Kerala High Court
P.V. Nidhish vs Sivaprakash on 24 October, 2024
MSA No. 14 of 2024
1
2024:KER:78946
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1946
MSA NO. 14 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2024 IN REFA NO.28 OF 2023 OF KERALA
REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/ADDL.RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3/LEGAL HEIRS OF 1ST RESPONDENT:
1 P.V. NIDHISH
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. P.V. CHANDRAN, MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S P.V.S. BUILDERS
AND DEVELOPERS, KTC BUILDING, IN YMCA ROAD, CALICUT,
RESIDING AT KERALA KALA, AZHACHAVATTOM, POST MANKAVU,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001
2 P.V. HEMALATHA,
AGED 80 YEARS
W/O. P.V. CHANDRAN, PARTNER, PVS BUILDERS, KTC BUILDINGS,
YMCA ROAD, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT KERALA KALA,
AZHACHAVATTOM, POST MANKAVU, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001
BY ADVS.
BIJU ABRAHAM
B.G.BHASKAR
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:
SIVAPRAKASH
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN, PRESIDENT, THE ORCHID GARDEN APARTMENT OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, RESIDING AT G4, C BLOCK, ORCHID GARDENS, P.V.S.
MSA No. 14 of 2024
2
2024:KER:78946
PARK, GOVINDAPURAM P.O., KUTHIRAVATTAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673016
BY ADVS.
V.V.SURENDRAN
P.A.HARISH(K/000392/1991)
DONA PAUL(K/001661/2018)
THIS MISC. SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.10.2024 THE
COURT ON 24.10.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MSA No. 14 of 2024
3
2024:KER:78946
CR
JUDGMENT
1. This Court had disposed of this Miscellaneous Second Appeal as per Judgment dated 30.08.2024, which is reported in Nidhish.P.V V.Sivaprakash 2024 (6) KHC 16. Thereafter, the respondent filed this Review Petition No.1023/2024 to review the judgment dated 30.08.2024. This Court allowed the said Review Petition No.1023/2024 as per judgment dated 03.10.2024, recalling the judgment dated 30.08.2024, finding that this Court committed an error in allowing the appeal in part after framing the Substantial Questions of law at the admission stage itself.
2. Thereafter the Miscellaneous Second Appeal was admitted on the very same substantial questions of law which were considered in the judgment dated 30.08.2024. The Counsel on either side made MSA No. 14 of 2024 4 2024:KER:78946 additional submissions on 15.10.2024. Hence this revised judgment is passed incorporating consideration of the additional contentions made by the respondent.
3. The appellants are the legal heirs of the respondent in Complaint No.17/2020 of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority ('the K-RERA' for short).
4. The complainant is the Apartment Owners Association of the project of the respondent by name 'Orchid Garden-PVS Park' located at Govindapuram, Kozhikode. The Complainant/Association sought direction to the respondent to execute a registered conveyance deed in favour of the Association with respect to the undivided proportionate title in the common area in accordance with the Rules and to direct the respondent to handover all the relevant MSA No. 14 of 2024 5 2024:KER:78946 original documents in connection with the entire apartments.
5. The main grievance of the complainant is that the project of the respondent consisted of four blocks namely, A, B, C, and D, having a total number of 64 flats in a total area of 167 cents, that the common area for the above four blocks is included in the 167 cents, but the respondent used only 126 cents for the said blocks and common area and the balance 41 cents are in the possession of the respondent and the respondent is trying to make new construction therein without handing over possession of the common area and without delivering the documents such as Building Permit, Sanctioned Plan, Deeds, Occupancy Certificate, NOC from Pollution Control Board to the complainant.
MSA No. 14 of 20246
2024:KER:78946
6. The respondent opposed the prayers in the complaint stating that the complaint is filed under the mistaken impression that the entire 167 cents of land owned by the respondent is intended for the construction of the four blocks that have been built by the respondent; that, in fact, the total land was intended for construction of five blocks as can be seen from the approved plan and permit issued by the local authority; that 41 cents situated at the southern extremity is proposed for future development; that the allottees of units in the four constructed block have no right over the 41 cents which is not the part of the site of their blocks. The complainant has only the right of usage over all the common areas excluding 41 cents demarcated in the approved plan intended for future development.
