sono Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Wrage | Hearing Bench-04, hu Mr. Rajive Kumar, Chairman Complaint Number-44204823424 Sanjit Kumar Versus M/s Sare Samag Realty Pvt. Ltd. The present application has been instituted by the Complainant against the Opposite Party for cancelling the unit and ard refunding ard refunding the deposited amount with interest. Briefly, the Complainant states that flat No.-0603 in Tower-B of the Opposite Party's project Spring View Heights was booked by the Complainant, for which payment of Rs. 24,67,749/— was made by the Complainant from time to time on an instalment basis. Possession was to be given by the Opposite Party to the Complainant by date 48.02.20I6, but possession has not been given by the Opposite Party till date. The Complainant also states that unit was booked by them under subvention plan in Tower-B, flat number-B 0603 in March 2043 and it was stated in the agreement to give possession in February 206 and now there is delay of more than 3 years from the date of possession. Therefore, through the present application, request has been made by the Complainant against the Opposite Party to dita the unit and get refunded get refunded the deposited amount with interest. In support of his statement, photocopies of home loan agreement, receipts of deposited amount, e-mails etc. have been filed on behalf of the Complainant.

Filing an affidavit, Mr. Deepak Jyoti, Director of the Opposite Party company has stated that the unit, unit number-B 0603 flat Sat agreement, was booked by the Complainant in their project under pre-EMI subvention plan. Construction work in the project is in progress and 53 percent work has been completed. The project will be completed and possession handed over by the date 3.04.2020 given in RERA. Heard both parties and perused the record. >/

2 On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- 4. Can the deposited amount of the Complainant be refunded ? 2... Whether possession and interest for delayed period be awarded to the Complainant ? If yes, what will be the rate of interest ? Disposal of Point No. 4 It was framed to the effect that whether the deposited amount of the Complainant can be refunded? This issue is also framed on the basis of pleadings of the Complainant, the burden of proving which is on the Complainant. It is stated by the Complainant that possession has not been handed over by the Opposite Party within the agreed period, due to which he does not wish to stay with the project and his deposited amount be refunded with interest, whereupon Mr. Deepak Jyoti, Director of the Opposite Party company, filing an affidavit, has stated that the unit, unit number-B 0603 flat buyer agreement, was booked by the Complainant in their project under pre-EMI subvention plan. Construction work in the project is in progress and 53 percent work has been completed. The project will be completed and possession handed over by the date 34.04.2020 given in RERA. As far as the question of refund request by the buyer is concerned, in this regard it is necessary to ver the provisions of the RERA Act holistically so that keeping in view the view of all parties, a balanced decision can be taken | Section is (4) F of RERA Act provides that :- Section 78 (7) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with oY

3 interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed. Thus, dat have the right that if they do not receive possession in accordance with the agreement, they can demand back their deposited amount with interest or remain in the project while receiving interest at monthly rate. In Section 3 of the RERA Act, along with other "functions" of RERA, " to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder " is also mentioned. Similarly in Section 32, among the responsibilities of the Authority for the development of real gee sector, the following are also included :- “32. The 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,....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.”

From the said provisions it is wre that in order to ensure healthy development of "real wee sector", the responsibility of taking appropriate decision viewing holistically the interests of all its we holders rests upon this Authority. In this sequence, by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, in which decision regarding constitutionality of RERA Act was given, Hon'ble High Court made the following scrutiny in paragraph 424 :- nat24, The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing

4 orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth, Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section gaa refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 42, 4, 26 and /9, A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work.” From the above it is clear that after hearing all parties, although in the event of not getting unit in time the allottee has right to demand their amount with interest, nevertheless in view of the above described scrutiny, the Authority, on the basis of all facts of the case, can pass order in accordance with ‘by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allotlices, compensation to the allottees, and_issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit issuing directions for_timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth during completion of project, so on and so forth’. In the context of agers in the interests of allottees demanding return of amount and allottees staying in the project, in the judgment of "Chitra Sharma Versus Union of India" (744 /20' 7), Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observation in paragraph 40 of the judgment: 40. 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

