U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Lucknow. Hearing Bench–02, Present :– Shri Rajeev Kumar (Chairman) Complaint No. : 10201820714 Manish Shrivastava, Resident– Flat– 552, Eternia, H–10 Mahagun Modern, Sector– 78, Noida. ......................Complainant Versus Messrs Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. ..............................Opposite Party Complaint No.– 10201820714 has been instituted, presented on 05.10.2018 under Section– 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 by the complainant Manish Shrivastava, Flat– 552, Eternia, H–10 Mahagun Modern, Sector– 78, Noida against Messrs Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd., in which the complainant has prayed that possession of the allotted flat be secured and that interest be secured for the delay in obtaining possession.

In brief, the complainant has stated in his complaint that he booked three flats, Nos.- C-GF79, FF79, SF79, in ANSALS PALM COURT JHANSI G+2, Jhansi, on 01.05.2013, the total price of which was Rs. 83,74,695/– (Rupees eighty-three lakh seventy-four thousand six hundred ninety-five only). Payment of Rs. 86,05,471/– (Rupees eighty-six lakh five thousand four hundred seventy-one only) was made by the complainant. The complainant has stated in his written statement that even after about 5 years have passed, the construction work of the project has not yet been completed by the opposite party, and without completing the construction work the opposite party sent a letter on 18.08.2018 for taking possession, and along with payment of the last instalment a demand for additional interest is also being made, whereas the construction work of all three allotted flats has not even been completed yet. Therefore, the complainant has prayed that, after completing the construction work of all three flats and completing all the facilities which the opposite party had stated in its brochure, possession of the three flats be secured, interest for the period of delay in possession also be secured, the opposite party's demand for additional interest be removed, and Rs. 5,00,000/– (Rupees five lakh only) as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 1,00,000/– (Rupees one lakh only) as litigation costs be secured. 1

The following evidence has been filed by the complainant in respect of his complaint:– 1. Copy of the allotment letters of all three flats 2. Copy of the receipts of payment of amounts 3. Copy of e–mails 4. Copy of the buyer–seller agreement. The opposite party has stated in its written reply dated– 14.02.2019 that no date for completion of the construction work of the project is stated in Paragraph– 29 of the buyer–seller agreement, which makes it clear that the complainant's statement that the project is delayed is wrong. The opposite party also informed that it applied to the concerned authority for the completion certificate on 09.12.2015 itself, and Section–4(5) of UP APARTMENT (PROMOTION OF CONSTRUCTION) provides that if the concerned authority does not grant the completion certificate within 3 months from the date of application, that project shall be deemed to have received the completion certificate; they had applied on 09.12.2015 itself, but no reply at all has been given by the concerned authorities, for which reason it be deemed that the said project has received the completion certificate. The opposite party also informed that letters were sent to the complainant on 20.08.2018 and 24.08.2018 themselves to pay the balance amount and take possession, but the complainant has not yet taken possession. I heard the arguments presented by both parties and made an in-depth perusal and analysis of the evidence available on the file.

As far as the opposite party's statement that no date for completion of the project is stated in the buyer–seller agreement is concerned, in this regard it will be important to quote the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Fortune Infrastructure (Now Known As M/s HICON Infrastructure) & ANR. Vs Trevor Dlima & ORS. Civil Appleal No. 3533-3534 Of 2017– Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of 2 the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered. When once this Court comes to the conclusion that, there is deficiency of services, then the question is what compensation the respondents/complainants is entitled to ?

