Allahabad High Court Upholds Buyers' Rights in Gaur City Centre Dispute
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has delivered a significant verdict by dismissing four appeals filed by Gaursons Hi-Tech Infrastructure. These appeals were related to shop-buyer disputes at the company's Gaur City Centre project located in Greater Noida West. The court firmly refused to interfere with orders previously passed in favor of the buyers by both the UP Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP-Rera) and the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT).
Court Rejects Developer's Delay Explanations as Unsatisfactory
In its ruling, the court declined to condone the delays in approaching it, holding that the developer failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence throughout the litigation process. The reasons provided by Gaursons were described as "bald, unsupported and unsatisfactory", with some instances reflecting what the court termed a "careless and reckless" approach. This decision effectively clears the path for the execution of the Rera orders, providing relief to the aggrieved buyers.
Justice Prashant Kumar's Judgments Emphasize Timeliness
In a series of judgments delivered on January 21, Justice Prashant Kumar emphasized that limitation cannot be relaxed as a matter of generosity. The court underscored the necessity to distinguish between a genuine explanation and a mere excuse. Relying on multiple Supreme Court rulings, the judgment highlighted that repeated and unexplained delays, along with laches, cannot be overlooked in legal proceedings.
Background of the Cases and Buyer Complaints
The four cases stem from complaints filed by allottees who had booked commercial units at Gaur City Centre in Sector 4 of Greater Noida West. Under the purchase plans, buyers paid between 30-50% of the total consideration upfront, with the remaining bulk amount linked to the offer of possession. When possession was not offered within the promised timelines, the allottees approached UP-Rera between 2021 and 2022.
Following spot inspections, Rera found the construction at the project to be incomplete. Consequently, it directed the developer to:
- Complete the construction in accordance with the agreements
- Obtain occupancy certificates
- Hand over possession to the buyers
- Execute sale deeds
- Pay interest for delayed possession at prescribed rates, subject to adjustment of any buyer overdues
REAT's Dismissal and High Court's Final Verdict
Gaursons challenged the Rera directions before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) in Lucknow. However, each appeal was dismissed on grounds of delay and laches, with delays ranging from 79 to 224 days. The tribunal passed separate dismissal orders during October-November 2024. REAT also noted non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under the Rera Act, rejecting the developer's explanation that the delay was due to difficulty in retrieving electronic records caused by malware, as relevant documents were available on the Rera web portal.
The developer then moved to the High Court, again with delayed filings. Dismissing all four appeals as barred by limitation, the court stated that the pattern of delay demonstrated a lack of diligence that could not be excused. "...the appellant failed to prove that he was reasonably diligent in pursuing the matter not only before this Court but also before the UP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow," the court noted, adding that such conduct disentitles a litigant from discretionary relief.
Developer's Response and Legal Arguments
A spokesperson for Gaursons stated that the company had challenged the REAT order primarily on the interpretation of "deemed completion". The spokesperson explained, "The primary issue concerns the interpretation of ‘deemed completion', which, as consistently submitted by the company, stands fully satisfied in the present project. The applicable bylaws expressly recognise deemed completion upon the expiry of three months, provided the statutory requirements are fulfilled. This position was also acknowledged by UP-Rera through its notification dated September 16, 2019, which recognises the concept of a deemed occupancy/completion certificate. In the present case, all 4 mandatory no objection certificates were duly obtained and remained valid during the relevant period."
Regarding the delays, the spokesperson added, "The company further submitted that the delay in filing occurred solely due to an unforeseen technical issue in retrieving electronic data from the relevant systems, which temporarily hindered the compilation of documents. The delay was entirely unintentional and does not reflect any lack of diligence or improper conduct on the part of the company."
Implications of the High Court's Decision
With the High Court refusing to intervene, the dismissal effectively removes the appellate roadblock, allowing the buyers to pursue the execution of the Rera orders. This verdict reinforces the importance of adherence to timelines and due diligence in legal proceedings, particularly in real estate disputes where consumer rights are at stake. The ruling serves as a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing that courts will not tolerate repeated delays without valid justifications.
