U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) New Building, State Planning Institute, Kalakankar House, Purana Hyderabad, Lucknow Hearing Bench: Adjudicating Officer Court: Adjudicating Officer Presiding: Harish Tripathi Complaint No.: ADJ/NCR44/0I/26435/2025 Sangeeta Sharma ... Complainants Versus Rise Projects ... Respondent ORDER The complainant, Sangeeta Sharma, has filed a complaint against the opposite party, Rise Projects Pvt Ltd, seeking compensation on the ground that the opposite party failed to discharge its obligations under the Act, the rules or regulations made under it, or other obligations imposed under the sale agreement. The complainant states that the complainant booked 4 unit/shop CANI-UGF-I0 in the opposite party's project "Rise Square-Palm Street, Madison Square, Broadway Street". The sale agreement between the parties was executed on 28-07-2020. The total sale price of the unit was Rs.27,63,750/-. The complainant paid the entire sale price. As per the terms of the sale agreement, possession of the unit was to be delivered by 3-07-2022. The opposite party delivered possession on 29-:2-202:. The construction of the unit has not been completed. A conveyance deed in favour of the complainant has not been executed and registered, which is a violation of the provisions of Section +7 of the RERA Act. The unit is neither habitable nor fit to be rented out. The project work is incomplete. Even the basic facilities have not yet been constructed.

The project's completion/occupancy certificate has also not been obtained from the competent authority. The opposite party executed a lease guarantee agreement, which was effective from 04-06-2024 itself, with a grace period of 06 months. As per the terms of the lease agreement, the opposite party has not paid any lease rent to date. In complaint format-08, the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.763750/- on the ground of failure to discharge the obligations under the Act, its rules or regulations, or the obligations imposed under the sale agreement. The relief sought in the complaint memo is that the opposite party be directed to pay the lease rent. On the basis of the above averments, the complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay the assured lease rent. In support of the statement, the complainant has filed the booking form, the RERA registration, the sale agreement dated 28-07-2020, the lease guarantee agreement, the payment receipts and photographs relating to the project. Denying the averments of the complaint, the opposite party stated in its objection that the complainant has filed the complaint on the basis of incorrect facts, which is an abuse of the legal process. The opposite party states that it handed over physical possession of the complainant's unit/shop on 29-42-2024, six months before the stipulated date of 3i-07-2022. A sub-lease agreement in favour of the complainant was executed on 23-42-2022.

The opposite party also states that the complainant, by an undertaking executed on 04-08-2024, acknowledged that the construction, fittings and fixtures of the unit/shop had been inspected, that the complainant is fully satisfied, and that the complainant committed not to make any claim in future in this regard. The document being presented by the complainant under the name "Lease Guarantee Agreement" is forged, fabricated and cooked up. The alleged agreement was not executed by the parties, and no stamp is affixed to it. The opposite party has also argued that the complainant has filed the complaint seeking compensation on the ground of failure to discharge the obligations imposed under the Act, its rules or regulations, or the sale agreement. The complainant has not made clear which provisions the opposite party failed to comply with. The Hon'ble Authority, in its order dated 23-07-2025 passed in Gupta vs Gaursons India Pvt Ltd, complaint no. 80॥/482344/0/4477/2023, held that to obtain compensation on the ground of failure to discharge the obligations imposed under the rules or regulations or under the sale agreement, the complainant must prove that the opposite party failed to comply with statutory or contractual obligations. It must also be proved what loss or damage was caused to the complainant as a result of the opposite party's failure. No compensation can be accepted without proving these facts.

The opposite party further states that the complainant has filed the complaint regarding lease rent guarantee / assured return, which is an independent commercial arrangement. There is no provision in the RERA Act on the basis of which such compensation can be accepted. In support of its statement, the opposite party has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble UP RERA Appellate Tribunal in Meena Gupta vs Vanplace Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, appeal no. 244/2022, decided on 29-07-2022. On the basis of the above averments, the opposite party has requested that the complaint be dismissed with heavy costs, as the complaint is baseless and the lease agreement is forged, fabricated and cooked up. In support of its statement, the opposite party has filed the possession and handover letter dated 29-42--2024, the sub-lease agreement dated 23-42-2022, the undertaking dated 04-08-2024, the full and final settlement dated 06-42-2024, the order dated 23-07-2025 passed in complaint no. 00॥/081॥44/40/47/2023, Preeti Gupta vs Gaursons Realtech Pvt Ltd, the lease agreement, the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority letter dated 29-07-2020, the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority order dated 29-07-2020, and the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority letter dated 05-04-2022.

The complainant filed a reply to the objection of the opposite party, rebutting the objection averments and reiterating the averments made in the complaint. The learned advocates for the complainant and for the opposite party were heard, and all evidence and material available on the record were carefully examined. After considering the contentions, averments and counter-averments of both parties, and the evidence and material submitted, the following point arises: 4. Whether the Adjudicating Officer can direct the opposite party to pay the assured lease rent amount to the complainant? Point for determination: whether the Adjudicating Officer can direct the opposite party to pay the amount of assured lease rent to the complainant. This point arises from the averments in the complaint and the relief sought, and therefore the burden of proving these averments lies on the complainant. Before considering the above question, it is expedient to mention the relevant legal provisions and judicial decisions. Section 74 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, zor6 provides for the appointment of the adjudicating officer and the power and procedure for adjudging compensation. Section 72 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 206 describes the factors to be taken into account by the adjudicating officer while determining compensation. The provisions of Sections 74 and 72 are as follows: Section eRI-7 Power to adjudicate:-

(1) For the purpose of adjudging compensation under Section 2, 4, 8 and Section 9, the Authority shall appoint, in consultation with the appropriate Government, one or more judicial officers, as deemed necessary, who is or has been a District Judge, to be an adjudicating officer for holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner, after giving any person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided that any person whose complaint in respect of matters covered under Section 2, 4, [8 and Section 9 is pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission, established under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 986 (68 of 986), on or before the commencement of this Act, he may, with the permission of such Forum or Commission, as the case may be, withdraw the complaint pending before it and file an application before the adjudicating officer under this Act. (2) The application for adjudging compensation under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by the adjudicating officer as expeditiously as possible and disposed of within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application. Provided that where any such application could not be disposed of within the said period of sixty days, the adjudicating officer shall record his reasons in writing for not disposing of the application within the period.

(3) While holding an inquiry, the adjudicating officer shall have power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to give evidence or to produce any document which in the opinion of the adjudicating officer may be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry, and if, on such inquiry, he is satisfied that the person has failed to comply with the provisions of any of the sections specified in sub-section (1), he may direct to pay such compensation or interest, as the case may be, as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of any of those sections. Section 72 Factors to be taken into account by the adjudicating officer:- While adjudging the quantum of compensation or interest, as the case may be, under Section 71, the adjudicating officer shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:- (a) The amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; (b) The amount of loss caused as a result of the default; (c) The repetitive nature of the default; (d) Such other factors which the adjudicating officer considers necessary to the case in furtherance of justice. From the above legal provisions it is clear that the adjudicating officer has been appointed under Section 74 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046, to adjudge compensation under Sections ari—i2, 74, 78 and 49 of the Act.

Earlier, it was not clear, with regard to the jurisdiction of the Authority and of the adjudicating officer, which relief would be accepted by the Authority and which relief by the adjudicating officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd vs State of Uttar Pradesh [202] SCC Online 044], has clarified the legal position in paragraph 86 of its judgment. Paragraph 86 reads as follows:

86. From the scheme of the Act of which a detailed reference has been made and taking note of power of adjudication delineated with the regulatory authority and adjudicating officer, what finally culls out is that although the Act indicates the distinct expressions like "refund", "interest", "penalty" and "compensation", a conjoint reading of Sections |8 and 9 clearly manifests that when it comes to refund of the amount, and interest on the refund amount, or directing payment of interest for delayed delivery of possession, or penalty and interest thereon, it is the regulatory authority which has the power to examine and determine the outcome of a complaint. At the same time, when it comes to a question of seeking the relief of adjudging compensation and interest thereon under Sections 2, 4, 8 and 9, the adjudicating officer exclusively has the power to determine, keeping in view the collective reading of Section 7 read with Section 72 of the Act. If the adjudication under Sections 2, l4, |8 and 9 other than compensation as envisaged, if extended to the adjudicating officer as prayed, that, in our view, may intend to expand the ambit and scope of the powers and functions of the adjudicating officer under Section 7 [?] would be against the mandate of the Act 206.

After the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the legal position has become clear: the adjudicating officer will consider only the relief of compensation. The remaining reliefs are to be considered before the Authority. It is well settled that to obtain compensation, it must first be proved that, as a result of the opposite party's failure to comply with a legal provision, the complainant suffered some loss or injury. The inquiry proceedings before the adjudicating officer for determination of compensation are a summary proceeding. In these proceedings compensation is determined only on the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant. Documentary evidence is required to be produced in respect of the loss or damage.

The Hon'ble UP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, in Sujeet Kumar Singh vs M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure, appeal no. 258 0/20/9, has laid down guiding principles for the adjudicating officer to determine compensation under Sections 74 and 72 read with Sections 42, 44, 48 and 49 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the adjudicating officer shall determine compensation under Sections 42, 44, 48 and 49 only after considering the factors mentioned in Section 72. The inquiry before the adjudicating officer to determine the loss caused to the complainant and the compensation is a summary inquiry. Therefore the aggrieved person must produce documentary evidence regarding the loss or damage. The adjudicating officer shall determine the quantum of compensation on the basis of the loss or damage, on the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant, after giving the opposite party an opportunity of hearing. The relevant paragraph of the Tribunal's decision reads: 2.6 The words "failed to comply with the provisions of any of the sections as specified in sub-section (1)" used in Sub-Section (3) of Section 74, mean failure of the promoter to comply with the requirements mentioned in Sections 72, 4, 76 and 79. The Adjudicating Officer, after holding enquiry while adjudging the quantum of compensation or interest, as the case may be, shall have due regard to the factors mentioned in Section 72. The compensation may be adjudged either as a quantitative or as compensatory interest.

