Vikas Verma, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India
(Ex – AAG, Government of Haryana)
INTRODUCTION:
The real estate sector in India, pivotal to economic growth, infrastructure development, and urbanisation, has historically been characterised by information asymmetries, regulatory gaps, and exploitative practices by promoters, leading to widespread disputes over project delays, substandard construction, non-delivery of promised amenities, and unfair contractual terms. These issues have not only caused financial losses to homebuyers but have also undermined public confidence in the sector. In response, the Indian Parliament enacted the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 (RERA), a landmark legislation designed to foster transparency, accountability, and timely project completion through mandatory registration, escrow mechanisms, and specialised adjudication. Complementing this, the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (CPA), which replaced the 1986 Act, offers a comprehensive consumer redressal system, categorising real estate transactions as 'services' susceptible to claims of deficiency or unfair trade practices.
This article presents a detailed comparative examination of RERA and the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (collectively, Consumer Courts) under the CPA, focusing on their legislative foundations, jurisdictional scopes, procedural intricacies, remedial frameworks, enforcement mechanisms, and the evolving jurisprudence on concurrency. By integrating academic perspectives, statutory analyses, and recent judicial precedents from 2023 to 2026, the discussion elucidates how these parallel regimes interact to protect allottee interests while addressing sectoral challenges. It argues that while RERA provides sector-specific efficiency, Consumer Courts offer broader compensatory flexibility, with concurrency enhancing options but necessitating safeguards against abuse. The analysis draws on empirical trends, such as the registration of over 120,000 projects under RERA by 2025, and highlights persistent issues like enforcement variability and overlapping jurisdictions.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND LEGISLATIVE EVOLUTION:
The pre-RERA era was marked by a fragmented regulatory landscape, where real estate disputes were adjudicated through protracted civil suits under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or Consumer Forums under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Civil courts, burdened by procedural formalities and backlogs, often resulted in delays exceeding five years, exacerbating allottee distress. Consumer Forums, established for expeditious redressal, provided some relief but suffered from inconsistent interpretations due to a lack of real estate expertise. Rampant malpractices, including arbitrary fund diversion and misleading advertisements, led to an estimated 4.5 lakh stalled housing units by 2016, prompting legislative intervention.
RERA, effective from 1 May 2017, represented a paradigm shift by mandating project registration for developments exceeding 500 square metres or eight apartments, requiring promoters to deposit 70 per cent of allottee funds in escrow accounts, and imposing quarterly progress reporting obligations. It established state-level Real Estate Regulatory Authorities (RERAs) and Appellate Tribunals, drawing inspiration from international models like Australia's strata title regulations and Singapore's Building and Construction Authority. The CPA 2019, meanwhile, modernised consumer protection by introducing e-filing, product liability, and class actions, while elevating pecuniary jurisdictions (District Commissions up to Rs 2 crore, State up to Rs 10 crore, National above). This evolution underscores a dual approach: RERA's preventive specialisation and the CPA's reactive generality, aimed at harmonising consumer rights with sectoral sustainability amid India's urban boom, projected to reach 600 million urban dwellers by 2030.
KEY FEATURES OF RERA:
RERA's core objective is to regulate promoters and protect allottees through comprehensive provisions. Section 3 prohibits promotion or sale without registration, ensuring public access to project details via online portals. Promoters must adhere to sanctioned plans (s 4), rectify structural defects for five years post-possession (s 14(3)), and face penalties for violations, including fines up to 10 per cent of project costs or three years' imprisonment (s 59–61).
Aggrieved parties, including allottees or associations, file complaints under s 31 before the Authority or adjudicating officer for issues like delays or false representations. Section 18 entitles allottees to interest for delays (calculated at the State Bank of India Marginal Cost of Funds-based Lending Rate plus 2 per cent) or full refund with interest upon withdrawal, plus compensation for losses. Adjudication timelines are stringent: 60 days for disposal (s 29(4)), with appeals to the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) within 60 days (s 44), and further to High Courts under s 58. RERA's preventive measures, such as mandatory disclosures and project audits, have led to improved compliance, with Maharashtra's MahaRERA resolving over 15,000 complaints by 2025. However, inter-state variations in rules and infrastructure pose challenges to uniform implementation.
