Dismissed¶84

Provident Housing Limited v. Dasari Naresh

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2025RERA.A/63/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Provident Housing Limited v. Dasari Naresh & Karnataka RERA, RERA.A No. 63 of 2025 (HC-KAR, decided 22.08.2025, Jayant Banerji & Umesh M Adiga JJ., oral judgment per Jayant Banerji) — delayed-possession interest under proviso to S.18(1) RERA Act 2016 payable dehors promoter's bona fide delay in obtaining occupancy certificate; S.19(10) no bar; Debashis Sinha v. RNR Enterprise (2023) 3 SCC 195 distinguished as fact-specific; Tribunal confirmation of Authority's Rs.7,73,978/- delay-interest order upheld; appeal dismissed, no substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the appeal was dismissed and all pending I.As were disposed of. ¶84

Provident Housing Limited Vs Dasari Naresh — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the appeal was dismissed and all pending I.As were disposed of.

¶84

Issue for consideration

Whether the allottee/complainant is entitled to interest on delayed possession where the delay in obtaining the occupancy certificate was beyond the promoter's control (appellant's reliance on Section 19(10)). +1 more

¶64

Court's answer

Under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the 2016 Act, the allottee is entitled to receive interest on delayed possession irrespective of (dehors) any bona fide delay on the promoter's part in procuring the occupancy certificate.

¶77

Ratio / Principle

While possession must be taken by the allottee within the specified time (conceding the Section 19(10) premise), the case turns on the allottee's entitlement to interest on delayed possession.

¶64

Key takeaways

The Supreme Court judgment in Debashis Sinha v. RNR Enterprise, relied on by the appellant, proceeds on its own facts and local municipal laws and is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.ratio¶78
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the case; accordingly the appeal fails.ratio¶83

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RERA Appeal under S.58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 by promoter Provident Housing Limited against the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's judgment dated 13.06.2025 in Appeal No.(K-REAT) 27/2024, which had dismissed its appeal and confirmed the Authority's direction (arising from complaint CMP/1223/2023 by allottee Dasari Naresh) to pay Rs.7,73,978/- as interest on delayed possession from 22.12.2023 till handing over possession with occupancy certificate, plus monthly delay interest thereafter. HELD: (i) under the proviso to S.18(1), the allottee's entitlement to interest for every month of delay till handing over possession operates dehors any bona fide delay of the promoter in procuring the occupancy certificate; (ii) the promoter's reliance on S.19(10) does not defeat this claim; (iii) Debashis Sinha v. RNR Enterprise, (2023) 3 SCC 195, being founded on its own facts and local municipal laws, does not apply; (iv) no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises. Appeal dismissed; pending I.As disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:32786-DB RERA.A No. 63 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA RERA APPEAL NO. 63 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PROVIDENT HOUSING LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.130/1, ULSOOR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 042 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. JATIN UJJINI S/O C. M. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

DASARI NARESH S/O MR. MARKANDEYULU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.311, PASSION ELITE APARTMENTS - 1, DODDATHOGUR, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE -1, BANGALORE - 560 100.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:32786-DB RERA.A No. 63 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2^ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK, UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND, 3^RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

THIS RERA APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 58 OF THE REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT 2016, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.06.2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPEAL NO.(K-REAT) 27/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN CMP/1223/2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 THEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH IA NO.1/2025 FOR STAY AND IA NO.2/2025 FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶25

Heard, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶26

This appeal has been filed seeking to set aside

¶27

the judgement dated 13.06.2025 passed by the Karnataka

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32786-DB RERA.A No. 63 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bengaluru in Appeal (KREAT) No. 27/2024, by means of which the complaint filed by the respondent No.1, being complaint CMP/1223/2023, was dismissed.

¶31

The complainant-respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Authority under the Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Act, 2016 on 01.08.2023 seeking interest on delayed period, under section 31 of the Act, 2016. It is stated that on 12.12.2023, the complainant filed written submissions. It is stated that the complainant had booked residential apartment NEORA – C – 802 on the eighth floor Wing-C in the project developed by the appellant "Provident Neora". On payment of Rs.38,43,946/- made to the appellant, an agreement dated 09.01.2019 was executed. However, the complainant alleged delay in handing over the apartment.

¶32

It was alleged by the complainant that the project

¶33

was initially promised to be completed by December 2021; that the project had received extension from K–RERA twice,

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:32786-DB RERA.A No. 63 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

but the project had not been handed over as it had not received occupancy certificate; that the builder had received payments promptly but failed to obtain occupancy certificate while blaming the authorities for its failure and delay to get appropriate approvals.

