JUDGMENT Anil Kshetarpal, J. - In the opinion of this Court, the following question needs adjudication:- 'Whether the owner of a parcel of land who, with a view to construct multi storeyed apartments, engages a contractor to construct, market and sell such apartments, would fall in the definition the expression 'Promoter' defined under Section 2(zk) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2016 Act')? 2. The Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has dismissed the appeal which challenged the dismissal of appellant's application for grant of waiver from the statutory condition of pre-deposit of the amount as mandated under Section 43(5) of the 2016 Act. 3. It is important to note that the appellant, while filing the application under Section 43(5) of the 2016 Act, claimed that they are not required to comply with the condition of pre-deposit as it has entered into a compromise with the respondents and the amount due has already been paid. However, neither the aforesaid agreement nor any material evidence has been produced before the Tribunal or before this Court to prove the fact of payment having been already made. It is equally important to note that before the Tribunal, the appellant did not claim exemption from the payment of pre-deposit of the amount on the ground that the appellant does not fall within the definition of the expression 'Promoter', however, since this objection was taken and discussed before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority'), hence, the appellant has been permitted to take the said objection before this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel representing the appellant at length, and with her able assistance, perused the perused the paper-book. 5. 4. Heard the learned counsel representing the appellant at length, and with her able assistance, perused the perused the paper-book. 5. Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to take note of Section 2(zk) of the 2016 Act defining the expression 'Promoter', which reads as under:- '(zk) 'promoter' means,- (I) a person who constructs or causes to be constructed an independent building or a building consisting of apartments, or converts an existing building or a part thereof into apartments, for the purpose of selling all or some of the apartments to other persons and includes his assignees; or (ii) a person who develops land into a project, whether or not the person also constructs structures on any of the plots, for the purpose of selling to other persons all or some of the plots in the said project, whether with or without structures thereon; or (iii) any development authority or any other public body in respect of allottees of- (a) buildings or apartments, as the case may be, constructed by such authority or body on lands owned by them or placed at their disposal by the Government; or (b) plots owned by such authority or body or placed at their disposal by the Government, for the purpose of selling all or some of the apartments or plots; or (iv) an apex State level co-operative housing finance society and a primary co-operative housing society which constructs apartments or buildings for its Members or in respect of the allottees of such apartments or buildings; or (v) any other person who acts himself as a builder, coloniser, contractor, developer, estate developer or by any other name or claims to be acting as the holder of a power of attorney from the owner of the land on which the building or apartment is constructed or plot is developed for sale; or (vi) such other person who constructs any building or apartment for sale to the general public. Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause, where the person who constructs or converts a building into apartments or develops a plot for sale and the person who sells apartments or plots are different person, both of them shall be deemed to be the promoters and shall be jointly liable as such for the functions and responsibilities specified under this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder." 6. The learned counsel representing the appellant has, fiercely, contended that the appellant is the owner of a parcel of land and since he engaged a contractor for constructing a multi storeyed building upon it without authorizing him to market the apartments, therefore, the appellant does not fall within the definition of the term 'Promoter'. She made an attempt to distinguish between the expression 'Owner' and 'Promoter' in order to contend that Section 43(5) of the 2016 Act uses the expression 'Promoter' which will not be applicable to the appellant. She contends that the appellant engaged M/s Asian Developers Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Contractor') for constructing a multi storeyed building for the residence of the appellant's workers, however, the Contractor, fraudulently and illegally, without any authorization, entered into various agreements with the respondents for the sale of the apartments. She submits that the Directors of the said Contractor company are facing prosecution and languishing in prison. She submits that the appellant, being only the owner of the parcel of land, has no role to play in the sale, of the apartments made by the contractor, therefore, he does not fall within the definition of the expression 'Promoter'. 