Delays and Disputes: A Close Look at Rupa Joshi v. M/s GPM Developers Pvt. Ltd. Case

In a recent case before the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Rupa Joshi, a resident of Faridabad, challenged an order passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The case, numbered Appeal No. 695 of 2022, involved a dispute between Rupa Joshi and M/s GPM Developers Pvt. Ltd. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the case, highlighting the arguments presented, the order passed by the tribunal, and its implications for the parties involved.

Case Background:

Rupa Joshi, a resident of House No. 1567, Sector 7E, Faridabad, Haryana, had booked a 3BHK apartment with M/s GPM Developers Pvt. Ltd. The Builder Buyer's Agreement was executed between the parties on 18.10.2013. However, there were delays in the project, and Rupa Joshi approached the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority seeking a refund. In response, the Authority passed an order on 07.07.2022, granting interest on the delay in possession instead of a refund, which led Rupa Joshi to file an appeal before the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

Tribunal's Order and Analysis:

Upon reviewing the case, the tribunal found several shortcomings in the order passed by the Authority. The order was vague, cryptic, and failed to address the key issues raised by the complainant. The tribunal noted that the Authority had based its decision on tentative views taken during the proceedings, which is procedurally flawed. Tentative views should not serve as the basis for the final order, and this approach by the Authority was deemed incorrect.

Additionally, the tribunal observed that the Occupation Certificate (OC) for the tower where Rupa Joshi's unit was located was not on record. The Authority had relied on an affidavit and a conveyance deed, both of which were insufficient to prove the granting of an occupation certificate. As a result, the tribunal found that the order lacked substantial evidence and did not adequately address the relief sought by the complainant.

Remand and Directions:

Based on the shortcomings identified, the tribunal set aside the order passed by the Authority and remanded the case for a fresh decision. The Authority was directed to conduct a new hearing, taking into account the relief claimed in the complaint and the stand taken by the respondent. The tribunal emphasized that the Authority should adhere to the proper legal procedures and conclude the proceedings within a stipulated time frame to avoid further delays.

Conclusion:

The case of Rupa Joshi v. M/s GPM Developers Pvt. Ltd. before the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal highlights the importance of procedural fairness and substantial evidence in real estate disputes. The tribunal's decision to set aside the order and remand the case for a fresh decision underscores the need for a thorough examination of the facts and adherence to legal principles. This case serves as a reminder that quasi-judicial forums must follow due process to ensure justice is served in real estate matters.

Note: The information provided in this article about Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal or professional advice and readers should consult qualified professionals for advice specific to their circumstances. The information provided in this article is based on the Appeal No.695 OF 2022 before the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority

We hope you found our blog insightful and engaging! We appreciate your time and interest. If you enjoyed reading it, don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on our latest content. Visit our website www.reunionhq.in to know more.