RERA delegation and pre-Act mortgage limits clarified, with complaints allowed against secured creditors acting under SARFAESI enforcement.

Regulation 9 of the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority Regulations, 2017 is valid because it only regulates how adjudicatory matters may be placed before single members and operates within the delegation power conferred by the parent Act. RERA does not ordinarily apply retrospectively to mortgages or security interests created before the Act, as section 11(4)(h) creates a new promoter obligation that cannot reopen completed pre-Act transactions unless fraud or collusion is shown. However, a complaint may still be entertained where a bank proceeds under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, because the secured creditor then exercises statutory enforcement rights affecting the allottee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Regulation 9 of the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority Regulations, 2017 is ultra vires the parent Act and whether delegation of complaints to single members is valid; (ii) whether RERA can apply to mortgages and security interests created before the Act and to complaints against a bank acting as secured creditor.

Issue (i): Whether Regulation 9 of the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority Regulations, 2017 is ultra vires the parent Act and whether delegation of complaints to single members is valid.

Analysis: The Act empowers the Authority to delegate its powers under Section 81 and permits regulations under Section 85 to be framed consistently with the Act. Regulation 9 merely regulates the manner in which adjudicatory matters may be placed before single benches and does not confer power beyond the statute. Even apart from the regulation, the power to delegate complaints to a single member flows from Section 81 itself. The regulation is therefore procedural and does not travel beyond the Act.

Conclusion: Regulation 9 is valid and not ultra vires. Delegation of complaints to single members is legally sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether RERA can apply to mortgages and security interests created before the Act and to complaints against a bank acting as secured creditor.

Analysis: Section 11(4)(h) creates a new obligation on promoters not to mortgage property after execution of an agreement for sale, and such a provision cannot be given retrospective effect to reopen completed pre-Act security transactions. RERA therefore does not ordinarily apply to security interests created before the Act, unless fraud or collusion is established. On the other hand, where a secured creditor takes recourse to the measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, it steps into the shoes of the borrower by statutory assignment of rights, and in that situation the Authority can entertain an aggrieved allottee's complaint. In a conflict between the two special enactments, the later and beneficial RERA regime prevails to protect home buyers.

Conclusion: RERA does not ordinarily govern pre-Act mortgages and security interests, but it can be invoked where the bank acts under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act or where the transaction is fraudulent or collusive.

Final Conclusion: The regulatory scheme and single-member adjudication are upheld, while the Act's reach over secured creditors is confined by the timing and nature of the mortgage and by the bank's exercise of statutory enforcement powers.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory delegation regulation that merely channels adjudicatory work to single members is valid where the parent Act itself authorises delegation, and RERA cannot retrospectively impair pre-existing security interests unless fraud or collusion exists, though it may apply when the secured creditor exercises enforcement rights under SARFAESI.

---