The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (UP REAT) delivered a judgment in the case of Mahavir Singh Verma vs. Ram Raghu Buildwell, addressing two key legal questions under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). The first question was whether the Regulatory Authority could, under Section 39 of the RERA Act, reopen a decree on merits and reduce the refundable amount. The second was whether the allottee was entitled to a refund with interest for delayed possession.
According to the judgment, the Tribunal held that the Regulatory Authority does not have the power under Section 39 to reopen a decree on merits and reduce the refundable amount. Section 39 of the RERA Act empowers the Authority to rectify orders due to mistakes apparent on the face of the record, but not to review or modify the merits of the case. The Tribunal clarified that any reduction in the refundable amount would require a substantive review, which is beyond the scope of Section 39.
On the second issue, the Tribunal affirmed that the allottee is entitled to a refund with interest for delayed possession. Under Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter fails to give possession of the apartment as per the agreement, the allottee has the right to withdraw from the project and receive a full refund with interest at the prescribed rate. The Tribunal upheld this right, emphasizing that the allottee cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession.
The judgment reinforces the consumer protection framework of RERA, ensuring that promoters cannot evade their obligations through procedural technicalities. The decision is binding on the Uttar Pradesh RERA Authority and provides clarity on the limited scope of Section 39 for rectification of orders.
