P&H HC Stays Govt Notice Clubbing Sole Proprietorship Real Estate Concern With Companies [Read Order]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has suspended the operation of the state government notice by which it had clubbed real estate agents working as sole proprietorship concern with partnership firms, companies etc.

“…Operation of the impugned notice dated 8.5.2018 and 3.8.2018 shall remain suspended,” ordered Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain.

The court had earlier issued notice to the Haryana government and the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA) on a petition moved by ‘Association of Property Professionals’ through advocates Piyush Singh and Vaibhav Jain from PSP Legal challenging the said notice which were coming in the way of many real estate agents operating sole proprietorship concern.

With the state seeking an adjournment to file reply, the court suspended operation of notice.

In this case, members of the petitioner association had sought to be registered as real estate agents and applied to the HARERA for the same under Rule 9 of the HARERA Rules along with a fee of Rs 25,000.

Thereafter, they were granted Registration Certificates of Real Estate Agent under Rule 10 of the HARERA Rules.

They were, however, issued letters by HARERA asking them to pay an additional amount of Rs 2.25 lakh as registration fees within a period of 15 days or their registration as real estate agents under the HARERA Rules would stand revoked.

The said letters stated that the members/real estate agents had applied and received registration as real estate agent under the category of proprietorship firms and hence, in terms of Schedule II of the HARERA Rules, the recipient would fall under the category “Other than individual” thereby making the members/real estate agents liable to pay a registration fee of Rs 2,50,000 as prescribed in Schedule II of the HARERA Rules.

On May 8, HARERA issued a notice for time extension for deposit of deficient fees for individuals functioning as sole proprietor agents.

One of the members of the petitioner association wrote back to HARERA stating that he is an individual working under the name and style of his proprietorship concern namely, ‘M/s Global Inspirations’ and as such would fall under the category of “Individual” and not “Other than individual” as had been wrongly concluded by HARERA.

HARERA, however, replied that in terms of the HARERA Rules, an individual had been treated as separate from a proprietorship concern and as such, a proprietorship concern would fall under the category “Other than individual”.