From a perusal of the above order it is clear that, according to the agreement, the period for completing the project shall ordinarily be taken as 3 years. Therefore, since the detailed allotment letter issued by the opposite party was signed on 01.05.2013, it will be proper, treating a period of 3 years from 01.05.2013 as sufficient for completing the project, to assess 01.05.2016 as the date by which the work of the project was to be completed. The second argument of the opposite party is that it had applied for the completion certificate on 09.12.2015 and that under Section–4(5) of UP APARTMENT (PROMOTION OF CONSTRUCTION) the said project be deemed to have received the completion certificate; but even if it is accepted that the opposite party's project did receive the completion certificate, for which it applied on 09.12.2015, the opposite party sent the complainant the letters for making the last payment on 20.08.2018 and 24.08.2018 only after 3 years had passed from the date of application for the completion certificate. This makes it clear that 3 the opposite party had applied for the completion certificate without the work of the project having been completed. In this regard it will be important to quote the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Faqir Chand Gulati Vs Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., III (2008) CPJ 45 (SC)–

That a prayer for completion certificate and C & D forms cannot be brushed aside by stating that the builder has already applied for the completion certificate or C& D Forms. If it is not issued, the builder owes a duty to make necessary application and obtain it. If it is wrongly withheld, he may have to approach the appropriate Court or other Forum to secure it. If it is justifiably withheld or refused, necessarily the builder will have to do whatever that is required to be done to bring the building in consonance with the sanctioned plan so that the municipal authorities can inspect an issue the completion certificate and also assess the property to tax. If the builder fails to do so, he will be liable to compensate the complainant for all loss/damage. In a similar ordinary matter, it will also be important to quote the judgment passed by the Hon'ble NCDRC in Consumer Case No. 1639 of 2017 Ajay Kumar & ANR. Vs M/s Supertech Ltd.– The learned counsel for the OP submits that they had submitted the completion drawing on 15.02.2015. If this is so, that would mean that the construction had been completed by them by that date but the requisite Completion Certificate/Occupancy Certificate has not been issued, as far as the allotted villa is concerned. Therefore, the grounds given for the delay in construction become irrelevant in this case. The learned counsel for the OP stated that a part Occupancy Certificate was issued to the OP but 4

the said part Occupancy Certificate does not cover the villa allotted to the complainant. If the Occupancy Certificate has not been granted to the OP in respect of the villa allotted to complainant despite the completion drawings having been submitted way back on 15.02.2015 as is stated by its counsel, the inevitable inference is that there are some deviations/deficiencies in the project on account of which the requisite Occupancy Certificate in respect of the allotted villa has not been issued. The complainants cannot be made to suffer for such an act of the OP and cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the allotted villa. This is more so considering that more that 3.5 year have already passed from the date by which the possession was to be delivered to the complainants even after giving the benefit of the grace period to the OP. Therefore, from a perusal of the above two judgments it is clear that even if the opposite party/promoter applies for the completion certificate and possession certificate without completing construction of the project, this does not establish that the said [project] of the opposite party is complete.

The analysis also makes clear that the complainant booked three flats on 01.05.2013 and has also paid Rs. 86,05,471/– (Rupees eighty-six lakh five thousand four hundred seventy-one only) for the said three flats, but even after 6 years have passed the opposite party has not yet given the complainant possession of the allotted flats with construction work complete, and without completing the construction work demanded additional interest from the complainant along with payment of the final amount, which is illegal. In such a situation the complainant is entitled to possession and interest for the delayed period. It is noteworthy in this regard that in the petition of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. etc. versus Union of India before the Hon'ble Maharashtra High Court, the following argument was taken on behalf of the petitioners :– 5

Section 4(2)(1)(c) enables the promoter to revise the date of completion of project and hand over possession. The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section4(2)(1)(c) enables the promoter to giver fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered into between him and the allottees so that he is not visited with penal consequences laid down under RERA. In other words, by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh time line under Section 4(2)(1)(c), he is not absolved of liability under the agreement for sale. Section 18(1)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for 6

his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable. The interest is merely compensation for use of money. Therefore, in the light of the above judgment it is clear that under the provisions of U.P. RERA, interest on the delay and on the principal amount shall be payable in accordance with the agreement made between the promoter and the buyer, because the said amount has been used by the promoters. As far as the question of the rate of interest payable is concerned, the State Government, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016, notified the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules 2018 on 17.10.2018. In Paragraph 9 of the draft sale/lease deed given as an annexure therein, the promoters' events of default (Events of default) are defined, in which Paragraph 9 (ii) provides for the allottee in the event of the promoter being a defaulter that:– The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +1% unless provided otherwise under the Rules, within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:

