Mandatory Pre-deposit for RERA Appeals Includes Refund of Misappropriated Parking Fees with Interest

The Appellant, a developer, challenged an order of the Uttarakhand Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dated 29.04.2026.

The Tribunal had directed the Appellant to deposit 50% of the amount ordered to be refunded to allottees by the Uttarakhand Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) as a pre-condition for entertaining their appeal.

RERA had previously found that the Appellant illegally realized parking fees from allottees for open/stilt parking without providing the facilities and ordered a full refund with interest at 10.85%.

The Appellant contended that since no "penalty" was imposed, the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act) was not applicable.

1. Whether the requirement of a pre-deposit under the proviso to Section 43(5) of the RERA Act is limited only to "penalty" or extends to other amounts like refunds of parking fees and interest.

2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal’s direction to deposit 50% of the amount was legally sound.

Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which mandates a pre-deposit for a promoter’s appeal to be entertained.

The proviso stipulates two categories for deposit: (a) at least 30% of the "penalty" (or higher as determined by the Tribunal), or (b) the "total amount to be paid to the allottee including interest and compensation imposed," or both.

The Court interpreted the proviso to Section 43(5) as having two distinct parts. The first part applies to penalties, whereas the second part applies to any other amounts, including refunds, interest, or compensation.

The Court observed that RERA had specifically ordered the refund of parking fees along with interest because the developer failed to provide said facilities.

Consequently, even if no "penalty" was labeled as such, the order fell squarely within the "latter part" of the proviso concerning amounts payable to allottees.

The Court further noted that while the statute technically requires the deposit of the total amount in such cases, the Appellate Tribunal had actually been "lenient" by requiring only a 50% deposit.

The Court declined to comment on the merits of the refund itself, as that remains the subject of the pending appeal before the Tribunal.

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s order and disposed of all pending applications.