Pre-deposit in promoter appeals: deferred interest remains depositable, but moratorium-period interest must be excluded from computation.

Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, a promoter's appeal required pre-deposit of the interest amount directed by the authority, even though actual payment was deferred to a later stage, because the liability had already been fastened and the statutory condition secured the amount before the appeal was entertained. However, interest attributable to the moratorium period could not be included in the deposit where the authority had itself granted that benefit and such sums were not payable under the order. The pre-deposit was therefore upheld in principle, but recomputed to exclude moratorium-period interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a promoter, while challenging an order of the real estate authority, must pre-deposit the amount of interest directed to be paid even if actual payment is deferred till a future date. (ii) Whether the amount directed to be deposited could include interest for the moratorium period when the authority itself had granted that benefit.

Issue (i): Whether a promoter, while challenging an order of the real estate authority, must pre-deposit the amount of interest directed to be paid even if actual payment is deferred till a future date.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 makes pre-deposit mandatory in an appeal by a promoter, and the object of the provision is to ensure that the amount determined by the authority is secured before the appeal is entertained. The authority had already fastened liability to pay interest for delayed possession, though the time for actual payment was postponed to the stage of handing over possession. A deferment of payment granted in the interest of the project does not mean that no liability exists for the purpose of the statutory pre-deposit condition.

Conclusion: The promoter was required to deposit the interest amount as a condition for entertaining the appeals, even though payment of that interest was deferred to a future stage.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount directed to be deposited could include interest for the moratorium period when the authority itself had granted that benefit.

Analysis: The authority had expressly granted the promoter the benefit of the moratorium period while computing interest. Amounts not payable at all under the authority's order could not be insisted upon as part of the pre-deposit. The appellate tribunal erred in including the moratorium period while quantifying the deposit, and the quantification required correction to that limited extent.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit had to be recomputed by excluding interest attributable to the moratorium period.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the limited extent of excluding moratorium-period interest from the pre-deposit computation, while the requirement of depositing the balance interest amount before the appeals could be entertained was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: For a promoter's appeal under Section 43(5), a deferred obligation to pay interest under the authority's order remains a liable amount for pre-deposit purposes, but sums that are not payable under the order at all cannot be included in the deposit.

---