42.9 The Adjudicating Officer, thus, has been conferred with power to direct the making of payment of compensation or interest, as the case may be, "as he thinks fit", in accordance with the provisions of Sections 42, 74, 76 and 79 of the Act, after taking into consideration the factors enumerated in Section 72 of the Act. Therefore, for determination of compensation the Adjudicating Officer has to hold an enquiry regarding the injury suffered, and since the proceedings before the Adjudicating Officer are of a summary nature, evidence, rather documentary evidence, is required to be placed by the Appellant/aggrieved person before the Adjudicating Officer, who, after providing opportunity to the respondent, will determine the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the Appellant/aggrieved person, if any. The Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal reiterated the same view in U.S. Singh vs M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure, appeal no. 257 02079. The Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal made a similar observation in Hari Shankar Tripathi vs M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure, appeal no. 72 of 2020, in paragraph wea-7 of the judgment: that the adjudicating officer shall determine the quantum of compensation independently, on the parameters in Section 72 and on the evidence produced by the allottee/complainant regarding loss or damage, after giving both parties an opportunity of hearing. Paragraph 47 of the judgment reads:

On the basis of aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 04.I2.209 passed by the Adjudicating Officer is not sustainable in the eyes of law, accordingly the same is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Officer to examine the issue independently on the parameters of Section 72 of the Act 20I6 and the evidence produced by the allottee/complainant regarding losses suffered due to delay in possession, expeditiously, if possible within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Adjudicating Officer of the Regulatory Authority on !3.04.2022. Thus, in accordance with the settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble UP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, under the RERA Act the adjudicating officer can adjudicate only compensation, under Sections 42, 74, 78 and 49 read with Sections 74 and 72. Compensation cannot be adjudicated by the adjudicating officer otherwise. On the basis of failure to comply with the provisions of Sections ari—2, 44, 78 and ॥9, compensation shall be determined by the adjudicating officer only on the basis of the guiding factors given under Sections 74 and 72. No compensation can be determined apart from Sections 74 and 72.

From the above legal position it is clear that the inquiry before the adjudicating officer to determine compensation is a summary proceeding, in which compensation is determined only on the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant. To determine compensation, the following facts must be proved: 3. The promoter's failure to perform its duties under any provision of Sections 42, 44, 8 and 49. 2. Loss or damage caused to the complainant as a result of the non-compliance. 3. Documentary evidence produced by the complainant regarding the loss or damage. 4. After the complaint's averments are tested on the parameters given in Sections 74 and 72, the complainant is found entitled to compensation for the loss or damage. The complainant has sought relief directing the opposite party to pay the assured lease rent/return. The complainant states that the complainant had booked a unit in the opposite party's project. The opposite party executed a lease rent / assurance agreement in favour of the allottee, under which lease rent was to be paid from 04 June 2024, with a grace period of six months. The opposite party has not paid any lease rent on the basis of the lease guarantee. Therefore a prayer has been made to direct the opposite party to pay the lease rent.

Refuting the averments of the complainant, the opposite party stated that the lease agreement submitted by the complainant is forged and fabricated. The agreement bears no stamp. It was not executed by the parties, so no action can be taken on its basis. The opposite party also stated that the Act has no provision for an order of payment of lease rent on the basis of assurance/guarantee. Such an agreement is an independent commercial arrangement, the main object of which is to earn profit. The complaint is not maintainable in court, and dismissal has been prayed for. In support, the opposite party referred to the decision of the Hon'ble UP RERA Appellate Tribunal in Meena Gupta vs Vanplace Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, appeal no. 244/2022, decided on 29-07-2022. The question now arises for consideration: whether the Adjudicating Officer can pass a direction for payment of assured lease rent/return in favour of the complainant? On a perusal of the provisions of the RERA Act it is clear that the adjudicating officer under Section 74 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046, has been appointed to adjudge compensation under Sections oii, 44, 08 and 49 of the Act. There is no provision under any of Sections 42, 44, 48 and 19 relating to payment of [?].

The Hon'ble UP RERA Appellate Tribunal, in Appeal No. 04 /202, Narendra Verma vs M/s Panchsheel [?] Pvt Ltd, decided on 47-07-2023, held in paragraphs 9.24 and 9.22 of its decision that assured return, committed charges, payment of EMI by the promoter, etc., are independent commercial arrangements. Sometimes promoters make such offers to attract buyers and investors, the main object of which is to earn profit. There is no provision in the RERA Act on the basis of which assured return, committed charges, payment of EMI by the promoter, etc., can be examined and adjudicated. The Tribunal's paragraph 9.2l reads:

9.2l In our considered view, the assured return or committed charges, payment of EMIs by promoter on behalf of buyer etc. are independent commercial arrangements between the parties which sometime a promoter/developer offer, in order to attract buyers/investors or users who may invest either in under construction or pre-launched/new launched projects. Out of these independent commercial arrangements between promoter and buyer, the commercial effect would generally involve transactions having profit as their main aim. Piecing the threads together, therefore, so long as an amount is raised under a real estate agreement, which is done with profit as the main aim, such agreement between the developer and home buyer would have the "commercial effect" as both the parties have "commercial" interest in the same. The real estate developer seeking to make a profit on the sale of the apartment, and the flat/apartment purchaser profiting by the sale of the apartment. Whereas the object of promulgation of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 20 6 aims to create and ensure sale of immovable property in efficient and transparent manner and to protect the interest of the consumers in the real estate sector and not to be the forum for profit purposes/unjust enrichment.

9.22 On the basis of the above, we are of the considered view that there is no provision under the scheme of the Act 20I6 for examining and deciding the issues relating to the provisions of assured return/committed charges or payment of Pre-EMI by promoter for a fixed period or till possession etc., or commercial effect in an allotment letter/builder buyer agreement for purchase of flat/apartment/plot. The issue is answered accordingly. The above legal position of the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal also makes clear that under the RERA Act there is no legal provision relating to passing an order for payment of assured return / lease rent / return. In the judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers, at paragraph 86 of the decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has firmly established that the adjudicating officer can only adjudicate compensation. The other reliefs are to be accepted only by the Authority. As per paragraph 86 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment, the power and jurisdiction to issue directions to ensure compliance with the provisions of the RERA Act vests in the Hon'ble Authority under Section 37 of the RERA Act. The provisions of Section 37 are as follows: Sec. 37. Powers of Authority to issue directions.

The Authority may, for the purpose of discharging its functions under the provisions of this Act or rules or regulations made thereunder, issue directions from time to time, to the promoters or allottees or real estate agents, as the case may be, as it may consider necessary, and such directions shall be binding on all concerned. From the above legal provisions and judgments it is clear that compensation can be determined, under the procedure prescribed in Sections 71 and 72, only upon proof of a violation of any provision of Sections 2, 44, 8 and 19. Under Sections 42, 44, 8 and 19 there is no provision regarding assured return. Therefore the adjudicating officer cannot pass an order for payment of assured return as compensation. Accordingly, in view of the above provisions of Section [?], the power and jurisdiction to direct the opposite party to pay lease rent/return does not vest in the adjudicating officer. The point is therefore decided in the negative, as above. ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is rejected in the interest of justice. The parties shall bear their own costs. The decision be uploaded on the portal. The file be consigned to the record room. Dated: 27-06-2026

E-Court उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण नवीन भवन, राज्य नियोजन संस्थान, कालाकाकर हाऊस, पुराना हैदराबाद, लखनऊ सुनवाई पीठ-न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी न्यायालय _ न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी पीठासीन _ हरीश त्रिपाठी परिवाद संख्या - ADJ/NCR44/0I/26435/2025 Sangeeta Sharma seosesceeeeees Complainants बनाम Rise Projects ५ ३ 9 9 '। व मम अप nese Respondent निर्णय शिकायतकर्ता Sangeeta Sharma ने विपक्षी Rise Projects Pvt Ltd के विरूद्ध अधिनियम या उसके अधीन बनाये गये नियमों या विनियमों या विकय करार के अधीन आरोपित fat अन्य बाध्यताओं का निर्वहन करने में असफल रहने के आधार पर प्रतिकर दिलाये जाने की प्रार्थना के साथ परिवाद प्रस्तुत किया है। शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उसने विपक्षी की परियोजना “Rise Square-Palm Street, Madison Square. Broadway Street” 4 यूनिट /दुकान CANI-UGF-I0 बुक किया। उभयपक्षों के मध्य विक्रय अनुबंध दिनांक 28-07-2020 को निष्पादित किया गया। यूनिट का कुल विक्रय मूल्य रु27,63,750,/- रुपये था। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा सम्पूर्ण विक्रय मूल्य का भुगतान कर दिया गया।

विकय अनुबंध की शर्तों के अनुसार यूनिट का कब्जा 3-07-2022 तक प्रदान किया जाना था। विपक्षी द्वारा कब्जा दिनांक 29-:2-202: को प्रदान कर दिया गया। यूनिट का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण नहीं किया गया। शिकायतकर्ता के पक्ष में हस्तांतरण विलेख निष्पादित व पंजीकृत नहीं कराया गया, जो रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-+7 के प्रावधानों का उललघंन है। यूनिट न तो रहने योग्य है और न ही किराये पर दिये जाने योग्य है। परियोजना का Za कार्य अधूरा है। मूलभूत सुविधाओं का भी निर्माण अभी तक नहीं कराया गया है। << अरियोजना का पूर्णता / अधिभोग प्रमाण पत्र भी सक्षम प्राधिकरण से प्राप्त नहीं किया गया a7) विपक्षी द्वारा लीज गारन्टी ware निष्पादित किया गया था, जो 06 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के साथ दिनांक 04-06-2024 से ही प्रभावी था। लीज TRE एग्रीमेन्ट की शर्तों के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा आज तक कोई भी लीज Se का भुगतान नहीं किया गया है। शिकायत प्रारूप--08 में शिकायतकर्ता ने प्रतिकर का आधार Ze में अधिनियम या Page I of 42 E-Court उसके अधीन बनाये गये नियमों या विनियमों या विकय करार के अधीन आरोपित feet अन्य बाध्यताओं का निर्वहन करने में असफल रहने आधार पर रु.763750/- प्रतिकर का दावा प्रस्तुत किया है। शिकायत मेमो में जो अनुतोष मांगा गया है वह लीज Ye का भुगतान करने हेतु विपक्षी को निर्देशित किये जाने का है। उपरोक्त अभिकथनों के आधार पर oie Se भुगतान करने हेतु विपक्षी को निर्देशित करने की प्रार्थना की गई है। अपने कथन के समर्थन में शिकायतकर्ता ने बुकिंग प्रपत्र, रेरा रजिस्ट्रेशन, विक्रय अनुबन्ध दिनांकित 28-07-2020, लीज गारनन्‍्टी अनुबन्ध, भुगतान की रसीदें तथा परियोजना से संबंधित फोटोग्राफ दाखिल किया है।

शिकायत अभिकथनों का खण्डन करते हुए विपक्षी ने अपनी आपत्ति में यह कथन किया है कि शिकायतकर्ता ने गलत तथ्यों के आधार पर शिकायत प्रस्तुत किया है, जो कानून की प्रक्रिया का दुरूपयोग है। विपक्षी का कथन है कि उसने शिकायतकर्ता को उसकी यूनिट,शॉप का भौतिक कब्जा निर्धारित तिथि 3i-07—-2022 से 06 माह पहले ही दिनांक 29-42-2024 को प्रदान कर दिया गया। शिकायतकर्ता के पक्ष में सबलीज Se अनुबन्ध दिनांक 23-42-2022 को निष्पादित किया गया। विपक्षी का यह भी कथन है कि शिकायतकर्ता ने दिनांक 04-08-2024 को निष्पादित एक अण्डरटेकिंग में यह स्वीकार किया है कि यूनिट, दुकान का निर्माण फिटिंग एवं साज सामान का निरीक्षण किया गया, जिससे शिकायतकर्ता पूर्ण रूप से संतुष्ट है, जिसके संदर्भ में भविष्य में किसी प्रकार का दावा न करने के वचनबद्धता की गयी है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा लीज गारन्‍्टी एग्रीमेन्ट नाम से प्रस्तुत किया जा रहा दस्तावेज जाली, फर्जी व कूटरचित है। कथित अनुबंध उभयपक्षों द्वारा निष्पादित नहीं है और न ही इस पर कोई स्टाम्प लगा है।

