JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants were the respondents 1 to 3 in Complaint No. 58/2021 before the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (for short ‘the K-RERA’) filed by the 1 st respondent/Apartment Owners Association. The 2 nd respondent/Allottee also had filed Complaint No.113/2021 against the appellants. 2. The K-RERA considered the maintainability of the complaints and by its Order dated 06.10.2021 dismissed both the complaints holding that the Project by name ‘Kannur Heights Apartments’ was completed in the year 2009 and Occupancy Certificate was obtained on 29.08.2009 prior to the commencement of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. The complainant in Complaint No.58 alone filed Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal as REFA No.4/2022. The complainant in Complaint No.113/2021 filed A.R.No.113/2021 in this Court to initiate arbitration proceedings for redressal of his grievance and this Court by Order dated 25/11/2022 dismissed Arbitration Request holding that since the said complainant has already approached the K-RERA, he has waived his right to invoke the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. The Appellate Tribunal allowed REFA No.4/2022 by Order dated 07.07.2022 remanding the matter back to the K-RERA holding that Ext.B1 Occupancy Certificate is not conclusive Occupancy Certificate and it is only a conditional Occupancy Certificate since it is mentioned in Ext.B1 that terms and condition in the Consent To Establish issued by the Pollution Control Board should strictly be followed and that whether the respondents have complied with the conditions in Ext.B1 before 01.05.2017 is matter to be considered by the K-RERA in order to treat Ext.B1 as conclusive Occupancy Certificate as defined under the Act. The matter was remanded to consider the following issues. 1. Whether the conditions mentioned in Ext.B1 occupancy certificate dated 29/08/2009 are complied with by the respondents? If complied, is it before 1/5/2017 or later? 2. Whether the respondents in both the complaints who are legal heirs of deceased Sivaraj, the individual promoter of the project, stepped into the shoes of him after his death and became promoters to shoulder the liability of the project? 3. Whether the complainant in Complaint No.58/2021 is entitled to seek the reliefs sought for in the complaint? 5. 2. Whether the respondents in both the complaints who are legal heirs of deceased Sivaraj, the individual promoter of the project, stepped into the shoes of him after his death and became promoters to shoulder the liability of the project? 3. Whether the complainant in Complaint No.58/2021 is entitled to seek the reliefs sought for in the complaint? 5. Even though the Complainant in Complaint No.113/2021 did not prefer any appeal, since the entire Order of the K-RERA is set aside, the Appellate Tribunal ordered the K-RERA to give notice to the Complainant in Complaint No.113/2021 and to give an opportunity to him to participate in the proceedings and let in evidence. In view of this Order, the Order in Complaint No.113/2021 is also virtually set aside, remanding the matter to the K-RERA. 6. This Court admitted this Appeal on the following Substantial Questions of law. 1. Whether the conclusiveness of Ext.B1 document dated 31.07.2009 can be tested in the light of the definition of occupancy certificate contained in Section 2(zf) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which came into force on 01.05.2017 ? 2. Whether the appellate authority was justified in proceeding on the basis that Ext.B1 is not a conclusive occupancy certificate but only a conditional occupancy certificate? 3. Whether the lower appellate authority could have restored complaint No.113/2021 to file when the order in that case was not appealed against ? 4. Whether a complaint could be entertained with respect to a project that was completed before the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 came into force on 01.05.2017, when Section 3(2)(b) of RERA Act stipulates the exemption for the registration of the building under the Act the RERA has no application on completed projects; 5. Whether the legal heirs of the sole developer of the project could be fastened with the liability regarding a completed project when there is no privity of contract between them and the allottees of the project ? 7. The Substantial Questions of Law Nos.3 & 5 arise only if the Complaints are found to be maintainable while answering Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1,2 & 4. Hence, I shall consider the Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1,2 & 4 together first. 8. 7. The Substantial Questions of Law Nos.3 & 5 arise only if the Complaints are found to be maintainable while answering Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1,2 & 4. Hence, I shall consider the Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1,2 & 4 together first. 