Bombay High Court Clarifies RERA Authorities' Jurisdiction in Title Disputes

The Bombay High Court has recently clarified the jurisdiction of authorities and tribunals under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). The court ruled that these bodies cannot adjudicate title disputes between allottees or grant declaratory and injunctive reliefs. Such powers, the court emphasized, lie exclusively with civil courts.

Clarifying the limits of RERA jurisdiction, the court stated that disputes concerning the validity of title instruments “is not a matter which the authorities under the RERA are empowered to adjudicate. Consequently, the reliefs of declaration and injunction sought by the Plaintiffs in the instant suit, may not be granted by authorities under RERA.”

A single bench of Justice N J Jamadar made this ruling while dismissing a revision plea by Sana Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. The company had challenged the refusal of a Belapur Civil Court to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11. The court emphasized that the presence of execution powers does not transform the Appellate Tribunal into a civil court. “At best, it can be said that, while executing an order, the Appellate Tribunal may have the trappings of the civil Court, but it cannot be called a Civil Court, in the sense that, it can grant reliefs which can be granted by the Civil Court as the court of plenary and residuary jurisdiction while determining a suit of civil nature.”

The case arose from conflicting claims over Flat No. 1703 in the “Green World” project in Belapur, Maharashtra. Sana Hospitality had purchased the flat under a 2016 registered sale deed and later secured a RERA Appellate Tribunal order directing the promoter, Mount Mary Builders, to hand over possession. However, a title search revealed that the promoter had subsequently executed a 2017 agreement for the very same flat in favor of Madan Kishan Gurow and others, who had already taken possession in 2019 after paying consideration and availing a housing loan. Gurow and others had filed a civil suit seeking declarations that their agreement was valid, that they were bona fide purchasers without notice, and that Sana's earlier sale deed was null and void and not binding on them.

Sana argued before the High Court that Section 79 of RERA barred the civil suit, insisting that the real dispute was between two sets of allottees and could be determined only by RERA authorities. They relied on the Appellate Tribunal's power under the Act to execute its own orders “as a decree of a Civil Court” to contend that the tribunal could also decide whether the plaintiffs were entitled to protect their possession. Gurow and others countered that they were not parties to any earlier RERA proceedings and that, as their reliefs involved declarations on title, RERA bodies lacked jurisdiction to entertain such issues or grant equivalent remedies.

Rejecting Sana's arguments, the High Court reaffirmed the extent of civil court jurisdiction, stating, “There is always a presumption in favor of the existence of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and against the exclusion thereof.” The court also relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Ramalinga Samigal Madam (1985), which held that even if a statute gives finality to the decisions of a special tribunal, courts must still examine whether that tribunal can grant the kinds of reliefs a civil court ordinarily would. If it lacks those powers, it becomes difficult to infer that the civil court's jurisdiction has been excluded.

Holding that RERA authorities cannot grant the declarations and injunctions sought in the suit, the court found no error in the civil court's refusal to reject the plaint and dismissed the revision application in its entirety.