Functional Establishment of Appellate Tribunal Under RERA Occurs Only Upon Members Assuming Office Post-Oath

The Appellants (Promoters) launched a real estate project in Mulund in 2005–2006.

The Respondents (Allottees) booked flats between 2005 and 2007, paying substantial considerations (ranging from 10.6% to 100%)

Agreements stipulated possession dates between 2008 and 2010

Following significant delays, the Allottees approached the Real Estate Regulatory Authority seeking interest for delayed possession

The Competent Authority passed vague directions to "expedite" work without fixing liability

On appeal, the Designated Appellate Tribunal (Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal) ordered the Promoter to pay interest @ 10.05% p.a. from 1st February 2014 until actual possession and directed completion within 18 months

1. Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) had jurisdiction to adjudicate appeals under RERA after the notification of the permanent Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal but before its members took oath

2. Whether the composition of a "single-member bench" of the MRT was ultra vires Section 43(3) of RERA

3. Whether authorities under RERA can fix a possession date or grant interest if the Agreement for Sale contains force majeure and extension clauses

4. Whether the demolition of "Tower C" due to new DCPR 2034 regulations constituted "frustration of contract" under Section 56 of the Contract Act

Section 43 of the RERA, 2016, regarding the "establishment" of the Appellate Tribunal, and Section 43(4) first proviso, which allows "designating" an existing tribunal as a pro-tem arrangement

Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2017, mandating an "Oath of Office" before a member "enters upon office"

Section 18 of RERA was applied, establishing an "unqualified right" to interest for delayed possession

Newtech Promoters v. State of UP (2021) regarding the retroactive application of RERA

Pioneer Urban Land v. Govindan Raghavan (2019) regarding "one-sided" unconscionable contracts

Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act and the "multi-factorial approach" from Energy Watchdog v. CERC (2017)

The Court first resolved the jurisdictional challenge, holding that "establishment" implies a "functional" tribunal; since the permanent members only took oath on 24th December 2018, the MRT (Designated Tribunal) validly held jurisdiction when passing the order on 1st November 2018

The court rejected the argument that pro-tem tribunals must match the "two-member bench" composition of a regular RERA tribunal, noting that the first proviso to Section 43(4) allows "any" functioning tribunal to act as the Appellate Tribunal

On the merits, the Court held that Section 18 of RERA creates a statutory, unqualified right to interest for delay that cannot be waived by "force majeure" clauses unless the events genuinely beyond control are proved

The claim of "frustration" for Tower C was dismissed as "self-induced" and "bad faith," as the Promoter chose to demolish the building to nearly double the number of floors for profit (from 22 to 48) under new regulations, despite retrofitting being a viable, albeit more expensive, option

It held that the MRT's order was well-reasoned and within jurisdiction

The Court affirmed the Allottees' right to interest @ 10.05% from 2014

Specifically for Second Appeals 253 and 257 (Tower C), the court found the Promoter had misrepresented facts to the MCGM by promising to safeguard allottee rights merely to obtain higher FSI. Consequently, those two appeals were dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹1,00,000 each, while the other eight appeals were dismissed with costs of ₹10,000 each

Stay on the judgment was refused