Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

1. Ajay Nagpal & Ors. Vs Today Homes & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (NCDRC)
RERA does not bar Homebuyers' Complaint under Consumer Protection Act against Builder/Developer.
As the Consumer Fora are not Civil Courts, the provisions of Section 79, which bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, will
not be attracted.

2. Mahesh Pariani vs. Monarch Solitatue LLP (MahaRERA)

The investors cannot seek relief for themselves under RERA. The MahaRERA dismissed the complainant on the ground
that after perusal of the necessary documents, it was found that the complainant and the developer signed an MOU in
which the complainant is an investor and not an allottee, thus in turn becoming a co-promoter as per the definition under
RERA.

3. Promila and Balraj Bansal vs Nakta Investment Pvt. Ltd (MahaRERA)

Office and other commercial spaces are covered under the ambit of RERA.

4. Bikramjit Singh versus M/s HP Singh (Punjab RERA)

The ambit of RERA does not extend to projects whose application has been rejected by the authority. Also complaints
against projects that are not registered with the authority cannot be entertained by the authority.
The authority also cleared the ambiguity regarding the maintainability of any complaint where the alleged builder
violations took place prior to the commencement of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. It laid down
three conditions that must be fulfilled for such complaints to be considered by it.
1. The alleged violations, though commencing before the enforcement of the RERA Act, must be continuing until date
2. The alleged violations must also constitute a contravention of the RERA Act and the rules and regulations made
thereunder
3. The issue should not have been decided or be pending in any forum/court before approaching this authority. This is
necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
The order reads, “Only if all the three conditions are fulfilled, and the onus would on the complainant to prove these,
would any alleged violations that took place before the coming into force of this Act be considered by this authority”.

5. Matrix Construction (MahaRERA)

The redevelopment of housing societies shall not be covered under RERA. The housing society who had given their
housing society for redevelopment to developer, the developer. The complaint by the housing society members was
dismissed on the grounds that they were not able to point out specifically which provision of RERA was violated. The
society members were directed to approach a Civil Court as that was the correct forum.

6. Md. Zain Khan vs MahaRERA & Ors. (Bombay HC)

In a Writ petition, the HC ordered the Authority to entertain complaints w.r.t unregistered projects.

7. Bhavana Duvey vs Teerth Realities (Mumbai Tribunal)

The fit out possession without occupancy certificate is not contemplated possession under RERA. Under RERA,
possession can only be given after issue of OC and any possession given prior to the OC is not in accordance with law.

8. Kuldeep Kaur & Ors. Vs. MVL Ltd. (Rajasthan RERA)

RERA has overriding effect on Companies Act, as it was a special statute. Thus, even if a winding up order on the
company is passed u/s 279 of the Companies Act, 2013, Section 31 of RERA will prevail over it.

9. Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. Vs. Trevor D'Lima & Ors. (2018) SC
A person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him, and is entitled to seek refund of the
amount paid by him, along with compensation.

10. M3M India (P) Ltd. vs Raj Shekhar Juneja (Delhi HC)
Remedies to homebuyers are concurrent under RERA and Consumer Protection Act.