Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited vs PNB Techwares Private Limited

2026:MHC:4388
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 28.09.2026 Order pronounced on : 30.10.2026
CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CRP.No.5206 of 2026
M/s.Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited,
Represented by its Authorised Representative
Mr.A.Senthil Kumar,
Having registered office at
th
5 Floor, Times Tower,
Kamala Mills Co S.B.Marg,
Lower Parel (West), Mumbai – 400 013. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.M/s.PNB Techwaves Private Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Having registered office at
No.7/4, Baroda Street Extension,
West Mambalam, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu, India – 600 033.
2.M/s.PNB Exporters Private Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Having registered office at
No.7/4, Baroda Street Extension,
West Mambalam, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu, India – 600 033.
3.M/s.PNB Realty Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Having registered office at
Aurick Hotel, 598,
th th
15 Cross, 35 Main,
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )

2026:MHC:4388
th
6 Phase, J.P.Nagar,
Bangalore, Karnataka,
India – 560 078.
Having its Branch office at
No.14, Gulmohar Avenue,
Velachery Main Road, Guindy,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 032.
4.M/sArtha Real Estate Corporation Limited,
Represented by its Authorised Representative,
Having registered office at
No.110/37, Solitire Building,
Service Road, Outer Ring Road,
Marathahalli, Bangalore – 560 037.
Having its Branch office at
Door No.167-169, Second Floor,
Anna Salai, Near Checkers Hotel,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. .. Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to
set aside the order dated 15.07.2026 passed in C.C.P.(SR).No.38 of 2026 by the learned
Adjudicating Officer, TNRERA and consequently direct the Registry of the learned
Adjudicating Officer, TNRERA to take the Compensation Complaint bearing
C.C.P(SR).No.38 of 2026 on file and assign an appropriate case number.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkat Raman
for M/s.TATVA Legal, Chennai.
For Respondents : No appearance
ORDER
The complainant before the Adjudicating Officer of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate
Regulatory Authority, Chennai, is the revision petitioner.
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )

2026:MHC:4388
2.Despite service of notice on the respondents and the names of the respondents
also being printed in the cause list, there has been no appearance on the side of the
respondents either in person or through counsel. In fact, I have also directed the counsel
for the petitioner to effect paper publication as well and paper publication has also been
effected, in compliance with the order dated 11.09.2026. The respondents were therefore
called and set ex-parte.
3.I have heard Mr.R.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner states that the Adjudicating
Officer has erroneously dismissed the complaint filed by the revision petitioner, without
adverting to the legal position with regard to the jurisdiction of the authorities under
TNRERA. He would further state that the order of the Adjudicating Authority,
dismissing the complaint on the ground of maintainability is clearly erroneous and
unsubstantiated. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would take me
through the brief facts. The petitioner, as a property developer entered into a Joint
Venture Agreement with the land owners on 06.11.2012. Agreements were also entered
into between the parties. However, by consent, the Joint Venture Agreement stood
terminated and there was a role reversal in the sense that the land owner proposed to put
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )

2026:MHC:4388
up the construction and the petitioner, though originally had agreed to develop the
property, desired to purchase an apartment in the proposed construction. The learned
counsel for the petitioner would further state that an agreement of sale was also entered
into in respect of the undivided share and the land to be conveyed in proportion to the
area to be constructed by the land owners in favour of the petitioner, apart from a
separate construction agreement also.
5.The grievance of the petitioner is that the land owners, who assumed the role of
a builder, have delayed the construction and they have not been able hand over
possession, as originally committed under the construction agreement. It is in such
circumstances that the petitioner has approached the authority under RERA for
necessary relief. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner
that merely because the petitioner happened to be the original proposed
developer/builder, it would not render the contract between the petitioner and the
respondents, a commercial contract, taking it out of the realm of the RERA. The learned
counsel for the petitioner also took me through the definitions of “consumer” under both
the Consumer Protection Act, as well as RERA and would contend that the petitioner
fully qualifies to be an aggrieved party under the provisions of the RERA and was
entitled to move the Adjudicating Officer for relief. In support of his submissions, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )

2026:MHC:4388
Court in Madan and Co., Vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand , reported in (1989) 15 SCC 264 ,
Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Dharminder Bhohi and others , reported in (2013) 15 SCC
341 , Bunga Daniel Babu v. M/s. Sri Vasudeva Constructions & Others , reported in 2016
8 SCC 429 and judgment of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in W.P©.No.6169 of
2026 dated 20.02.2026 in the case of the Army Welfare Housing Organization and
another Vs. Union of India and the decision of the Patna High Court, in Civil Writ
Jurisdiction Case No.15444 of 2021 dated 28.08.2024 in the case of M/s.Nesh India
Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Bihar .
6.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
7.Admittedly, the following definition of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016, would assumes significance:
“ 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(d) "allottee" in relation to a real estate project, means the
person to whom a plot, apartment or building, as the case may be,
has been allotted, sold (whether as freehold or leasehold) or
otherwise transferred by the promoter, and includes the person who
subsequently acquires the said allotment through sale, transfer or
otherwise but does not include a person to whom such plot,
apartment or building, as the case may be, is given on rent;
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )

