M. RAMU Vs. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in Appeal (K.REAT) No.365/2020. The appeal has been admitted by a Bench of this Court to consider the following substantial question of law:

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant is the owner of the land and is a developer of the same. The respondent No.3 has entered into an agreement for sale dated 23.04.2017 to purchase a flat in a project namely Roshan Gardenia Apartment. The respondent No.3 committed default in making payment under the aforesaid agreement and sought for certain alterations to be effected in the flat which was proposed to be purchased by him. The respondent No.3, in the year 2019, filed an application before the Adjudicating Officer, the Real Estate Regulating Authority seeking refund of the amount paid by him. The Adjudicating Officer, by an order dated 31.01.2020, allowed the complaint by the respondent No.3 and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.5,40,686/- along with interest and also directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.5,42,414/-. The appellant thereafter filed an appeal before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 11.11.2020, admitted the appeal and sent for record. The respondent No.3 filed an application on 22.12.2020 under Section 43(5) of the Act seeking deposit of the entire amount of penalty. The Tribunal, by an order dated 27.01.2021, directed the appellant to deposit the entire amount of penalty which was imposed by the Adjudicating Officer, Real Estate Regulating Authority. Thereafter, the Tribunal, by an order dated 10.02.2021, dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant for non-deposit of 100% of the penalty by the appellant. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant, while inviting the attention of this Court, to the order dated 27.01.2021, submitted that the Tribunal has failed to assign any reason while directing the appellant to deposit the entire amount of penalty and erred in dismissing the appeal on account of non-deposit of the entire amount of penalty.