The UP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal held that a temporary occupation certificate is not an occupancy certificate under RERA, so a developer cannot use it to force possession on a buyer of a long-delayed flat. The allottee was held entitled to refund of his deposit with interest at MCLR plus one percent.
On 11 November 2021 a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court — U.U. Lalit, Ajay Rastogi and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., the judgment authored by Rastogi J. — answered five framed questions on the constitutional and statutory architecture of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016. The Bench held that the application of the Act to 'ongoing projects' — projects launched before but not completion-certificated by 1 May 2017 — is retroactive in operation and not retrospective, and is constitutionally permissible. The pre-deposit requirement under the proviso to Section 43(5) for promoter appeals was upheld; the Authority's single-member adjudicatory power to award refund-with-interest under Section 18 read with state Rules was upheld; and the refund-with-interest formula under the UP Rules — MCLR + 1% per annum — was read as part of the substantive architecture.