P&H HC Revives Builder’s Appeal Against ₹10-Crore IFMS Refund, Says RWA Is Not An “Allottee” For RERA Pre-Deposit

The promoter appealed under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”), after the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed its appeal for failure to make the pre-deposit required by Section 43(5).

The underlying Authority order had directed the promoter to return ₹10 crore in Interest Free Maintenance Security to the respondent Residents Welfare Association (“RWA”).

The promoter challenged the complaint’s maintainability, while the RWA sought to uphold the pre-deposit requirement on the basis that it represented the allottees.

Section 43(5) of RERA permits an appeal by any aggrieved person and requires a promoter-appellant, as applicable, to deposit at least 30% of the penalty or the total amount payable to the allottee, including interest and compensation, before the appeal is heard.

The explanation to Section 43(5) includes an association of allottees within “person,” while Section 2(d) defines “allottee” by reference to a person to whom a plot, apartment, or building has been allotted, sold, or transferred.

Section 11(4)(e) requires the promoter to enable formation of an association of allottees.

The Court applied the principle that clear statutory language should not be added to or altered by interpretation; it cited no judicial precedent.

The Court distinguished “person” from “allottee” in Section 43(5): although an association of allottees falls within “person” for the purpose of the right to appeal, the definition of “allottee” in Section 2(d) does not include an RWA or association.

The proviso requires the relevant deposit where the amount is payable to an allottee, but does not expressly extend that requirement to a payment directed to an association.

The Court rejected the RWA’s argument that the amount was effectively payable to the allottees collectively, holding that this could not justify expanding the statutory wording at the pre-deposit stage.

It set aside the Appellate Tribunal’s dismissal and requested that the Tribunal decide the appeal on its merits, preferably within three months.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 2 December 2026, and the appellant was directed not to seek an adjournment.