The same rate is also prescribed in Paragraph 9(iii) in the event of default by the allottees. Keeping the said provision in view, it appears just to award the allottee interest at the rate of MCLR+1 percent per annum. Accordingly, the complainant's application is fit to be accepted. 7 ORDER The opposite party is ordered to ensure that it delivers possession of all three original flats of the complainant, after obtaining the O.C./C.C. from the competent offices, by the project completion schedule of 31.12.2019 given on the website of the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), after receiving the outstanding amount from the complainant at the old rate and receiving the lawful amount as per rules and getting the sale deed executed; and to ensure payment, for the period of delay, at the rate of MCLR+1% simple annual interest fixed by the State Bank of India from 01.05.2016 until the date of giving actual possession. This amount of interest shall be adjusted in the amount of the final payment. In the event of the amount of delay interest exceeding the amount of payment, it be refunded to the complainant as per rules. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section–63 and other relevant provisions of the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act–2016. The order be uploaded on the portal. The complainant's complaint is disposed of as above. Date– 04/06/2019 [signature] (Rajeev Kumar) Chairman U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority 8 * * *

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, लखनऊ | सुनवाई पीठ-02, उपस्थिति :- श्री राजीव कुमार (अध्यक्ष) शिकायत संख्या : 020:820774 मनीष श्रीवास्तव, निवासी- फ्लैट- 552, इटरनिया, एच-40 महागुन AISA, सेक्टर- 78, नोएडा | .......««शिकीय तकर्ता बनाम मेसर्स अंसल हाऊसिंग एण्ड कस्ट्रक्शन लिए... sesssnsensenseseestterenre विपक्षी शिकायतकर्ता मनीष श्रीवास्तव, फ्लैट- 552, इटरनिया, एच-40 महागुन मार्डन, सेक्टर- 78, नोएडा के द्वारा मेसर्स अंसल हाऊसिंग एण्ड कस्ट्रक्शन feo के विरूद्ध रियल एस्टेट (विनियमन और विकास) अधिनियम, 206 धारा- 34 के अन्तर्गत दिनांक- 05.0.20i8 को प्रस्तुत शिकायत संख्या- t0200820704 संस्थित की गयी है जिसमें शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा आंवटित फ्लैट का कब्जा दिलाये जाने एवं कब्जा प्राप्त करने में हुये विलम्ब हेतु ब्याज दिलाये जाने हेतु प्रार्थना की गयी है।

संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने शिकायत में यह अंकित किया गया है कि उसने ANSALS PALM COURT JHANSI G+2 झांसी में तीन फ्लैट संख्या- C-GF79, FF79, SF79 दिनांक- 07.0520i3 को बुक कराया था जिसकी कुल कीमत Go 83,74,695 /- तिरासी लाख चौहतर हजार छः सौ पचानवे रूपये मात्र) थी। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा wo 9605,47i/— (छियासी लाख पांच हजार चार सौ इकहत्तर रूपये मात्र) की अदायगी की गयी। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने लिखित अभिकथन में यह अंकित किया है कि लगभग 5 वर्ष बीत जाने के उपरान्त भी विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण नहीं किया गया है तथा बिना निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण करे ही विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक- 78.08.20I8 को कब्जा लिये जाने हेतु पत्र भेजा गया और अन्तिम किश्त के भुगतान के साथ ही अतिरिक्त ब्याज की मांग भी की जा रही है। जबकि अभी तक आवंटित तीनों फ्लैटों का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण भी नहीं किया गया है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा dat wet का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण कर एवं सभी सुविधओं जो कि विपक्षी ने अपने ब्रोशर में अंकित की थी, उनको पूर्ण कर तीनों फ्लैटों का कब्जा दिलाया जाये एवं कब्जा में हुये विलम्ब की अवधि के लिए ब्याज भी दिलाया जाये तथा विपक्षी द्वारा अतिरिक्त ब्याज की मांग को हटा जाये और Go 5,00,000/— (पांच लाख रूपये मात्र) मानसिक उत्पीड़न हेतु क्षतिपूर्ति व wo 7,00,000/—- (एक लाख रूपये मात्र)]वाद व्यय दिलाये जाने हेतु प्रार्थना की गयी है। शिकायकर्ता द्वारा अपनी शिकायत के सम्बन्ध में निम्नलिखित साक्ष्य दाखिल किये गये हैं:- 4, तीनों फ्लैटों के आवंटन-पत्र की प्रति 2. धनराशि भुगतान की रसीदों की प्रति 3. ई-मेलों की प्रति 4. केता-विकेता अनुबन्ध-पत्र की प्रति।

