Pranav B Prem

The West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata bench comprising Justice Rabindranath Samanta (Chairperson) and Dr. Subrat Mukherjee (Administrative Member) has held that a complainant cannot simultaneously pursue identical reliefs before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). The Tribunal applied the doctrine of election and dismissed the complaint before the RERA Authority since the same reliefs had already been sought before the Consumer Commission.

Also Read: HRERA Orders Imperia Structures To Pay Assured Returns; Quashes Pre-Possession Maintenance Demand

Background

M/s. Sreeram Enterprise, a proprietorship firm represented by Ashok Dutta, entered into a Development Agreement dated 17.08.2015 with the respondents, joint owners of 19 cottahs 33 sq.ft. of land at Italgacha Road, Dumdum, Kolkata. Though the construction was completed and three blocks were built, disputes arose among the co-owners, and possession could not be handed over to all. The respondents/complainants filed Consumer Case No. 145 of 2023 before the State Consumer Commission seeking possession of their flats, arrears of rent, damages, and compensation.

While this consumer case was pending, they also filed a complaint before the West Bengal RERA on the same cause of action, seeking virtually identical reliefs. The appellants objected to the maintainability of this second complaint, but the RERA Authority, by its order dated 14.05.2025, rejected the objection and proceeded with the complaint. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Tribunal.

Tribunal’s Observations

The Tribunal compared the remedies sought before the Consumer Commission and the RERA Authority and found them substantially identical. Both complaints sought possession of flats, arrears of rent, and damages.The bench held that allowing simultaneous proceedings before two forums on the same issue would lead to conflicting decisions and multiplicity of litigation.

The Tribunal referred to Sections 88 and 89 of the RERA Act. While Section 88 clarifies that RERA remedies are in addition to other laws, Section 89 provides an overriding effect in case of inconsistency. Together, they indicate that although an allottee has a choice of forums, the same reliefs cannot be pursued concurrently in two forums.

The bench relied on Supreme Court precedents:

• Pioneer Urban Land v. Union of India (2019) – RERA remedies are additional, not exclusive.

• Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni (2020) – No bar on consumer proceedings after RERA came into force.

• IREO Grace Realtech v. Abhishek Khanna (2021) – applied the doctrine of election, holding that once a party chooses one remedy, it cannot pursue another for the same grievance.

The Tribunal also emphasized Section 71 of the RERA Act, which allows complainants to withdraw a consumer complaint and pursue the same before the RERA authority, but not both simultaneously.

Also Read: Haryana RERA Orders Arrest Of Parsvnath Developers’ Directors For Wilful Non-Compliance With ₹8.6 Lakh Compensation Order To Homebuyer

The Tribunal held that the complainants must elect either the consumer case or the RERA complaint. Since the RERA complaint was filed later and the complainants sought to continue both, the Tribunal set aside the RERA Authority’s order dated 14.05.2025 and dismissed the RERA complaint. However, it clarified that the complainants are free to withdraw their pending consumer complaint and pursue remedies before RERA if they so choose.

Cause Title: M/s. Sreeram Enterprise & Anr V. Champak Bhattacharjee & others

Case No: WBREAT/Appeal No. – 018/2025

Coram: Justice Rabindranath Samanta (Chairperson), Dr. Subrat Mukherjee (Administrative Member)