MSA No. 14 of 20247
2024:KER:78946
7. When the complaint was pending enquiry, the K-RERA by its order dt 5.03.2020 prima facie found that the project in question is registrable under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ('the RERA' for Short) and thereupon directed the respondent to file an application for registration within two weeks from the date of order. The respondent filed a Statement dt. 19.03.2020 stating that the project is not an ongoing one but a finished project before coming into force of the RERA and that, therefore, the respondent is not liable for registration. The respondent was directed to produce the original Occupancy Certificate which he claimed to have obtained in the year 2009. On 16.10.2020, the respondent filed an Affidavit before the K-RERA affirming that the Occupancy Certificate was issued 12 MSA No. 14 of 2024 8 2024:KER:78946 years ago and, hence, he is not in possession of the same. The K-RERA marked the copies of the Occupancy Certificates produced by the respondent as Exts.B5 to B8. The K-RERA directed the Secretary Kozhikode Corporation to submit a Report declaring the date of issue of all the Occupancy Certificates with regard to four blocks of the project. The Secretary of the Kozhikode Corporation submitted Ext.X1 Report dt 06.01.2020 stating that the Corporation does not have the file relating to the Occupancy Certificates with regard to the Project. After hearing both sides and taking the evidence into consideration, the K-RERA by its order dt 15.11.2021 found that the complaint is not maintainable as the project is not an ongoing project, since the apartments were transferred to the allottees, numbered in their names and property tax was MSA No. 14 of 2024 9 2024:KER:78946 assessed and collected long before coming into force of the RERA. However, the K-RERA granted a relief in favour of the complainant that the members of the complainant in the four blocks are entitled to enjoy common amenities and facilities in the building and appurtenant land in the entire 167 cents subject to the similar rights of the flat owners.
8. Against the said order of the K-RERA, the complainant filed an appeal as REFA No. 9/2022 and the respondent filed an appeal as REFA No. 53/2021 before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short). The Tribunal, by common order dt 24.05.2022, remanded the matter back to K-RERA to reconsider the following issues afresh.
1.Whether the projects in question are ongoing projects as contemplated under S. 3 of the RERA along with Rule 3 of the 2018 Rules made thereunder?
MSA No. 14 of 202410
2024:KER:78946
2.Whether the original sanctioned plan with permits contained a provision for future development of 41 cents in the total area of 167 cents submitted for sanction?
3.Whether 41 cents left out as future development area really falls part of the project in question as contended by the complainant?
4.Any other matter which is relevant and appropriate for a just decision on the issues set out in the complaint?
9. After the remand, the K-RERA marked Exts.B12 and B13 on the side of the respondent, which are the copy of the Service Plan dt 21.12.2005 approved by Kozhikode Municipal Corporation and copy of the Interrogatories submitted by the respondent to the Secretary, Kozhikode Municipal Corporation through I.A No. 137/2022. Ext.X2 letter dt 11.11.2022 from the Secretary, Kozhikode Municipal Corporation was marked in which the Secretary furnished the answers to the interrogatories.
MSA No. 14 of 202411
2024:KER:78946
10. The K-RERA again dismissed the complaint as per order dated 20.02.2023, finding that the project is not ongoing and is not liable for registration under Section 3 of the RERA.
11. The complainant filed REFA No.28/2023 before the Tribuanl challenging the order dt. 20.02.2023 of K- RERA. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent died, and the additional respondents 2 and 3 were impleaded in the appeal as the legal heirs of the original respondent.