विपक्षी ने अपने लिखित प्रतिवाद-पत्र दिनांक- 24.02,20:9 में यह अंकित किया है कि केता-विकेता अनुबन्ध-पत्र के प्रस्तर- 29 में परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण होने की कोई तिथि अंकित नहीं है जिससे यह स्पष्ट होता है कि शिकायतकर्ता का कथन गलत है कि परियोजना विलम्बित है। विपक्षी द्वारा यह भी अवगत कराया गया कि सम्बन्धित प्राधिकरण को पूर्णतः प्रमाण-पत्र हेतु दिनांक- 09.2.205 को ही आवेदन कर दिया है तथा UP APARTMENT (PROMOTION OF CONSTRUCTION) की धारा-4(5) में यह प्राविधान है कि अगर सम्बन्धित प्राधिकरण आवेदन की तिथि से 3 माह में पूर्णतः प्रमाण-पत्र नहीं देता है तो उस परियोजना को यह समझा जाये कि उसे पूर्णतः प्रमाण-पत्र प्राप्त हो चुका है और उनके द्वारा दिनांक- 092.205 को ही आवेदन किया जा चुका है, परन्तु सम्बन्धित प्राधिकरणों द्वारा कोई भी उत्तर नहीं दिया गया है। जिस कारण यह माना जाये कि saa परियोजना को पूर्णतः प्रमाण-पत्र प्राप्त हो चुका है। विपक्षी द्वारा यह भी अवगत कराया गया है कि दिनांक- 20.08.208 तथा 24.08.208 को ही शिकायतकर्ता को शेष धनराशि का भुगतान कर कब्जा प्राप्त करने हेतु पत्र प्रेषित किया जा चुका है, परन्तु शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं लिया गया है। मेरे द्वारा उभयपक्षों द्वारा प्रस्तुत तकों को सुना गया एवं पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों का गहन परिशीलन cen विश्लेषण किया गया।

जहाँ तक विपक्षी का यह कथन है कि केता-विकेता अनुबन्ध-पत्र में परियोजना के पूर्ण होने की कोई तिथि अंकित नहीं है इस सम्बन्ध में मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा M/s Fortune Infrastructure (Now Known As M/s HICON Infrastructure) & ANR. Vs Trevor Dlima & ORS. Civil Appleal No. 3533-3534 Of 2077 में पारित निर्णय को oda करना महत्वपूर्ण होगा- Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of ds the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 204. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered. When once this Court comes to the conclusion that, there is deficiency of services, then the question is what compensation the respondents/complainants is entitled to ?

