UP RERA Appellate Tribunal Holds Office Space Disputes Outside RERA, Quashes Orders Against Bhutani Group in 11 Appeals

May 19, 2026 : In a significant ruling that could have far-reaching implications for commercial real estate disputes, the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, has held that complaints relating to office space and claims for assured returns are not maintainable under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). The Tribunal dismissed 11 connected appeals filed by M/s Diograzia Realcon Pvt. Ltd. against Bhutani Group, set aside the orders passed by the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA), and rejected the underlying complaints as being beyond the jurisdiction of the RERA authorities.

The common judgment was delivered by the Bench comprising Judicial Member Sanjai Khare and Technical Member Devindar Singh Chaudhry in Appeal Nos. 382 to 392 of 2024. The appeals arose under Section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and challenged two composite orders dated August 12, 2024 passed by UP RERA, Gautam Budh Nagar.

The dispute related to office units booked by the appellant in Bhutani Group’s “Alphathum” commercial project located at Sector 90, Noida. According to the appellant, several office units were booked between 2017 and 2018 under agreements that allegedly assured possession within 36 months along with an assured return scheme. The appellant claimed that despite paying substantial consideration, the developer failed to deliver lawful possession within the agreed timeline and allegedly raised final demands without obtaining the Occupancy Certificate (OC) or Completion Certificate (CC). The appellant also alleged that Bhutani Group imposed penal interest for delayed payments while refusing to continue assured returns promised under the agreements.

Before the Tribunal, the appellant argued that possession could not legally be offered without a valid Occupancy or Completion Certificate and challenged UP RERA’s reliance on the concept of a “deemed” Completion Certificate. It was also contended that RTI replies obtained from the NOIDA Authority indicated that objections regarding the project had not been removed and that the developer had failed to obtain the necessary approvals. The appellant further sought physical possession after obtaining OC/CC, delay interest at 18% per annum, continuation of assured returns under the agreement, compensation of ₹10 lakh for mental harassment, and other consequential reliefs.

Bhutani Group opposed the appeals, maintaining that construction had been completed and that it had applied for the Completion and Occupancy Certificates before the competent authority. The developer argued that under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, if the competent authority neither rejects nor responds to an application within the prescribed period, a deemed completion can be recognized. It also submitted that it had secured all necessary No Objection Certificates before applying for completion approval and that no objections had been communicated by the NOIDA Authority.

While examining the controversy, the Tribunal ultimately refrained from deciding the factual disputes regarding possession, completion certificates or assured returns. Instead, it first addressed the question of jurisdiction. The Bench held that the threshold issue was whether such complaints were maintainable under the RERA framework at all.

The Tribunal observed that the Regulatory Authority should have first examined maintainability before entering into the merits of the dispute. It held that “the issue of jurisdiction/maintainability… is required to be adjudicated upon at the first instance” and found that the Regulatory Authority had exercised powers that were not vested in it under the Act.

The Bench further ruled that allotment of office space, unlockable space and virtual space did not fall within the ambit of the RERA Act in the facts of the present case. It also concluded that UP RERA lacked jurisdiction to entertain claims seeking payment of assured returns under contractual agreements. According to the Tribunal, “the learned Regulatory Authority has exercised jurisdiction which was not vested in it,” making the impugned orders legally unsustainable.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all 11 appeals as not maintainable. At the same time, it quashed the UP RERA orders dated August 12, 2024 and rejected all eleven complaints as being “not cognizable and maintainable under the provisions of RERA Act, 2016.” Importantly, the Tribunal clarified that dismissal of the appeals and rejection of the complaints would not prevent the parties from pursuing appropriate remedies before any other competent forum in accordance with law. No order as to costs was passed.

The ruling is likely to have considerable implications for investors in commercial real estate projects involving office spaces and assured return schemes. The judgment underscores that not every contractual dispute arising from commercial real estate transactions falls within the jurisdiction of RERA authorities. Parties seeking enforcement of contractual promises such as assured returns or other commercial obligations may have to approach civil courts, arbitral tribunals, consumer forums, or other competent judicial forums depending on the nature of the dispute.

The case also highlights the importance of jurisdictional scrutiny before adjudicating disputes under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Tribunal’s decision reinforces that maintainability is a foundational issue and must be determined before the merits of a complaint are examined.

Case Reference: M/s Diograzia Realcon Pvt. Ltd. through its Representative Manish Tiwari v. Bhutani Group, Appeal Nos. 382 to 392 of 2024.