12. During the pendency of REFA No.28/2023, the complainant filed I.A No. 158/2023 for appointing an Advocate Commissioner along with an Expert Civil Engineer for the purpose of ascertaining the facts to show that the project is not complete in its construction. The Tribunal allowed the said Application MSA No. 14 of 2024 12 2024:KER:78946 as per Order dated 03.10.2023 appointing the Advocate Commissioner and Expert Civil Engineer. The respondent challenged the said Order dt 03.10.2023 before this Court by filing MSA No. 31/2023. This Court dismissed MSA No. 31/2023 by order dt 13.11.2023 finding that the Tribunal has power to appoint an Advocate Commissioner in the appeal. The Report of the Advocate Commissioner is marked as Ext.C1, the report of the Expert Civil Engineer is marked as Ext.C2, and the Sketches appended to Ext.C2 are marked as Ext.C2(a) to C2(e).
13. The Tribunal allowed REFA No. 28/2023 as per order dt. 11.06.2024 setting aside the order of the K- RERA dt. 20.02.2023 remanding the matter back to the K-RERA with the Reports and Sketches submitted by MSA No. 14 of 2024 13 2024:KER:78946 the Commission to take a fresh decision on the following matters.
1.The K-RERA must come to a definite finding regarding the occupancy certificate and its date of issue.
2.The K-RERA shall give opportunity to the respondent to let in convincing evidence on the material issues.
3.If necessary, on application, the K-RERA can call for files from the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation regarding the occupancy certificate or to examine the Secretary of the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation to prove the fact of issuance of occupancy certificate and its dates.
4.The K-RERA shall give opportunity to the complainant to examine the Advocate Commissioner and the Expert Engineer appointed by the Tribunal. The Commissioner and Expert Engineer shall be examined and the reports and sketches shall be marked in the same chronological order before the K-RERA as well.
5. The respondent shall be given an opportunity to cross-examine the Advocate Commissioner and Expert Engineer. MSA No. 14 of 2024 14
2024:KER:78946
6.The K-RERA shall legally decide whether the reports and oral evidence of the Commissioner and Expert Engineer can be acceded and acted upon to find whether the project is an ongoing one or not.
7.The K-RERA is further directed to take a final decision as directed above, within a period of three months from the date on which a copy of the order is received. The case record shall be transmitted immediately to K-RERA along with Exts.C1, C2 and C2(a) to C2(e) marked in the appeal.
14. It is the remand order dt 11.06.2024 passed by the Tribunal which is challenged in this appeal.
15. When this Miscellaneous Second Appeal came up for admission, the learned counsel for the appellant Mr.B.G.Bhasker submitted that the appellant is aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal in Point No.ii. In Point No.ii, the Tribunal considered whether the Commission Reports and Sketches can be accepted in evidence. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner and Expert Engineer were appointed by the Tribunal MSA No. 14 of 2024 15 2024:KER:78946 since the complainant has a genuine case that the project is not finished. On the basis of such finding the Tribunal directed the K-RERA to examine the Advocate Commissioner and Expert to mark the Reports and Sketches and to decide whether the reports and oral evidence of the Commissioner and the Expert can be acted upon to find whether the project is an ongoing one or not. In view of the said submission of the counsel for the appellant and taking note of the fact that the impugned order is only a remand order this Court issued notice before admission to the respondent in the appeal for disposing this appeal expeditiously.
16. The respondent appeared and filed a Counter Affidavit opposing the prayers in the appeal.
17. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr.B.G.Bhasker and the learned counsel for the MSA No. 14 of 2024 16 2024:KER:78946 respondent Mr.P.A Harish on 07.08.2024. After recalling the judgment dated 30.08.2024, this Court admitted the Miscellaneous Second Appeal on the following substantial questions of law on 03.10.2024.
1.Is the receipt of the Completion Certificate by Promoter before commencement of RERA alone is sufficient to avoid registration of the Real Estate Project under Section 3 of the RERA?
2.Whether the Chairperson of the Tribunal acted illegally holding in the concurring order that Occupancy Certificate cannot be decisive if the building was not complete as on the relevant date with all the required amenities and facilities?
