This second appeal was admitted by order dated 23.10.2019 on the substantial questions of law which read as under:-
1.) Whether the tribunal below has erred in interpreting Section 44 (2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 so as to come to the conclusion that while filing an appeal certified copy or attested copy of the impugned order is not required to be filed along with the appeal before the Tribunal.
2.) Whether the interpretation given by the Tribunal to Section 44 (2) of the Act would not render Rule 25 of the Rules and form L appended thereto as redundant and OTIOSE.
3.) Whether, the Tribunal has erred in not condoning the delay of merely three days in filing the appeal when the appellant had shown sufficient cause indicating that the appeal was within time.
Today when the case was called out the respondent has failed to put in appearance either in person or through counsel despite the notice having been deemed sufficient in the previous order passed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that identical matters where the first appeals were rejected by Real Estate Appellate Tribunal on the ground of delay, came up before this Court on the same substantial questions of law in Second Appeal No.250 of 2018 and Second Appeal No.251 of 2018 which were allowed.
This Court has delved into the substantial questions of law involved in the similar matters exhaustively and ultimately the second appeals were allowed vide judgment and order dated 07.01.2019 remitting the matter back to the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal for adjudication of first appeal on merit. The only difference in the present case as compared to the judgment placed reliance upon is in the matter of few days' delay more or less. In the present case the period of delay is 16 days.
Taking into account the purpose of law as well as the interest of justice, this Court does not have any reason to depart from the opinion and reasoning recorded by this Court in the judgment dated 07.01.2019 which squarely applies in the present case as well.
This Court is conscious of the fact that the appeals were proceeded exparte, yet the matter being similar and identical to the one which has already been decided by this Court, no purpose would be served by allowing this second appeal to remain pending. Thus, the present appeal being squarely covered under the judgment rendered by this Court is decided in the same terms.
The second appeal is allowed.
The reasoning assigned in the judgment placed reliance upon is reiterated. The Court in the light of what has been stated above would pass the following order.
The application moved by the appellant before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 20.02.2018 is allowed and delay is condoned. The matter is remitted to the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal for deciding the first appeal on merit.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019/Shahnaz