7. Before examining the arguments of the learned counsel representing the appellant, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant facts, in brief. Vide two allotment letters dated 06.06.2005 and 04.09.2006, the Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure and Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the HSIIDC') allotted an industrial plot No. 08-10 and 19-21, Sector 7, measuring 20250 square meters for the purpose of manufacturing auto parts and a Group Housing Plot No. GH-16, Sector 2, Growth Centre, Bawal, measuring 8300.70 square meters (42 acres) in Bawal, respectively, to the appellant. The appellant entered into an agreement with the HSIIDC on 14.10.2006 with the intention of developing a multi storeyed group housing project for the welfare of its employees on the plot No. GH-16 allotted to him. As per Clause (2) of the aforesaid agreement, the appellant was required to construct the said building within a period of five years from the date of offer of possession i.e. 04.09.2006, failing which extension fee shall be payable to the HSIIDC. An industrial project is alleged to have been set up, however, owing to the decline in the economy, the construction was discontinued. An industrial project is alleged to have been set up, however, owing to the decline in the economy, the construction was discontinued. In the year 2010, the HSIIDC, on receipt of the entire sale consideration, executed a conveyance deed in favour of the appellant. In the sale deed, the obligation to construct the multi storeyed building continued in accordance with the allotment rules and the construction of the flats was required to be initiated within a period of two years from the date of execution of the sale deed to avoid the payment of extension fee and subsequent cancellation. In the year 2011, the appellant company assigned the work of construction of the housing complex to the Contractor by entering into an agreement and memorandum of understanding with him. In the month of January, 2012, the Contractor started selling the flats which were proposed to be constructed on the appellant's land. The Contractor was sanctioned a loan by the Corporation Bank. 8. On the directions of the Authority, the appellant filed the copies of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) and the agreement which was entered into between the appellant and the Contractor. Clauses (3) and (10) of the memorandum of understanding read as under:- 'That the second party has a right to sell, allot the flats to the respective buyers on a terms and conditions as agreed between the second party and the allottee and the first party has no role therein: and he is not permitted to obstruct or object the second party to do the same.' And clause no.10 of the agreement reads as under:- "That in consideration of the First Party providing the land and the Second Party developing under this construction agreement, the First Party shall make payment to the Second Party as per schedule attached as per payment plan (Annexure-III) attached to this agreement. In case first party fails to make payment to the second party as per payment plan, then the same shall adjusted against the sale proceeds of the flat and receipts in the shape of advances/full payment or whatsoever nature from the prospective buyers (preferably the employees of the First Party) the proceeds shall be deposited in the account of the Second Party." 9. Similarly, Clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the memorandum of understanding are extracted as under:- "(ii) That it is also agreed between the parties that the first party will permit the second party to construct the flat and allot the same to the prospective buyer. (iii) That the second party has a right to sell, allot the flats to the respective buyers on a terms & conditions as agreed between the second party and the allottees and the first party has no role therein, and he is not been permitted to obstruct or object the second party to do the same. (iv) That it is also agreed between the parties that once the construction on the said land is over and the completion certificate has been taken by the second party from the concerned authority, the transfer-deed of their respective flats will have been executed by the first party with the consent of the second party to the prospective buyer." 10. Clause (5), (6) and (10) of the agreement dated 16.11.2012 between the appellant (the first party) and the Contractor (the second party) are extracted as under:- "(5) That the SECOND PARTY shall commence and accomplish the Residential Group Housing by providing the entire finance, equipments inputs, material infrastructure and expertise necessary to construct and develop the said Residential Group Housing in accordance with the sanctioned site plans and any modifications thereof as may become necessary or agreed to during the progress of the development for construction works at the site. (6) The FIRST PARTY shall render to the SECOND PARTY all necessary Assistance and sign all applications/s. representations/s, petitions/s, affidavits/s, plans/s and all such other documents/s including Power of