18. Learned Counsel on both sides were further heard on 15.10.2024.
19. The counsel for the appellant argued that in view of Proviso to S.3(1) of the RERA, the Commission Report, Expert Report and Sketches are not relevant to MSA No. 14 of 2024 17 2024:KER:78946 decide whether the project in question is an ongoing project on the date of commencement of RERA. He argued that S.3(2) makes it clear that no registration of the real estate project has been required where the promoter has received the Completion Certificate for the real estate project prior to the commencement of the RERA. According to the counsel, the Tribunal set aside the order of the K-RERA on technical grounds. The Tribunal found that Ext.B5 to B8 Occupancy certificates are not reliable since two of them are undated and the other two have overwriting in its dates. Though Ext.X2 Reply to the interrogatories clearly reveals that the project was completed, apartments were transferred to the allottees, buildings were numbered in the name of the respective allottees, property taxes were paid before the commencement of MSA No. 14 of 2024 18 2024:KER:78946 the RERA, the Tribunal refused to accept Ext.X2 holding that the procedure adopted by the K-RERA in accepting and acting upon Ext.X2 answers to the interrogatories is not legal. Counsel argued that the project was completed in the year 2012 and the complaint was filed in the year 2020 and it is highly impractical to direct the respondent to do an almost impossible act to produce the Occupancy Certificate for the same. The records clearly prove that the apartments in the project were numbered which could be done only after getting Occupancy Certificate. Counsel contended that the remand of the Tribunal directing consideration of the Commission Report, Expert Report, and Sketches would widen the scope of the complaint directing consideration of the defects pointed out in the Reports by the K-RERA. When the MSA No. 14 of 2024 19 2024:KER:78946 RERA expressly provides that the K-RERA will not have any jurisdiction in cases where an Occupancy Certificate had been issued for a project before 01.05.2017, the Tribunal cannot circumvent that clear provision and direct the K-RERA to consider whether there are any defects in the construction which is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the K-RERA under RERA.
20. The counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that there is nothing illegal in the remand order. The Commission Report, Expert Report and Sketches are reliable pieces of evidence before the K- RERA. The challenge against the order allowing commission application by the Tribunal was dismissed by this Court by order dt. 13.011.2023 in MSA No. 31/2023. The respondent did not choose to challenge MSA No. 14 of 2024 20 2024:KER:78946 the said order as such the said order of this Court has become final. In view of the said fact, the respondent cannot raise any objection with regard to the Commission Report and Expert Report. The Commission Reports prove that the project is not complete even on the date of inspection. The Counsel invited my attention to the pleadings in the Rejoinder filed by the Complainant that the respondent has not provided all the amenities in the project, that there are several defects in the construction, and that the complainant is legally entitled to amend the prayers, if necessary, before the K-RERA.
