- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43910-DB RERA.A No. 35 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND RERA APPEAL No. 35 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S STERLING URBAN DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI RAMANI SASTRI, REGISTERED OFFICE AT LEVEL 5, PRESTIGE NEBULA, No.8, CUBBON ROAD, BENGALURU 560001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. MAYA HOLLA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEVKI NANDAN-HUF, THROUGH ITS KARTHA SRI DWARKA NATH @ DEVKI NANDAN, ADOPTED SON OF LATE SRI YADRAM, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDENT OF LALA AMARNATAH, WALI GALLI, NEHRU BAZAR, WARD No.2, SOHNA GURGAON, HARYANA-122103. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43910-DB RERA.A No. 35 of 2025 2. THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, No.1/14, GROUND FLOOR, SILVER JUBLIEE BLOCK, UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND, 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU 560027, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJUL BHARGAVA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI YASHODHAR HEGDE, ADVOCATE; SRI K.V. GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS RERA.APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 58 OF THE REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT 2016, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPEAL No.(K-REAT) 102/2023 (ANNEXURE O). THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Karnataka Real - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43910-DB RERA.A No. 35 of 2025 Estate Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No. (K-REAT)102/2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that admittedly the sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent No.1 in the year 2014 itself. It is stated that an occupancy certificate was applied for on 20.01.2017, which was obtained on 10.08.2017; in the intervening period, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20161 was fully implemented with effect from 01.05.2017. The contention is that the Appellate Tribunal has relied upon the provision of the first proviso of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the RERA Act to allow the appeal of the respondent No.1-Promoter. However, the RERA Authority has not considered Explanation (iv) in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. It is contented there is no consideration of Rule 4(1) and clause (iv) of the explanation by the Appellate Tribunal. 1 RERA Act - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43910-DB RERA.A No. 35 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the respondents initially, strongly opposed the petition on the ground that a letter of the appellant dated 20.01.2017 requests the Executive Engineer of the Bangalore Development Authority for inspection whereafter, a completion certificate is issued on 05.06.2017 as reflected on page 414 of the Statement of Objections. However, when queried, learned counsel for the respondents has fairly admitted that there is no consideration of the aforesaid aspects by the Appellate Tribunal prior to passing of the impugned order. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the instant case and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, while setting aside the impugned order dated 08.04.2025, we remand the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal with request to consider the matter afresh after taking into account the submissions advanced herein on behalf of the appellant. It - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43910-DB RERA.A No. 35 of 2025 is made clear that we have expressed no opinion as to the merits of the matter in the instant case. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents urges that a direction be given to the Appellate Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the case. However, we are not inclined to issue any such direction at this stage. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1