MahaREAT Dismisses Homebuyer's Application For Condonation Of 298-Day Delay In Filing Appeal
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) Bench, comprising SS Shinde (Chairperson) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has dismissed the homebuyer's application for condonation of a 298-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The homebuyer appealed the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) order dated October 27, 2021. According...
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) Bench, comprising SS Shinde (Chairperson) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has dismissed the homebuyer's application for condonation of a 298-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
The homebuyer appealed the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) order dated October 27, 2021. According to Section 44(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the homebuyer had 60 days from the date of receiving a copy of the order to file an appeal before the tribunal
Background Facts
The homebuyer (Appellant) filed an appeal challenging the Authority's order dated October 27, 2021, which had dismissed the complaint after finding no merit in the case. The appeal was filed before the Tribunal with a delay of 298 days, on January 6, 2023.
The homebuyer argued that the delay was due to uncertainty about whether to challenge the Authority's order, as they found it nearly impossible to deal with builders (Respondent 1 to 3) who had collected substantial amounts of money.
Additionally, after the Authority dismissed the complaint on technical grounds, the homebuyer attempted to resolve the dispute amicably with the builders, which contributed to the delay in filing the appeal.
Observation and Direction by Tribunal
The Tribunal observed that the homebuyer claimed to have received the order dated October 27, 2021, only on January 14, 2022. However, the Tribunal found that this was not an ex-parte order. The homebuyer was represented throughout the proceedings, including on the date of the final hearing.
Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that there was no change in the advocate representing the homebuyer when filing the appeal. Thus, the Tribunal held that the homebuyer's claim of a 79-day delay in becoming aware of the order was not convincing.
The Tribunal also observed that the homebuyer cited attempts to settle disputes amicably as a reason for the delay in filing their appeal. However, the Authority noted that the homebuyer did not provide any documentary evidence to support their claims, such as communications, meeting dates, or minutes of settlement meetings.
Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the condonation application of the homebuyer, stating that they were casual, careless, and not vigilant about their rights in filing the appeal on time.
Case - Mr. Hyder Esmailjee Lakdawala & anr Versus Sankalp Developers & Projects Consultant & others
Citation - MISC. APPLICATION NO. 345 OF 2023 (Delay) in Appeal NO. AT0060000000144241 OF 2023