¶38

The appellant did not appear before the Authority. The appellant was placed ex-parte , and after hearing the arguments of the complainant, the Authority had reserved the matter for orders. The appellant has referred to certain dates in January and February 2024, pertaining to the listing of the case before the Authority on which dates he was unable to appear. Thereafter the Authority marked the absence of the appellant, heard the arguments of the complainant and reserved the complaint for orders. It is stated that the appellant became aware of the same on receipt of an email dated 14.02.2024. It is stated that while the matter was reserved before the Authority, an application along with the detailed statement of objections and supporting documents were filed in the registry of the

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32786-DB RERA.A No. 63 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Authority on 29.02.2024, but those documents were not considered by the Authority.

¶42

The contention of learned counsel for the

¶43

appellant is that initially, the project was sanctioned and work had commenced, however, due to the Covid pandemic, a certificate of extension of completion was sought by the appellant which was issued by the Authority on 16.11.2022 extending the time till 3.9.2023. Prior to that, on 22.08.2022, the Engineering Consultancy Firm issued a structural stability certificate and completion certificate certifying that the project had been fully completed. On 26.04.2022, the appellant submitted an application before the BBMP requesting issuance of occupancy certificate. For that an NOC was sought from the Government Flying Training School, Jakkur Aerodrome. The NOC was not given by the flying school and therefore a writ petition was filed by the appellant, which came to be allowed on 17.01.2024 with a direction to the Government Flying Training School to consider the application of the appellant and pass necessary orders. Thereafter the NOC was granted on 09.02.2024.

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:32786-DB RERA.A No. 63 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Following that, the occupancy certificate was issued on 02.04.2024. Thereafter a sale deed dated 23.07.2024 was executed in favour of the complainant. It is the contention that under the circumstances, timely possession could not have been granted to the complainant because of reasons beyond the control of the appellant. For want of an occupancy certificate, timely physical possession could not be handed over to the allottee /complainant.

¶47

The learned counsel has relied upon the provision of sub-section (10) of section 19 of the Act 2016, to contend that it is only after a period of two months of issuance of the occupancy certificate that possession could be handed over. The occupancy certificate was issued only on 02.04.2024 for reasons that were beyond the control of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention, relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Debashis Sinha and others Vs. RNR Enterprise reported in (2023) 3 SCC 195.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:32786-DB RERA.A No. 63 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

We have perused the record of the case and the

¶52

order impugned. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant has sought to produce certain documents before this court by means of IA No. 2/2025, which documents were admittedly not filed before the Authority prior to the judgment being reserved by the Authority. The Authority has relied upon the memo of calculation of interest on delayed period as on 22.12.2023 furnished by the complainant and has accepted the same for want of any memo of calculation from the appellant herein. It has not been demonstrated that any memo of calculation was submitted by the appellant before the Authority in the objections filed after the judgment was reserved by the Authority.

¶53

Relying upon the un-rebutted calculations submitted by the complainant, an amount of Rs.7,73,978/– was directed to be paid from 22.12.2023 till the date of handing over possession along with occupancy certificate. The appellant was also held liable to pay the delayed period interest every month for subsequent period of delay.

¶54

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:32786-DB RERA.A No. 63 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Challenging the order of the Authority, the

¶57

appellant moved the Tribunal by means of an appeal.

¶58

The submission made by the parties were noted by the Tribunal and accordingly, the point for consideration was framed as to whether the appellant proved that the Authority was not justified in passing the impugned order. It was noted by the Tribunal that on 29.02.2024 itself, the appellant made an attempt to appear before the Authority through its counsel to set aside the order placing the appellant ex-parte , but the Authority did not consider its prayer and passed the impugned order. The Tribunal noted the contention of the counsel for the appellant regarding delay in procuring the occupancy certificate/NOC. It was held by the Tribunal that the time extended to complete the project by the Authority was binding only on the subsequent allottees and would not come in the way of the complainant in claiming delay period interest. It was noted that the case was listed for hearing on 08.02.2024 before the Authority, which was well within the knowledge of the appellant. But the appellant did not appear before the Authority on the said

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:32786-DB RERA.A No. 63 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

date. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the order directing the appellant to pay the amount to the allot towards interest on delayed payment was confirmed.

¶63

As far as the reliance of the learned counsel for

¶64

the petitioner on sub-section (10) of Section-19 of the Act is concerned, there is no issue that possession is required to be taken by the allottee within the time specified. However, the issue in the present case is as to the entitlement of the allottee/complainant to interest on delayed possession. Section 18 of the Act, 2016 reads as follows:-

¶65

“18. Return of amount and compensation.—

¶66

(1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building,—

¶67

(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or

¶68

(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:32786-DB RERA.A No. 63 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act:

¶73

Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.

(2) ............

(3) ............”

(emphasis supplied)

Therefore, under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 18 of the Act, 2016, it is the entitlement of the allottee to receive interest on delayed possession dehors any bona fide delay on part of the appellant in procuring an occupancy certificate.

¶78