TNREAT - Ownership Of Land Is Not Determined By FSI But By Area Mentioned In Sale Deed And Allotment Letter To Homebuyer

Aryan Raj

6 July 2024 1:45 PM GMT

  • TNREAT - Ownership Of Land Is Not Determined By FSI But By Area Mentioned In Sale Deed And Allotment Letter To Homebuyer
    Listen to this Article

    Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Justice M. Duraiswamy (Chairperson) and R. Padmanabhan (Judicial Member), has held that the entitlement of land for homebuyers is not determined by Floor Space Index (FSI) calculation but by the extent mentioned in the sale deed and allotment letter.

    FSI (Floor Space Index) in real estate determines how much floor area can be built on a given plot of land. It's a ratio that regulates the permissible construction area relative to the plot size.

    Background Facts

    The Builder developed the real estate project named Casagrand Irene in Manapakkam, Sriperumbudur Taluk. The homebuyers booked Villa No. 12 in this project as per the Allotment Letter dated 01.08.2016.

    The Villa was handed over to the homebuyers on 29.03.2019. There is no dispute regarding payment or possession, but the dispute is related to the extent of property conveyed under the registered Sale Deed dated 14.12.2018.

    The homebuyers claim 3115 sq. ft. of land as per the Allotment Letter dated 01.08.2016. However, the Sale Deed dated 14.12.2018 mentioned the extent as 2586 sq. ft.. The homebuyers allege that 429 sq. ft. was omitted from the Sale Deed, for which they paid an additional Rs. 8,58,000/- at the rate of Rs. 2000 per sq. ft.

    The homebuyers contend that 240 sq. ft. out of the 429 sq. ft. was given possession, but the remaining 189 sq. ft. has not been handed over. They provided a rough sketch showing the details and claimed that despite several requests, the Builder has not executed the Sale Deed for the additional 429 sq. ft.

    Aggrieved by the non-execution of the sale deed, the homebuyers filed a complaint before the Authority seeking directions for the Sale Deed execution. The Authority, in its order dated 02.06.2023, directed the Builder to execute a Sale Deed for the additional 429 sq. ft. or, alternatively, for the 240 sq. ft. already in the homebuyers' possession and to refund Rs. 3,76,000/- with interest at 9.50% for the remaining 189 sq. ft. that has not been handed over to the homebuyers.

    Aggrieved by the Authority's order dated 02.06.2023, the Builder filed appeal before the tribunal to set aside the order.

    Contentions of Builder

    The Builder contended that the actual area of land sold, as per the Floor Space Index (FSI) calculation, was 2156.25 sq. ft. They argued that the disputed additional area of 429.75 sq. ft., when added to this becomes 2586 sq. ft., which was mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 14.12.2018. Therefore, the Builder contended that there was no omission or error in the extent of land mentioned in the Sale Deed.

    Observation and Direction by Tribunal

    The Tribunal rejected the Builder's contention that the 2586 sq. ft. mentioned in the Sale Deed included the disputed additional area of 429.75 sq. ft. The Tribunal observed that neither the Sale Deed nor the Construction Agreement made any mention that the extent of the plot conveyed was influenced by any Floor Space Index (FSI) calculation.

    Furthermore, the tribunal pointed out that even in the Allotment Letter, the disputed additional area of 429 sq. ft. was described as additional land without any reference to FSI calculation.

    The Tribunal observed that the Builder admitted receiving Rs. 8,58,000/- for the disputed 429 sq. ft. area from homebuyers but attempted to justify their stance using FSI calculation without providing supporting evidence.

    The Tribunal concluded that the Builder cannot alter the plot extent from 2586 sq. ft. to 2156.25 sq. ft. and then back to 2586 sq. ft. based on selective application of FSI. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Builder's appeal by upholding the order of the authority dated 02.06.2023.

    Case – Arun M.N. Versus Kathirvelu Thirumaran and Another

    Citation – Appeal No.26 of 2024



    Next Story