8. I heard the learned counsel for the appellants Sri.L.Rajesh Narayan, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent Sri.M.K.Sumod, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent Sri.V.Krishna Menon and the learned Standing Counsel for K-RERA, Sri.C.M.Nazar. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the issue is covered in favour of the appellants in the light of the decision of this Court in Nidhish P.V. v. Sivaprakash, ( 2024 (6) KHC 16 ) in which it is held that when an Occupancy Certificate is issued by the local authority, K-RERA has no jurisdiction to consider the legality of the same. There could not be any conditional Occupancy Certificate as per law. Ext.B1 could not be interpreted as a conditional Occupancy Certificate on the mere reason that a statement is incorporated therein to the effect that the Consent to Establish issued by the Pollution Control Board should strictly be followed. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the decision of this Court in Nidhish P.V. v. Sivaprakash, ( 2024 (6) KHC 16 ) is clearly distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the said decision, this Court held that the question whether the project is an ongoing one or not arises only in the absence of an Occupancy Certificate. Here, Ext.B1 is only a conditional Occupancy Certificate. It becomes valid only on compliance of conditions in the Consent To establish, by the promoter. The inclusion of such a clause in Ext.B1 would indicate that the conditions therein are to be complied with in the future. The Sewage Treatment Plant is a part of the construction permitted in Ext.A2 Building Permit. It is to be established as a condition of the Consent To Establish issued by the Pollution Control Board. Only on establishment of Sewage Treatment Plant to the satisfaction of the Pollution Control Board, it could be said that the construction is complete as per the Building Permit. It is to be established as a condition of the Consent To Establish issued by the Pollution Control Board. Only on establishment of Sewage Treatment Plant to the satisfaction of the Pollution Control Board, it could be said that the construction is complete as per the Building Permit. The Local Authority issued the Occupancy Certificate subject to the compliance of the Consent To Establish, since the Local Authority is not having technical expertise to verify compliance of the condition and it is for the Pollution Control Board to confirm the compliance. The Appellate Tribunal rightly remanded the matter to conduct an enquiry to verify the compliance of conditions before 01.05.2017. Partial Occupancy Certificate is permissible under Rule 22(4) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules (KMBR), 1999, which was applicable during the relevant period. Ext.B1 is similar to Partial Occupancy Certificate. What is contemplated under the Act is the final Occupancy Certificate and not the Partial or Conditional Occupancy Certificate. 11. I have considered the rival contentions. 12. Proviso to Section 3 of the Act mandates the promoter to register the project only if the projects are ongoing on the date of commencement of the Act and for which the completion certificate has not been issued. In view of the said provision as interpreted in Nidhish’s Case (Supra) in order to take out the project from registration, the promoter needs to prove either that the Occupancy Certificate was issued before 01.05.2017 or that the project was completed before the said date. This Court held that the question whether the project is an ongoing one or not arises only in the absence of Occupancy Certificate. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, if the Occupancy Certificate is issued before 01.05.2017, the K-RERA cannot go behind the Occupancy Certificate to consider the legality of the Occupancy Certificate. If the Occupancy Certificate is not issued before 01.05.2017, still the promoter can prove before the K-RERA that the project was completed before 01.05.2017 to take out the project from the purview of registration. 13. Here, admittedly, Ext.B1 Occupancy Certificate is issued by the Municipality long before 01.05.2017. 14. The first question to be considered is whether Ext.B1 Occupancy Certificate is a conditional one or not. It is issued in the prescribed form in Appendix-H as required under KMBR , 1999. 13. Here, admittedly, Ext.B1 Occupancy Certificate is issued by the Municipality long before 01.05.2017. 