BHUBANESWAR: The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (OREAT) recently issued a groundbreaking ruling, referencing Shakespeare’s notorious moneylender Shylock from *The Merchant of Venice*, and imposed a fine of ₹10 lakh on a real estate developer.
The tribunal was reviewing an appeal from the promoter of a large real estate project situated in Cuttack alongside NH-16. The tribunal criticized the developer’s actions as “dubious,” accusing them of “unfair trade practices” against the buyer.
The appeal was made by the project promoter contesting an earlier ruling by the Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (ORERA). The complainant had paid over ₹3.19 crore for a commercial unit in the development.
The complainant claimed that despite settling the full amount, possession of the commercial unit was refused, and it was allegedly leased to a third party operating a hookah bar within the project.
The initial agreement, signed in April 2017, guaranteed possession by February 2019. However, the developer failed to deliver the unit and later demanded an additional ₹16.8 lakh, attempting to exchange the allocated unit for another in a different tower without the complainant’s consent or a supplementary agreement.
The OREAT highlighted that the complainant faced “undue harassment beyond imagination,” comparing the promoter’s conduct to Shylock from *The Merchant of Venice*.
“In a thorough examination of the appeal, the contested order, and the arguments of the counsels involved, this case can be likened to the character of Shylock from Shakespeare’s *The Merchant of Venice*,” the tribunal remarked.
In its 17-page ruling, the tribunal mandated the developer to transfer possession along with all statutory documents. It ordered interest payments of 9.7% per annum on ₹2.73 crore from February 2019 and ₹46 lakh from November 2022, excluding the pandemic period. Moreover, the tribunal prohibited any further demand for ₹16.8 lakh and declared the ₹3.19 crore already paid as the full and final settlement.
The tribunal also referenced significant Supreme Court judgments affirming the Right to Shelter as a fundamental right under Article 21, underscoring that a home is not simply a structure but a representation of dignity and security. “This tribunal cannot ignore the suffering and harassment endured by the respondent,” stated the order, emphasizing that the developer’s actions warranted “exemplary repercussions” to deter such behavior in the future.
