Madras High Court Rules: RERA Act Does Not Empower Granting of Permanent Injunction

The Madras High Court has recently issued a significant ruling, determining that a suit for common law remedy, specifically a relief of permanent injunction, cannot be sought before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). This decision underscores the limitations of the RERA Act and clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between civil courts and the regulatory authority.

The High Court considered the question of whether a suit for a common law remedy, namely a relief of permanent injunction, can be sought before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The Bench, presided over by Justice P.B. Balaji, observed that the common law equitable remedy of permanent injunction is not available under the provisions of the RERA Act.

Justice Balaji stated, “On a careful appreciation of the ratio laid down in all the above cases and applying the same to the facts of the present case, I do not see that the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming the relief of permanent injunction can be said to be barred under Sections 36 or 37, which clearly operate in different fields altogether. The common law equitable remedy of permanent injunction not being available to the plaintiff under any of the provisions of the RERA Act, the civil suit instituted by the respondent is certainly maintainable and cannot be rejected as being barred under law invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.”

Advocate N.Nandhakumar represented the Petitioner, while Advocate R.Venkatraman represented the Respondents. The Petitioner contended that the suit instituted by the Respondent-developer was not maintainable, in view of the bar under Section 79 of the RERA Act, 2016. It was also argued that under Sections 37 and 38 of the RERA Act, the authority is empowered to grant the relief of injunction, and therefore, the suit should be struck down as it is barred under law, invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

On the other hand, the Respondent-Developer argued that being only for a bare permanent injunction, it was an equitable remedy for which the Petitioner was entitled to approach the Civil Court. They referred to Sections 36 and 37 of the RERA Act, contending that these sections operate in different spheres and platforms altogether, and the authority under the Act was not empowered to grant the relief of permanent injunction.

The question before the High Court was whether a suit for a common law remedy, such as a relief of permanent injunction, can be sought before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The Court referred to Sections 36, 37, 40, and 79 of the RERA Act. The Court emphasized that the object of Section 36 is to protect the interest of parties who are before the authority in a pending inquiry, and one of them complains about the contravention of the provisions of the Act.

The Court observed that since the Petitioner was in peaceful enjoyment of the disputed suit property and the Respondent-Developer was attempting to interfere with the possession of the Petitioner, the said reliefs could not be sought by the promoter under Sections 36 and 37 of the Act or Section 40(2) of the Act. After referring to various judgments, the Court concluded that the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming the relief of permanent injunction is not barred under Sections 36 or 37, which operate in different fields altogether.

The Court stated, “The Trial Court has rightly, in my considered opinion, found that the power to grant injunction is not available under the provisions of the RERA Act and the cause of action as set out in the plaint clearly entitles the plaintiff to maintain the civil suit. The Trial Court has also rightly refused to look into the application filed by the revision petitioner before RERA, as it is alien for consideration in an application for rejection of the plaint.”

Accordingly, the Petition was dismissed.

The case title is Metrozone Apartment Owners Association v. M/s. Ozone Projects Private Limited.