Jabalpur, Feb 14 (NationPress) In a significant ruling that elucidates the procedural avenues under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has instructed an affected homebuyer to seek the correct forum for enforcing a delayed possession order against a builder.

A bench led by Justice Vishal Mishra, overseeing the Writ Petition, resolved the case on Thursday, highlighting the doctrine of merger in appellate decisions.

The conflict originated from a complaint filed by homebuyer GP Gupta with the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against the builder, who failed to deliver the flat on schedule and neglected to pay the agreed contractual interest.

Initially, RERA mandated possession within three months and referred the compensation matter to an adjudicating officer, who sided with the complainant.

This led to appeals, resulting in the Appellate Tribunal's order on November 19, 2020, which mandated the builder to provide possession within two months and to disburse interest at a rate of 9 percent on Rs 40 lakh until possession was granted.

Despite ongoing execution proceedings at RERA, compliance remained unfulfilled, prompting the complainant to file a plea in the High Court for a mandamus to enforce the Tribunal's order dated 19.11.2020 and a subsequent RERA member order from July 10, 2024, or alternatively, a reasoned response to his submissions.

The respondents, including RERA and the builder, challenged the case's maintainability. They cited Section 57 of the RERA Act, which states, 'Every order made by the Appellate Tribunal under this Act shall be executable by the Appellate Tribunal as a decree of civil court', and asserted that the Appellate Tribunal possesses all civil court powers.

The court agreed, noting that Gupta had 'approached the wrong forum i.e. RERA authority' for enforcement.

Justice Mishra remarked, 'The original order has merged into the appellate order. It is for the Appellate Tribunal to evaluate the application submitted by the petitioner for execution of the order issued by the Appellate Tribunal.'

He elaborated, 'Consequently, no direction can be issued to the RERA authority to expedite the execution proceedings of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal.'

While granting liberty, the court stated, 'However, the petitioner is free to approach the MP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal for execution of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal following legal protocols.'

Gupta, representing himself, pledged to file within 15 days, seeking a timely decision.

With no objections from the respondents, the court instructed, 'If such an application is submitted, the Appellate Tribunal is mandated to review and decide the matter according to the law within a span of 90 days afterwards.'

This ruling could serve as a precedent for similar cases, reaffirming that appellate orders supersede original ones under RERA, potentially simplifying the enforcement process for homebuyers facing builder non-compliance.