Mumbai: Uncertainty looms over 8,000 MahaRERA orders

All of MahaRERA’s matters so far have been heard by a single-member bench. Representation pic

Can a case be decided by a single-member RERA bench? Practitioners and litigants are now in a dilemma over this question. Legal experts say the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Act, 2016 clearly states that every single case must be decided by all members, but this has not been the case in practice.

Completely opposite verdicts by two high courts have added to the confusion. The Punjab and Haryana High Court on November 2, 2020, passed an order stating that every case must be heard and cleared by a three-member RERA bench. But, the Allahabad High Court recently ruled that even a single-member bench can clear a case.

Experts say if the Punjab and Haryana HC order is upheld, it will impact litigants whose cases have been cleared by MahaRERA's single-bench.

Chartered Accountant Ramesh Prabhu, who is also the founder-chairman of MahaSEWA, said, "Each MahaRERA member would hear 20 cases daily on an average, which means all three of them hear 60 cases. If all three members are made to hear each case together, the daily numbers would drastically fall to 20 and result in a massive backlog of pending hearings."

"Most importantly, orders already passed by MahaRERA would be considered as ‘without jurisdiction' and will become null and void if the Supreme Court upholds the Punjab and Haryana HC order," he added.

Prabhu said an appeal seeking clarity on whether a single member can hear RERA cases is pending before the Bombay High Court. And, the Punjab and Haryana RERA members have challenged the Punjab and Haryana HC order in the Supreme Court.

The central RERA Act had said each case should be heard by all members together, but allowed the states to make its own rules and regulations. Experts say MahaRERA played a crucial role in interpreting RERA and formulated its own rules, which was later picked up by many other states.

Advocate Godfrey Pimenta, who also practices in MahaRERA, said, "... Since several RERA cases in Maharashtra and in other states have been decided by a single-member bench, it would be prudent for the Centre to amend the Act and give powers to a single member..."

He added, "Having three-member bench would delay the justice since RERA clearly states that complaints need to be heard and cleared within 60 days from the date of filing. There would be a requirement for at least four to five benches, appointment of additional infrastructure, etc."

"With completely different views of two HCs, litigants are totally confused... and are asking: What is the next step?" Advocate Anil Dsouza, secretary of MahaRERA Bar Association said. He asked, "Which HC order will have a bearing on their current matters? Will the Punjab and Haryana HC order affect all matters retrospectively or only new ones? What about RERA Appellate Courts then? If the very jurisdiction on the lower quasi-judicial body like RERA is in question on all orders passed so far, then can the Appellate Court continue to hear the appeals and further pass its orders?"
D'souza added, "...It is in the best interest of the litigants that... corrective steps are taken immediately..."