2026:MHC:4388
(zk) "promoter" means,—
(i) a person who constructs or causes to be constructed an
independent building or a building consisting of apartments, or
converts an existing building or a part thereof into apartments, for
the purpose of selling all or some of the apartments to other
persons and includes his assignees; or
(ii) a person who develops land into a project, whether or not
the person also constructs structures on any of the plots, for the
purpose of selling to other persons all or some of the plots in the
said project, whether with or without structures thereon; or
(iii) any development authority or any other public body in
respect of allottees of—
(a) buildings or apartments, as the case may
be, constructed by such authority or body on lands
owned by them or placed at their disposal by the
Government; or
(b) plots owned by such authority or body
or placed at their disposal by the Government, for
the purpose of selling all or some of the
apartments or plots; or
(iv) an apex State level co-operative housing finance society
and a primary co-operative housing society which constructs
apartments or buildings for its Members or in respect of the
allottees of such apartments or buildings; or
(v) any other person who acts himself as a builder, coloniser,
contractor, developer, estate developer or by any other name or
claims to be acting as the holder of a power of attorney from the
owner of the land on which the building or apartment is
constructed or plot is developed for sale; or
(vi) such other person who constructs any building or
apartment for sale to the general public.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, where the
person who constructs or converts a building into apartments or
develops a plot for sale and the persons who sells apartments or
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )

2026:MHC:4388
plots are different persons, both of them shall be deemed to be the
promoters and shall be jointly liable as such for the functions and
responsibilities specified, under this Act or the rules and
regulations made thereunder.”
8.A careful consideration of the above clearly bring the petitioner within the
definition of ‘allottee’, under Section 2 of RERA, I am unable to see how the agreement
of sale for undivided share and the construction agreement entered into between the
petitioner and the respondents/land owners, who had taken upon the task of development
of the property upon themselves to be termed as a commercial transaction. The earlier
agreements, no doubt, postulated a scenario where the petitioner was the
developer/builder and he had agreed to jointly develop the property belonging to the
land owners. However, with the termination of the said Joint Venture Agreement,
admittedly, the parties are relegated to the status of strangers. All subsisting relationship
between themselves under the earlier Joint Development Agreement came to an end and
there was no scope for reopening the earlier arrangement or agreement between the
parties to non suit the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner’s agreement to
purchase an apartment, together with undivided share is a commercial transaction and
therefore, the provisions of RERA will not apply.
9.The agreement of sale and the Construction Agreement for putting up
construction of an apartment have to be seen independently and they have nothing to do
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )

2026:MHC:4388
with the Joint Venture Agreement that had already been entered into and terminated
between the parties. Once the land owners have assumed the role of a developer, then
they are also equally bound to comply with the provisions of RERA and become liable
to address the grievances of apartment buyers, like the petitioner. Unfortunately, the
Adjudicating Authority has unnecessarily weighed the earlier arrangement between the
petitioner and the respondents to non suit the petitioner and hold that the petitioner’s
Construction Agreement would fall outside the scope of the RERA Act. Law is now also
settled with regard to the fact that even if the project is not registered, as mandated under
the provisions of RERA, even then the aggrieved flat buyer or allottee is entitled to
move the authorities under RERA and seek necessary relief.
10.In view of the above, the Adjudicating Authority, RERA, Chennai, has clearly
erred in rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner, by referring to the earlier Joint
Development Agreement between the parties. The Adjudicating Officer failed to see that
once the Joint Development Agreement was admittedly terminated, then the status of the
parties under the Joint Development Agreement would no longer survive, much less, be
relied on to be put against the petitioner to deprive him of his legitimate rights to seek
relief under the provisions of RERA. In the light of the above, the findings of the
Adjudicating Officer that the transaction is an outcome of a monetary transaction and
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )

2026:MHC:4388
therefore can be tried only by the Commercial Court and not entertained by RERA is
clearly perverse, improper and unsubstantiated.
11.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 15.07.2026 in
C.C.P.(SR).No.38 of 2026 on the file of the learned Adjudicating Officer, Tamil Nadu
Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Chennai, is set aside. The Adjudicating Officer of
TNRERA, Chennai, shall entertain the complaint of the revision petitioner, if it is
otherwise in order and shall number the same and after issuing notices to the
respondents in the complaint, after giving them adequate and reasonable opportunity to
file a counter or objection, the Adjudicating Officer shall decide the complaint of the
petitioner on merits and in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
30.10.2026
Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
ata
To
The Adjudicating Officer, TNRERA, Chennai.
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )

2026:MHC:4388
P.B.BALAJI. J,
ata
Pre-delivery order made in
CRP.No.5206 of 2026
30.10.2026
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )