U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Lucknow. Hearing Bench-04, Presence :- Shri Rajiv Kumar (Chairman) Complaint Number : 40204824405 Sanjay Bansal 206/4 Ka Bagh, Sherganj, Aghamir Dyodhi, Subhash Marg Lucknow ......... Complainant vs. Tulsiani Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. 101, Tulsiani Chambers, Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai ......... Respondent Adjudication

The complainant states that apartment unit no. 4/-504 in Block-A having super area of 2982.45 sq-ft. in the respondent's project "Golf View Apartments" Block-A Lucknow, was booked on dated 22.06.205 under special payment plan and paid Rs. 4,00,00,000.00 (One crore rupees only). Total cost of the unit was Rs. 1,00,00,000.00 (One crore rupees only). In his letter, the complainant stated that according to paragraph-22 of the agreement letter, possession of unit was to be delivered in 30 months, i.e., by June 208, but the promoter failed to deliver possession within the fixed period. It was also stated by the complainant that 13 post dated cheques were provided by the respondent; in the event of failure to deliver possession within the prescribed time period, the complainant can take back his deposited amount in such situation. It was also stated by the complainant that 13 post dated cheques given by the respondent were dishonored, on account of which he was unable to take back his deposited amount. Prayer was made by the complainant to claim back his paid amount along with interest from the respondent, but his deposited amount was not refunded by the respondent. In his complaint, the complainant has demanded the entire amount deposited with the respondent along with interest. In connection with his complaint, the following evidence was filed by the complainant:—

1- Allotment letter dated 17.06.205 (7.06.205). 2- Builder-buyer agreement letter dated 22.04.2045. 3- Tripartite agreement dated 20.07.2045. 4- Settlement deed dated 20.08.2046. 5- Copy of cheque dated 20.40.207. Although information was given to the respondent through all modes including public notice. After service through public notice, the respondent appeared and filed written statement. In its reply dated 34.04.2049 and 22.02.2049, the respondent stated that work of project is in progress and more than 90 percent work of the project has been completed, and they will deliver possession of the complainant's unit by May 20i9. It was also stated by the respondent that in paragraph 22 of the agreement letter it is clearly stated that 30 months will be calculated after receipt of approval from Lucknow Development Authority. It was also stated by the respondent that the 13 post dated cheques given to the complainant were given for security of the complainant's amount, and he was clearly forbidden from presenting them in the bank. In its affidavit dated 18.04.20:9 (i8.04.20:9), the respondent stated that internal and external plaster work in towers-4, 5, 6 of the project has been completed and flooring and tiling work will commence by 25.04.209. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit, the respondent also stated that they will deliver possession to the complainant by 34.05.20i9 (37.05.20i9). However, in its written reply, citing certain reasons, extension was sought up to 34.:2.20:9.

Heard arguments of the parties and perused available documents. From perusal of the file, it is clear that Rs. 1,00,00,000.00 (One crore rupees only) has been deposited by the complainant, receipts of which have been filed, and possession has not been delivered on behalf of the respondent within the stipulated period. The complainant states that project was to be completed and possession delivered by June 2078, but the respondent's project is not complete yet. Therefore, delayed period interest be awarded. According to paragraph 3 of the reply of the respondent, in paragraph 22 of the agreement letter it is clearly stated that 30 months will be calculated after receipt of approval from Lucknow Development Authority. In its reply of dated 34.04.2049, passing of map was stated in May 20i5 by the respondent, and 30 months from then are completed in December 20:7. The respondent in paragraph 5 of its affidavit dated 18.04.20:9 stated that work is in final stage and possession will be delivered by 34.05.20i9 (37.05.20i9). On the RERA portal, completion date of project is recorded as 3.07.20:8 and for Block-B as 34.05.2049. In addition, in its final reply, extension up to dated 34.4220:9 has been sought on behalf of the respondent, such information has been given. According to which the project is delayed, meaning the complainant is entitled to delay interest.

