RERA jurisdiction limited to ongoing projects; completed projects with completion certificates cannot be brought in by shifting forums.

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 applies to ongoing real estate projects that had not received a completion certificate when the Act commenced; a completed project with an earlier completion certificate falls outside the statutory regime, so a complaint under the Act is not maintainable and the authority lacks jurisdiction. The proviso to section 71(1), which allows withdrawal of a pending consumer complaint to approach the adjudicating officer, is only procedural and cannot create substantive jurisdiction where the Act itself does not apply. A completed project therefore cannot be brought within the Act merely by shifting from the consumer forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was maintainable in respect of a project that had already been completed and for which the completion certificate had been issued before the Act came into force. (ii) Whether the proviso to section 71(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 entitled the appellant to withdraw his consumer forum proceedings and file a complaint under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether a complaint under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was maintainable in respect of a project that had already been completed and for which the completion certificate had been issued before the Act came into force.

Analysis: Section 3 of the Act confines compulsory registration and the statutory regime to real estate projects that are ongoing on the date of commencement and for which the completion certificate has not been issued. Projects already completed and supported by a completion certificate do not fall within that category. Section 31 of the Act permits a complaint only where there is a violation or contravention of the Act against a promoter, allottee or real estate agent within the statutory framework. As the project in question had been completed and the completion certificate had been issued before the Act commenced, the Act did not apply to it and the authorities under the Act had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable under the Act and the rejection on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the proviso to section 71(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 entitled the appellant to withdraw his consumer forum proceedings and file a complaint under the Act.

Analysis: The proviso to section 71(1) enables a complainant, with permission, to withdraw a pending consumer complaint and move the adjudicating officer under the Act. That procedural liberty does not itself create substantive jurisdiction where the Act is otherwise inapplicable. Since the project was completed before commencement of the Act, withdrawal from the consumer forum could not enlarge the statutory reach of the Act or confer a right to invoke it in respect of a non-registerable completed project.

Conclusion: The proviso did not assist the appellant and no jurisdiction arose under the Act.

Final Conclusion: The statutory regime under the Act was held inapplicable to the completed project, and the challenge to the orders rejecting the complaint failed.

Ratio Decidendi: The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 applies to ongoing projects lacking a completion certificate, and a procedural right to shift from consumer fora cannot confer jurisdiction where the Act does not otherwise apply.

---