Setback for homebuyers as Karnataka-RERA rules in favour of builder

Bengaluru: In a major setback for homebuyers of Nitesh Caesars Palace on Kanakapura Road, the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) has ruled in favour of the builder, dismissing a plea by a complainant seeking compensation. 

The regulatory body noted that the project does not come under the definition of "ongoing project" under the RERA Act. 

The ruling, delivered on March 10, 2025, came more than 15 months after the case was reserved for orders in November 2023, a long delay that has only added to the buyers' frustration. 

The complainant, a resident of JP Nagar, had filed the case in early 2020 while the hearing went on for a year-and-a-half. 

The homebuyer, who requested anonymity, had approached RERA seeking compensation for delayed handover, refund of maintenance charges, and reimbursement of sinking fund from the builder. 

He also complained that the project has not received the final occupancy certificate (OC) even 15 years after the launch, noting the builder's claim of completing the project as false. 

During the hearing, Nitesh Estates produced the partial occupancy certificate it received in December 2017 to claim that the project was no longer "ongoing". 

It also submitted the no-objection certificate obtained from the fire department, submitting that the project was ready even before the RERA Act came into force. 

The complainants, however, argued that Section 3 of the RERA Act permits the registration of complaints for projects still under development where a final completion or occupancy certificate has not been issued. They also questioned the validity of the completion certificate issued by a private party. 

The order, passed by RERA chairman Rakesh Singh and its member GR Reddy, came in favour of the builder. It dismissed the complaint as "not maintainable". It also accepted the builder's prayer that the project requires no registration with RERA as it does not come within the ambit of ongoing project. 

R Ganeshan, who is a family member of the complainant, criticised the ruling, noting that it contradicts RERA’s own stance in an earlier case. 

He referred to the July 2023 orders related to Serene Urbana where RERA had allowed homebuyers to register the case with the regulatory body even though the project had received the occupancy certificate before RERA came into force. 

"How can two cases with similar facts and the same bench members result in opposite outcomes?” he wondered. 

The 75-year-old expressed deep disappointment over the three-and-a-half-year legal ordeal, which has cost him financially and emotionally. 

'Open to reviewing matter'

When contacted, RERA Chairman Rakesh Singh defended the decision, but left the door open for reconsideration. 

"A partial occupancy certificate is as good as a final one for specific towers that are completed. If there are genuine concerns, we are open to reviewing the matter and finding a mid-path that benefits both buyers and builders," he said.