विपक्षी की ओर से यह भी तर्क प्रस्तुत किया गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता ने अधिनियम या उसके अधीन बनाये गये नियमों या विनियमों या विकय करार के अधीन आरोपित बाध्यताओं का निर्वहन करने में असफल रहने के आधार पर प्रतिकर दिलाये जाने की प्रार्था के साथ परिवाद प्रस्तुत किया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा यह स्पष्ट नहीं किया he. कि विपक्षी किन प्राविधानों का अनुपालन करने में असफल रहा है। मा. प्राधिकरण ने atten) 5 गुप्ता बनाम गौरसंस इण्डिया प्रा.लि. शिकायकत संख्या-80॥/४८२344/0/4477/2023 का ws पारित आदेश दिनांक 23-07-2025 में यह अवधारित किया है कि नियमों या विनियमों Ie विकय करार के अधीन आरोपित बाध्यताओं का निर्वहन करने में असफल रहने के आधार पर प्रतिकर प्राप्त करने के लिए शिकायतकर्ता को यह साबित AL, किन / ke Page 2 ०42 [ek हा oe : IStt8 cary 4 dT E-Court सांविधिक अथवा संविदात्मक दायित्वों का पालन करने में असफल रहा है। यह भी साबित करना होगा कि विपक्षी के असफल रहने के परिणामस्वरूप क्या क्षति / हानि कारित हुई है। बिना इन तथ्यों को साबित किये कोई प्रतिकर स्वीकार नहीं किया जा सकता। विपक्षी का यह भी कथन है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा लीज रेंट गारन्टी / अश्योर्ड रिटर्न के सम्बन्ध में शिकायत प्रस्तुत किया है, जो कि एक स्वतंत्र वाणिज्यिक व्यवस्था होती है। रेरा अधिनियम, 2046 में इसके सम्बन्ध में कोई प्राविधान नहीं है, जिसके आधार पर प्रतिकर स्वीकार किया जा सके। अपने कथन के समर्थन में विपक्षी ने मीना गुप्ता बनाम वनप्लेस इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर प्रा.लि. अपील संख्या-244 / 2022 निर्णीत दिनांक 29-07-2022 के मामले में मा. उ.प्र. रेरा अपीलीय अधिकरण द्वारा दिये गये निर्णय का संदर्भ लिया गया है।

उपरोक्त अभिकथनों के आधार पर शिकायत बलहीन तथा लीज ARK अनुबन्ध जाली, फर्जी व कूटरचित होने के आधार पर उक्त शिकायत को भारी Wal के साथ खारिज करने का अनुरोध किया गया है। अपने कथन के समर्थन में विपक्षी ने पजेशन एण्ड की हैनच्डओवर लेटर दिनांकित-29-42--2024, सबलीज Ste अनुबंध दिनांकित 23-42-2022, अण्डरटेकिंग दिनांक 04-08-2024, फुल एण्ड फाईनल सेटेलमेंट दिनांक 06-42--2024, शिकायत संख्या--00॥/0८१॥44/40/47/2023 प्रीति गुप्ता बनाम गौरसन्स रियल्टेक प्रा.लि. में पारित आदेश दिनांकित 23-07-2025, लीज aed] अनुबन्ध, ग्रेटर नोएडा औद्योगिक विकास प्राधिकरण का पत्र दिनांकित 29-07-2020, ग्रेटर नोएडा औद्योगिक विकास प्राधिकरण का आदेश दिनांकित 29-07-2020 तथा ग्रेटर नोएडा औद्योगिक विकास प्राधिकरण का पत्र दिनांकित 05-04-2022 दाखिल किया है। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रस्तुत आपत्ति के विरूद्ध शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रत्युत्तरर दाखिल कर आपत्ति कथनों का खण्डन करते हुए शिकायत में किये गये अभिकथनों को पुनः दोहराया शिकायतकर्ता एवं विपक्षी के विद्वान अधिवक्ता के तर्कों को सुना तथा पत्रावली के पर उपलब्ध समस्त साक्ष्य एवं सामग्री का सम्यंक परिशीलन किया। उभयपक्षों के तकों, अभिकथनों, प्रति अभिकथनों तथा प्रस्तुत साक्ष्य व सामग्री पर विचार करने के उपरान्त निम्नलिखित sand बिन्दु उत्पन्न होता है- 4. क्या न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को अश्योर्ड लीज रेन्ट की धनराशि का भुगतान करने हेतु विपक्षी को निर्देशित "ie ज़्म-्सकता है? Page 3 ०42 E-Court अवधार्य बिन्दु We

अवधार्य बिन्दु den- इस आशय का है कि क्‍या न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को अश्योर्ड लीज te की धनराशि का भुगतान करने हेतु विपक्षी को निर्देशित किया जा सकता है? यह अवधार्य बिन्दु शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा परिवाद में किये गये अभिकथनों एवं याचित अनुतोष के आधार पर उत्पन्न हुआ है, अतः इन्हे साबित करने का प्रमाण भार शिकायतकर्ता पर है। उपरोक्त प्रश्न पर विचार करने से पूर्व इस संबंध मे सुसंगत विधिक प्रावधानों एवं न्यायिक निर्णयों का उल्लेख किया जाना समीचीन होगा। धारा-74 भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) afefrar—zor6 में न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी की नियुक्ति एवं क्षतिपूर्ति का न्याय निर्णयन करने की शक्ति एवं प्रक्रिया का उल्लेख किया गया है। धारा-72 भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम-206 में न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा क्षतिपूर्ति का निर्धारण करते समय विचार में रखे जाने वाले कारकों का उल्लेख किया गया है। धारा-74 व धारा-72 के प्रावधान निम्नवत्‌ है - eRI-7 Power to adjudicate;- qd) For the purpose of adjudging compensation under Secion 2, 4, 8 and Saction 9, the Authority shall appoint in consultation with the appropriate Government one or more judicial officer as deemed necessary, who is or has been a District Judge to be an adjudicating officer for holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner, after giving any person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard:

Provided that any person whose complaint in respect of matters covered under Section 2, 4, [8 and Sction 9 is pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal forum or the Consumer Disputes Redressal Comminssion or the National Consumer Redressal Commission, established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 986 (68 of 986), on or before the commencement of this Act, he may, with the permission of such Forum or Commisiion, CE the-ease may Ep "Page 4 of 42 E-Court be, withdraw the complaint pending before it and file an application before the adjudicating officer under this Act. (2) The application for adjudging compensation under sub-sction (), shall be dealt with by the adjudicating officer as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application. Providing that where any such application could not be disposed of within the said period of sixty days, the adjudicating officer shall record his reasons in writing for not disposing of the application within the period

(3) While holding an inquiry the adjudicating officer shall have power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to give evidence or to produce any document which in the opinion of the adjudicating officer, may be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry and if. on such inquiry he is satisfied that the person has failed to comply with the provisions of any of the sections specified in sub-section (]), he may direct to pay such compensation or interest, as the case any be, as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of any of those sections. घारा-72 Factors to be taken into account by the adjudicating officer;- While adjudging the quantum of compensation or interest, as the case may be. under section 7], the adjudicating officer shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:- (a) The amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result or the default; (b) The amount of loss caused as a result or the default; (c) The repetitive nature of the default; Page 5 of 2

(d) Such other factors which the adjudicating officer considers necessary to the case in furtherance of justice. उपरोक्त विधिक प्रावधानों के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट होता है कि भू-सम्पदा (विनियम एवं विकास) अधिनियम-2046 की धारा-74 के अधीन न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी की नियुक्ति अधिनियम की ari—i2, 74, 78 एवं 49 के अधीन क्षतिपूर्ति का न्याय निर्णयन करने के लिए की गयी है। पूर्व में प्राधिकरण एवं न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी की अधिकारिता के संबंध में यह स्पष्ट नहीं था कि कौनसा अनुतोष प्राधिकरण द्वारा स्वीकार किया जायेगा और कौनसा अनुतोष न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा स्वीकार किया जायेगा। Alo सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt' Ltd’ VS State of uttar Pradesh [202] SCC Online 044] के मामले में निर्णय के प्रस्तर-86 में विधिक स्थिति को स्पष्ट कर दिया गया है। प्रस्तर-86 निम्नवत्‌ हैः

86. From the scheme of the Act of which a detailed reference has been made and taking note of power of adjudication delineated with the regulatory authority and adjudicating officer, what finally culls out is that although the Act indicates the distinct expressions like ‘refund’, ‘interest’, ‘penalty’ and ‘compensation’, a conjoint reading of Sections |8 and 9 clearly manifests that when it comes to refund of the amount, and interest on the refund amount, or directing payment of interest for delayed delivery of possession, or penalty and interest thereon, it is the regulatory authority which has the power to examine and determine the outcome of a complaint. At the same time, when it comes to a question of seeking the relief of adjudging compensation and interest thereon under Sections 2. 4, 8 and 9, the adjudicating officer exclusively has the power to determine, keeping in view the collective reading of Section 7 read with Section 72 of the Act. If the adjudication under Sections 2, l4, |8 and 9 other than compensation as envisaged, if extended to the adjudicating officer as prayed that, in our view, may intend to expand the ambit and scope of the powers and functions of the adjudicating officer under Section 7 "CE th: uld be against the mandate of the Act 206. go Page 6 of 2 E-Court

मान. सर्वोच्च न्यायायल के उपरोक्त निर्णय के पश्चात्‌ विधिक स्थिति स्पष्ट हो गयी है। जिसके अनुसार safeties अधिकारी द्वारा मात्र क्षतिपूर्ति के अनुतोष पर विचार किया जायेगा। शेष अनुतोष प्राधिकरण के समक्ष विचाराणीय होगें | यह सुव्यवस्थित विधि है कि प्रतिकर प्राप्त करने के लिए सर्वप्रथम यह साबित करना होगा कि विपक्षी द्वारा किसी विधिक प्राविधान अनुपालन करने में असफल रहने के परिणामस्वरूप शिकायतकर्ता को कोई क्षति /हानि का oka हुई। न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के wa veer निर्धारण हेतु जांच की कार्यवाही एक संक्षिप्त कार्यवाही (Gummary Proceeding) होती है। इस कार्यवाही में शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत किए गये साक्ष्य के आधार पर ही न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा प्रतिकर का निर्धारण किया जाता है। क्षति /हानि के सम्बन्ध में दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य पेश किया जाना आवश्यक है।