उपरोक्त आदेश के परिशीलन से we है कि अनुबन्ध-पत्र के अनुसार परियोजना को पूर्ण करने की अवधि सामान्यतः 3 वर्ष मानी जायेगी। अतः इस प्रकार चूंकि विपक्षी द्वारा जारी विस्तृत आवंटन-पत्र दिनांक:- 0.05.20i3 को हस्ताक्षर हुआ है, अतः दिनांकः- 07.05.2043 से 3 वर्ष की अवधि परियोजना को पूर्ण करने के लिए पर्याप्त मानते हुए दिनांक:-- 04.05.206 परियोजना के कार्य को पूर्ण किया जाना की अवधि का आंकन किया जाना उचित होगा। विपक्षी का द्वितीय तर्क यह है कि उनके द्वारा दिनांक- 09.:220:5 को पूर्णतः प्रमाण-पत्र के लिए आवेदन किया जा चुका है और UP APARTMENT (PROMOTION OF CONSTRUCTION) की धारा-4(5) के अर्न्तगत यह माना जाये कि उक्त परियोजना को पूर्णतः प्रमाण-पत्र प्राप्त हो चुका है, परन्तु अगर यह मान भी लिया जाये कि विपक्षी की परियोजना को पूर्णतः प्रमाण-पत्र मिल भी गया है जो उनके द्वारा दिनांक- 09.2.2045 को आवेदन कर दिया गया था, लेकिन विपक्षी द्वारा पूर्णतः प्रमाण-पत्र के आवेदन तिथि से 3 वर्ष बीत जाने के उपरान्त ही शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक- 20.08.20:8 तथा 24.08.20i8 आखिरी भुगतान करने हेतु पत्र प्रेषित किया गया। इससे यह स्पष्ट है कि "2 विपक्षी द्वारा बिना परियोजना का कार्य पूर्ण हुये ही पूर्णतः प्रमाण-पत्र के लिए आवेदन कर दिया गया था। इस सम्बन्ध में मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Fagir Chand Gulati Vs Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., IIT (2008) CPJ 45 (SC) में पारित निर्णय को oda करना महत्वपूर्ण होगा-

That a prayer for completion certificate and C & D forms cannot be brushed aside by stating that the builder has already applied for the completion certificate or C& D Forms. If it is not issued, the builder owes a duty to make necessary application and obtain it. If it is wrongly withheld, he may have to approach the appropriate Court or other Forum to secure it. If it is justifiably withheld or refused, necessarily the builder will have to do whatever that is required to be done to bring the building in consonance with the sanctioned plan so that the municipal authorities can inspect an issue the completion certificate and also assess the property to tax. If the builder fails to do so, he will be liable to compensate the complainant for all loss/damage. ऐसे ही सामान्य प्रकरण में मा0 NCDRC Consumer Case No. 639 of 20॥7 Ajay Kumar & ANR. Vs M/s Supertech Ltd. 4 पारित निर्णय को vada करना भी महत्वपूर्ण होगा- The learned counsel for the OP submits that they had submitted the completion drawing on 5.02.205. If this is so, that would mean that the construction had been completed by them by that date but the requisite Completion Certificate/Occupancy Certificate has not been issued, as far as the allotted villa is concerned. Therefore, the grounds given for the delay in construction become irrelevant in this case. The learned counsel for the OP stated that a part Occupancy Certificate was issued to the OP but है!

the said part Occupancy Certificate does not cover the villa allotted to the complainant. If the Occupancy Certificate has not been granted to the OP in respect of the villa allotted to complainant despite the completion drawings having been submitted way back on !5.02.20I5 as is stated by its counsel, the inevitable inference is that there are some deviations/deficiencies in the project on account of which the requisite Occupancy Certificate in respect of the allotted villa has not been issued. The complainants cannot be made to suffer for such an act of the OP and cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the allotted villa. This is more so considering that more that 3.5 year have already passed from the date by which the possession was to be delivered to the complainants even after giving the benefit of the grace period to the OP. अतः उपरोक्त दोनो निर्णयों के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी // समप्रर्वतक बिना परियोजना का निर्माण पूर्ण करे ही पूर्णतः प्रमाण-पत्र एवं कब्जा प्रमाण-पत्र के लिए आवेदन कर भी देता है तो इससे यह स्पष्ट नहीं होता ही विपक्षी की उक्त पूर्ण है।