KEY FEATURES OF CONSUMER COURTS UNDER THE CPA:
The CPA 2019 establishes a three-tier quasi-judicial system for consumer disputes: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (DCDRCs), State Commissions (SCDRCs), and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). Real estate qualifies as a 'service' under s 2(42), enabling claims for 'deficiency' (s 2(11)) encompassing delays, poor workmanship, or unfair practices like one-sided contracts.
Complaints, filed by individuals or class actions (s 35), seek multifaceted relief under s 39: removal of defects, refunds, compensation for pecuniary/non-pecuniary losses (including mental agony), costs, and punitive damages. Proceedings are summary, relying on affidavits and expert evidence, with resolutions targeted within three months (extendable to five; s 38(7)). Appeals escalate from DCDRCs to SCDRCs (s 41), NCDRC (s 51), and the Supreme Court (s 67). The CPA's broad scope allows integration with other laws, such as the Contract Act 1872 for voiding unfair terms, but its generalist nature can lead to delays in technical real estate matters.
JURISDICTIONAL CONCURRENCY AND JUDICIAL CLARIFICATIONS:
A central debate concerns jurisdictional overlaps, with s 79 of RERA barring civil courts from entertaining matters cognizable by RERA authorities, while s 88 affirms RERA's supplementary nature. This raised questions about Consumer Courts' status as quasi-judicial bodies.
The Supreme Court in Imperia Structures Ltd v Anil Patni (2020) definitively held that remedies under RERA and CPA are concurrent, as Consumer Courts are not 'civil courts' under s 79, and allottees qualify as 'consumers' under s 2(7) of CPA. This concurrency was reaffirmed in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd v State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), emphasising allottees' absolute rights to refunds or possession without ousting CPA jurisdiction. Judicial safeguards include the doctrine of election, preventing parallel proceedings for identical reliefs to avoid multiplicity, as applied in Infrastructure Limited v Marcotech Developers Ltd (2023), where NCDRC dismissed a complaint post-RERA adjudication on estoppel grounds.
Interplay with other laws, such as the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC), further complicates matters. In Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd v Union of India (2019), homebuyers were recognised as financial creditors, enabling IBC initiation alongside RERA/CPA remedies. Recent trends, including 2025 amendments enhancing digital filings, aim to mitigate overlaps.
PROCEDURAL AND REMEDIAL CONTRASTS:
Procedurally, RERA prioritises efficiency: complaints are filed online or physically with minimal fees, hearings are informal and document-based, and the 60-day timeline (extendable) ensures swiftness, ideal for delay claims. Enforcement involves recovery certificates executable as land revenue arrears (s 40), with authorities empowered to impose penalties directly.
Consumer Courts, while summary, incorporate adversarial elements like cross-examination and witness summoning (s 38), suiting complex fraud or quality disputes but often extending beyond statutory timelines due to caseloads. Remedies are expansive: beyond refunds and interest (typically 9–12 per cent), they include compensation for harassment and punitive awards, as in Emaar MGF Land Ltd v Amit Puri (2015), where NCDRC awarded damages for mental agony.
Execution powers differ: RERA relies on district collectors for recovery, critiqued for delays in cases like Ajay Tewari v TDI Infrastructure Ltd (2024), while Consumer Courts enforce as civil decrees, with magistrate-like powers including arrest warrants, as upheld in Rakesh Khanna v Naveen Kumar Aggarwal (2024).
RECENT JUDICIAL TRENDS AND CASE LAWS:
Jurisprudence post-2023 reflects a pro-consumer tilt. In Mansi Brar Fernandes v Shubha Sharma (2025), the Supreme Court linked timely possession to Article 21's right to shelter, urging RERA reforms to distinguish genuine buyers from speculators. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt Ltd v DS Dhanda (2019) invalidated one-sided clauses, entitling refunds with interest.
State-level decisions, such as Haryana RERA's 2025 orders awarding over Rs 65 lakh for nine-year delays, highlight the formulaic nature of compensation. Conversely, Punjab RERA in 2026 limited additional damages beyond interest where possession is accepted. Emerging issues include RERA's exclusion from title disputes, remanding such to civil courts.
.jpeg)