Attorney(ies) as the SECOND PARTY) may require in its name or In the name of its nominee for the purpose of the submissions to the HSIIDC/ Municipal Committee and/or any other government or statutory Authority to enable them to obtain necessary sanctions/s, permissions/s, and approvals/s, from all or any of the said authority/ies in connection with the Commencement and Development in the "Said Land", including Application for obtaining the building sanctioned plans and/or to carry out Any modifications or amendment thereof for obtaining controlled building material if any, for providing electric installations, lift and elevators, Water and sewerage connections and in general for fully effecting the Terms and conditions of this agreements. (10) That in consideration of the FIRST PARTY providing the land and the SECOND PARTY developing it under this construction agreement. The FIRST PARTY shall make Payment to the SECOND PARTY as per schedule attached as PAYMENT PLAN (Annexure III) attached to this agreement. In case FIRST PARTY fails to make payment to the SECOND PARTY as per Payment plan, then the same shall adjusted against the sale proceeds of the flat and receipts in the shape of advance/full Payment or whatsoever nature from the prospective buyer (preferably the employees of the first party) the proceeds shall be deposited in the account of SECOND PARTY." 11. The appellant has signed an undertaking dated 29.07.2012 authorizing the Contractor to avail the credit facility from the Corporation Bank. The contractor was able to avail such facility only because the appellant showed the documents of ownership of the land to the Corporation Bank. The allottees booked their flats in the year 2013 and the construction of the project started. The construction of the structure of the building continued for a period of two years and a building upto six floors was erected. Meanwhile, the Contractor kept advertising and selling the apartments. On 13.12.2013, the HSIIDC sought the appellant's explanation that since the contractor has no right to transfer the plot by way of sale, gift, mortgage or otherwise without the prior permission of the HSIIDC, then, in what capacity is the Contractor booking the flats in the said group housing colony being constructed upon the plots allotted to the appellant. The HSIIDC observed that it amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement. The appellant wrote a letter to the Contractor seeking its clarification as to 'Whether the contractor company has done any act of booking or sale of plots?' Thereafter, the appellant, earlier in the month of 2014, informed in writing to the HSIIDC that the Contractor is simply a construction company which has been assigned the job of raising construction at the site and they have no right, title or interest in the property. Hence, the question of booking and sale of apartments does not arise. Hence, the question of booking and sale of apartments does not arise. It was clarified that the appellant has come to know from certain recent publications in some local daily newspapers regarding the activities of the Contractor and it is trying to ascertain the genuineness of the allegations, ensuring that needful action shall be taken on ascertaining the correctness of the alleged facts. The allottees allege that apart from making bald statements, no follow-up action was taken by the appellant which proves that both the appellant and the contractor are hand-in-glove with each other. On 07.07.2014, the appellant, while writing a letter to the HSIIDC, tried to justify the inclusion of the provisions in the memo of understanding dated 16.12.2012 which permitted the Contractor to market/sell the apartments on the pretext that such power has been given as a part of securing the payment for the Developer. Thus, the appellant admitted that the Contractor has been conferred the requisite authority to sell/market the apartments. On 06.09.2014, once again, the appellant wrote to the HSIIDC, para (i) whereof is extracted as under:- "With regard to justification with reference to the inclusion of Annexure-III in the MoU dated 16.11.2012 executed by us with M/s Asian Developers Ltd. which provides for sale of built up flats and sharing of sale proceeds. We wish to bring your kind attention to our reply dated 7th July,2014 wherein we have agreed to alter this clause with the consent of the builder, if corporation has any objection to any clause. A copy of our reply dated 7th July, 2014 is being enclosed." 