विश्लेषण से यह भी स्पष्ट है कि शिकायत्तकर्ता द्वारा त्तीन फ्लैट दिनांक- 07.05. 20i3 को बुक कराये गये थे तथा शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उक्त तीनों फ्लैटों के लिए रु0 86,05.474 /“- (छियासी लाख पांच हजार चार सौ इकहत्तर रूपये मात्र) की अदायगी भी कर दी गयी है, परन्तु 6 वर्ष बीत जाने के उपरान्त भी विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को आवंटित फलैटों का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण कब्जा अभी तक प्राप्त नहीं कराया गया है और बिना निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण करे ही शिकायतकर्ता से अंतिम धनराशि के भुगतान के साथ अतिरिक्त ब्याज की मांग की गयी, जो कि अवैधानिक है। ऐसी स्थिति में शिकायतकर्ता कब्जा तथा विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है। इस सम्बन्ध में उल्लेखनीय है कि मा0 महाराष्ट्र उच्च न्यायालय qi नीलकमल Raced waords प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियम ऑफ इण्डिया की याचिका में याचीगण की ओर से यह तर्क लिया गया था कि :- Section 4(2)(2)(c) enables the promoter to revise the date of completion of project and hand over possession. The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section4(2)()(c) enables the promoter to giver fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered into between him and the allottees so that he is not visited with penal consequences laid down under RERA. In other words, by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh time line under Section 4(2)(4)(c), he is not absolved of liability under the agreement for sale.

Section 8()(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month’s delay till handing over of the possession. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for ds his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable. The interest is merely compensation for use of money. अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक से यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रोमोटर व dar के बीच किये गये अनुबन्ध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्योंकि प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है।

जहाँ तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, तो राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 47.70.2078 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विकय / पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 20%8 अधिसूचित की गयी है। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विकय ,/पट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के we 9 में प्रोमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें WER 9 (ii) में प्रोमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है किः:- The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +१% unless provided otherwise under the Rules, within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice: यही दर आवंटियों के द्वारा डिफाल्ट की स्थिति में भी प्रस्तर ofl) 4 निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को MCLR+ प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से ब्याज दिया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। तद्नुसार शिकायतकर्ता का प्रार्थना-पत्र स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य है। as आदेश

विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि शिकायतकर्ता के तीनों मूल फ्लैटों का कब्जा सक्षम कार्यालयों से ओ0सी0 ,”सी0सी0 प्राप्त कर उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण Ra) की वेबसाइट पर दी गयी परियोजना के पूर्ण होने की समय-सारिणी दिनांक- 34.2.20:9 तक शिकायतकर्ता से बकाया धनराशि पुरानी दर से प्राप्त कर एवं नियमानुसार विधिक धनराशि प्राप्त कर लेने के पश्चात्‌ विकय विलेख करवा कर कब्जा प्रदान करना सुनिश्चित करें तथा Pera की अवधि के लिए स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया द्वारा निर्धारित MCLR+2% सामान्य वार्षिक ब्याज की दर से दिनांक- 07.05.2046 से वास्तविक अधिग्रहण देने की तिथि तक भुगतान करना सुनिश्चित करें। ब्याज की यह धनराशि अन्तिम भुगतान की धनराशि में समायोजित की जायेगी। विलम्ब ब्याज की धनराशि भुगतान की धनराशि से अधिक होने की दशा में शिकायतकर्ता को नियमानुसार वापस की जाये। इस आदेश का उल्लंघन उ.प्र, भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम-206 की धारा-83 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानो के अन्तगर्त दण्डनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाए। उपरोक्‍्तानुसार शिकायतकर्ता के शिकायत का निस्तारण किया जाता है। दिनांक- ९/-/० 6,/ 2049 ia | et oo = (राजीव कुमार) अध्यक्ष उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण