complaints. The tribunal also held that homebuyers do not lose their right to seek compensation for delayed possession after executing conveyance deeds.

The tribunal, comprising Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and members Dr. Virender Parshad and Dinesh Singh Chauhan, dismissed a batch of appeals filed by Emaar India Ltd. and Signature Builders Pvt. Ltd.

It upheld orders directing the developers to pay delay compensation to homebuyers in the Gurgaon Greens and Orchard Avenue projects.

"The Act neither incorporates nor makes applicable the provisions of the Limitation Act to complaints instituted before the Authority. In the absence of any express legislative mandate, the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to defeat a remedy created under a legislation enacted for protection of allottees and regulation of the real estate sector," the tribunal ruled.

The appeals challenged orders passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram. The authority had awarded compensation to homebuyers for delayed possession.

In the lead case, Poonam Goel and Ajay Goel booked an apartment in Emaar's Gurgaon Greens project in January 2013. They executed a buyer's agreement in April that year. Possession was due on November 16, 2016. The project received its occupation certificate on May 30, 2019, and possession was offered the next day.

The homebuyers later sought compensation for the delay. HRERA directed Emaar to pay interest at 11% per annum from the due date of possession until the offer of possession, after adjusting compensation already paid.

The developers argued that no claim for delayed possession survived after execution of conveyance deeds and delivery of possession. They also contended that the complaints were barred by limitation.

Rejecting those arguments, the tribunal held, "The obligation of the promoter to hand over possession within the agreed timeline is a fundamental contractual as well as statutory obligation. Failure thereof attracts the consequences contemplated under Section 18 of the Act."

It further observed, "The Scheme of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the status of allottee does not stand obliterated merely because title has been conveyed."

Finding no illegality or perversity in the authority's orders, the tribunal dismissed all the appeals and upheld the compensation awarded to the homebuyers.

For Appellant-promoters (Emaar India Limited and Signature Builders Private Limited): Senior Advocate Kunal Dawar, assisted by Advocates Kamaljeet Dahiya, Navneet Kaur, Tanika Goyal, Ankita Chaudhary and Rohit Sangam.

For Respondent-Allottees: Senior Advocate Aman Bahri, assisted by Advocates Bawa Karanveer Singh, Jagdeep Kumar, Nitu Kumari, Mohit Rathee, Harsh Sharma, Geetansh Nagpal, Japneet Kaur, Gaurav Jaglan, Anjanpreet Singh, Diya Sarin, Anmol Jindal, Hoshiar Chand, Ambanshu Sahni, Advait Ghosh, Harshit Joon, Saurabh Gulia, Ashwani Kumar Antil, Manmeet Singh Jamwal, Akshat Mittal, Arun Sharma, Preeti Manderna, Pallavi, Divyanshi Rathore, Rahul Jaswal, Meenakshi, Savinder Singh, M. Khurana, Ashish Kumar, Nilotpal Shyam, Shivali, Neeraj Goel and Savinder Singh Gill.