21. On 15.10.2024, the learned Counsel for the respondent made additional submissions that certain findings in Paragraphs Nos. 20, 23 and 24 in the judgment dated 30.08.2024 are not correct. This Court cannot MSA No. 14 of 2024 21 2024:KER:78946 entertain those arguments as the judgment dated 30.08.2024 is already recalled and this court can not legally consider the legality of its own findings in the recalled judgment. Hence, I am not referring to those contentions of the respondent with respect to the findings in Paragraphs Nos. 20, 23, and 24 in the judgment dated 30.08.2024. Further contention of the counsel for the respondent is that Completion Certificate and Occupancy Certificate are separately defined in S.2(q) and 2(zf) respectively of the RERA. Hence, the Completion Certificate referred to in S.3 could only be the Completion Certificate as defined under S.2(q) of the RERA. The Completion Certificate defined under S.2(q) is a certificate issued by a competent authority certifying that the Real Estate Project has been approved according to the Sanctioned MSA No. 14 of 2024 22 2024:KER:78946 Plan, Layout Plan, and Specification which indicate that the Completion Certificate shall contain three certifications with respect to Sanctioned Plan, Layout Plan and other Specifications approved by the Competent Authority. If any of those certifications are absent, a Certificate could not be treated as a Completion Certificate. The certifications with respect to the above three documents are specifically absent in the case of the Occupancy Certificate defined in S.2(zf) of the RERA. The learned Counsel invited my attention to S.88 and 89 of the RERA. Though S. 88 provides that the provisions of RERA shall be in addition to the provisions of any other law, the over reading effect of the provisions of RERA is specifically contained in S.89. In view of the said provisions, it is the definition of Completion Certificate in S.2(q) that shall prevail over MSA No. 14 of 2024 23 2024:KER:78946 the definitions in other laws. The learned Counsel pointed out that the Completion Certificate is not defined in the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. Rule 22 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 deals with Completion Certificate, Development Certificate and Occupancy Certificate. As per Rule 22(1), Completion certificate is a certificate certified and signed by the owner to the Secretary of the Municipality in Appendix E form. Rule 22(3) says that the Secretary of the Municipality shall issue Occupancy Certificate in Appendix H form on receipt of the Completion Certificate and on being satisfied that the construction has been carried out in conformity with the Permit. Such an Occupancy Certificate does not cover the certification with respect to the development of the Project as per the Layout Plan and MSA No. 14 of 2024 24 2024:KER:78946 the Specifications approved by the competent authority. Rule 22(4) permits issuance of Occupancy Certificate even before completion if the owner of the building intends to occupy the building before completion. It enables the secretary to issue an Occupancy certificate if it is satisfied that such an Occupancy certificate will not endanger life. Counsel concluded by submitting that an Occupancy Certificate issued by the Local Authority could not be treated as a Completion Certificate as required under the provisions of RERA.
22. The counsel for the appellant cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Newtech Prom oters and Developers P.Ltd. V. State of U P and others [2021 SCC online SC 1044] and contended that in view of the Proviso to S.3(1) of the RERA the promoter needs MSA No. 14 of 2024 25 2024:KER:78946 to make an application for registration only if both the conditions in the Proviso are satisfied. According to him, since the word 'and' is used between the first condition and the second condition, it must be read as conjunctive and not disjunctive. The first condition is that the project shall be ongoing on the date of commencement of the Act and the second condition is that the Completion Certificate has not been issued. Counsel cited the decision of this Court in Graceland Foundation v. K erala Real Estate Regulatory Authority [2023 (7) K HC 551] in support of the very same contention. Counsel cited the decisions of this Court in Sheela N. v. K ollam Municipal Corporation and another [2017 (5) K HC 553] and B aiju M. v. Secretary, K ozhikode Municipal Corporation [2023 (6) K HC 72] to substantiate the MSA No. 14 of 2024 26 2024:KER:78946 legal proposition that the liability to pay property tax would arise only from the issuance of Occupancy Certificate. The Counsel cited the decision of this Court in Siji Jacob v. Ultim a builders and Developers P. Ltd. [2023 K HC Online 9214] to substantiate the legal proposition that non providing of assured amenities is not a ground to treat that the project is an ongoing project and that on issuance of Occupancy Certificate, the project could not be treated as an ongoing project. He cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. [1997 (11) SCC 657] to substantiate the proposition that when the word 'and' is used between two conditions it mandates fulfilment of both the conditions. In sum and substance, the argument of the counsel for the appellant is that the MSA No. 14 of 2024 27 2024:KER:78946 remand order should have been limited to the verification of the issuance of Occupancy Certificates since Exts.B5 to B8 Occupancy Certificates were doubted by the Tribunal. The direction to consider the Commission Reports and Sketches by the K-RERA is illegal unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
23. On considering the rival contentions, the question that emerges for consideration is with respect to the interpretation of Proviso to Section 3 (1) and Section 3(2)(b) of the RERA.
24. A Completion Certificate, as defined under Section 2
(q), is the Certificate that the project is completed as per the approved Plan and Permit. It is well settled by the decisions of this Court in Siji Jacob (supra) and Graceland Foundation (supra) that a Completion MSA No. 14 of 2024 28 2024:KER:78946 Certificate, as defined under Section 2(q) of the Act, is the Occupancy Certificate issued by the Local authorities in Kerala. The additional contention raised by the counsel for the respondent that the Occupancy Certificate issued by the Local Authority could not be treated as a Completion Certificate as required under the provisions of RERA is covered by the decisions of this Court in Siji Jacob (supra) and Graceland Foundation (supra). In Siji Jacob (supra), it is specifically found that the Occupancy Certificate issued under Rule 22 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules is a certificate issued by the Competent Authority under the RERA. In the said decision, the Occupancy Certificate issued by the Municipal Secretary is treated as the Completion Certificate as required under the RERA to decide whether the project MSA No. 14 of 2024 29 2024:KER:78946 is an ongoing project or not. In the decision of this Court in Graceland Foundation (supra), it is specifically held that the Completion Certificate, as defined under S.2(q) of the Act, is the Occupation Certificate issued by the local authorities in Kerala. This Court has taken note of the fact that the Completion Certificate, as contemplated under the Building Rules, is not issued by the local authority. Admittedly, other than Occupancy Certificate no other Certificate is issued by the local authorities in Kerala certifying competition of a project. Hence, the respondent cannot insist on the production of a non- existing certificate by the appellant to prove the completion of the project.
25. It is clear from the Proviso to Section 3(1) of the RERA that in the case of a project existing as on the MSA No. 14 of 2024 30 2024:KER:78946 date of commencement of the Act, i.e; as on 01.05.2017, the promoter needs to register the real estate project with the Authority only if both the limbs of the said provision are attracted. Both the limbs are to be read conjunctively and not disjunctively. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that the word used is 'and' and not 'or' in between both the limbs.
26. Proviso to Section 3 (1) of the RERA mandates the Promoter to register a real estate project if the Project is ongoing on the date of commencement of the RERA and for which the Completion Certificate has not been issued. On a plain reading of this provision, the issuance of a Completion Certificate need not be before the date of commencement of the RERA. Section 3 (2)
(b) of RERA, provides that no registration of the real MSA No. 14 of 2024 31 2024:KER:78946 estate project shall be required where the promoter has received the Completion Certificate for the real estate project prior to the commencement of RERA. What is relevant under Proviso to Section 3 (1) is the date of completion of the project. What is relevant under Section 3 (2) (b) is the date of receipt of Completion Certificate.
27. On a conjoined reading of Proviso to Sub Section (1) and Clause (b) of Sub Section (2) makes it abundantly clear that what is relevant, and material is the date of issuance of the Completion Certificate. A Completion Certificate issued by the Local Authority certifies that the building is constructed as per the approved Plan and Permit. If anybody is aggrieved by the Completion Certificate, it is for him to challenge the Completion Certificate through proper remedies MSA No. 14 of 2024 32 2024:KER:78946 available under law. The legality of the Completion Certificate is not a matter for the K-RERA to consider. The legislative intention is clear. The project should be complete as on the date of commencement of the Act in order to take it out from the purview of registration. The Completion Certificate is a proof for completion of the project as far as the RERA is concerned. When it is proved that the Completion Certificate is received by the promoter before the date of commencement of the RERA, the project is not liable to be registered. In such case, further enquiry as to whether a project is ongoing or not is unwarranted.
28. The question of verification whether the project is an ongoing one or not arises under Section 3 only in the absence of Occupancy Certificates. Even if the original Occupancy Certificate received by the MSA No. 14 of 2024 33 2024:KER:78946 Promoter is not available, the promoter is free to produce other evidence to the satisfaction of the Authority to prove that Occupancy Certificate is issued before the date of commencement of the Act or that the project was not an ongoing project as on the date of commencement of the RERA to avoid registration under Section 3.
