Jurisdictional Bar of Civil Courts in Real Estate Disputes: under Section 79 of RERA

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 27.08.2026

Jurisdictional Bar of Civil Courts in Real Estate Disputes: under Section 79 of RERA

A recent judgment by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Joydeep Roy & Anr. vs. Srijan Residency LLP & Ors. sheds light on the complexities of real estate transactions, contractual disputes, and the jurisdictional boundaries set by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the implications for homebuyers and developers.

Background of the Case

Joydeep Roy, an advocate, and a co-plaintiff, an assistant professor, decided to purchase a flat in the Royal Ganges Project developed by Srijan Residency LLP. After discussions, they booked a flat, paid the booking amount, and received a provisional allotment letter. They also secured a housing loan and paid the required stamp duty for registration.

However, upon receiving the draft agreement for sale, the plaintiffs objected to several clauses they considered arbitrary and unlawful. These included:

• The developer’s right to mortgage the property even after the buyer had paid for it.
• Clauses allowing discontinuation of essential services (electricity, water, entry) for non-payment of maintenance.
• A provision enabling the promoter or association to sell the flat if maintenance arrears exceeded Rs. 50,000.

The plaintiffs requested the removal of these clauses, but the developer refused and subsequently cancelled the booking, prompting the plaintiffs to seek legal recourse.

Legal Proceedings and Arguments

Plaintiffs’ Stand

The plaintiffs approached the Civil Court seeking an injunction to prevent the developer from creating third-party interests in the property. Their main arguments were:

1. The contested clauses were against public policy and unfair to buyers.
2. The cancellation of the booking was arbitrary and violated natural justice.
3. The plaintiffs had fulfilled their obligations and were entitled to relief under the Specific Relief Act.

Defendants’ Stand

The developer argued that:

1. The suit was not maintainable in Civil Court due to Section 79 of the RERA Act, which bars civil courts from entertaining matters under RERA’s purview.
2. The plaintiffs had already approached the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (WB RERA), and thus could not simultaneously seek relief from the Civil Court.
3. The developer retained the right to mortgage the property until ownership was transferred.

Court’s Analysis and Judgment

Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury examined the following key points:

• Jurisdiction: Section 79 of the RERA Act clearly bars civil courts from adjudicating matters that fall under the authority of RERA. The Supreme Court’s judgment in Imperia Structures Limited vs. Anil Patani reinforced this position.
• Nature of Agreement: The court found that mere submission of a booking form and payment did not constitute a binding agreement, especially since the plaintiffs did not accept the draft agreement’s terms.
• Plaintiffs’ Conduct: The plaintiffs had already approached WB RERA before filing the civil suit, indicating awareness of the appropriate forum for their grievance.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the civil suit and subsequent appeal were not maintainable due to the statutory bar under RERA. However, it clarified that the merits of the case were not decided, and the plaintiffs could seek redressal before the appropriate forum.

Key Takeaways for Homebuyers and Developers

1. Jurisdiction Matters: Disputes related to real estate transactions covered by RERA must be addressed before the regulatory authority, not civil courts.
2. Contractual Clarity: Buyers should carefully review all clauses in draft agreements and seek clarification or modification before making substantial payments.
3. Remedies Available: While RERA provides a specialized forum for real estate disputes, buyers may have additional remedies under consumer protection laws, depending on the circumstances.
4. Developers’ Obligations: Developers must ensure that contractual clauses comply with public policy and regulatory standards to avoid legal challenges.

Conclusion

The Joydeep Roy & Anr. vs. Srijan Residency LLP & Ors. case underscores the importance of understanding the legal framework governing real estate transactions in India. Both buyers and developers must be aware of their rights, obligations, and the appropriate forums for dispute resolution to ensure fair and transparent dealings.

Connected Matter

Maintainability of Civil Suits for Permanent Injunction in Real Estate Disputes Post-RERA

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Calcutta High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com