Jagjeet Singh Makkad vs. M/S Om Construction

Facts

The appellant, Jagjeet Singh Makkad, purchased a residential plot from the respondent, M/s Om Construction, in 2010. After the sale deed, the respondent constructed an iron gate with guard rooms in front of the appellant's plot, which was not part of the original layout plan. The appellant requested its removal, but the respondent did not comply. Consequently, the appellant stopped paying maintenance charges from 2017. The respondent filed a complaint before RERA, Raipur, seeking maintenance dues. RERA directed the appellant to pay Rs. 2,83,500/- plus GST. The Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appellant's appeal, reducing the amount to Rs. 58,500/- plus GST of Rs. 10,530/-. This order is under challenge before the High Court.

Held

The High Court held that there was no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal was filed under Section 58 of the Chhattisgarh Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, which allows appeals to the High Court on grounds specified in Section 100 of the CPC, requiring a substantial question of law. Citing Supreme Court judgments in C. Doddanarayana Reddy and State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal, the Court emphasized that interference in second appeals is limited to substantial questions of law and that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be disturbed unless perverse or based on no evidence or misreading of documents. The Court found no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal, as the Tribunal had considered the facts and relevant provisions of law. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay maintenance charges and GST for the period after the initial five years as stipulated in the Agreement to Sale and Sale Deed, considering the respondent's alleged failure to remove an unauthorized construction (iron gate) and the handover of the project. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: Argued that under Clauses 11 and 12 of the Agreement to Sale and Sale Deed, the respondent was only liable to maintain the society for five years from the possession of the first plot. Thereafter, maintenance was to be handled by occupants through their society or an external agency, and the respondent would not be responsible. Section 19(6) of the Act of 2016 also supports that maintenance is subject to the sale deed/agreement. The appellant stopped paying maintenance due to the unauthorized construction blocking his plot. Revenue/State (Respondent): Contended that under Section 11(4)(d) of the Act of 2016, the promoter is responsible for essential services until maintenance is taken over by the association of allottees. The project was handed over to the Village Panchayat in 2020, not a society. The Tribunal correctly considered Sections 19(6) and 19(7) of the Act and Rule 17 of the Chhattisgarh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, to recalculate the amount.