RERA CASE LAWS –

1) Smt. Chand Rani v. Smt. Kalam Rani AIR 1993 SC 1742 – In this case, the
Supreme Court elucidated on the concept of “force majeure”. The expression “force
majeure” is not a mere French version. It is undoubtedly a term of wider import.
Difficulties have arisen in the past as to what could legitimately be included in “force
majeure”. Judges have agreed that strikes, breakdown of machinery, which, though
normally not included in “vis major” are included in “force majeure”. An analysis of
rulings on the subject into which it is not necessary in this case to go, shows that
where reference is made to “force majeure”, the intention is to save the performing
party from the consequences of anything over which he has no control. This is the
widest meaning that can be given to “force majeure”, and even if this be the meaning,
it is obvious that the condition about “force majeure” in the agreement was not vague.
The use of the word “usual” makes all the difference, and the meaning of the
condition may be made certain by evidence about a force majeure clause, which was
in contemplation of parties.

2) Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh 2004 (5) SCC 65 – In this case,
the Supreme Court enunciated the aspect of paying compensation and quantum of
compensation in the event of delay in delivery of possession of flat/apartment. The
Court stated that “The power to and duty to award compensation does not mean that
irrespective of facts of the case compensation can be awarded in all matters at a
uniform rate of 18% per annum. As seen above what is being awarded is
compensation i.e. a recompense for the loss or injury. It therefore necessarily has to
be based on a finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount of loss or
injury. Thus the Forum or the Commission must determine that there has been
deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public of ice which has resulted in loss or
injury. No hard and fast rule can be laid down, however a few examples would be
where an allotment is made, price is received/paid but possession is not given within
the period set out in the brochure. Along with recompensing the loss, the
Commission/Forum may also compensate for harassment/injury both mental and
physical.”

3) Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited vs. Union of India 2019, SC -

By way of Insolvency Amendment 2018, in section 5(8)(f) of Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code 2016 (“IBC”), the explanation was inserted, whereby it was
clarified that the real estate allottees (“home buyer”) as defined under section 2(d) of
RERA were included as financial creditors.  This amendment enabled the home buyer
to initiate insolvency proceedings against defaulting Promoters under section 7 of the
IBC. However, Insolvency Amendment 2018 was challenged by around 200 realtors
in the Supreme Court of India.

In the context of home buyer, the Supreme Court relied upon the recommendation
made by the Insolvency Law Committee Report that the amount paid by home buyer
is a means of raising finance for the Project. The Supreme Court observed that the
amount raised under sale agreement between the home buyer and the developer have
the commercial effect of borrowing as the money paid in advance for temporary use
so that the flat is given back to the lender. The Supreme Court held that -
 The Insolvency Amendment 2018 does not infringe Article 14, 19(1) (g) read with
Article 19(6) or 300A of the Constitution of India.
 Remedies to the home buyer under various statute such as RERA, Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 and IBC are concurrent.
 RERA is to be read harmoniously with the IBC, in the case of conflict, IBC will
prevail over RERA and Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
 Home buyer are always subsumed within the definition of section 5(8)(f) and the
explanation and the deeming fiction added by the Amendment Act was only
clarificatory in nature.

This Judgment is a boon for home buyer, number of insolvency proceedings were
initiated against the real estate companies. However, in several of such cases, projects
which were close to successful completion have been dragged into insolvency. 

4) Ravinder Kaur Grewal Manjit Kaur and others SC 2019 - Questions of Law

raised:

 Whether a person claiming the title by virtue of adverse possession can maintain a suit
under Article 65 of Limitation Act for declaration and permanent injunction.
 Whether Article 65 of the Limitation Act only enables a person to set up a plea of
adverse possession as a defendant and cannot protect possession as a plaintiff?

The Supreme Court held that -

 A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure

of law and once 12 years’ period of adverse possession is over, even owner’s right to
eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed
by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed.
 Once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as
well as a shield by the defendant within ken of Article 65 of the Act and any person
who has perfected title by way of adverse possession, can file a suit for restoration of
possession in case of dispossession.

5) Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anil V Tharthare & Ors. SC, 2019 - The
construction area of the Project was expanded from 32,395.17 square meters to
40,480.88 square meters, the Developer did not comply with the procedure under para
7(ii) of the Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) Notification but rather sought
an amendment to the earlier environmental clearance. The Supreme Court observed
that the Amendment did not discuss the potential environment impact of the increase
in construction area but merely records the construction area. The procedure set out
under para 7(ii) of the EIA Notification exists to ensure that where a project is
expanded in size, the environmental impact on the surrounding area is evaluated
holistically considering all the relevant factors including air and water availability and
pollution, management of solid and wet waste and the urban carrying capacity of the
area. The Supreme Court upheld the directions of NGT, since the construction was
already completed it directed the committee to continue its evaluation to such
remedial measures and also suggested the compensatory exaction to be imposed on
the Developer.