Chief Executive Officer, Raipur Development Authority vs. Anup Kumar Sahu

Facts

The respondent, Anup Kumar Sahu, was allotted a 2-BHK Duplex Row House by the appellant, Chief Executive Officer, Raipur Development Authority (RDA), for Rs. 18,25,000/- on June 10, 2016. The respondent deposited Rs. 18,21,250/- by October 31, 2017. However, after four years, possession was not delivered. RDA, by letter dated August 27, 2020, demanded Rs. 23,33,963.88, including GST. The respondent contended that the price increase was inflated (35% instead of 1-2%) and not part of the original agreement. He sought allotment of the house with a 2% increase, or a plot in another project at 2016 rates, or a full refund. RDA attributed the delay to pending litigation before the National Green Tribunal and Supreme Court, followed by assembly elections. The RERA dismissed the respondent's application, citing pending litigation and the respondent's failure to deposit the increased amount. The Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, however, directed RDA to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 18,25,000/- with 10.5% interest.

Held

The Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. While the appellant (RDA) claimed that the project was kept in abeyance due to pending litigation before the NGT and Supreme Court, the Court noted that such judgments or stay orders were not on record before the RERA. The Court emphasized that courts cannot procure evidence on behalf of litigants. Furthermore, citing the Supreme Court judgment in M/s. Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of UP & Others, the Court reiterated that the allottee's right to seek refund under Section 18(1)(a) and Section 19(4) of the Act is an unqualified and absolute right if the promoter fails to complete or give possession. The Court also referred to the doctrine of promissory estoppel, stating that RDA cannot claim immunity and must act fairly and justly. The Court directed the return of Rs. 18,21,000/- (noting a calculation mistake in the Appellate Tribunal's order of Rs. 18,25,000/-) as the allottee had not appealed the rejection of compensation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, raises a substantial question of law for consideration. (This is the primary issue the High Court considered at the motion hearing). Contentions: Appellant (RDA): Submitted that in the absence of any agreement, no outer time limit can be fixed for handing over possession. Argued that market rate fluctuations are not attributable to them and the delay was not caused by them. Contended that the Appellate Tribunal failed to consider their submissions and the RERA's findings regarding pending litigation and that the Tribunal's order was perverse, lacking reasons to defer from the RERA's order. Respondent (Anup Kumar Sahu): Argued that no specific question of law arises for consideration under Section 58 of the Act, 2016, and the appeal should be dismissed at the threshold. Relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of UP & Others, stating that the allottee's right to seek refund under Section 18(1)(a) and Section 19(4) of the Act is an unqualified and absolute right, not dependent on contingencies.