Let’s delve into a recent ruling by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, also simply referred to as the ‘Tribunal’. The Tribunal’s bench comprised Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member). Their verdict was in response to the builder’s plea for condonation after a significant delay of 380 days in filing an appeal. The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, or ‘Authority’, had previously passed an order against the builder on 01.07.22. According to Section 44(2) of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the builder had a window of 60 days from the day they received the order to file an appeal with the tribunal.
The term ‘condonation of delay’ refers to any leniency or pardon granted for a delay in the submission of an appeal or application before the respective courts.
Here’s the backdrop of this case: The builder, who is the applicant here, sought condonation for the considerable 380-day delay in filing an appeal against the Authority’s order. The builder attributed this delay to administrative errors made by their former staff, leading to a failure in submitting the necessary appeal documents within the stipulated timeline. This oversight remained under the radar until the builder was served a warrant of attachment following the Authority’s order.
The builder maintained that they were under the impression that the appeal had been filed and was awaiting a hearing date. This belief was shattered when they received the warrant of attachment, which brought to light the oversight made by their former employees. The builder emphasized that the delay was unintentional and resulted from administrative neglect, and they have since made sincere efforts to rectify the situation.
The builder argued that condoning the delay would not harm the interests of the homebuyers as it was unintentional, and the appeal has solid merits. On the other hand, not allowing the delay would cause irreparable damage and loss to the builder. With these factors in mind, the builder filed an application before the tribunal, seeking forgiveness for the 380-day delay and the chance to pursue their appeal and seek recourse for the grievances suffered.
However, the Tribunal was not convinced. They dismissed the builder’s plea for condonation of the 380-day delay in filing the appeal, stating that the builder’s explanation was unsatisfactory and seemed frivolous. The Tribunal made it clear that such an application for condonation is only granted when there are compelling reasons that made it impossible for the aggrieved party to file an appeal within the prescribed timeline.
The Tribunal also noted that the builder failed to provide a detailed account of the employees who left the office, including their departure dates and who took over their duties. Furthermore, the builder did not provide full names of these employees. The builder also failed to produce any documents to support their claim that the two employees left without handing over their duties to new employees.
The Tribunal concluded that the builder chose to file the appeal after a delay of 400 days, purely at their convenience. Such an attitude can only be described as nonchalant, and it would be unfair to let the other party suffer as a result. Therefore, the builder’s claims regarding the 400-day delay cannot be considered reasonable in any way.
The case is M/s. Shree Sadguru & Deluxe JV Versus R. Jayanti Rani & Anr, with the citation being Misc. Application No. 708/2023 (Delay). The builder was represented by Mr. Jeet Gandhi, and the homebuyers were represented by Mr. Sunil Kevalramani.
In summary, this judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to legal timelines and the consequences of negligence. It underlines that courts are unlikely to condone delays unless there are compelling reasons, thus emphasizing the need for meticulousness in legal proceedings.
