Mandatory pre-deposit for promoter appeals under RERA remains required despite merits-based objections to the underlying order.

The proviso to Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 requires a promoter to make the prescribed pre-deposit before an appeal can be entertained. Objections that the underlying transaction was not a sale agreement, that the appellant was not a promoter, or that the compensation order was wrong or without jurisdiction go only to the merits and do not displace that statutory condition. On the stated analysis, the tribunal was justified in insisting on compliance with the pre-deposit requirement before proceeding with the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was liable to comply with the pre-deposit requirement under the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 before its appeal could be entertained.

Analysis: The appellant's challenge to the character of the underlying transaction, its status as a promoter, and the correctness or jurisdictional validity of the compensation order went to the merits of the appeal. Those objections did not affect the statutory condition attached to the entertainment of the appeal. The agreement was prima facie an agreement for sale in a real estate project, with the appellant developing the project and the respondent being an allottee. The proviso to Section 43(5) makes pre-deposit mandatory, and the tribunal was justified in insisting upon compliance before proceeding with the appeal.

Conclusion: The appellant was bound to make the pre-deposit, and the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The pre-deposit requirement under the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is mandatory for a promoter's appeal, and objections going only to the merits of the underlying order do not dispense with that statutory condition.

---