An available statutory RERA appeal should be pursued where the challenge turns on disputed facts.

The petitioner developed the residential project “Time and Space Infinity.”

The respondent booked Flat No. A-202 under an agreement dated 31 August 2015, which stipulated possession by 1 August 2016.

He claimed to have paid ₹46,93,506 of the ₹49,33,536 consideration but alleged that the flat was not completed or delivered.

The petitioner relied on a completion/occupancy certificate dated 15 December 2016 and contended that the respondent had not paid the balance consideration.

The respondent, in turn, relied on the petitioner’s reply notice of 4 January 2021, which stated that internal works remained pending and were expected to be completed by June 2021.

The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) allowed the respondent’s complaint under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act), directed a refund with interest, and directed proceedings for alleged violation of Section 3.

The petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the petitioner could bypass the statutory appeal under Section 43 of the RERA Act and obtain relief under Articles 226 and 227, given that the RERA Appellate Tribunal was functioning.

2. Whether the project’s alleged completion before the relevant provisions of the RERA Act came into force, and the resulting question of K-RERA’s jurisdiction, should be determined in the writ petition.

Section 43 of the RERA Act provides a statutory appellate remedy against an order of the RERA Authority.

Where that appellate remedy is available, the High Court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, particularly where resolving the challenge would require determination of disputed questions of fact.

Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, may be available in accordance with law to exclude time spent pursuing the writ petition when the petitioner brings an appeal within the period directed by the Court.

Sections 31, 3 and 59(1) of the RERA Act were relevant to the complaint and the Authority’s directions.

The petitioner’s jurisdictional objection depended on whether the project had in fact been completed before the RERA Act applied.

Although the petitioner relied on the 15 December 2016 certificate, K-RERA had questioned it, and the petitioner’s own 2021 reply notice referred to pending internal works and anticipated later completion.

The certificate’s effect, the actual completion date, and the other disputed matters were suitable for consideration by the Appellate Tribunal.

Since that Tribunal had been constituted and was functioning, the Court found no justification for bypassing the statutory appeal and resolving disputed facts in writ jurisdiction.

It disposed of the writ petition, reserving liberty to appeal under Section 43 within 30 days; the appeal was not to be rejected for delay attributable to the writ proceedings, and the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act was to be considered in accordance with law.

Any amount deposited pursuant to the interim order was directed to be transmitted to the Appellate Tribunal.