29. It is a case where the genuineness of Exts.B5 to B8 Occupancy Certificates is doubted by the Tribunal. Though Ext.X2 reveals that the Occupancy Certificates were issued much prior to the date of commencement of the RERA, the Tribunal refused to act upon the same holding that the procedure of procuring the Interrogatories was not proper. As on today, the existence and the date of issuance of Occupancy Certificates are not proved by the MSA No. 14 of 2024 34 2024:KER:78946 appellant/respondent. It could not be assumed that the existence of Occupancy Certificates and dates of issuance of the Occupancy Certificates would be proved by the appellant/respondent before the K- RERA. If the respondent could not prove the existence of Occupancy Certificates and dates of issuance of the Occupancy Certificates, the Commission Report, Expert Report and Sketches are definitely material pieces of evidence to decide whether the project was an ongoing one or not as on the date of commencement of the RERA.
30. Bearing in mind the above legal propositions, if the directions of the Tribunal are analysed, there is nothing wrong in the directions of the Tribunal. The purpose of the Commission Report, Expert Report & Sketches and the evidence of the Commissioner and the Expert is MSA No. 14 of 2024 35 2024:KER:78946 clearly discernible from the direction No.(f) in the impugned Order, "The K-RERA shall legally decide whether the reports and oral evidence of the Commissioner and Expert Engineer can be acceded and acted upon to find whether the project is an ongoing one or not." The only further direction which is to be made is that the K-RERA needs to consider the Commission Report, Expert Report & Sketches and the evidence of the Commissioner and the Expert only if the existence and the dates of issuance of Occupancy Certificates are not proved by the appellant/respondent.
31. Nevertheless, certain finding in the Concurring Order rendered by the Chairperson of the Tribunal requires interference. In the concurring judgment, the Tribunal refused to accept the submission of the MSA No. 14 of 2024 36 2024:KER:78946 learned counsel for the appellant that Occupancy Certificate is a decisive and conclusive material even if there is evidence to prove otherwise that the building was not in fact complete as on the relevant date with all the required facilities and amenities and entered a finding that when there is clear and acceptable material to disprove the case of the promoter or to prove that the building or project was not in fact complete as on the relevant date with all the required facilities and amenities to make it habitable, much value cannot be attached the Occupancy Certificate, and such Certificate cannot be decisive in deciding the material issue. This finding runs counter to the provisions under Proviso to Sub Section (1) and Clause
(b) of Sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the RERA and accordingly the same is set aside.
MSA No. 14 of 202437
2024:KER:78946
32. The apprehension of the Counsel for the appellant that the Commission Report, Expert Report & Sketches and the evidence of the Commissioner and the Expert would be used for widening the scope of the complaint is unfounded. If the Commission Report, Expert Report & Sketches and the evidence of the Commissioner and the Expert are used for any other purpose, the appellant can very well object the same before the K- RERA citing the pleadings available in the complaint and the sustainability of the same is a matter to be considered by the original authority namely, the K- RERA. It is highly improper for the higher courts to issue pre-emptive directions to the subordinate courts.
33. The substantial questions of law formulated in this appeal are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the appellants.
MSA No. 14 of 202438
2024:KER:78946
34. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part without costs, modifying the Order of the Tribunal by adding a further direction that the K-RERA needs to consider the Commission Report, Expert Report & Sketches and the evidence of the Commissioner and the Expert only if the existence and the dates of issuance of Occupancy Certificates are not proved by the appellant/respondent and setting aside the aforesaid finding in the Concurring Order.
Sd/-
M A ABDUL HAKHIM, JUDGE jma MSA No. 14 of 2024 39 2024:KER:78946 APPENDIX OF MSA 14/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN REFA 28 OF 2023 ON THE FILES OF REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM DATED 08-04-2023 Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN REFA 28 OF 2023 ON THE FILES OF REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM DATED 12-05-2023 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R1a A true copy of the order of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority in complaint No. 17/2020 dated 15.11.2021 Annexure R1b A true copy of the common order of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in REFA 53/2021 and REFA 9/2 dated 24.05.2022