Neelaish Tiwari v. ATS Realty Pvt. Ltd.
In the UP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Appeal 82/2023
Before Justice D.K. Arora, Chairman, and Mr Sanjai Khare, Judicial Member
Decided on May 07, 2024

Relevancy of the case: Applicability of the First Schedule of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in real estate disputes

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 1(4), 4)
• The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (Section 18, 44)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The appellant purchased a flat from the respondent under a sale agreement in the “ATS Allure” project with a possession date of June 30, 2018.
• The respondent delayed possession by 3 years and 9 months and failed to adjust compensation of 10% per annum for each month for the delay despite multiple requests.
• The appellant previously submitted a complaint before the Adjudicating Officer, UP RERA, and it was subsequently rejected. Hence, the present appeal.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The appellant, appearing in person, argued that he was liable for compensation under Clause 7.6 of the agreement due to delay and failure to issue a valid possession letter. The respondent should issue a fresh demand letter after adjusting the amount not payable and duly signed by the respondent, or mentioning that the letter is computer-generated. He further submitted that, as per Section 1(4) and the First Schedule of the Information Technology Act, 2000, documents related to property do not fall within the ambit of the Act. Hence, digital and electronic signatures are not applicable. He also mentioned that the possession letter sent by the respondent in April 2022 was unsigned. Therefore, no liability shall arise on him till a legally valid possession/demand letter is issued by the respondent.
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that the appellant defaulted on the remaining payment for 4 years, and has conveniently avoided mentioning phone calls regarding possession made to him. The counsel further submitted that the possession delays were caused by force majeure events.

Opinion of the Bench

• The appellant has sought to stay in the project and not withdraw while demanding compensation for delays.
• It is legally implied that the jurisdiction for such a compensation claim lies with the Regulatory Authority, not the Adjudicating Officer.
• As per proviso to Section 18(1) of the RERA Act, an allottee is entitled to interest for every month of delay till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.

Final Decision

• The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal, while giving the liberty to the appellant to approach the Regulatory Authority by filing a complaint under Section 18(1).