https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365160 A lease agreement for 999 years was treated as falling within RERA where, on the terms, it was economically and legally akin to a sale: substantial consideration had been paid, possession rights were transferred, rent was nominal, and execution of the lease deed was deferred. The Court applied a purposive reading of the statute and held that the long-term lease label could not defeat RERA's consumer-protective scheme. Complaints under Section 18 were held maintainable because the remedy is compensatory and intended to address promoter default and delayed possession. Having registered the project under RERA, the promoter was bound by that registration and could not deny the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction or go behind the registration certificate. en-us Tue, 07 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Aug 2018 08:22:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365160 A lease agreement for 999 years was treated as falling within RERA where, on the terms, it was economically and legally akin to a sale: substantial consideration had been paid, possession rights were transferred, rent was nominal, and execution of the lease deed was deferred. The Court applied a purposive reading of the statute and held that the long-term lease label could not defeat RERA's consumer-protective scheme. Complaints under Section 18 were held maintainable because the remedy is compensatory and intended to address promoter default and delayed possession. Having registered the project under RERA, the promoter was bound by that registration and could not deny the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction or go behind the registration certificate. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365160