Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22. Answer to point No.3: Whether there is any conflict between KAOA 1972 and KOFA 1972 on the one hand and RERA 2016 on the other? If so, which enactment would prevail? 22.1. Though several submissions have been made by all the counsels in this regard and there are several decisions which have been cited in this regard, all the decisions which have been cited

- 165 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23360 HC-KAR are ones either relating to KAOA 1972, KOFA 1972 and the interplay between them. None of those decisions deals with all four enactments, i.e., KAOA 1972, KOFA 1972 and RERA 2016, as well as the interplay between them. 22.2. As indicated supra, in SHANTARAM PRABHU'S case, this court had also observed that the aspect of RERA 2016 was not considered therein, since the project in question was not a project subject to RERA 2016, since the same had been implemented prior to RERA 2016 coming into force. Insofar as projects which have been implemented prior to RERA 2016 coming into force and or project as regards which, RERA 2016 is not applicable, then in such a situation, in so far as maintenance is concerned, it's KAOA 1972 which would be applicable and insofar as dispute between the allottee and the developer

22.8. RERA 2016 deals with the relationship and inter se disputes as aforesaid, which was earlier dealt with to a limited extent by KOFA 1972. In my considered opinion, RERA 2016 would prevail over KOFA 1972, regarding any project that has been subjected to RERA 2016, more so since RERA contains non-obstante provisions, indicating that it prevails over any other law. 22.9. As regards KAOA 1972 and RERA 2016, KAOA 1972 can only come into being if all the owners subject their apartments and common areas to a deed of declaration in accordance with KAOA 1972.

- 169 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23360 HC-KAR 22.10. Insofar as the construction phase is concerned, until the completion of the construction, KAOA 1972 would have no role to play, and as such, it is RERA 2016, which would address all those issues.

22.11. Hence, I answer point No.3 by holding that there is no conflict between KAOA 1972 and RERA 2016, inasmuch as RERA 2016 is applicable pre-ownership, KAOA 1972 is applicable post-ownership. Insofar as KOFA and RERA 2016 are concerned, there is a conflict. However, RERA 2016 would override KOFA 1972, and it is the rights and remedies which are provided under RERA 2016 which would override those under KOFA 1972.

29.6. Several of the provisions in RERA 2016 containing non-obstante provisions, RERA 2016 would override KOFA 1972. Apart from this, RERA 2016, being a central enactment that occupies the field relating to disputes between allottees and developers/Promoters,

- 204 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23360 HC-KAR would override KOFA 1972, a State enactment, in order to maintain uniformity across the country. Taking into account these aspects and factors, I am of the considered opinion that the decision of the Division Bench of this court in STARNEST APARTMENT OWNERS CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, holding that a co- operative Society can only be registered in respect of KOFA 1972 if there is a commercial unit, would no longer be applicable after RERA 2016 has come into force, more so since RERA 2016 was not considered in STARNEST APARTMENT OWNERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. This would also have to be taken into consideration with reference to the proviso to clause (e) of Subsection (1) of Section 14, which requires that such an Association is required to be formed within a period of 3 months of the majority of the