RERA Act Does Not Provide Power To Grant Injunction: Madras High Court
The Court also said the civil suit instituted for seeking permanent injunction was maintainable and cannot be rejected as being barred under law invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.
Justice P.B Balaji, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court held that a suit for common law remedy, namely a relief of permanent injunction, cannot be sought before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA).
The High Court considered the question of whether a suit for common law remedy, namely a relief of permanent injunction, can be sought before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority or not.
The Bench of Justice P.B. Balaji observed, “On a careful appreciation of the ratio laid down in all the above cases and applying the same to the facts of the present case, I do not see that the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming the relief of permanent injunction can be said to be barred under Sections 36 or 37, which clearly operate in different fields altogether. The common law equitable remedy of permanent injunction not being available to the plaintiff under any of the provisions of the RERA Act, the civil suit instituted by the respondent is certainly maintainable and cannot be rejected as being barred under law invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.”
Advocate N.Nandhakumar represented the Petitioner, while Advocate R.Venkatraman represented the Respondents.
Case Brief
The Petitioner contended that the suit instituted by the Respondent-developer was not maintainable, in view of the bar under Section 79 of the RERA Act, 2016. It was also contended that by the Petitioner that under Sections 37 and 38 of the RERA Act, the authority is empowered to grant the relief of injunction and therefore, the suit has to be necessarily struck down as there is a bar under law, invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.
While the Respondent-Developer contended that being only for a bare permanent injunction, it was an equitable remedy for which the Petitioner was entitled to approach the Civil Court. Referring to Section 36 and 37 of the RERA Act, the Respondent-Developer would contend that both the Sections operate in different spheres and platforms altogether and the authority under the Act was not empowered to grant the relief of permanent injunction.
Court’s Observation
The question before the High Court was whether a suit for common law remedy, namely a relief of permanent injunction, can be sought before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority or not.
The High Court referred to Sections 36, 37, 40 and 79 of the RERA Act. The Court underscored, “The object of Section 36 is therefore only to protect the interest of parties who are before the authority in a pending enquiry and one of them complains about the contravention of the provisions of the Act.”
The Court observed that since the Petitioner was in n peaceful enjoyment of the disputed suit property and the Respondent-Developer was attempting to interfere with the possession of the Petitioner, the said reliefs could not be sought for by the promoter under sections 36 and 37 of the Act or for that matter Section 40(2) of the Act.
After referring to various judgments, the Court concluded that the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming the relief of permanent injunction can be said to be barred under Sections 36 or 37, which clearly operate in different fields altogether. The common law equitable remedy of permanent injunction not being available to the plaintiff under any of the provisions of the RERA Act, the civil suit instituted by the respondent is certainly maintainable and cannot be rejected as being barred under law invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.
“The Trial Court has rightly, in my considered opinion, found that the power to grant injunction is not available under the provisions of the RERA Act and the cause of action as set out in the plaint clearly entitles the plaintiff to maintain the civil suit. The Trial Court has also rightly refused to look into the application filed by the revision petitioner before RERA, as it is alien for consideration in an application for rejection of the plaint”, the Court held.
Accordingly, the Petition was dismissed.
Cause Title: Metrozone Apartment Owners Association V. M/s.Ozone Projects Private Limited
Click here to read/download Order