मान. उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा अपीलीय अधिकरण ने Sujeet Kumar Singh Vs M/S Ansal Properties & Infrastructure appeal no. 258 ०/20/9 के मामले में न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा Wr अधिनियम की धारा-74 एवं 72 सपठित धारा-42, 44, 48 एवं 49 के अधीन प्रतिकर का निर्धारण करने के लिए मार्गदर्शक सिद्धांत बताये हैं। मान. अपीलीय अधिकरण द्वारा यह अवधारित किया गया है कि न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा धारा-42, 44, 48 एवं 49 के अधीन प्रतिकर का निर्धारण धारा-72 में बताये गये कारकों पर विचार करते हुए ही किया जायेगा। शिकायतकर्ता को कारित क्षति एवं प्रतिकर का निर्धारण करने हेतु न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के समक्ष की जाने वाली जांच की कार्यवाही एक संक्षिप्त जांच (Summary Inquiry) की कार्यवाही होती है। इसलिए आवेदक » पीड़ित व्यक्ति द्वारा हानि/क्षति के सम्बन्ध में दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत किया जाना आवश्यक है। न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा क्षति /“हानि के आधार पर प्रतिकर की मात्रा का निर्धारण शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत किए गये साक्ष्य के आधार, विपक्षी को सुनवाई का अवसर देते हुए ही किया जायेगा। मान. अपीलीय अधिकरण के निर्णय का सुसंगत प्रस्तर निम्नवत है:- +ल्‍॥2.6 The words "failed to comply with the provisions of any of the sections as specified in sub section (727 used in Sub Section (3) of Section 74, mean failure of the promoter to comply with the requirements mentioned in Sections 72, 4, 76 and 79, The Adjudicating Officer after holding enquiry while adjudging the quantum of compensation or

interest as the cause may be, shall have due regard to the factors mentioned in Section 72. The compensation may be adjudged either as a quantitative or as compensatory interest. 42.9 The Adjudicating Officer, thus, has been conferred with power to direct for making payment of compensation or interest, as the case may be, "as he thinks fit" in accordance with the provisions of Sections 42,74,76 and 79 of the Act after taking into consideration the factors enumerated in Section 72 of the Act. Therefore, in our CL E-Court for determination of compensation the Adjudicating Officer has to hold enquiry regarding injury suffered and since the proceedings before the Adjudicating Officer are of summary nature, therefore, evidence, rather documentary evidence, are required to be placed by the Appelant/aggrieved person before the Adjudicating Officer who. afier providing opportunity to the respondent, will determine the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the Appelant/aggrieved person, if any. i मान, अपीलीय अधिकरण ने U.S. Singh Vs M/S Ansal Properties & Infrastructure appeal no. 257 ०2079 के मामले में भी उपरोक्त मत को पुनः दोहराया है।

मान. अपीलीय अधिकरण ने इसी आशय का संप्रेक्षण Hari Shankar Tripathi Vs M/S Ansal Properties & Infrastructure appeal no. 72 of 2020 के मामले में निर्णय के wea-7 में किया है कि न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा धारा-72 में निर्धारित मापदण्डों एवं क्षति /हानि के सम्बन्ध में आवंटी / शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत किए गये साक्ष्य पर उभयपक्षों को सुनवाई का अवसर प्रदान करने के उपरांत स्वतंत्र रूप से विचार करते हुए प्रतिकर की मात्रा का निर्धारण किया जायेगा। निर्णय का प्रस्तर-47 निम्नवत है-- On the basis of aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 04.I2.209 passed by the Adjudicating Officer is not sustainable in the eyes of law, accordingly the same is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Officer to examine the issue independently on the parameters of Section 72 of the Act 20I6 and the evidence produced by the allottee/complainant regarding losses suffered due to delay in possession, expeditiously, if possible within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Adjudicating Officer of the Regulatory Authority on !3.04.2022. इस प्रकार मान. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय एवं मा. उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा अपीलीय अधिकरण द्वारा सुव्यवस्थित विधिक स्थिति के अनुसार रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-42, 74, 78 व 49 सपठित धारा-74 व 72 के अधीन न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा केवल और केवल प्रतिकर

न्यायनिर्णयन न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा नहीं किया जा सकता। ८ पे | 4 प्राविधानों में AS tay > aRi—2, 44, 78 व ॥9 के प्राविधानों का अनुपालन करने में असफल रहने क।ए oY आधार पर प्रतिकर का निर्धारण न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा धारा-7 व 72 के अधीन दिए गये मार्गदर्शक कारकों के आधार पर ही किया जायेगा। Ele व 72 से पृथक जाकर प्रतिकर का कोई निर्धारण नहीं किया जा सकता। — Page 8 042 E-Court उपरोक्त विधिक स्थिति से यह स्पष्ट है कि न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के समक्ष प्रतिकर के निर्धारण हेतु की जाने वाली जांच की कार्यवाही एक संक्षिप्त कार्यवाही होती है, जिसमें शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत किए गये साक्ष्य के आधार पर ही प्रतिकर का निर्धारण किया जाता है। प्रतिकर के निर्धारण हेतु निम्नलिखित तथ्यों को साबित किया जाना आवश्यक है- 3. प्रोमोटर द्वारा धारा--42, 44, 8 व 49 के अधीन किसी प्राविधान में बताये गये अपने कर्त्तव्यों का अनुपालन करने में असफल रहना। 2. अनुपालन में असफलता के परिणामस्वरूप शिकायतकर्ता को क्षति / हानि कारित होना। 3. क्षति / हानि के सम्बन्ध में शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य पेश किया जाना। 4. शिकायत के अभिकथनों का धारा-74 व 72 में दिए गये मापदण्डों की कसौटी पर परीक्षण के उपरांत क्षति /हानि के लिए प्रतिकर का हकदार पाया जाना। शिकायतकर्ता ने अश्योर्ड लीज रेनन्‍्ट/रिटर्न का भुगतान करने हेतु विपक्षी को निर्देशित किये जाने का अनुतोष मांगा है।

शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उसने विपक्षी की परियोजना में यूनिट बुक कराया था। विपक्षी ने आवंटी के पक्ष में लीज TR) एग्रीमेंट / अश्योरेंस निष्पादित किया था, जिसके अनुसार छः: माह की अनुग्रह अवधि सहित 04 जून 2024 से लीज Ve का भुगतान किया जाना था। विपक्षी द्वारा लीज गारन्टी wilde के आधार पर कोई भी लीज रेंट भुगतान नहीं किया है। अतः विपक्षी को लीज रेंट भुगतान करने हेतु निर्देशित करने की प्रार्थना की गई है। Gx शिकायतकर्ता के कथनों का खण्डन करते हुए विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया कि a eee 'शिकायतकर्ता कायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत लीज mt एग्रीमेंट फर्जी व कूट रचित है। एग्रीमेंट पर कोई ७ gereg नहीं है। एग्रीमेंट उभयपक्षों द्वारा निष्पादित नहीं किया गया है, इसलिए इसके आधार ok कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की जा सकती। विपक्षी का यह भी कथन है कि लीज रेंट के सम्बन्ध में WMC /अश्योरेंस के आधार पर भुगतान का आदेश पारित किये जाने के सम्बन्ध Ft अधिनियम में कोई प्राविधान नहीं है। इस प्रकार का अनुबंध एक स्वतंत्र वाणिज्यिक व्यवस्था होती है, जिसका मुख्य उद्देश्य लाभ अर्जित करना होता है। शिकायत न्यायालय में चलने योग्य नहीं है, इसलिए खारिज किये जाने की प्रार्थना की गई है। अपने कथन के समर्थन में विपक्षी ने मीना गुप्ता बनाम वनप्लेस इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर प्रा.लि. अपील संख्या-244 / 2022 निर्णीत दिनांक 29-07-2022 के BE i मा. उ.प्र. रेरा अपीलीय अधिकरण द्वारा दिये गये निर्णय का संदर्भ लिया गया है go a Page 9 of 2 E-Court अब विचारणीय प्रश्न यह उत्पन्न होता है कि क्‍या न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता के पक्ष में अश्योर्ड लीज रेंट /रिटर्न के भुगतान का निर्देश पारित किया जा सकता है?

रेरा अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि भू-सम्पदा (विनियम एवं विकास) afifraa—2oie की धारा-74 के अधीन न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी की नियुक्ति अधिनियम की oii, 44, 08 एवं 49 के अधीन क्षतिपूर्ति का न्‍्यायनिर्णयन करने के लिए की गयी है। धारा-42, 44, 48 एवं १9 में से किसी भी धारा के अन्तर्गत agar cit Yc के भुगतान के सम्बन्ध में कोई के प्राविधान नहीं है। मा. उप्र. Wer अपीलीय अधिकरण ने अपील संख्या-04 /202 नरेन्द्र वर्मा बनाम मेसर्स पंचशील este प्रा.लि. निर्णत दिनांक 47-07-2023 & मामले में निर्णय के प्रस्तर-9.24 एवं 9.22 में यह अवधारित किया है कि अश्योर्ड रिटर्न, कमिटेड चार्जेज, पेमेंट ऑफ ई.एम.आई. बाई प्रोमोटर आदि एक स्वतंत्र वाणिज्यिक व्यवस्था होती है। कभी-कभी प्रोमोटर द्वारा खरीदारों एवं निवेशकों को आकर्षित करने के लिए ऐसे प्रस्ताव दिए जाते हैं, जिनका मुख्य उद्देश्य लाभ अर्जित करना होता है। रेरा अधिनियम में ऐसा कोई भी प्राविधान नहीं है, जिसके आधार पर अश्योर्ड रिटर्न, कमिटेड चार्जेज, पेमेंट ऑफ ई.एम.आई. बाई प्रोमोटर आदि का परीक्षण एवं न्‍्यायनिर्णयन किया जा सके।

9.2l In our considered view, the assured return or committed charges, payment of EMls by promoter on behalf of buyer etc. are independent commercial arrangements between the parties which sometime a promoter/developer offer, in order to attract buyers/investors or users who may invest either in under construction or pre-launched/new launched projects. Out of these independent commercial arrangements between promoter and buyer, the commercial effect would generally involve transactions having profit as their main aim. Piecing the threads together, therefore, so long as an amount is ‘raised under a real estate agreement, which is done with profit as the main aim, such agreement between the developer and home buyer would have the “commercial effect" as both the parties have "commercial" interest in the same The real estate developer seeking to make a profit on the sale of the apartment. and the flat/apartment purchaser profiting by the sale of the apartment. Whereas the object of promulgation of the Real of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 20 6 aims to create and ensure sale of immovable property in efficient and transparent manner and to protect the interest of the consumers in the real estate sector and not to ihe forum for profit purposes/unjust enrichment. ae Page 0 of 2 E-Court

9.22 On the basis of the above. we are of the considered view that there is no provision under the Scheme of Act 20I6 for examining and deciding the issues relating to the provisions of assured return/committed charges or payment of Pre-EMI by promoter for a fixed period or till possession etc. or commercial effect in an allotment letter/builder buyer agreement for purchase of flat/apartment/plot. The issue is answered accordingly. मा. अपीलीय अधिकरण की उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था में भी यह स्पष्ट किया गया है कि रेरा अधिनियम के अंतर्गत अश्योर्ड cha रेन्‍्ट/रिटर्न के भुगतान का आदेश पारित किए जाने से सम्बन्धित कोई विधिक प्राविधान नहीं है। न्यूटेक प्रोमोटर्स एण्ड डेवलपर्स के मामले में पारित निर्णय के प्रस्तर-86 के द्वारा मा. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने सुस्थापित कर दिया है कि न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा मात्र प्रतिकर का न्यायनिर्णयन किया जा सकता है। शेष अन्य अनुतोष प्राधिकरण द्वारा ही स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य हैं। मा. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के निर्णय के प्रस्तर-86 के अनुसार रेरा अधिनियम के प्राविधानों का अनुपालन सुनिश्चित करने हेतु निर्देश देने की शक्ति व अधिकारिता रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-37 के अधीन मा. प्राधिकरण को प्राप्त है। धारा-37 के प्राविधान निम्नवत हैं:- Sec.37. Powers of Authority to issue directions.

