Newsdetail

Supreme Court Builder to obtain completion certificate despite offering possession

By Rishabh Chamoli | 2023-02-23

The Supreme Court recently ruled in favour of homeowners that builders are liable to apply for the completion certificate despite offering possession to the flat owners. The apex court also highlighted that the builder is legally bound to fulfil the promised amenities in a project.

The Supreme Court ruled that the builder of a housing complex in Kolkata must obtain a completion certificate for the structure, even if the flat owners have already taken possession of their homes. The decision came from a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and S R Bhat. The bench faulted the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for suggesting that the flat owners should have obtained the certificate themselves after taking possession.

What is the ruling of the Supreme Court?
According to the Supreme Court, it is the builders obligation under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act to apply for the completion certificate, not the responsibility of the flat owners. The home owners had also complained that the builder had failed to provide promised amenities, such as a playground, community hall, and a lake. However, the Supreme Court stated that the homeowners had not given up their rights to these amenities by taking the possession without completion certificate.

What will be next step in the case as per the SC order?
The Supreme Court ordered that the case be remitted to the NCDRC for re examination in accordance with the law but also faulted the flat owners for taking possession without the completion certificate.

Criticism for the NCDR
The Court criticised the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for dismissing a claim for compensation by the aggrieved flat owners on the grounds that they had taken possession of their apartments. The Court stated that it was unable to understand the NCDRCs reasoning that the flat buyers ought to have known what they were purchasing. The Court further criticised the NCDRC for its casual approach and observed that the NCDRCs reasoning defies logic.

The Court also highlighted that the petitioners are in the wrong too. They should not have occupied the flats without proper documentation.