5 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." In view of the "observations" cited in vat cases by the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme zac and the overall framework of the RERA Act, it is also clear that if in every case of delay decision to refund the amount alone is taken, then surely it would not be in accordance with the "objective" and "scheme" of the Act. While deciding on refund, consideration of the "uniqueness" of each case, all facts of the case such as status of "construction", "timeline" of completion, status of "commitment" of offer of possession by promoters, other "Ra holders", especially impact on "allottees" remaining with the project, "consensus" regarding "proposed possession date" etc., would be in the interest of justice. Since Mr. Deepak Jyoti, Director of the Opposite Party company, filing an affidavit, has stated that the unit, unit number-B 0603 flat So agreement, was booked by the Complainant in their project under pre-EMI subvention plan. Construction work in the project is in progress and 53 percent work has been completed. The project will be completed and possession handed over by the date 34.04.2020 given in RERA. In such a situation, it would be appropriate that the Complainant consider getting possession by January 2020 | Certainly, in the event of remaining in the project, interest for delay will be payable to allottees by promoters as per rules. Disposal point wo-7 is disposed of. Disposal point to 2 The Complainant states that possession was to be given by the Opposite Party by date 48.02.206, but possession has not been given till date. In such situation, it appears justified to award interest for the delayed period to the Complainant from after the period stipulated in the agreement till the date of offer of possession along with O.C./C.C. In this regard, it is noteworthy that in the petition of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. etc. Versus Union of India of Maharashtra High Court, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that :- Section 8(4)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment 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 a,

6 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 will be payable in accordance with the agreement entered into between promoter and dar, because the said amount has been utilized by the promoters. As far as the question of payable interest rate is concerned, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale / Lease) Rules sors have been notified on date 47.0.2048 by the State Government under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2076. In WER 9 of the draft sale // lease deed provided as an annexure therein, default events of promoters (Events of default) are defined, wherein in TER 9 (ii) 4 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 mu 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 determined in paragraph 90) in the event of default by allottees. Keeping in view the said provision, returning amount for delay along with interest at the interest rate of MCLR+ percent to the allottee appears justified. It is also clarified that if there is delay in any payable amount of the Complainant, then the Opposite Party can also receive interest only at the rate of MCLRH percent. >

7 As far as the question up to which period interest be awarded is concerned, in this regard in Civil Appeal Wo 6649-50 ,//2048 Supertech Limited Versus Rajni Goyal it has been 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 20I6. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 206 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. " According to ke of the above legal precedent, the Complainant shall be entitled to receive delay interest up to obtaining O.C. or offer of possession, whichever is later. Accordingly, Point No.-2 is disposed of. Disposing of the above points, following orders are passed. Order 4... The Opposite Party is ordered that if any payable amount remains outstanding till January 2020, upon receiving the same, hand over possession after getting all amenities of the Complainant's flat completed, and upon receiving payable stamp duty, get registry done as per rules.

2... The Opposite Party ensure payment of interest at MCLR+I percent on the amount deposited by the Complainant for the period from after the agreed period up to O.C./C.C. This amount of interest shall be adjusted in the amount of final payment. In case the interest amount exceeds the payable amount, it shall be refunded as per rules. 3. The Complainant is ordered to ensure making payment according to payment plan / agreement. 4. It is also clarified that under Section 2 (2o)0) of RERA Act 2046 it has been defined that if any interest rate is charged by the promoter upon allottee's 8 default, then at the same rate interest will also be given to the allottee upon default being made by the promoter. 5... If the Opposite Party fails to give possession to the Complainant by January 2020, then within 45 days after January 2020, ensure payment of deposited amount of Rs. 24,67,749,//- along with interest at MCLR+I percent to the Complainant. If bank loan has been taken on this unit, then payment first be made to bank and remaining amount be refunded to the Complainant. 6. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section-63 of the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 and other relevant provisions. The order be uploaded on the portal. Date? /20//2049 Aust Vo he | 9.2 8: (Rajive Kumar) (Chairman) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority * * * ह॥

sono भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, Wrage | सुनवाई पीठ-04, हु श्री राजीव कुमार, अध्यक्ष शिकायत संख्या-44204823424 संजित कुमार बनाम मैसर्स सारे समग रियलटी प्राएलि0 प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्द यूनिट को कैंसिल कर जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज ard जाने दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना Spring View Heights के टॉवर-बी में फ्लैट नं०-0603 बुक किया गया, जिसके लिए शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 24,67,749,//- रूपये का भुगतान किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा दिनांक 48.02.20I6 तक दिया जाना था, किन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया। शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है उनके द्वारा यूनिट सबवेंशन प्लॉन के तहत टॉवर-बी में फ्लैट संख्या-बी 0603 मार्च 2043 में बुक कराया गया और अनुबन्ध में कब्जा फरवरी 206 में दिये जाने का कथन किया गया था और अब कब्जे की तिथि से 3 वर्ष से अधिक का विलम्ब है। अतः प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्द यूनिट को dita कर जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज दिलाये जाने दिलाये जाने हेतु अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता की ओर से अपने कथन के समर्थन में गृह ऋण अनुबन्ध, जमा धनराशि की रसीदें, ई-मेल आदि की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी है।

विपक्षी कम्पनी के निदेशक श्री दीपक ज्योति द्वारा शपथ पत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा यूनिट उनकी परियोजना में यूनिट संख्या-बी 0603 फ्लैट केता अनुबन्ध प्री-ई.एम.आई सबवेंशन प्लॉन के तहत बुक करायी गयी। परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य प्रगति पर है और 53 प्रतिशत कार्य पूर्ण कर लिया गया है। परियोजना को रेरा में दी गयी तिथि 3.04.2020 तक पूर्ण कर कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। उभयपक्ष को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। oJ 2 पक्षकारों के अभिवचनों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचरित किये गये :- 4... क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जा सकती है ? 2. an शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाये ? यदि हाँ तो ब्याज का दर क्‍या होगा ? निस्तारण बिन्दु to 4 इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जा सकती है? यह वाद बिन्दु भी शिकायतकर्ता के अभिकथनों के आधार पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार शिकायतकर्ता पर है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कथन किया गया है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अनुबंधित अवधि में कब्जा नही दिया गया है, जिस कारण वह परियोजना के साथ नही रहना चाहता है और उसकी जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलायी जाये, जिस पर विपक्षी कम्पनी के निदेशक श्री दीपक ज्योति द्वारा शपथ पत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा यूनिट उनकी परियोजना में यूनिट संख्या-बी 0603 फ्लैट oa अनुबन्ध प्री-ई.एम.आई सबवेंशन प्लॉन के तहत बुक करायी गयी। परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य प्रगति पर है और 53 प्रतिशत कार्य पूर्ण कर लिया गया है। परियोजना को रेरा में दी गयी तिथि 34.04.2020 तक पूर्ण कर कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा।

जहाँ तक dar ger रिफण्ड के अनुरोध का प्रश्न है, इस विषय में रेर अधिनियम के प्राविधानों को समग्र रूप से पढा जाना आवश्यक है ताकि सभी पक्षों के मत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए एक संतुलित निर्णय लिया जा सकें | रेरा एक्ट की धारा 48 (4) F प्राविधान है कि :- Section 78 (7) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with > interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed. इस प्रकार dat को यह अधिकार है कि यदि उन्हें एग्रीमेंट के अनुरूप कब्जा नही मिलता तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि को ब्याज सहित वापिस माँग सकते हैं अथवा मासिक दर से ब्याज प्राप्त करते हुए परियोजना में बने रहें।

रेरा अधिनियम की धारा 3 में रेरा के अन्य “फंग्शन्स” के साथ-साथ " to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder " का भी उल्लेख है। इसी प्रकार धारा 32 में रियल gee सेक्टर के विकास हेतु अथॉरिटी के उत्तरदायित्यों में निम्न भी सम्मिलित हैं :- “32. The 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,....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” उक्त प्राविधानों से यह wre है कि “रियल wee सेक्टर” के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके सभी we deed के हितों को समग्र रूप से देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेने का उत्तरदायित्व इस ऑथरिटी का है। इस कम में मा. मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअरबन प्रा.लि. बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया, जिसमें रेरा अधिनियम की वैद्यानिकता के सम्बंध में निर्णय दिया गया था, के प्रस्तर 424 में मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निम्न संवीक्षण किया :-

१24, The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing 2! orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth, Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section है refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 42, 4, 26 and /9, A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work.” उक्त से स्पष्ट है कि सभी पक्षों को सुनने के बाद, यद्यपि समय से इकाई न मिलने की दशा में आवंटी का अपनी धनराशि ब्याज सहित मांगने का अधिकार है, तथापि उक्त वर्णित संवीक्षा को देखते हुए अथॉरिटी, प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों, के आधार पर “by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the 6//0/66% interest, compensation to the allottees.

and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit issuing directions for timely completion of project transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth during completion of project, so on and so forth’ के अनुरूप आदेया पारित किए जा सकते हैं। एलोटीज द्वारा धनराशि वापस किए जाने व परियोजना में बने रहने वाले एलोटीज के हितों में ager के प्रसंग में “चित्रा शर्मा बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया” (744 /20' 7) के निर्णय में मा. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने निर्णय के wae 40 में निम्न ऑबजरवेशन किया है

40. 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 Y 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." मा. उच्च न्यायालय एवं सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा उक्त प्रस्तरों में उद्धरत

“ऑबजरवेशनस्‌” एवं रेरा एक्ट की समग्र व्यवस्था को देखते हुए यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यदि विलम्ब के प्रत्येक मामले में धनराशि लौटाने का ही निर्णय लिया जाये तो निश्चय ही यह अधिनियम के “ऑबजेक्टिव” तथा “स्कीम” के अनुरूप न होगा। रिफण्ड का निर्णय लेते समय प्रत्येक मामले की “यूनीकनेस” प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों यथा “कन्सट्रक्शन” की स्थिति, कम्पलीशन की “टाईम लाईन”, प्रोमोटर्स के द्वारा ऑफर ऑफ पजेशन के “कमिटमेन्ट” की स्थिति, अन्य “Ro deed", विशेष रूप से परियोजना के साथ बने रहने वाले “एलॉटीज” पर प्रभाव, “प्रस्तावित पज़ेशन डेट” के विषय में “कन्सेन्सस्‌” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। चूंकि विपक्षी कम्पनी के निदेशक श्री दीपक ज्योति द्वारा शपथ पत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा यूनिट उनकी परियोजना में यूनिट संख्या-बी 0603 फ्लैट केता अनुबन्ध प्री-ई.एम.आई सबवेंशन प्लॉन के तहत बुक करायी गयी। परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य प्रगति पर है और 53 प्रतिशत कार्य पूर्ण कर लिया गया है। परियोजना को रेरा में दी गयी तिथि 34.04.2020 तक पूर्ण कर कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। ऐसे में यह उचित होगा कि शिकायतकर्ता जनवरी 2020 तक कब्जा प्राप्त करने हेतु पर विचार करें| निश्चय ही परियोजना में बने रहने की दशा में एलॉटीज़ को विलम्ब हेतु नियमानुसार ब्याज प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा देय होगा। निस्तारण बिन्दु wo-7 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु to 2 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी को दिनांक 48.02.206 तक कब्जा दिया जाना था, किन्तु आज तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया।

ऐसे में शिकायतकर्ता को अनुबन्ध में निर्धारित अवधि के पश्चात्‌ से ओ.सी / सी.सी सहित कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि तक का विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि महाराष्ट्र उच्च न्यायालय के नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया की याचिका में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- Section 8(4)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment 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.

अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व dar के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, तो राज्य सरकार द्वारा- भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2076 के अधीन दिनांक 47.0.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विकय / पटटा के लिए करार) नियमावली oois अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विकय /पटटा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9 (7) में प्रमोटर 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 +% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:

यही दर आवंटियों के द्वारा डिफॉल्ट की स्थिति में भी प्रस्तर 90) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को MCLR+ प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर ब्याज सहित विलम्ब के लिए धनराशि वापस किया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि यदि शिकायतकर्ता की कोई देय धनराशि में विलम्ब है, तो विपक्षी भी |॥0४+ प्रतिशत की दर से ही ब्याज प्राप्त सकता है। कप o जहां तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है, तो इस सम्बंध में सिविल अपील Wo 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 20I6. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 206 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 के अनुसार ओ.सी. मिलने या कब्जा ऑफर होने, जो भी बाद में हो तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। तद्नुसार बिन्दु सं०-2 निस्तारित किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते है। आदेश ह

4... विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि शिकायतकर्ता को जनवरी 2020 तक यदि कोई देय धनराशि अवशेष है, तो उसे प्राप्त कर शिकायतकर्ता के फ्लैट की समस्त सुविधाओं को पूर्ण कराकर कब्जा दें और देय स्टाम्प Yow प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री कराये। 2. विपक्षी अनुबन्धित अवधि के पश्चात्‌ से ओ.सी./सी.सी. तक की अवधि के लिए शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि पर MCLR+I प्रतिशत ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की धनराशि में समायोजित की जायेगी। ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक होने पर निमयानुसार वापस की जायेगी। 3... शिकायतकर्ता को आदेशित किया जाता है कि पेमेन्ट प्लॉन/अनुबन्ध के अनुसार भुगतान करना सुनिश्चित करें। 4... यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम 2046 के धारा 2 (2०0) के अन्तर्गत परिभाषित किया गया है कि यदि कोई ब्याज दर आवंटी के ol 8 डिफॉल्ट से प्रोमोटर द्वारा लिया जाता है, तो उसी दर से ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा डिफॉल्ट किये जाने पर भी आवंटी को दिया जायेगा। 5. विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को जनवरी 2020 तक कब्जा देने में असफल रहता है, तो जनवरी 2020 के पश्चात्‌ 45 दिन के अन्दर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि 24,67,749 /— रूपये MCLR+I प्रतिशत ब्याज सहित अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। यदि इस इकाई पर बैंक ऋण लिया गया हो, तो पहले भुगतान बैंक को की जाये और शेष धनराशि शिकायतकर्ता को वापस की जाये। 6... इस आदेश का उल्लघंन उ0प्र0भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। दिनांक? /2//2049 > (राजीव कुमार) (अध्यक्ष) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण J

sono Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Wrage | Hearing Bench-04, hu Mr. Rajive Kumar, Chairman Complaint Number-44204823424 Sanjit Kumar Versus M/s Sare Samag Realty Pvt. Ltd. The present application has been instituted by the Complainant against the Opposite Party for cancelling the unit and ard refunding ard refunding the deposited amount with interest. Briefly, the Complainant states that flat No.-0603 in Tower-B of the Opposite Party's project Spring View Heights was booked by the Complainant, for which payment of Rs. 24,67,749/— was made by the Complainant from time to time on an instalment basis. Possession was to be given by the Opposite Party to the Complainant by date 48.02.20I6, but possession has not been given by the Opposite Party till date. The Complainant also states that unit was booked by them under subvention plan in Tower-B, flat number-B 0603 in March 2043 and it was stated in the agreement to give possession in February 206 and now there is delay of more than 3 years from the date of possession. Therefore, through the present application, request has been made by the Complainant against the Opposite Party to dita the unit and get refunded get refunded the deposited amount with interest. In support of his statement, photocopies of home loan agreement, receipts of deposited amount, e-mails etc. have been filed on behalf of the Complainant.

Filing an affidavit, Mr. Deepak Jyoti, Director of the Opposite Party company has stated that the unit, unit number-B 0603 flat Sat agreement, was booked by the Complainant in their project under pre-EMI subvention plan. Construction work in the project is in progress and 53 percent work has been completed. The project will be completed and possession handed over by the date 3.04.2020 given in RERA. Heard both parties and perused the record. >/

2 On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- 4. Can the deposited amount of the Complainant be refunded ? 2... Whether possession and interest for delayed period be awarded to the Complainant ? If yes, what will be the rate of interest ? Disposal of Point No. 4 It was framed to the effect that whether the deposited amount of the Complainant can be refunded? This issue is also framed on the basis of pleadings of the Complainant, the burden of proving which is on the Complainant. It is stated by the Complainant that possession has not been handed over by the Opposite Party within the agreed period, due to which he does not wish to stay with the project and his deposited amount be refunded with interest, whereupon Mr. Deepak Jyoti, Director of the Opposite Party company, filing an affidavit, has stated that the unit, unit number-B 0603 flat buyer agreement, was booked by the Complainant in their project under pre-EMI subvention plan. Construction work in the project is in progress and 53 percent work has been completed. The project will be completed and possession handed over by the date 34.04.2020 given in RERA. As far as the question of refund request by the buyer is concerned, in this regard it is necessary to ver the provisions of the RERA Act holistically so that keeping in view the view of all parties, a balanced decision can be taken | Section is (4) F of RERA Act provides that :- Section 78 (7) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with oY

3 interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed. Thus, dat have the right that if they do not receive possession in accordance with the agreement, they can demand back their deposited amount with interest or remain in the project while receiving interest at monthly rate. In Section 3 of the RERA Act, along with other "functions" of RERA, " to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder " is also mentioned. Similarly in Section 32, among the responsibilities of the Authority for the development of real gee sector, the following are also included :- “32. The 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,....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.”

From the said provisions it is wre that in order to ensure healthy development of "real wee sector", the responsibility of taking appropriate decision viewing holistically the interests of all its we holders rests upon this Authority. In this sequence, by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, in which decision regarding constitutionality of RERA Act was given, Hon'ble High Court made the following scrutiny in paragraph 424 :- nat24, The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing

4 orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth, Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section gaa refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 42, 4, 26 and /9, A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work.” From the above it is clear that after hearing all parties, although in the event of not getting unit in time the allottee has right to demand their amount with interest, nevertheless in view of the above described scrutiny, the Authority, on the basis of all facts of the case, can pass order in accordance with ‘by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allotlices, compensation to the allottees, and_issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit issuing directions for_timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth during completion of project, so on and so forth’. In the context of agers in the interests of allottees demanding return of amount and allottees staying in the project, in the judgment of "Chitra Sharma Versus Union of India" (744 /20' 7), Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observation in paragraph 40 of the judgment: 40. 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

5 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." In view of the "observations" cited in vat cases by the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme zac and the overall framework of the RERA Act, it is also clear that if in every case of delay decision to refund the amount alone is taken, then surely it would not be in accordance with the "objective" and "scheme" of the Act. While deciding on refund, consideration of the "uniqueness" of each case, all facts of the case such as status of "construction", "timeline" of completion, status of "commitment" of offer of possession by promoters, other "Ra holders", especially impact on "allottees" remaining with the project, "consensus" regarding "proposed possession date" etc., would be in the interest of justice. Since Mr. Deepak Jyoti, Director of the Opposite Party company, filing an affidavit, has stated that the unit, unit number-B 0603 flat So agreement, was booked by the Complainant in their project under pre-EMI subvention plan. Construction work in the project is in progress and 53 percent work has been completed. The project will be completed and possession handed over by the date 34.04.2020 given in RERA. In such a situation, it would be appropriate that the Complainant consider getting possession by January 2020 | Certainly, in the event of remaining in the project, interest for delay will be payable to allottees by promoters as per rules. Disposal point wo-7 is disposed of. Disposal point to 2 The Complainant states that possession was to be given by the Opposite Party by date 48.02.206, but possession has not been given till date. In such situation, it appears justified to award interest for the delayed period to the Complainant from after the period stipulated in the agreement till the date of offer of possession along with O.C./C.C. In this regard, it is noteworthy that in the petition of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. etc. Versus Union of India of Maharashtra High Court, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that :- Section 8(4)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment 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 a,

6 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 will be payable in accordance with the agreement entered into between promoter and dar, because the said amount has been utilized by the promoters. As far as the question of payable interest rate is concerned, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale / Lease) Rules sors have been notified on date 47.0.2048 by the State Government under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2076. In WER 9 of the draft sale // lease deed provided as an annexure therein, default events of promoters (Events of default) are defined, wherein in TER 9 (ii) 4 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 mu 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 determined in paragraph 90) in the event of default by allottees. Keeping in view the said provision, returning amount for delay along with interest at the interest rate of MCLR+ percent to the allottee appears justified. It is also clarified that if there is delay in any payable amount of the Complainant, then the Opposite Party can also receive interest only at the rate of MCLRH percent. >

7 As far as the question up to which period interest be awarded is concerned, in this regard in Civil Appeal Wo 6649-50 ,//2048 Supertech Limited Versus Rajni Goyal it has been 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 20I6. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 206 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. " According to ke of the above legal precedent, the Complainant shall be entitled to receive delay interest up to obtaining O.C. or offer of possession, whichever is later. Accordingly, Point No.-2 is disposed of. Disposing of the above points, following orders are passed. Order 4... The Opposite Party is ordered that if any payable amount remains outstanding till January 2020, upon receiving the same, hand over possession after getting all amenities of the Complainant's flat completed, and upon receiving payable stamp duty, get registry done as per rules.

2... The Opposite Party ensure payment of interest at MCLR+I percent on the amount deposited by the Complainant for the period from after the agreed period up to O.C./C.C. This amount of interest shall be adjusted in the amount of final payment. In case the interest amount exceeds the payable amount, it shall be refunded as per rules. 3. The Complainant is ordered to ensure making payment according to payment plan / agreement. 4. It is also clarified that under Section 2 (2o)0) of RERA Act 2046 it has been defined that if any interest rate is charged by the promoter upon allottee's 8 default, then at the same rate interest will also be given to the allottee upon default being made by the promoter. 5... If the Opposite Party fails to give possession to the Complainant by January 2020, then within 45 days after January 2020, ensure payment of deposited amount of Rs. 24,67,749,//- along with interest at MCLR+I percent to the Complainant. If bank loan has been taken on this unit, then payment first be made to bank and remaining amount be refunded to the Complainant. 6. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section-63 of the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 and other relevant provisions. The order be uploaded on the portal. Date? /20//2049 Aust Vo he | 9.2 8: (Rajive Kumar) (Chairman) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority * * * ह॥

sono भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, Wrage | सुनवाई पीठ-04, हु श्री राजीव कुमार, अध्यक्ष शिकायत संख्या-44204823424 संजित कुमार बनाम मैसर्स सारे समग रियलटी प्राएलि0 प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्द यूनिट को कैंसिल कर जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज ard जाने दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना Spring View Heights के टॉवर-बी में फ्लैट नं०-0603 बुक किया गया, जिसके लिए शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 24,67,749,//- रूपये का भुगतान किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा दिनांक 48.02.20I6 तक दिया जाना था, किन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया। शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है उनके द्वारा यूनिट सबवेंशन प्लॉन के तहत टॉवर-बी में फ्लैट संख्या-बी 0603 मार्च 2043 में बुक कराया गया और अनुबन्ध में कब्जा फरवरी 206 में दिये जाने का कथन किया गया था और अब कब्जे की तिथि से 3 वर्ष से अधिक का विलम्ब है। अतः प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्द यूनिट को dita कर जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज दिलाये जाने दिलाये जाने हेतु अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता की ओर से अपने कथन के समर्थन में गृह ऋण अनुबन्ध, जमा धनराशि की रसीदें, ई-मेल आदि की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी है।

विपक्षी कम्पनी के निदेशक श्री दीपक ज्योति द्वारा शपथ पत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा यूनिट उनकी परियोजना में यूनिट संख्या-बी 0603 फ्लैट केता अनुबन्ध प्री-ई.एम.आई सबवेंशन प्लॉन के तहत बुक करायी गयी। परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य प्रगति पर है और 53 प्रतिशत कार्य पूर्ण कर लिया गया है। परियोजना को रेरा में दी गयी तिथि 3.04.2020 तक पूर्ण कर कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। उभयपक्ष को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। oJ 2 पक्षकारों के अभिवचनों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचरित किये गये :- 4... क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जा सकती है ? 2. an शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाये ? यदि हाँ तो ब्याज का दर क्‍या होगा ? निस्तारण बिन्दु to 4 इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जा सकती है? यह वाद बिन्दु भी शिकायतकर्ता के अभिकथनों के आधार पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार शिकायतकर्ता पर है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कथन किया गया है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अनुबंधित अवधि में कब्जा नही दिया गया है, जिस कारण वह परियोजना के साथ नही रहना चाहता है और उसकी जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलायी जाये, जिस पर विपक्षी कम्पनी के निदेशक श्री दीपक ज्योति द्वारा शपथ पत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा यूनिट उनकी परियोजना में यूनिट संख्या-बी 0603 फ्लैट oa अनुबन्ध प्री-ई.एम.आई सबवेंशन प्लॉन के तहत बुक करायी गयी। परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य प्रगति पर है और 53 प्रतिशत कार्य पूर्ण कर लिया गया है। परियोजना को रेरा में दी गयी तिथि 34.04.2020 तक पूर्ण कर कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा।

जहाँ तक dar ger रिफण्ड के अनुरोध का प्रश्न है, इस विषय में रेर अधिनियम के प्राविधानों को समग्र रूप से पढा जाना आवश्यक है ताकि सभी पक्षों के मत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए एक संतुलित निर्णय लिया जा सकें | रेरा एक्ट की धारा 48 (4) F प्राविधान है कि :- Section 78 (7) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with > interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed. इस प्रकार dat को यह अधिकार है कि यदि उन्हें एग्रीमेंट के अनुरूप कब्जा नही मिलता तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि को ब्याज सहित वापिस माँग सकते हैं अथवा मासिक दर से ब्याज प्राप्त करते हुए परियोजना में बने रहें।

रेरा अधिनियम की धारा 3 में रेरा के अन्य “फंग्शन्स” के साथ-साथ " to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder " का भी उल्लेख है। इसी प्रकार धारा 32 में रियल gee सेक्टर के विकास हेतु अथॉरिटी के उत्तरदायित्यों में निम्न भी सम्मिलित हैं :- “32. The 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,....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” उक्त प्राविधानों से यह wre है कि “रियल wee सेक्टर” के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके सभी we deed के हितों को समग्र रूप से देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेने का उत्तरदायित्व इस ऑथरिटी का है। इस कम में मा. मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअरबन प्रा.लि. बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया, जिसमें रेरा अधिनियम की वैद्यानिकता के सम्बंध में निर्णय दिया गया था, के प्रस्तर 424 में मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निम्न संवीक्षण किया :-

१24, The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing 2! orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth, Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section है refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 42, 4, 26 and /9, A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work.” उक्त से स्पष्ट है कि सभी पक्षों को सुनने के बाद, यद्यपि समय से इकाई न मिलने की दशा में आवंटी का अपनी धनराशि ब्याज सहित मांगने का अधिकार है, तथापि उक्त वर्णित संवीक्षा को देखते हुए अथॉरिटी, प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों, के आधार पर “by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the 6//0/66% interest, compensation to the allottees.

and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit issuing directions for timely completion of project transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth during completion of project, so on and so forth’ के अनुरूप आदेया पारित किए जा सकते हैं। एलोटीज द्वारा धनराशि वापस किए जाने व परियोजना में बने रहने वाले एलोटीज के हितों में ager के प्रसंग में “चित्रा शर्मा बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया” (744 /20' 7) के निर्णय में मा. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने निर्णय के wae 40 में निम्न ऑबजरवेशन किया है

40. 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 Y 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." मा. उच्च न्यायालय एवं सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा उक्त प्रस्तरों में उद्धरत

“ऑबजरवेशनस्‌” एवं रेरा एक्ट की समग्र व्यवस्था को देखते हुए यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यदि विलम्ब के प्रत्येक मामले में धनराशि लौटाने का ही निर्णय लिया जाये तो निश्चय ही यह अधिनियम के “ऑबजेक्टिव” तथा “स्कीम” के अनुरूप न होगा। रिफण्ड का निर्णय लेते समय प्रत्येक मामले की “यूनीकनेस” प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों यथा “कन्सट्रक्शन” की स्थिति, कम्पलीशन की “टाईम लाईन”, प्रोमोटर्स के द्वारा ऑफर ऑफ पजेशन के “कमिटमेन्ट” की स्थिति, अन्य “Ro deed", विशेष रूप से परियोजना के साथ बने रहने वाले “एलॉटीज” पर प्रभाव, “प्रस्तावित पज़ेशन डेट” के विषय में “कन्सेन्सस्‌” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। चूंकि विपक्षी कम्पनी के निदेशक श्री दीपक ज्योति द्वारा शपथ पत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा यूनिट उनकी परियोजना में यूनिट संख्या-बी 0603 फ्लैट केता अनुबन्ध प्री-ई.एम.आई सबवेंशन प्लॉन के तहत बुक करायी गयी। परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य प्रगति पर है और 53 प्रतिशत कार्य पूर्ण कर लिया गया है। परियोजना को रेरा में दी गयी तिथि 34.04.2020 तक पूर्ण कर कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। ऐसे में यह उचित होगा कि शिकायतकर्ता जनवरी 2020 तक कब्जा प्राप्त करने हेतु पर विचार करें| निश्चय ही परियोजना में बने रहने की दशा में एलॉटीज़ को विलम्ब हेतु नियमानुसार ब्याज प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा देय होगा। निस्तारण बिन्दु wo-7 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु to 2 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी को दिनांक 48.02.206 तक कब्जा दिया जाना था, किन्तु आज तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया।

ऐसे में शिकायतकर्ता को अनुबन्ध में निर्धारित अवधि के पश्चात्‌ से ओ.सी / सी.सी सहित कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि तक का विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि महाराष्ट्र उच्च न्यायालय के नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया की याचिका में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- Section 8(4)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment 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.

अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व dar के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, तो राज्य सरकार द्वारा- भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2076 के अधीन दिनांक 47.0.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विकय / पटटा के लिए करार) नियमावली oois अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विकय /पटटा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9 (7) में प्रमोटर 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 +% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:

यही दर आवंटियों के द्वारा डिफॉल्ट की स्थिति में भी प्रस्तर 90) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को MCLR+ प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर ब्याज सहित विलम्ब के लिए धनराशि वापस किया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि यदि शिकायतकर्ता की कोई देय धनराशि में विलम्ब है, तो विपक्षी भी |॥0४+ प्रतिशत की दर से ही ब्याज प्राप्त सकता है। कप o जहां तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है, तो इस सम्बंध में सिविल अपील Wo 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 20I6. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 206 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 के अनुसार ओ.सी. मिलने या कब्जा ऑफर होने, जो भी बाद में हो तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। तद्नुसार बिन्दु सं०-2 निस्तारित किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते है। आदेश ह

4... विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि शिकायतकर्ता को जनवरी 2020 तक यदि कोई देय धनराशि अवशेष है, तो उसे प्राप्त कर शिकायतकर्ता के फ्लैट की समस्त सुविधाओं को पूर्ण कराकर कब्जा दें और देय स्टाम्प Yow प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री कराये। 2. विपक्षी अनुबन्धित अवधि के पश्चात्‌ से ओ.सी./सी.सी. तक की अवधि के लिए शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि पर MCLR+I प्रतिशत ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की धनराशि में समायोजित की जायेगी। ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक होने पर निमयानुसार वापस की जायेगी। 3... शिकायतकर्ता को आदेशित किया जाता है कि पेमेन्ट प्लॉन/अनुबन्ध के अनुसार भुगतान करना सुनिश्चित करें। 4... यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम 2046 के धारा 2 (2०0) के अन्तर्गत परिभाषित किया गया है कि यदि कोई ब्याज दर आवंटी के ol 8 डिफॉल्ट से प्रोमोटर द्वारा लिया जाता है, तो उसी दर से ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा डिफॉल्ट किये जाने पर भी आवंटी को दिया जायेगा। 5. विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को जनवरी 2020 तक कब्जा देने में असफल रहता है, तो जनवरी 2020 के पश्चात्‌ 45 दिन के अन्दर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि 24,67,749 /— रूपये MCLR+I प्रतिशत ब्याज सहित अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। यदि इस इकाई पर बैंक ऋण लिया गया हो, तो पहले भुगतान बैंक को की जाये और शेष धनराशि शिकायतकर्ता को वापस की जाये। 6... इस आदेश का उल्लघंन उ0प्र0भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। दिनांक? /2//2049 > (राजीव कुमार) (अध्यक्ष) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण J