含羞草社区

Until the relationship between the RERA and arbitration is clarified by the Supreme Court, real estate conflicts between builders and buyers will continue to exacerbate, writes Rishabh Gandhi

It begins quietly, as many real estate disputes do. A homebuyer walks into the real estate regulator’s office, the RERA, carrying a thick file containing agreements, brochures, WhatsApp promises and a photograph of a swimming pool that never materialised.

Across the table sits the builder’s lawyer, immaculate and composed, relying on one sentence placed deep within the agreement for sale: “All disputes shall be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.” The adjudicating officer looks up, half-tired and half-amused. The buyer asks for justice. The developer invokes autonomy. The law stands in the middle and tries to reconcile promises made by two very different systems.

This small exchange reflects the larger question that defines real estate litigation in India. When contractual arbitration and a statutory consumer protection regime operate together, which one takes priority?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act), offers transparency, deterrence and administrative supervision. Arbitration promises party autonomy, privacy and finality. Each system, viewed independently, is efficient and modern. Together, they often generate uncertainty because both appear mandatory, both appear attractive, and neither sits comfortably alongside the other.

The promise, the paradox

The RERA, enacted in 2016, was the parliament’s response to an industry that had drifted too far from fairness. Buyers had little bargaining power. Delays were routine. Project disclosures were unreliable. The RERA introduced mandatory registration, strict promoter obligations, financial discipline and quick adjudication under sections 18 and 31. Section 79 of the RERA created a jurisdictional bar on civil courts, which signalled that the RERA was intended to be the primary route for redress.

Arbitration, by contrast, comes from a contract. It favours procedural flexibility and the idea that parties are best placed to resolve private disputes. It is built for commercial certainty rather than regulatory oversight. The modern builder-buyer agreement merges these worlds, often without clarity on how they coexist.