Unregistered projects cannot escape RERA, says tribunal

Akash Ghai

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Mohali, August 10 

The Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, has ruled that provisions of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) are also applicable on promoters of projects that are not registered with RERA.

Quashing an order passed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab, that had held complaints against a promoter in Zirakpur as not maintainable, the Tribunal’s Bench comprising Justice Arun Chaudhari and SK Sharma observed: “Not a single provision of the Act makes out any such classification or distinction about projects that are registered or not.”

“To say that the regulatory authority shall be entitled to have control only over those projects, which have been registered and not over those, which have deliberately or otherwise not been registered, will be an interpretation nugatory to the object sought to be achieved for implementing the Act in letter and spirit,” the Bench said.

“Pointing out the fact that the Act does not make any distinction among promoters, who have registered their projects and those who have not registered, clearly indicates that the jurisdiction of the authority will extend to all,” the Tribunal held, “Otherwise the consumers connected with unregistered projects will be left high and dry and without any remedy.” 

“After all the Act is welfare legislation and must be interpreted in such a manner to further and advance the policy and object of the Act,” the Bench said.

Observing that the very purpose of some provisions of the Act would be frustrated if the authority would have no jurisdiction over unregistered projects, the Bench held that a promoter, who does not register his project at all, would enjoy the premium for breaking the rule of law and a promoter, who has registered his project, would have to abide by the rule of law. 

“Consumers of projects not registered will be deprived of certain remedial measures even though they are associated with real estate projects. Such an absurd and bizarre interpretation cannot be made,” the Bench ruled.