From perusal of records, it is revealed that the respondent was to deliver possession to the complainant prior to January 2048, but the respondent has been unable to deliver possession within the agreed period. In such situation, it is justified to award interest to the complainant for the period from after the agreed period up to delivery of possession along with O.C. / C.C. From available evidence, the complainant's complaint regarding refund of money along with interest is not fit to be accepted at present because the respondent's contention is that they will complete work of project and give possession by May 2079. According to the agreement letter, if possession is given even by December 2049, it would be within 4 years from the date of builder-buyer agreement letter, which cannot be called excessive delay. In the context of balancing the interests of allottees seeking refund of money and allottees staying in the project, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of "Chitra Sharma vs. Union of India" made the following observation in paragraph 40 of the judgment:—

"As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is lying in deposit before this Court pursuant to the interim directions, on which interest has accrued. The home buyers have earnestly sought the issuance of interim directions to facilitate a pro-rata disbursement of this amount to those of the home buyers who seek a refund. We are keenly conscious of the fact that the claim of the home buyers who seek a refund of monies deserves to be considered with empathy. Yet, having given our anxious consideration to the plea and on the balance, we are not inclined to accede to it for more than one reason. Firstly.......... Secondly, the figures which have been made available presently, following the opening of the web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be unmindful of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund." Similarly, in Section 32, among the responsibilities of the Authority for the development of real estate sector, the following is also included:—

“32, Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on- (a) Protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent; (j) Any other issue that the authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” From the said provisions, it is clear that to ensure healthy development of the "real estate sector", it is the responsibility of this Authority to take appropriate decisions considering the interests of all its stakeholders holistically. It is also noteworthy that an agreement was executed between parties, which is signed by both parties, from which it can be determined that terms of the said agreement are acceptable to both parties. According to the agreement, there is no provision for compensation during the period of project delay. In this regard, it is noteworthy that in the aforesaid legal precedent, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has also held that:— "For the reasons already indicated, aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. I have already indicated that the provisions of RERA are prospective in nature. The penalty under Sections 76, 38, 59, 60, 67, 63 and 64 is to be levied on account of contravention of provisions of RERA, prospectively and not retrospectively."

Therefore, in light of the above judgment, it is clear that penalty provided under the provisions of U.P. RERA should not be retrospective, but prospective. In such situation, prior to coming into effect of RERA (dated 0.0520:6), payment of amount should be made according to the agreement, and after advent of RERA, from dated 07,05.20:6, according to the provisions of RERA, the complainant is entitled to receive interest on deposited amount for delayed period; in a case where no agreement is executed between parties, there the complainant shall be entitled to receive interest on deposited amount in accordance with the provisions of RERA. According to the above legal position, the complainant will be entitled to delay interest up to the date of receiving O.C. / C.C. and offer of possession, whichever is later. In such a situation, the complainant shall be entitled to interest only up to the date of obtaining O.C. It is also noteworthy that in the complainant's case, O.C. has not been obtained from the authorities. In this regard, in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50 ,/“ 2048 Supertech Limited vs. Rajni Goyal, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:—

"the period of Interest should close on April 206 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant —Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 206. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 20l6 with respect to delay in handing over possession." Regarding delay, it is noteworthy that in the petition of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Union of India before the Hon'ble Maharashtra High Court, argument was raised on behalf of petitioners that:— Section 4(2)(l)(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)(l)(c), he is not absolved of liability under the agreement for sale.

Section 8(I)(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 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. Therefore, in light of the above judgment, it is clear that under the provisions of U.P. RERA, interest on delay and principal amount shall be payable according to the agreement executed between promoter and buyer, because the said amount has been utilized by promoters.

So far as the question of payable interest rate is concerned, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale / Lease) Rules, 2018 (2oi8) have been notified by the State Government under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20i6 on dated 47.40.20i8 (i7..0.20i8). In clause 9 of the model form of sale / lease deed given as an annexure therein, events of default of promoters are defined, in which under clause 9(ii), in the event of the promoter being a defaulter, it is provided for the allottee 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 +% unless provided otherwise under the Rules, within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice: The same rate is also prescribed in clause 9(iii) in case of default by allottees. Keeping in view the said provision, it appears justified to make refund along with interest to the allottee at the interest rate of MCLR+1 percent. The complainant's claim of 28.8 percent monthly interest rate is based on paragraph-5 of the alleged mutual agreement dated 20.08.206 which has neither been presented nor is part of admissible records under Section 4(2)(l)(c) of the RERA Act. 4445

Accordingly, the application of the complainant is fit to be accepted. 1. The respondent, after obtaining O.C. / C.C. and receiving stamp duty as per rules, shall ensure delivery of possession by dated 344220I9, and for the delayed period, interest (MCLR + 1) shall be adjusted at the time of taking possession in the outstanding amount of the complainant from the date of taking possession specified in the builder-buyer agreement up to the date of actual possession, and if the interest amount is more than the payable amount, it shall be refunded to the complainant as per rules. 2. If the respondent fails to give possession to the complainant by dated 34.42.20I9, then within 60 days after dated 34.:220I9, they shall ensure payment of the amount deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of MCLR+1 percent from the date of deposit to the date of payment. 3. So far as compensation is claimed by the complainant for the delayed period, the Adjudicating Officer has jurisdiction to determine the same. The period of 45 days will commence from the date of uploading of the order on the website of the Authority. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 and other relevant provisions of the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046. The order be uploaded on the portal. Dated: 13/05/2019 (|3 /05,/ 2049) (Rajiv Kumar) Chairman U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, लखनऊ | सुनवाई पीठ-04, उपस्थिति :- श्री राजीव कुमार (अध्यक्ष) शिकायत संख्या : 40204824405 संजय बंसल 206 /4 का बाग, शेरगुन्ज, अघामिर ड्योधी, सुभाष मार्ग PT &#//न्‍न्‍गानान वादी बनाम तुल्सियानी omar एण्ड डेवलपर्स प्रा.लि. 43/4 अलोपीबाग, पंजाबी कालोनी, बलाहाबीयोी। fins Sty Bie Ge wed को हे | के ॥ ४४४5 dsc किले प्रतिवादी आदेश शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध जमा की गयी धनराशि मय ब्याज एवं क्षतिपूर्ति दिलाये जाने हेतु शिकायत दर्ज करायी गयी है ।

शिकायतकर्ता ने अपनी शिकायत में अंकित किया है कि उसने विपक्षी के प्रोजेक्ट “गोल्फ व्यू अपार्टमेंट्स” ब्लाक-ए लखनऊ में एक अपार्टमेंट यूनिट नं-4/-504 जिसका मूल क्षेत्रफल 2982.45 sq-ft. का है, स्पेशल पेमेंट प्लान के अन्तगर्त दिनांक 22.06.205 को बुक कराया व रू. 4,00,00,000.00 (एक करोड़ रूपये मात्र) अदा किये। यूनिट की कुल कीमत रू. ,00,00,000.00 (एक करोड़ रूपये मात्र) थी। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनके पत्र में यह अंकित किया है कि अनुबंध पत्र के प्रस्तर-22 के अनुसार यूनिट का कब्जा 30 माह जो कि जून 208 तक दिया जाना था, परन्तु प्रोमोटर नियत अवधि में कब्जा देने में असफल रहा। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा यह भी अंकित किया गया कि विपक्षी द्वारा is पोस्ट Ses चेक्स प्रदान किये गए हैं यदि निर्धारित समय अवधि में कब्जा देने में असफल रहता है तो इस स्थिति में शिकायकर्ता अपनी जमा धनराशि वापस ले सकता है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा यह भी अंकित किया कि विपक्षी द्वारा दिये गए 43 पोस्ट Ses dae अनादरित हो गए जिस कारण वह अपनी जमा धनराशि वापस लेने में असमर्थ रहे। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी से अपनी अदा की गयी धनराशि ब्याज सहित मांगे जाने की प्रार्थना की गयी, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा उसके जमा धनराशि को वापस नहीं किया गया। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपनी शिकायत में विपक्षी को जमा की गयी सम्पूर्ण धनराशि ब्याज सहित मांग की गयी है। अपने शिकायत के सम्बन्ध में शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा निम्नलिखित साक्ष्य दाखिल किया गया :- Ys 4-3ndedt पत्र दिनांक 7.06.205 | 2- निर्माणकर्ता-क्रेता अनुबंध पत्र दिनांक 22.04.2045 | 3-त्रिपक्षीय समझौता दिनांक 20.07.2045 | 4-समझौता लेख दिनांक 20.08.2046 | 5- चेक की छायाप्रति दिनांक 20.40.207 |

यघपि विपक्षी को अन्य सभी के माध्यम से सूचना दी गई जिसमें पब्लिक नोटिस भी सम्मलित है। विपक्षी पब्लिक नोटिस के माध्यम से aria हो जाने के उपरांत उपस्थित होकर लिखित अभिकथन दाखिल किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा अपने प्रतिवाद पत्र दिनांक 34.04.2049 एव 22.02.2049 में यह अंकित किया है कि परियोजना का कार्य प्रगति पर है एवं परियोजना का कार्य 90 प्रतिशत से अधिक हो चुका है एवं शिकायतकर्ता की इकाई का कब्जा मई 20i9 तक प्रदान कर देगें। विपक्षी द्वारा यह भी अंकित किया गया कि अनुबंध पत्र के प्रस्तर 22 में स्पष्ट रूप से अंकित है कि 30 माह की गणना लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण से स्वीकृत मिलने के पश्चात की जाएगी। विपक्षी द्वारा यह भी अंकित किया गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता जो i3 पोस्ट Ses ae दिये थे वह शिकायतकर्ता के धनराशि की सुरक्षा के लिए दिया था तथा उसे बैंक में लगाने से स्पष्ट रूप से माना किया था। विपक्षी ने अपने शपथ पत्र दिनांक i8.04.20:9 में यह अंकित किया है कि परियोजना के टावर-4,5,6 में आंतरिक और बाहरी प्लास्टर का कार्य पूर्ण हो गया है एवं फर्श और टाइलिंग का कार्य 25.04.209 तक आरंभ हो जाएगा। विपक्षी ने शपथ पत्र के wear 5 में यह भी अंकित किया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को 37.05.20i9 तक कब्जा प्रदान कर देगें। तथापि अपने लिखित उत्तर में कतिपय कारण बताते हुए welt 3.:2.20:9 तक एक्सटेंशन माँगना बताया गया है। पक्षकारों के cat को सुना तथा उपलब्ध अभिलेखों का अवलोकन किया।

पत्रावली के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा रू. ,00,00,000.00 (एक करोड़ रूपये मात्र) जमा किये गये हैं जिसकी रसीदें दाखिल की गयी हैं, तथा निर्धारित अवधि में विपक्षी की ओर से कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि परियाजना जून 2078 तक पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, किन्तु विपक्षी की परियोजना अभी तक पूर्ण नहीं है। अतः विलंबित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाये। विपक्षी द्वारा उनके प्रतिवाद पत्र के WA 3 के अनुसार अनुबंध पत्र के yea 22 में स्पष्ट रूप से अंकित है कि 30 माह की गणना लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण से स्वीकृत मिलने के पश्चात की जाएगी। दिनांक 34.04.2049 के अपने उत्तर में विपक्षी द्वारा नक्शा पास होना मई 20i5 में बताया है व तब से 30 माह दिसम्बर 20:7 A पूरे होते हैं। विपक्षी द्वारा उनके शपथ पत्र के प्रस्तर 5 में यह भी हि 2 अंकित किया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को 34.05.20I9 तक कब्जा प्रदान कर देगें। विपक्षी द्वारा Rr के पोर्टल पर परियोजना की पूर्ण तिथि 3.07.20:8 तथा ब्लाक बी के लिए 34.05.2049 अंकित है। इसके अतिरिक्त अपने अन्तिम उत्तर में विपक्षी की ओर से दिनांक 34.4220:9 तक का एक्सटेंशन माँगा गया है, ऐसी सूचना दी गई है। बताई गयी है जिसके अनुसार परियोजना विलंबित है अर्थात शिकायतकर्ता विलंबित ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है।

अभिलेखों के अवलोकन से विदित है कि विपक्षी को शिकायतकर्ता को जनवरी 2048 से पूर्व तक कब्जा देना था, किन्तु विपक्षी अनुबंधित अवधि में कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहा है। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता को अनुबंधित अवधि के पश्चात ओ.सी.,“ सी.सी. सहित कब्जा दिये जाने तक की अवधि पर ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित है। उपलब्ध साक्ष्य से शिकायतकर्ता की ब्याज सहित धनराशि वापस किये जाने सम्बन्धी शिकायत अभी स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है क्योंकि विपक्षी का यह अभिकथन है कि वह परियोजना का कार्य पूर्ण करके मई 2079 तक कब्जा दे देगें। अनुबंध पत्र के अनुसार यदि दिसम्बर 2049 तक भी कब्जा दे दिया जाता है तो यह निर्माणकर्ता-क्रेता अनुबंध पत्र की तिथि से 4 वर्ष के भीतर होना जिसे अत्यधिक विलम्ब नहीं कहा जा सकता। एलोटीज द्वारा धनराशि वापस किए जाने व परियोजना में बने रहने वाले एलोटीज के हितों में wget के प्रसंग में “चित्रा शर्मा बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया” के निर्णय में मा. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने निर्णय के प्रस्तर 40 में निम्न ऑबजरवेशन' किया है:-

As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is lying in deposit before this Court pursuant to the interim directions, on which interest has accrued. The home buyers have earnestly sought the issuance of interim directions to facilitate a pro-rata disbursement of this amount to those of the home buyers who seek a refund. We are keenly conscious of the fact that the claim of the home buyers who seek a refund of monies deserves to be considered with empathy. Yet, having given our anxious consideration to the plea and on the balance, we are not inclined to accede to it for more than one reason. Firstly.......... Secondly, the figures which have been made available presently, following the opening of the web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be unmindful of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund. ee इसी प्रकार धारा 32 में रियल sete सेक्टर के विकास हेतु अथॉरिटी के उत्तरदायित्यों में निम्न भी सम्मिलित हैः-

“32, Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on- (a) Protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent; (j) Any other issue that the authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” उक्त प्राविधानों से यह we है कि "रियल wee Gace’ के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके सभी eo होल्डर्स के हितों को समग्र रूप से देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेने का उत्तरदायित्व इस अथॉरिटी का है। यह भी उल्लेखनीय है कि पक्षकारों के मध्य एक अनुबन्ध निष्पादित है, जो कि उभयपक्ष द्वारा हस्ताक्षरित है, जिससे यह अवधारित किया जा सकता है कि उभयपक्ष को उक्त अनुबन्ध की शर्तें स्वीकार हैं। अनुबन्ध के अनुसार परियोजना के विलंब की अवधि में कोई क्षतिपूर्ति का प्राविधान नहीं है। इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि माननीय उच्च न्यायालय मुम्बई द्वारा उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था में यह भी अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- For the reasons already indicated, aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. I have already indicated that the provisions of RERA are prospective in nature. The penalty under Sections 76, 38, 59, 60, 67, 63 and 64 is to be levied on account of contravention of provisions of RERA, prospectively and not retrospectively. अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के

अन्तर्गत प्राविधानित दंड पूर्वव्यापी नहीं, बल्कि भविष्यलक्षी होना चाहिये। ऐसी दशा में रेरा के प्रभाव में (दिनांक 0.0520:6) 8 पूर्व अनुबन्ध के अनुसार धनराशि भुगतान किया जाना चाहिये और रेरा के आने के बाद दिनांक 07,05.20:6 से रेरा के प्राविधानों के अनुसार विलंबित अवधि में जमा धनराशि पर ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है, जिस वाद में पक्षकारों के मध्य कोई अनुबन्ध निष्पादित नहीं है, वहाँ शिकायतकर्ता रेरा के प्राविधानों के अनुरूप जमा धनराशि पर ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार ओ.सी.,//सी.सी, मिलने व कब्जा ऑफर करने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो, तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता मात्र ओ.सी. मिलने के दिनांक तक ही ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। रे यह भी उल्लेखनीय है कि शिकायतकर्ता के प्रकरण में प्राधिकरणों से ओ.सी. प्राप्त नहीं हुई है। इस सम्बंध में सिविल अपील सं0 6649-50 ,/“ 2048 सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- "the period of Interest should close on April 206 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant —Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 206. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 20l6 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent — Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession. "

उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार ओ.सी. मिलने व कब्जा ऑफर करने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो, तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। ऐसी दशा में उक्त दोनों शिकायतकर्ता मात्र ओ.सी. मिलने के दिनांक तक ही ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रोजेक्ट को पूरा किये जाने में विलम्ब को स्वीकार किया गया है एवं यह भी बताया गया है कि वह दिनांक 34.42.20:9 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर लेगें। विलम्ब के सम्बन्ध में उल्लेखनीय है कि महाराष्ट्र उच्च न्यायालय के नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रा. लि. आदि बनाम यूनियम ऑफ इण्डिया की याचिका में याचीगण की ओर से यह ae लिया गया था कि :- Section 4(2)(l)(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)(l)(c), he is not absolved of liability under the agreement for sale.

Section 8(I)(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 oO 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 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. aa उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि vouo रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रोमोटर व Gar 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 20i6 के अधीन दिनांक i7..0.20i8 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विकय,/पट्ठा के लिए करार) नियमावली 2oi8 अधिसूचित की गयी है। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विकय,”पट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रोमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें wer 9 (ii) F प्रोमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है कि:- 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 +% 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 oii) ¥ निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को MCLA+ प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर ब्याज सहित धनवापसी किया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। शिकायतकर्ता का 28.8 प्रतिशत प्रतिमाह की ब्याज दर का दावा कथित आपसी समझौते दिनांक 20.08.206 के प्रस्तर-5 पर आधारित है जो न तो प्रस्तुत किया गया है एवं न ही धारा ia रेरा अधिनियम के अधीन ग्राहय अभिलेखों का भाग है। तद्नुसार शिकायतकर्ता का प्रार्थना-पत्र स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य है।

4. विपक्षी ओ.सी.,/सी.सी. प्राप्त करने के पश्चात नियमानुसार स्टाम्पशुल्क प्राप्त कर दिनांक 344220I9 तक कब्जा प्रदान कराना सुनिश्चित करें एवं विलंबित अवधि के ही लिए मय ब्याज (MciR +) के हिसाब से निर्माणकर्ता-क्रेता अनुबंध पत्र में अंकित कब्जा प्राप्ति की तिथि से वास्तविक प्राप्ति की तिथि तक शिकायतकर्ता को बकाया धनराशि में कब्जा प्राप्ति के समय समायोजित की जाए और यदि ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक है, तो नियमानुसार शिकायतकर्ता को वापस की जाये। 2. यदि विपक्षी दिनांक 34.42.20I9 तक शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा देने में असफल रहता है, तो दिनांक 34.:220I9 के पश्चात 60 दिन के अन्दर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि MCLR+I प्रतिशत की दर से जमा करने की तिथि से भुगतान करने की तिथि तक मय ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। 3. जहाँ तक शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विलम्बित अवधि के लिए प्रतिकर की मांग की गई है, इसका निर्धारण करने का क्षेत्राधिकार न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी को है। 45 दिन की अवधि प्राधिकरण की वेबसाइड पर आदेश अपलोड होने के दिनांक से प्रारम्भ होगी। इस आदेश का उल्लंघन उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दण्डनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। दिनांक- |3 /०5,/ 2049 _ ool eth eel (राजीव कुमार) अध्यक्ष उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण