Deemed occupancy certificate and mandatory pre-deposit under RERA: promoter appeals cannot proceed without statutory compliance.

An asserted deemed grant of occupancy certificate was rejected because the occupancy/completion application lacked timely and complete compliance, was later found deficient under the Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016, and was ultimately rejected; RERA therefore continued to apply. The Court also treated the promoter's pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 as a mandatory condition precedent for appeal, and held that the appellate tribunal could not entertain the challenge without the prescribed deposit. No statutory basis existed to replace the deposit with immovable-property security, so dismissal of the appeals was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to contend that the occupancy certificate stood deemed granted so as to displace the applicability of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016. (ii) Whether the appeals before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal could be entertained without compliance with the pre-deposit condition under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to contend that the occupancy certificate stood deemed granted so as to displace the applicability of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.

Analysis: The record showed that the application for occupancy/completion was not supported by timely and complete compliance, including the fee receipt and fire safety certificate. The application was later processed under the Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016, shortcomings were not cured, and the application was ultimately rejected. In these circumstances, the asserted deemed grant of occupancy certificate could not be accepted, and the absence of a valid occupancy certificate meant that the statutory regime under RERA continued to apply.

Conclusion: The contention of deemed grant of occupancy certificate was rejected and the appellants were not relieved from the applicability of RERA.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeals before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal could be entertained without compliance with the pre-deposit condition under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 43(5) makes pre-deposit a condition precedent for a promoter's appeal, and the Court treated the requirement as mandatory and not onerous. Relying on the governing Supreme Court exposition, it held that the appellate tribunal could not entertain the promoter's appeal unless the prescribed deposit was made. There was also no statutory basis to substitute immovable-property security for the mandated deposit.

Conclusion: Non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement justified dismissal of the appeals by the tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed, and the dismissal by the tribunal was upheld, leaving the appellants to revive the appeals only upon compliance with the statutory deposit requirement, if otherwise permissible in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a promoter's appeal is governed by a mandatory statutory pre-deposit clause, the appellate forum cannot entertain the appeal without compliance, and an asserted deemed occupancy certificate will not defeat the statutory regime where the underlying occupancy process stands rejected or remains unestablished.

---