14. The first question to be considered is whether Ext.B1 Occupancy Certificate is a conditional one or not. It is issued in the prescribed form in Appendix-H as required under KMBR , 1999. It is specifically stated that the building is inspected by the undersigned and that the work is executed in accordance with the Permit and the building is now fit for occupation. True, as pointed out by the counsel for the 1 st respondent, there is a condition in the Ext.A2 Building Permit that an adequate capacity treatment plant should be constructed before completion. When the Secretary of the Municipality certifies in Ext.B1 that the work is executed in accordance with the Permit, the natural implication is that the Treatment Plant mentioned in Ext.A2 is also complete as on the date of issuance of Ext.B1. Going by the wordings in the Ext.B1, the certification therein is not made conditional by the additional handwritten statement included therein. The Additional handwritten statement only says that the terms and conditions in the Consent To establish should be strictly followed. It would not in any way indicate, either expressly or by necessary implication, that the Sewage Treatment Plant is not completed. The necessary implication of such an addition could only be that the terms and conditions in the Consent To Establish should be strictly followed in future operations. The usage of the word ‘followed’ instead of the word ‘complied’ also probabilize that the additional statement is intended for future operation. 15. Inviting my attention to the definition of the Occupancy Certificate in Section 2 (zf) of the Act, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Occupancy Certificate contemplates the completion of sanitation also. It is true that the Occupancy Certificate, as defined under Section 2 (zf) of the Act, contemplates the completion of sanitation also. But Ext.B1 confirms execution of work in accordance with the Permit, and hence, it would indicate that sanitation work is also completed. 16. The next contention of the counsel for the 1 st respondent is that Rule 22 of the KMBR, 1999 provides for three types of Occupancy Certificates, viz; Final Occupancy Certificate under Sub Rule (3), Deemed Occupancy Certificate under Proviso to Sub Rule (3) and Partial Occupancy Certificate under Sub Rule (4). 16. The next contention of the counsel for the 1 st respondent is that Rule 22 of the KMBR, 1999 provides for three types of Occupancy Certificates, viz; Final Occupancy Certificate under Sub Rule (3), Deemed Occupancy Certificate under Proviso to Sub Rule (3) and Partial Occupancy Certificate under Sub Rule (4). Hence Conditional Occupancy Certificate is permissible under Sub Rule (4). I am unable to accept the said contention. Partial Occupancy Certificate and Conditional Occupancy Certificate are different. In view of Sub Rule (4), the Owner of the building can seek for issuance of an Occupancy Certificate for the completed part of the building. In case of issuance of an Occupancy Certificate for the completed part of the building, it is a final Occupancy Certificate with respect to the completed part. It is not made conditional on anything. The Rule mandates completion of the building in full accordance with the Building Permit to obtain an Occupancy Certificate, and Sub Rule (4) is only an exemption to issue an Occupancy Certificate for the completed part of the building. Rule 22 of the KMBR, 1999 does not permit the issue of a Conditional Certificate, and hence the Municipality has no right or authority to issue a Conditional Occupancy Certificate. 17. Proviso to Section 3 of the Act and the Rule 3 (2) of the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2018 does not permit partial completion of the real estate project in order to take out the project from the purview of registration, subject to the provision in the Explanation to Section 3 of the Act providing for development in phases. Hence, full completion of the Real Estate project is mandatory in order to take out the project from the purview of registration. I hold that the Ext.B1 Occupancy Certificate is not a conditional Occupancy Certificate as found by the Appellate Tribunal. In view of the issuance of Ext.B1 Occupancy Certificate for the real estate project before 01.05.2017, I hold that the Real Estate Project, which is the subject matter of this Appeal, is not liable for registration under Section 3 of the Act. 18. The Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1,2 & 4 are answered in the negative and in favour of the appellants. In view of the answers to Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1,2 & 4, the Substantial Questions of Law Nos.3 & 5 do not arise for consideration. 18. The Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1,2 & 4 are answered in the negative and in favour of the appellants. In view of the answers to Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1,2 & 4, the Substantial Questions of Law Nos.3 & 5 do not arise for consideration. 19. In view of the answers to Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1,2 & 4, I allow this Miscellaneous Second Appeal without costs, setting aside the impugned Order of the Appellate Tribunal and restore the order of the K-RERA dismissing the complaints.