Mandatory pre-deposit for promoter appeals under RERA upheld as a valid safeguard for allottees and appeal scrutiny.

Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was upheld as a mandatory pre-deposit condition for a promoter's appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Court reasoned that the promoter already receives adjudication before the Adjudicating Officer, a judicial officer of District Judge rank, and that the appeal is only a second-stage scrutiny. It held that the phrases "it shall not be entertained" and "before the said appeal is heard" make deposit a condition precedent, and that the absence of a waiver power does not make the remedy arbitrary or illusory where the provision protects allottees and no hardship or indigency was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the pre-deposit requirement in Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, for a promoter's appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is unconstitutional as being onerous, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The provision was examined in the context of the statutory scheme under Sections 71 and 72 of the 2016 Act and the nature of the adjudication before the Adjudicating Officer. The Court held that the Adjudicating Officer is a judicial officer of the rank of District Judge, that the promoter already has an adjudicatory opportunity at the first stage, and that the appellate remedy is a second stage of scrutiny. It further held that the words "it shall not be entertained" and "before the said appeal is heard" make the pre-deposit a mandatory condition for entertainment of the appeal. Distinguishing authorities dealing with tax pre-deposit regimes, the Court held that the condition serves a protective object for allottees, secures the amount found payable, and cannot be treated as arbitrary merely because no discretion is conferred on the Appellate Tribunal to waive the deposit. The absence of a waiver clause did not by itself render the remedy illusory, especially when no material was shown to establish hardship or indigency in the petitioner's case.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit requirement was upheld as constitutionally valid and not violative of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g); the provision was held to be intra vires and the writ petition failed.

---