Mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) RERA Act is a condition precedent for entertaining a promoter's appeal.

The Respondent filed a complaint before the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Raipur, alleging that he executed an agreement on 16/05/2016 to purchase two commercial shops in the "White Symphony" project for a total consideration of Rs. 83,60,000, which was paid in full

The Appellants contested the claim, asserting that the agreement was fraudulent

On 27/06/2025, RERA allowed the complaint and directed the Appellants to pay the Respondent Rs. 1,06,79,900

The Appellants challenged this order before the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal and filed an application seeking exemption from the mandatory pre-deposit of the awarded amount

On 20/08/2025, the Tribunal rejected the exemption application, citing Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ("the Act"), and directed the Appellants to deposit the full amount

Upon the Appellants' failure to comply, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 26/09/2025

The Appellants subsequently moved the High Court under Section 58 of the Act

Whether the appeal involves any substantial question of law given that the lower appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of the Act, 2016.

The Court primarily applied Section 58 of the Chhattisgarh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which stipulates that an appeal to the High Court lies only if the case involves a substantial question of law

It further relied on the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Act, 2016, which mandates that where a promoter files an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the appeal shall not be entertained unless the promoter first deposits at least thirty percent of the penalty, or such higher amount as determined by the Tribunal, which may include the total amount to be paid to the allottee

The High Court examined the procedural history and noted that the Appellate Tribunal’s dismissal of the appeal was predicated entirely on the Appellants’ failure to comply with the statutory condition precedent of pre-deposit

The Court observed that the Tribunal had specifically rejected the Appellants' application for exemption based on the clear language of Section 43(5) and relevant Supreme Court observations

Since the Appellants failed to deposit the ordered amount of Rs. 1,06,79,900 as directed, the Tribunal followed the automatic dismissal clause included in its interlocutory order

The High Court reasoned that because the dismissal resulted from a failure to meet a clear statutory requirement, there was no error in legality or propriety

Consequently, the Court found that the matter did not involve any substantial question of law, which is a prerequisite for maintaining an appeal under Section 58

The High Court declined to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal at the admission stage