The Authority may, for the purpose of discharging its functions under the provisions of this Act or rules or regulations made thereunder, issue directions from time to time, to the promoters or allottees or real estate agents, as the case may be, as it may consider necessary and such directions shall be binding on all concerned. उपरोक्त विधिक प्राविधानों एवं =e निर्णयों के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट है कि 2, 44, 8 व १9 के किसी प्राविधान के उल्लंघन को साबित किए जाने पर ही णयिक अधिकारी द्वारा aRi—7i व 72 के अधीन निर्धारित प्रकिया के अनुसार र का निर्धारण किया जा सकता है। धारा-42, 44, 8 व १9 में से किसी भी धारा के अंतर्गत अश्योर्ड cot Re » रिटर्न के सम्बन्ध में कोई भी प्राविधान नहीं है। इसलिए न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा अश्योर्ड at we »रिटर्न प्रतिकर के रूप में भुगतान किए जाने का आदेश पारित नहीं किया जा सकता | धारा-% के उपरोक्त प्राविधानों के अनुसार seas लीज रेन्ट/रिटर्न का भुगतान करने हेतु विपक्षी को निर्देशित करने की शक्ति व अधिकारिता BE, यिश्निर्णायक्र-अधिकारी को Fines l4 ०42 E-Court प्राप्त नहीं है। gaunt बिन्दु GIA उपरोकतानुसार नकारात्मक रूप से निर्णीत किया जाता है। आदेश शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत परिवाद नन्‍्यायहित में अस्वीकार किया जाता है। पक्षकार अपना-अपना व्यय स्वयं वहन करेंगे। निर्णय को पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। पत्रावली दाखिल दफ्तर की जाय। दिनांक--27--06--2026 Page 42 ए42

U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) New Building, State Planning Institute, Kalakankar House, Purana Hyderabad, Lucknow Hearing Bench: Adjudicating Officer Court: Adjudicating Officer Presiding: Harish Tripathi Complaint No.: ADJ/NCR44/0I/26435/2025 Sangeeta Sharma ... Complainants Versus Rise Projects ... Respondent ORDER The complainant, Sangeeta Sharma, has filed a complaint against the opposite party, Rise Projects Pvt Ltd, seeking compensation on the ground that the opposite party failed to discharge its obligations under the Act, the rules or regulations made under it, or other obligations imposed under the sale agreement. The complainant states that the complainant booked 4 unit/shop CANI-UGF-I0 in the opposite party's project "Rise Square-Palm Street, Madison Square, Broadway Street". The sale agreement between the parties was executed on 28-07-2020. The total sale price of the unit was Rs.27,63,750/-. The complainant paid the entire sale price. As per the terms of the sale agreement, possession of the unit was to be delivered by 3-07-2022. The opposite party delivered possession on 29-:2-202:. The construction of the unit has not been completed. A conveyance deed in favour of the complainant has not been executed and registered, which is a violation of the provisions of Section +7 of the RERA Act. The unit is neither habitable nor fit to be rented out. The project work is incomplete. Even the basic facilities have not yet been constructed.

The project's completion/occupancy certificate has also not been obtained from the competent authority. The opposite party executed a lease guarantee agreement, which was effective from 04-06-2024 itself, with a grace period of 06 months. As per the terms of the lease agreement, the opposite party has not paid any lease rent to date. In complaint format-08, the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.763750/- on the ground of failure to discharge the obligations under the Act, its rules or regulations, or the obligations imposed under the sale agreement. The relief sought in the complaint memo is that the opposite party be directed to pay the lease rent. On the basis of the above averments, the complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay the assured lease rent. In support of the statement, the complainant has filed the booking form, the RERA registration, the sale agreement dated 28-07-2020, the lease guarantee agreement, the payment receipts and photographs relating to the project. Denying the averments of the complaint, the opposite party stated in its objection that the complainant has filed the complaint on the basis of incorrect facts, which is an abuse of the legal process. The opposite party states that it handed over physical possession of the complainant's unit/shop on 29-42-2024, six months before the stipulated date of 3i-07-2022. A sub-lease agreement in favour of the complainant was executed on 23-42-2022.

The opposite party also states that the complainant, by an undertaking executed on 04-08-2024, acknowledged that the construction, fittings and fixtures of the unit/shop had been inspected, that the complainant is fully satisfied, and that the complainant committed not to make any claim in future in this regard. The document being presented by the complainant under the name "Lease Guarantee Agreement" is forged, fabricated and cooked up. The alleged agreement was not executed by the parties, and no stamp is affixed to it. The opposite party has also argued that the complainant has filed the complaint seeking compensation on the ground of failure to discharge the obligations imposed under the Act, its rules or regulations, or the sale agreement. The complainant has not made clear which provisions the opposite party failed to comply with. The Hon'ble Authority, in its order dated 23-07-2025 passed in Gupta vs Gaursons India Pvt Ltd, complaint no. 80॥/482344/0/4477/2023, held that to obtain compensation on the ground of failure to discharge the obligations imposed under the rules or regulations or under the sale agreement, the complainant must prove that the opposite party failed to comply with statutory or contractual obligations. It must also be proved what loss or damage was caused to the complainant as a result of the opposite party's failure. No compensation can be accepted without proving these facts.

The opposite party further states that the complainant has filed the complaint regarding lease rent guarantee / assured return, which is an independent commercial arrangement. There is no provision in the RERA Act on the basis of which such compensation can be accepted. In support of its statement, the opposite party has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble UP RERA Appellate Tribunal in Meena Gupta vs Vanplace Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, appeal no. 244/2022, decided on 29-07-2022. On the basis of the above averments, the opposite party has requested that the complaint be dismissed with heavy costs, as the complaint is baseless and the lease agreement is forged, fabricated and cooked up. In support of its statement, the opposite party has filed the possession and handover letter dated 29-42--2024, the sub-lease agreement dated 23-42-2022, the undertaking dated 04-08-2024, the full and final settlement dated 06-42-2024, the order dated 23-07-2025 passed in complaint no. 00॥/081॥44/40/47/2023, Preeti Gupta vs Gaursons Realtech Pvt Ltd, the lease agreement, the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority letter dated 29-07-2020, the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority order dated 29-07-2020, and the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority letter dated 05-04-2022.

The complainant filed a reply to the objection of the opposite party, rebutting the objection averments and reiterating the averments made in the complaint. The learned advocates for the complainant and for the opposite party were heard, and all evidence and material available on the record were carefully examined. After considering the contentions, averments and counter-averments of both parties, and the evidence and material submitted, the following point arises: 4. Whether the Adjudicating Officer can direct the opposite party to pay the assured lease rent amount to the complainant? Point for determination: whether the Adjudicating Officer can direct the opposite party to pay the amount of assured lease rent to the complainant. This point arises from the averments in the complaint and the relief sought, and therefore the burden of proving these averments lies on the complainant. Before considering the above question, it is expedient to mention the relevant legal provisions and judicial decisions. Section 74 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, zor6 provides for the appointment of the adjudicating officer and the power and procedure for adjudging compensation. Section 72 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 206 describes the factors to be taken into account by the adjudicating officer while determining compensation. The provisions of Sections 74 and 72 are as follows: Section eRI-7 Power to adjudicate:-

(1) For the purpose of adjudging compensation under Section 2, 4, 8 and Section 9, the Authority shall appoint, in consultation with the appropriate Government, one or more judicial officers, as deemed necessary, who is or has been a District Judge, to be an adjudicating officer for holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner, after giving any person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided that any person whose complaint in respect of matters covered under Section 2, 4, [8 and Section 9 is pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission, established under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 986 (68 of 986), on or before the commencement of this Act, he may, with the permission of such Forum or Commission, as the case may be, withdraw the complaint pending before it and file an application before the adjudicating officer under this Act. (2) The application for adjudging compensation under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by the adjudicating officer as expeditiously as possible and disposed of within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application. Provided that where any such application could not be disposed of within the said period of sixty days, the adjudicating officer shall record his reasons in writing for not disposing of the application within the period.

(3) While holding an inquiry, the adjudicating officer shall have power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to give evidence or to produce any document which in the opinion of the adjudicating officer may be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry, and if, on such inquiry, he is satisfied that the person has failed to comply with the provisions of any of the sections specified in sub-section (1), he may direct to pay such compensation or interest, as the case may be, as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of any of those sections. Section 72 Factors to be taken into account by the adjudicating officer:- While adjudging the quantum of compensation or interest, as the case may be, under Section 71, the adjudicating officer shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:- (a) The amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; (b) The amount of loss caused as a result of the default; (c) The repetitive nature of the default; (d) Such other factors which the adjudicating officer considers necessary to the case in furtherance of justice. From the above legal provisions it is clear that the adjudicating officer has been appointed under Section 74 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046, to adjudge compensation under Sections ari—i2, 74, 78 and 49 of the Act.

Earlier, it was not clear, with regard to the jurisdiction of the Authority and of the adjudicating officer, which relief would be accepted by the Authority and which relief by the adjudicating officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd vs State of Uttar Pradesh [202] SCC Online 044], has clarified the legal position in paragraph 86 of its judgment. Paragraph 86 reads as follows:

86. From the scheme of the Act of which a detailed reference has been made and taking note of power of adjudication delineated with the regulatory authority and adjudicating officer, what finally culls out is that although the Act indicates the distinct expressions like "refund", "interest", "penalty" and "compensation", a conjoint reading of Sections |8 and 9 clearly manifests that when it comes to refund of the amount, and interest on the refund amount, or directing payment of interest for delayed delivery of possession, or penalty and interest thereon, it is the regulatory authority which has the power to examine and determine the outcome of a complaint. At the same time, when it comes to a question of seeking the relief of adjudging compensation and interest thereon under Sections 2, 4, 8 and 9, the adjudicating officer exclusively has the power to determine, keeping in view the collective reading of Section 7 read with Section 72 of the Act. If the adjudication under Sections 2, l4, |8 and 9 other than compensation as envisaged, if extended to the adjudicating officer as prayed, that, in our view, may intend to expand the ambit and scope of the powers and functions of the adjudicating officer under Section 7 [?] would be against the mandate of the Act 206.

After the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the legal position has become clear: the adjudicating officer will consider only the relief of compensation. The remaining reliefs are to be considered before the Authority. It is well settled that to obtain compensation, it must first be proved that, as a result of the opposite party's failure to comply with a legal provision, the complainant suffered some loss or injury. The inquiry proceedings before the adjudicating officer for determination of compensation are a summary proceeding. In these proceedings compensation is determined only on the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant. Documentary evidence is required to be produced in respect of the loss or damage.

The Hon'ble UP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, in Sujeet Kumar Singh vs M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure, appeal no. 258 0/20/9, has laid down guiding principles for the adjudicating officer to determine compensation under Sections 74 and 72 read with Sections 42, 44, 48 and 49 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the adjudicating officer shall determine compensation under Sections 42, 44, 48 and 49 only after considering the factors mentioned in Section 72. The inquiry before the adjudicating officer to determine the loss caused to the complainant and the compensation is a summary inquiry. Therefore the aggrieved person must produce documentary evidence regarding the loss or damage. The adjudicating officer shall determine the quantum of compensation on the basis of the loss or damage, on the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant, after giving the opposite party an opportunity of hearing. The relevant paragraph of the Tribunal's decision reads: 2.6 The words "failed to comply with the provisions of any of the sections as specified in sub-section (1)" used in Sub-Section (3) of Section 74, mean failure of the promoter to comply with the requirements mentioned in Sections 72, 4, 76 and 79. The Adjudicating Officer, after holding enquiry while adjudging the quantum of compensation or interest, as the case may be, shall have due regard to the factors mentioned in Section 72. The compensation may be adjudged either as a quantitative or as compensatory interest.

42.9 The Adjudicating Officer, thus, has been conferred with power to direct the making of payment of compensation or interest, as the case may be, "as he thinks fit", in accordance with the provisions of Sections 42, 74, 76 and 79 of the Act, after taking into consideration the factors enumerated in Section 72 of the Act. Therefore, for determination of compensation the Adjudicating Officer has to hold an enquiry regarding the injury suffered, and since the proceedings before the Adjudicating Officer are of a summary nature, evidence, rather documentary evidence, is required to be placed by the Appellant/aggrieved person before the Adjudicating Officer, who, after providing opportunity to the respondent, will determine the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the Appellant/aggrieved person, if any. The Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal reiterated the same view in U.S. Singh vs M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure, appeal no. 257 02079. The Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal made a similar observation in Hari Shankar Tripathi vs M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure, appeal no. 72 of 2020, in paragraph wea-7 of the judgment: that the adjudicating officer shall determine the quantum of compensation independently, on the parameters in Section 72 and on the evidence produced by the allottee/complainant regarding loss or damage, after giving both parties an opportunity of hearing. Paragraph 47 of the judgment reads:

On the basis of aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 04.I2.209 passed by the Adjudicating Officer is not sustainable in the eyes of law, accordingly the same is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Officer to examine the issue independently on the parameters of Section 72 of the Act 20I6 and the evidence produced by the allottee/complainant regarding losses suffered due to delay in possession, expeditiously, if possible within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Adjudicating Officer of the Regulatory Authority on !3.04.2022. Thus, in accordance with the settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble UP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, under the RERA Act the adjudicating officer can adjudicate only compensation, under Sections 42, 74, 78 and 49 read with Sections 74 and 72. Compensation cannot be adjudicated by the adjudicating officer otherwise. On the basis of failure to comply with the provisions of Sections ari—2, 44, 78 and ॥9, compensation shall be determined by the adjudicating officer only on the basis of the guiding factors given under Sections 74 and 72. No compensation can be determined apart from Sections 74 and 72.

From the above legal position it is clear that the inquiry before the adjudicating officer to determine compensation is a summary proceeding, in which compensation is determined only on the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant. To determine compensation, the following facts must be proved: 3. The promoter's failure to perform its duties under any provision of Sections 42, 44, 8 and 49. 2. Loss or damage caused to the complainant as a result of the non-compliance. 3. Documentary evidence produced by the complainant regarding the loss or damage. 4. After the complaint's averments are tested on the parameters given in Sections 74 and 72, the complainant is found entitled to compensation for the loss or damage. The complainant has sought relief directing the opposite party to pay the assured lease rent/return. The complainant states that the complainant had booked a unit in the opposite party's project. The opposite party executed a lease rent / assurance agreement in favour of the allottee, under which lease rent was to be paid from 04 June 2024, with a grace period of six months. The opposite party has not paid any lease rent on the basis of the lease guarantee. Therefore a prayer has been made to direct the opposite party to pay the lease rent.

Refuting the averments of the complainant, the opposite party stated that the lease agreement submitted by the complainant is forged and fabricated. The agreement bears no stamp. It was not executed by the parties, so no action can be taken on its basis. The opposite party also stated that the Act has no provision for an order of payment of lease rent on the basis of assurance/guarantee. Such an agreement is an independent commercial arrangement, the main object of which is to earn profit. The complaint is not maintainable in court, and dismissal has been prayed for. In support, the opposite party referred to the decision of the Hon'ble UP RERA Appellate Tribunal in Meena Gupta vs Vanplace Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, appeal no. 244/2022, decided on 29-07-2022. The question now arises for consideration: whether the Adjudicating Officer can pass a direction for payment of assured lease rent/return in favour of the complainant? On a perusal of the provisions of the RERA Act it is clear that the adjudicating officer under Section 74 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046, has been appointed to adjudge compensation under Sections oii, 44, 08 and 49 of the Act. There is no provision under any of Sections 42, 44, 48 and 19 relating to payment of [?].

The Hon'ble UP RERA Appellate Tribunal, in Appeal No. 04 /202, Narendra Verma vs M/s Panchsheel [?] Pvt Ltd, decided on 47-07-2023, held in paragraphs 9.24 and 9.22 of its decision that assured return, committed charges, payment of EMI by the promoter, etc., are independent commercial arrangements. Sometimes promoters make such offers to attract buyers and investors, the main object of which is to earn profit. There is no provision in the RERA Act on the basis of which assured return, committed charges, payment of EMI by the promoter, etc., can be examined and adjudicated. The Tribunal's paragraph 9.2l reads:

9.2l In our considered view, the assured return or committed charges, payment of EMIs by promoter on behalf of buyer etc. are independent commercial arrangements between the parties which sometime a promoter/developer offer, in order to attract buyers/investors or users who may invest either in under construction or pre-launched/new launched projects. Out of these independent commercial arrangements between promoter and buyer, the commercial effect would generally involve transactions having profit as their main aim. Piecing the threads together, therefore, so long as an amount is raised under a real estate agreement, which is done with profit as the main aim, such agreement between the developer and home buyer would have the "commercial effect" as both the parties have "commercial" interest in the same. The real estate developer seeking to make a profit on the sale of the apartment, and the flat/apartment purchaser profiting by the sale of the apartment. Whereas the object of promulgation of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 20 6 aims to create and ensure sale of immovable property in efficient and transparent manner and to protect the interest of the consumers in the real estate sector and not to be the forum for profit purposes/unjust enrichment.

9.22 On the basis of the above, we are of the considered view that there is no provision under the scheme of the Act 20I6 for examining and deciding the issues relating to the provisions of assured return/committed charges or payment of Pre-EMI by promoter for a fixed period or till possession etc., or commercial effect in an allotment letter/builder buyer agreement for purchase of flat/apartment/plot. The issue is answered accordingly. The above legal position of the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal also makes clear that under the RERA Act there is no legal provision relating to passing an order for payment of assured return / lease rent / return. In the judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers, at paragraph 86 of the decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has firmly established that the adjudicating officer can only adjudicate compensation. The other reliefs are to be accepted only by the Authority. As per paragraph 86 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment, the power and jurisdiction to issue directions to ensure compliance with the provisions of the RERA Act vests in the Hon'ble Authority under Section 37 of the RERA Act. The provisions of Section 37 are as follows: Sec. 37. Powers of Authority to issue directions.

The Authority may, for the purpose of discharging its functions under the provisions of this Act or rules or regulations made thereunder, issue directions from time to time, to the promoters or allottees or real estate agents, as the case may be, as it may consider necessary, and such directions shall be binding on all concerned. From the above legal provisions and judgments it is clear that compensation can be determined, under the procedure prescribed in Sections 71 and 72, only upon proof of a violation of any provision of Sections 2, 44, 8 and 19. Under Sections 42, 44, 8 and 19 there is no provision regarding assured return. Therefore the adjudicating officer cannot pass an order for payment of assured return as compensation. Accordingly, in view of the above provisions of Section [?], the power and jurisdiction to direct the opposite party to pay lease rent/return does not vest in the adjudicating officer. The point is therefore decided in the negative, as above. ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is rejected in the interest of justice. The parties shall bear their own costs. The decision be uploaded on the portal. The file be consigned to the record room. Dated: 27-06-2026

E-Court उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण नवीन भवन, राज्य नियोजन संस्थान, कालाकाकर हाऊस, पुराना हैदराबाद, लखनऊ सुनवाई पीठ-न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी न्यायालय _ न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी पीठासीन _ हरीश त्रिपाठी परिवाद संख्या - ADJ/NCR44/0I/26435/2025 Sangeeta Sharma seosesceeeeees Complainants बनाम Rise Projects ५ ३ 9 9 '। व मम अप nese Respondent निर्णय शिकायतकर्ता Sangeeta Sharma ने विपक्षी Rise Projects Pvt Ltd के विरूद्ध अधिनियम या उसके अधीन बनाये गये नियमों या विनियमों या विकय करार के अधीन आरोपित fat अन्य बाध्यताओं का निर्वहन करने में असफल रहने के आधार पर प्रतिकर दिलाये जाने की प्रार्थना के साथ परिवाद प्रस्तुत किया है। शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उसने विपक्षी की परियोजना “Rise Square-Palm Street, Madison Square. Broadway Street” 4 यूनिट /दुकान CANI-UGF-I0 बुक किया। उभयपक्षों के मध्य विक्रय अनुबंध दिनांक 28-07-2020 को निष्पादित किया गया। यूनिट का कुल विक्रय मूल्य रु27,63,750,/- रुपये था। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा सम्पूर्ण विक्रय मूल्य का भुगतान कर दिया गया।

