Facts of the Case

An 84-year-old buyer, Bela Rani Bose, paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.65,16,000/- (including a GST component of Rs.6,01,000/-, per the price break-up) for a 3BHK flat under an Agreement of Sale dated 23.10.2018 with builder Rajesh Sarkar (M/s Sarkar Construction). A same-day Memorandum of Understanding committed the builder to hand over the fully finished flat by December 2019; the main agreement's RERA-compliant possession date was 20.02.2022. The builder failed to deliver possession by December 2019, cited COVID-related extensions, and later offered a different, mortgaged flat (No.501) instead of the contracted flat (No.105), with the sale-deed format for the alternate flat understating the consideration at Rs.25,79,000/-. RERA Raipur initially gave the builder the option of registering either flat. On appeal, the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal set aside that order and directed refund of the full Rs.65,16,000/- with 10.5% interest from 22.10.2018, plus costs. The builder appealed to the High Court.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the builder was contractually bound by the December 2019 completion date fixed in the MoU, despite the later RERA-extended project completion timeline.
  2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the buyer's alleged failure to serve notice was not fatal was correct.
  3. Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel applied against the builder.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The RERA project completion date, as extended by COVID-related circulars, was 30.06.2022; the buyer refused to accept flat No.105 over a sunlight issue.
  • The builder is now ready and willing to execute the sale deed for flat No.105.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Having paid the entire consideration upfront, the buyer relied on the builder's own MoU committing to hand over the flat by December 2019.
  • The builder's later offer of a different, mortgaged flat at a mismatched price showed bad faith.
  • RERA's finding requiring the buyer to have served a notice for sale was legally unfounded, since neither the Act nor the agreement required this.

Court Order / Findings

  • Applying Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (1979) 2 SCC 409, the Court held the builder was estopped from invoking the RERA Act's extended completion timeline to justify the delay, having accepted the entire consideration and executed the MoU.
  • The Appellate Tribunal's finding on the notice issue was upheld, since neither the Act nor the agreement required the buyer to serve a notice for sale.
  • Finding no perversity in the Appellate Tribunal's fact-finding, the appeal was dismissed and the direction to refund Rs.65,16,000/- with 10.5% interest was upheld.
  • Given the buyer's advanced age, execution proceedings (if filed) were directed to conclude within two months.

Important Clarification

This is a Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 case, not a GST dispute. GST appears only as one line-item in the flat's price break-up and was not separately in issue; the ruling turns entirely on RERA contract and promissory estoppel principles.

Sections Involved

  • Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 – Section 58 (High Court's jurisdiction over RERA Appellate Tribunal orders)

Decision – In Favour of

Respondent (buyer, Bela Rani Bose) – the builder's appeal was dismissed and the refund-with-interest order upheld.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
Case Number: MA No. 42 of 2023
Coram: Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Date of Order: 15 June 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.