Case Overview: Paras Arora vs. M/s Aggarwal Associates (RERA Appeal No. 4/2023, Delhi High Court)

The case revolves around a dispute related to a real estate project known as Aditya Mega Mall, developed by M/s Aggarwal Associates. The appellant, Paras Arora, had purchased a commercial space in this project in 2003. The project was completed, and a Completion Certificate was issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in 2007, which was before the enactment of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

Key Arguments by Divyakant Lahoti (Representing the Respondent):

1. Jurisdictional Challenge vis-a-vis RERA's Applicability: Mr. Lahoti argued that the RERA was not intended to apply to projects completed before its enactment. Since the Aditya Mega Mall project was completed and had received a Completion Certificate in 2007, the RERA did not have jurisdiction over this project. This argument was supported by referencing the Supreme Court decision in New Tech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 18 SCC 1, which clarified that RERA’s application is retroactive only for ongoing projects without a Completion Certificate at the time of its enactment.

2. Forum Shopping Allegation:

Misuse of Legal Process: Mr. Lahoti emphasized that the Appellant was engaging in forum shopping by withdrawing his case from the Consumer Forum after an unfavorable outcome and then filing a new complaint under RERA. He argued that the Appellant should have pursued his remedy within the consumer dispute redressal mechanism rather than switching forums to seek a more favorable outcome, which is an abuse of the legal process.

3. Non-Applicability of Section 71(1) of RERA:

Withdrawal of Complaint: The Appellant's reliance on Section 71(1) of RERA, which allows for the withdrawal of complaints from Consumer Forums to RERA, was contested by Mr. Lahoti. He argued that this provision does not provide the Appellant with the right to invoke RERA for a project completed before the Act came into force. The RERA Appellate Tribunal also agreed that there was no provision in RERA allowing a complaint regarding a completed project to be filed under the Act.

4. No Right to Relief under RERA:

Completion Status: Mr. Lahoti further reinforced that since the project was completed long before RERA's enactment, the Appellant could not seek any relief under RERA. The authorities correctly dismissed the complaint on these grounds.

Court's Decision:

The Court, through its Judgment dated 24.07.2024, upheld the arguments made by Mr. Lahoti, affirming that RERA did not apply to the completed project and dismissing the appellant's plea as not maintainable. The High Court did not interfere with the cost of ₹10,000 on the Appellant for forum shopping and for misusing the legal process. The operative part of the Judgment is as follows:

"25. Having considered the above, we are of the view that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, the adjudicatory officer / authority and the learned Tribunal have rightly rejected / dismissed the complaint of the appellant on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as the RERA itself was not applicable to the project, which not only was completed but also had received the Completion Certificate much before the enactment of the RERA." 

This case illustrates the limits of RERA's jurisdiction and reinforces the principle that legal forums cannot be manipulated through unscrupulous strategic withdrawals and refilings.