विकय अनुबंध की शर्तों के अनुसार यूनिट का कब्जा 3-07-2022 तक प्रदान किया जाना था। विपक्षी द्वारा कब्जा दिनांक 29-:2-202: को प्रदान कर दिया गया। यूनिट का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण नहीं किया गया। शिकायतकर्ता के पक्ष में हस्तांतरण विलेख निष्पादित व पंजीकृत नहीं कराया गया, जो रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-+7 के प्रावधानों का उललघंन है। यूनिट न तो रहने योग्य है और न ही किराये पर दिये जाने योग्य है। परियोजना का Za कार्य अधूरा है। मूलभूत सुविधाओं का भी निर्माण अभी तक नहीं कराया गया है। << अरियोजना का पूर्णता / अधिभोग प्रमाण पत्र भी सक्षम प्राधिकरण से प्राप्त नहीं किया गया a7) विपक्षी द्वारा लीज गारन्टी ware निष्पादित किया गया था, जो 06 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के साथ दिनांक 04-06-2024 से ही प्रभावी था। लीज TRE एग्रीमेन्ट की शर्तों के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा आज तक कोई भी लीज Se का भुगतान नहीं किया गया है। शिकायत प्रारूप--08 में शिकायतकर्ता ने प्रतिकर का आधार Ze में अधिनियम या Page I of 42 E-Court उसके अधीन बनाये गये नियमों या विनियमों या विकय करार के अधीन आरोपित feet अन्य बाध्यताओं का निर्वहन करने में असफल रहने आधार पर रु.763750/- प्रतिकर का दावा प्रस्तुत किया है। शिकायत मेमो में जो अनुतोष मांगा गया है वह लीज Ye का भुगतान करने हेतु विपक्षी को निर्देशित किये जाने का है। उपरोक्त अभिकथनों के आधार पर oie Se भुगतान करने हेतु विपक्षी को निर्देशित करने की प्रार्थना की गई है। अपने कथन के समर्थन में शिकायतकर्ता ने बुकिंग प्रपत्र, रेरा रजिस्ट्रेशन, विक्रय अनुबन्ध दिनांकित 28-07-2020, लीज गारनन्‍्टी अनुबन्ध, भुगतान की रसीदें तथा परियोजना से संबंधित फोटोग्राफ दाखिल किया है।

शिकायत अभिकथनों का खण्डन करते हुए विपक्षी ने अपनी आपत्ति में यह कथन किया है कि शिकायतकर्ता ने गलत तथ्यों के आधार पर शिकायत प्रस्तुत किया है, जो कानून की प्रक्रिया का दुरूपयोग है। विपक्षी का कथन है कि उसने शिकायतकर्ता को उसकी यूनिट,शॉप का भौतिक कब्जा निर्धारित तिथि 3i-07—-2022 से 06 माह पहले ही दिनांक 29-42-2024 को प्रदान कर दिया गया। शिकायतकर्ता के पक्ष में सबलीज Se अनुबन्ध दिनांक 23-42-2022 को निष्पादित किया गया। विपक्षी का यह भी कथन है कि शिकायतकर्ता ने दिनांक 04-08-2024 को निष्पादित एक अण्डरटेकिंग में यह स्वीकार किया है कि यूनिट, दुकान का निर्माण फिटिंग एवं साज सामान का निरीक्षण किया गया, जिससे शिकायतकर्ता पूर्ण रूप से संतुष्ट है, जिसके संदर्भ में भविष्य में किसी प्रकार का दावा न करने के वचनबद्धता की गयी है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा लीज गारन्‍्टी एग्रीमेन्ट नाम से प्रस्तुत किया जा रहा दस्तावेज जाली, फर्जी व कूटरचित है। कथित अनुबंध उभयपक्षों द्वारा निष्पादित नहीं है और न ही इस पर कोई स्टाम्प लगा है।

विपक्षी की ओर से यह भी तर्क प्रस्तुत किया गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता ने अधिनियम या उसके अधीन बनाये गये नियमों या विनियमों या विकय करार के अधीन आरोपित बाध्यताओं का निर्वहन करने में असफल रहने के आधार पर प्रतिकर दिलाये जाने की प्रार्था के साथ परिवाद प्रस्तुत किया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा यह स्पष्ट नहीं किया he. कि विपक्षी किन प्राविधानों का अनुपालन करने में असफल रहा है। मा. प्राधिकरण ने atten) 5 गुप्ता बनाम गौरसंस इण्डिया प्रा.लि. शिकायकत संख्या-80॥/४८२344/0/4477/2023 का ws पारित आदेश दिनांक 23-07-2025 में यह अवधारित किया है कि नियमों या विनियमों Ie विकय करार के अधीन आरोपित बाध्यताओं का निर्वहन करने में असफल रहने के आधार पर प्रतिकर प्राप्त करने के लिए शिकायतकर्ता को यह साबित AL, किन / ke Page 2 ०42 [ek हा oe : IStt8 cary 4 dT E-Court सांविधिक अथवा संविदात्मक दायित्वों का पालन करने में असफल रहा है। यह भी साबित करना होगा कि विपक्षी के असफल रहने के परिणामस्वरूप क्या क्षति / हानि कारित हुई है। बिना इन तथ्यों को साबित किये कोई प्रतिकर स्वीकार नहीं किया जा सकता। विपक्षी का यह भी कथन है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा लीज रेंट गारन्टी / अश्योर्ड रिटर्न के सम्बन्ध में शिकायत प्रस्तुत किया है, जो कि एक स्वतंत्र वाणिज्यिक व्यवस्था होती है। रेरा अधिनियम, 2046 में इसके सम्बन्ध में कोई प्राविधान नहीं है, जिसके आधार पर प्रतिकर स्वीकार किया जा सके। अपने कथन के समर्थन में विपक्षी ने मीना गुप्ता बनाम वनप्लेस इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर प्रा.लि. अपील संख्या-244 / 2022 निर्णीत दिनांक 29-07-2022 के मामले में मा. उ.प्र. रेरा अपीलीय अधिकरण द्वारा दिये गये निर्णय का संदर्भ लिया गया है।

उपरोक्त अभिकथनों के आधार पर शिकायत बलहीन तथा लीज ARK अनुबन्ध जाली, फर्जी व कूटरचित होने के आधार पर उक्त शिकायत को भारी Wal के साथ खारिज करने का अनुरोध किया गया है। अपने कथन के समर्थन में विपक्षी ने पजेशन एण्ड की हैनच्डओवर लेटर दिनांकित-29-42--2024, सबलीज Ste अनुबंध दिनांकित 23-42-2022, अण्डरटेकिंग दिनांक 04-08-2024, फुल एण्ड फाईनल सेटेलमेंट दिनांक 06-42--2024, शिकायत संख्या--00॥/0८१॥44/40/47/2023 प्रीति गुप्ता बनाम गौरसन्स रियल्टेक प्रा.लि. में पारित आदेश दिनांकित 23-07-2025, लीज aed] अनुबन्ध, ग्रेटर नोएडा औद्योगिक विकास प्राधिकरण का पत्र दिनांकित 29-07-2020, ग्रेटर नोएडा औद्योगिक विकास प्राधिकरण का आदेश दिनांकित 29-07-2020 तथा ग्रेटर नोएडा औद्योगिक विकास प्राधिकरण का पत्र दिनांकित 05-04-2022 दाखिल किया है। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रस्तुत आपत्ति के विरूद्ध शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रत्युत्तरर दाखिल कर आपत्ति कथनों का खण्डन करते हुए शिकायत में किये गये अभिकथनों को पुनः दोहराया शिकायतकर्ता एवं विपक्षी के विद्वान अधिवक्ता के तर्कों को सुना तथा पत्रावली के पर उपलब्ध समस्त साक्ष्य एवं सामग्री का सम्यंक परिशीलन किया। उभयपक्षों के तकों, अभिकथनों, प्रति अभिकथनों तथा प्रस्तुत साक्ष्य व सामग्री पर विचार करने के उपरान्त निम्नलिखित sand बिन्दु उत्पन्न होता है- 4. क्या न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को अश्योर्ड लीज रेन्ट की धनराशि का भुगतान करने हेतु विपक्षी को निर्देशित "ie ज़्म-्सकता है? Page 3 ०42 E-Court अवधार्य बिन्दु We

अवधार्य बिन्दु den- इस आशय का है कि क्‍या न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को अश्योर्ड लीज te की धनराशि का भुगतान करने हेतु विपक्षी को निर्देशित किया जा सकता है? यह अवधार्य बिन्दु शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा परिवाद में किये गये अभिकथनों एवं याचित अनुतोष के आधार पर उत्पन्न हुआ है, अतः इन्हे साबित करने का प्रमाण भार शिकायतकर्ता पर है। उपरोक्त प्रश्न पर विचार करने से पूर्व इस संबंध मे सुसंगत विधिक प्रावधानों एवं न्यायिक निर्णयों का उल्लेख किया जाना समीचीन होगा। धारा-74 भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) afefrar—zor6 में न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी की नियुक्ति एवं क्षतिपूर्ति का न्याय निर्णयन करने की शक्ति एवं प्रक्रिया का उल्लेख किया गया है। धारा-72 भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम-206 में न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा क्षतिपूर्ति का निर्धारण करते समय विचार में रखे जाने वाले कारकों का उल्लेख किया गया है। धारा-74 व धारा-72 के प्रावधान निम्नवत्‌ है - eRI-7 Power to adjudicate;- qd) For the purpose of adjudging compensation under Secion 2, 4, 8 and Saction 9, the Authority shall appoint in consultation with the appropriate Government one or more judicial officer as deemed necessary, who is or has been a District Judge to be an adjudicating officer for holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner, after giving any person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard:

Provided that any person whose complaint in respect of matters covered under Section 2, 4, [8 and Sction 9 is pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal forum or the Consumer Disputes Redressal Comminssion or the National Consumer Redressal Commission, established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 986 (68 of 986), on or before the commencement of this Act, he may, with the permission of such Forum or Commisiion, CE the-ease may Ep "Page 4 of 42 E-Court be, withdraw the complaint pending before it and file an application before the adjudicating officer under this Act. (2) The application for adjudging compensation under sub-sction (), shall be dealt with by the adjudicating officer as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application. Providing that where any such application could not be disposed of within the said period of sixty days, the adjudicating officer shall record his reasons in writing for not disposing of the application within the period

(3) While holding an inquiry the adjudicating officer shall have power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to give evidence or to produce any document which in the opinion of the adjudicating officer, may be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry and if. on such inquiry he is satisfied that the person has failed to comply with the provisions of any of the sections specified in sub-section (]), he may direct to pay such compensation or interest, as the case any be, as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of any of those sections. घारा-72 Factors to be taken into account by the adjudicating officer;- While adjudging the quantum of compensation or interest, as the case may be. under section 7], the adjudicating officer shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:- (a) The amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result or the default; (b) The amount of loss caused as a result or the default; (c) The repetitive nature of the default; Page 5 of 2

(d) Such other factors which the adjudicating officer considers necessary to the case in furtherance of justice. उपरोक्त विधिक प्रावधानों के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट होता है कि भू-सम्पदा (विनियम एवं विकास) अधिनियम-2046 की धारा-74 के अधीन न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी की नियुक्ति अधिनियम की ari—i2, 74, 78 एवं 49 के अधीन क्षतिपूर्ति का न्याय निर्णयन करने के लिए की गयी है। पूर्व में प्राधिकरण एवं न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी की अधिकारिता के संबंध में यह स्पष्ट नहीं था कि कौनसा अनुतोष प्राधिकरण द्वारा स्वीकार किया जायेगा और कौनसा अनुतोष न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा स्वीकार किया जायेगा। Alo सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt' Ltd’ VS State of uttar Pradesh [202] SCC Online 044] के मामले में निर्णय के प्रस्तर-86 में विधिक स्थिति को स्पष्ट कर दिया गया है। प्रस्तर-86 निम्नवत्‌ हैः

