Haryana RERA: Provisions Of The Limitation Act, 1963, Do Not Apply To RERA

Background Fact

In 2011, the Builder advertised its upcoming real estate project Sovereign Floors at Alba Esencia, located in Sector-67, Gurugram. Relying on the advertisement, the Homebuyer booked a flat in the Builder's project by paying the booking amount of Rs.9,02,660.

On 14.5.2011, the Builder issued an allotment letter to the Homebuyer, assigning a Flat on the Ground Floor. Furthermore, a Flat Buyers Agreement (FBA) was signed between the Builder and the Homebuyer on 23.08.2011.

As per clause 5.1 of the FBA, the Builder promised to provide possession within a period of 30 Months with a grace period of 6 Months from the date of receiving the approval of the building plans by local authorities. Thus, the due date of possession was 31.12.15.

Despite paying the total consideration amount for the Flat, amounting to Rs.1,07,69,1,40, the Builder failed to deliver the possession of the flat on time. However, on 05.06.2016, the Homebuyer received the offer of possession from the Builder. At that time, the Builder had not obtained an occupation certificate for the project, thus, the Homebuyer rejected the possession offer of the Builder. Aggrieved by the delayed possession, the Homebuyer filed a complaint in Haryana RERA seeking interest from the builder.

Contention of the Builder

The builder contended that the homebuyer filed the complaint after more than 6 years and 6 months from the date of the offer of possession, thus, the homebuyer cannot take advantage of disregarding the due process of law. Furthermore, there is a delay of more than 3 years and 6 months in filing the complaint as per the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

RERA Order

The Authority held that the Provisions Of The Limitation Act, 1963 doesn't apply to RERA and directed the builder to pay interest on the amount paid by the homebuyer at the interest rate of 10.85% p.a. for every month of delay from the due date of possession until obtaining the occupation certificate, plus two months as per the proviso Section 18(1) of RERA, 2016.

The Authority relied on the order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in the case of M/s Siddhitech Homes Pvt. Ltd. vs Karanveer Singh Sachdev and others, wherein it was held that RERA nowhere provides any timeline for availing reliefs. A developer cannot be discharged from its obligations merely on the grounds that the complaint was not filed within a specific period prescribed under some other statutes. Even if such provisions exist in other enactments, those are rendered subservient to the provisions of RERA by virtue of the non-obstante clause in Section 89 of RERA, having overriding effect on any other law inconsistent with the provisions of RERA. In view thereof, Article 54 of the Limitation Act would not render the complaint time barred.

In Conclusion, Haryana RERA held that the provisions of Limitation Act 1963 do not apply to RERA.

Case : Babu Lal Gupta & another V/S New look builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd

Citation : complaint No. 5768 of 2022