12. It has come on record that the construction work has not been completed by the contractor yet. Moreover, though permission was granted for the construction of five floors only, however, the structures upto six floors have been erected. As many as 19 complaints were filed before the Authority. The appellant as well as the Contractor were made parties to the said complaints. Despite, various efforts including notice through publication, the Contractor did not enter appearance. However, the appellant, while contesting the case, submitted that it does not fall within the definition of the expression 'Promoter' under the 2016 Act, hence, it is not liable to refund the amount with interest. Despite, various efforts including notice through publication, the Contractor did not enter appearance. However, the appellant, while contesting the case, submitted that it does not fall within the definition of the expression 'Promoter' under the 2016 Act, hence, it is not liable to refund the amount with interest. The Authority, while allowing the complaints on 29.10.2019, directed the appellant as well as the Contractor to refund the amount deposited by the allottees along with the interest calculated in accordance with Rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2017 Rules') which is the State Bank of India Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (hereinafter referred to as 'SBIMCLR') plus 2%. The appellant as well as the Contractor were held to be jointly and severally liable. 13. The appellant filed an appeal along with an application under Section 43(5) of the 2016 Act seeking waiver from pre-deposit of the amount awarded by the Authority. The appellant filed a writ petition i.e. Civil Writ Petition No. 2286 of 2020 which was decided on 16.10.2016. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 164625164626 of 2020, wherein, while issuing notice, an interim protection was granted. Ultimately, the appellant's Special Leave Petition was disposed of in terms of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in M/s Newtech Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1044. 14. On a plain reading of the definition of the expression 'Promoter', it is evident that a person who constructs or cause to be constructed an independent building or a building consisting of apartments or converts an existing building or a part thereof into apartments for the purpose of selling all or some of the apartments to other persons and the assignee of such work falls within the ambit of the term 'Promoter'. It is explicitly provided that the term 'Promoter' includes the assignee of such work as well. Moreover, the explanation to Section 2(zk) of the 2016 Act, provides that if the person who constructs or converts a building into apartments and the person who sells the apartments or plots are different persons, then, both of them shall be deemed to be included in the definition of the term 'Promoters'. The definition of expression 'Promoter' is not only broad, but also expansive. The definition of expression 'Promoter' is not only broad, but also expansive. It is well settled that the expressions used in the Statutes are required to be interpreted precisely and not loosely. In other words, if a term is explicitly, defined in a statute, it should be interpreted in its grammatical sense. The various expressions incorporated in a statute hold a purpose and meaning. Moreover, while interpreting the statutory provisions, it is incumbent upon the Court to firstly comprehend the object of the enactment and then interpret and apply the language used in a certain provision in a manner that the object of the Act is advanced by such interpretation. As a general rule, the ordinary grammatical sense of the words is required to be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity, repugnancy or inconsistency with the rest of the text when read together. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the person who gets the building constructed through someone else is also included in the definition of the expression 'Promoter'. In this case, it is evident that the appellant, itself, got the project of constructing multi storeyed housing complex passed by filing an application. The appellant helped the Contractor in taking loan from the Corporation Bank. Moreover, as per Clause (3) and (10) of the memorandum of understanding, the appellant authorized the Contractor to sell, market and allot the flats to the respective buyers on the terms and conditions agreed between the Contractor and the allottees. 15. Additionally, in the year 2013, when the HSIIDC informed the appellant about the selling of the apartments by the Contractor, it, except for writing hollow letters, took no concrete action against the contractor. The appellant filed the civil suit in the year 2018 only when the Contractor had collected substantial amount from the allottees. A power of attorney was also given to Mr.Dinesh Sharma, a representative of the Contractor, by the appellant to receive and deposit all the relevant documents and the pending dues, as and when demanded by the related department in relation to the above-mentioned land as well as to sign, verify and submit all kinds of applications, affidavits etc. with the concerned government departments in relation to the land. The appellant specifically agreed to confirm and ratify all the acts and deeds of Mr. Dinesh Sharma, the special attorney. with the concerned government departments in relation to the land. The appellant specifically agreed to confirm and ratify all the acts and deeds of Mr. Dinesh Sharma, the special attorney. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the appellant cannot claim that it does not fall within the definition of the term 'Promoter' as used in Section 43(5) of the 2016 Act. 16. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, this court is left with no other choice but to dismiss the appeal. 17. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.