86. From the scheme of the Act of which a detailed reference has been made and taking note of power of adjudication delineated with the regulatory authority and adjudicating officer, what finally culls out is that although the Act indicates the distinct expressions like ‘refund’, ‘interest’, ‘penalty’ and ‘compensation’, a conjoint reading of Sections |8 and 9 clearly manifests that when it comes to refund of the amount, and interest on the refund amount, or directing payment of interest for delayed delivery of possession, or penalty and interest thereon, it is the regulatory authority which has the power to examine and determine the outcome of a complaint. At the same time, when it comes to a question of seeking the relief of adjudging compensation and interest thereon under Sections 2. 4, 8 and 9, the adjudicating officer exclusively has the power to determine, keeping in view the collective reading of Section 7 read with Section 72 of the Act. If the adjudication under Sections 2, l4, |8 and 9 other than compensation as envisaged, if extended to the adjudicating officer as prayed that, in our view, may intend to expand the ambit and scope of the powers and functions of the adjudicating officer under Section 7 "CE th: uld be against the mandate of the Act 206. go Page 6 of 2 E-Court

मान. सर्वोच्च न्यायायल के उपरोक्त निर्णय के पश्चात्‌ विधिक स्थिति स्पष्ट हो गयी है। जिसके अनुसार safeties अधिकारी द्वारा मात्र क्षतिपूर्ति के अनुतोष पर विचार किया जायेगा। शेष अनुतोष प्राधिकरण के समक्ष विचाराणीय होगें | यह सुव्यवस्थित विधि है कि प्रतिकर प्राप्त करने के लिए सर्वप्रथम यह साबित करना होगा कि विपक्षी द्वारा किसी विधिक प्राविधान अनुपालन करने में असफल रहने के परिणामस्वरूप शिकायतकर्ता को कोई क्षति /हानि का oka हुई। न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के wa veer निर्धारण हेतु जांच की कार्यवाही एक संक्षिप्त कार्यवाही (Gummary Proceeding) होती है। इस कार्यवाही में शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत किए गये साक्ष्य के आधार पर ही न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा प्रतिकर का निर्धारण किया जाता है। क्षति /हानि के सम्बन्ध में दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य पेश किया जाना आवश्यक है।

मान. उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा अपीलीय अधिकरण ने Sujeet Kumar Singh Vs M/S Ansal Properties & Infrastructure appeal no. 258 ०/20/9 के मामले में न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा Wr अधिनियम की धारा-74 एवं 72 सपठित धारा-42, 44, 48 एवं 49 के अधीन प्रतिकर का निर्धारण करने के लिए मार्गदर्शक सिद्धांत बताये हैं। मान. अपीलीय अधिकरण द्वारा यह अवधारित किया गया है कि न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा धारा-42, 44, 48 एवं 49 के अधीन प्रतिकर का निर्धारण धारा-72 में बताये गये कारकों पर विचार करते हुए ही किया जायेगा। शिकायतकर्ता को कारित क्षति एवं प्रतिकर का निर्धारण करने हेतु न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के समक्ष की जाने वाली जांच की कार्यवाही एक संक्षिप्त जांच (Summary Inquiry) की कार्यवाही होती है। इसलिए आवेदक » पीड़ित व्यक्ति द्वारा हानि/क्षति के सम्बन्ध में दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत किया जाना आवश्यक है। न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा क्षति /“हानि के आधार पर प्रतिकर की मात्रा का निर्धारण शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत किए गये साक्ष्य के आधार, विपक्षी को सुनवाई का अवसर देते हुए ही किया जायेगा। मान. अपीलीय अधिकरण के निर्णय का सुसंगत प्रस्तर निम्नवत है:- +ल्‍॥2.6 The words "failed to comply with the provisions of any of the sections as specified in sub section (727 used in Sub Section (3) of Section 74, mean failure of the promoter to comply with the requirements mentioned in Sections 72, 4, 76 and 79, The Adjudicating Officer after holding enquiry while adjudging the quantum of compensation or

interest as the cause may be, shall have due regard to the factors mentioned in Section 72. The compensation may be adjudged either as a quantitative or as compensatory interest. 42.9 The Adjudicating Officer, thus, has been conferred with power to direct for making payment of compensation or interest, as the case may be, "as he thinks fit" in accordance with the provisions of Sections 42,74,76 and 79 of the Act after taking into consideration the factors enumerated in Section 72 of the Act. Therefore, in our CL E-Court for determination of compensation the Adjudicating Officer has to hold enquiry regarding injury suffered and since the proceedings before the Adjudicating Officer are of summary nature, therefore, evidence, rather documentary evidence, are required to be placed by the Appelant/aggrieved person before the Adjudicating Officer who. afier providing opportunity to the respondent, will determine the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the Appelant/aggrieved person, if any. i मान, अपीलीय अधिकरण ने U.S. Singh Vs M/S Ansal Properties & Infrastructure appeal no. 257 ०2079 के मामले में भी उपरोक्त मत को पुनः दोहराया है।

मान. अपीलीय अधिकरण ने इसी आशय का संप्रेक्षण Hari Shankar Tripathi Vs M/S Ansal Properties & Infrastructure appeal no. 72 of 2020 के मामले में निर्णय के wea-7 में किया है कि न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा धारा-72 में निर्धारित मापदण्डों एवं क्षति /हानि के सम्बन्ध में आवंटी / शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत किए गये साक्ष्य पर उभयपक्षों को सुनवाई का अवसर प्रदान करने के उपरांत स्वतंत्र रूप से विचार करते हुए प्रतिकर की मात्रा का निर्धारण किया जायेगा। निर्णय का प्रस्तर-47 निम्नवत है-- On the basis of aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 04.I2.209 passed by the Adjudicating Officer is not sustainable in the eyes of law, accordingly the same is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Officer to examine the issue independently on the parameters of Section 72 of the Act 20I6 and the evidence produced by the allottee/complainant regarding losses suffered due to delay in possession, expeditiously, if possible within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Adjudicating Officer of the Regulatory Authority on !3.04.2022. इस प्रकार मान. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय एवं मा. उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा अपीलीय अधिकरण द्वारा सुव्यवस्थित विधिक स्थिति के अनुसार रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-42, 74, 78 व 49 सपठित धारा-74 व 72 के अधीन न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा केवल और केवल प्रतिकर

न्यायनिर्णयन न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा नहीं किया जा सकता। ८ पे | 4 प्राविधानों में AS tay > aRi—2, 44, 78 व ॥9 के प्राविधानों का अनुपालन करने में असफल रहने क।ए oY आधार पर प्रतिकर का निर्धारण न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा धारा-7 व 72 के अधीन दिए गये मार्गदर्शक कारकों के आधार पर ही किया जायेगा। Ele व 72 से पृथक जाकर प्रतिकर का कोई निर्धारण नहीं किया जा सकता। — Page 8 042 E-Court उपरोक्त विधिक स्थिति से यह स्पष्ट है कि न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के समक्ष प्रतिकर के निर्धारण हेतु की जाने वाली जांच की कार्यवाही एक संक्षिप्त कार्यवाही होती है, जिसमें शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत किए गये साक्ष्य के आधार पर ही प्रतिकर का निर्धारण किया जाता है। प्रतिकर के निर्धारण हेतु निम्नलिखित तथ्यों को साबित किया जाना आवश्यक है- 3. प्रोमोटर द्वारा धारा--42, 44, 8 व 49 के अधीन किसी प्राविधान में बताये गये अपने कर्त्तव्यों का अनुपालन करने में असफल रहना। 2. अनुपालन में असफलता के परिणामस्वरूप शिकायतकर्ता को क्षति / हानि कारित होना। 3. क्षति / हानि के सम्बन्ध में शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य पेश किया जाना। 4. शिकायत के अभिकथनों का धारा-74 व 72 में दिए गये मापदण्डों की कसौटी पर परीक्षण के उपरांत क्षति /हानि के लिए प्रतिकर का हकदार पाया जाना। शिकायतकर्ता ने अश्योर्ड लीज रेनन्‍्ट/रिटर्न का भुगतान करने हेतु विपक्षी को निर्देशित किये जाने का अनुतोष मांगा है।

शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उसने विपक्षी की परियोजना में यूनिट बुक कराया था। विपक्षी ने आवंटी के पक्ष में लीज TR) एग्रीमेंट / अश्योरेंस निष्पादित किया था, जिसके अनुसार छः: माह की अनुग्रह अवधि सहित 04 जून 2024 से लीज Ve का भुगतान किया जाना था। विपक्षी द्वारा लीज गारन्टी wilde के आधार पर कोई भी लीज रेंट भुगतान नहीं किया है। अतः विपक्षी को लीज रेंट भुगतान करने हेतु निर्देशित करने की प्रार्थना की गई है। Gx शिकायतकर्ता के कथनों का खण्डन करते हुए विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया कि a eee 'शिकायतकर्ता कायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत लीज mt एग्रीमेंट फर्जी व कूट रचित है। एग्रीमेंट पर कोई ७ gereg नहीं है। एग्रीमेंट उभयपक्षों द्वारा निष्पादित नहीं किया गया है, इसलिए इसके आधार ok कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की जा सकती। विपक्षी का यह भी कथन है कि लीज रेंट के सम्बन्ध में WMC /अश्योरेंस के आधार पर भुगतान का आदेश पारित किये जाने के सम्बन्ध Ft अधिनियम में कोई प्राविधान नहीं है। इस प्रकार का अनुबंध एक स्वतंत्र वाणिज्यिक व्यवस्था होती है, जिसका मुख्य उद्देश्य लाभ अर्जित करना होता है। शिकायत न्यायालय में चलने योग्य नहीं है, इसलिए खारिज किये जाने की प्रार्थना की गई है। अपने कथन के समर्थन में विपक्षी ने मीना गुप्ता बनाम वनप्लेस इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर प्रा.लि. अपील संख्या-244 / 2022 निर्णीत दिनांक 29-07-2022 के BE i मा. उ.प्र. रेरा अपीलीय अधिकरण द्वारा दिये गये निर्णय का संदर्भ लिया गया है go a Page 9 of 2 E-Court अब विचारणीय प्रश्न यह उत्पन्न होता है कि क्‍या न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता के पक्ष में अश्योर्ड लीज रेंट /रिटर्न के भुगतान का निर्देश पारित किया जा सकता है?

रेरा अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि भू-सम्पदा (विनियम एवं विकास) afifraa—2oie की धारा-74 के अधीन न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी की नियुक्ति अधिनियम की oii, 44, 08 एवं 49 के अधीन क्षतिपूर्ति का न्‍्यायनिर्णयन करने के लिए की गयी है। धारा-42, 44, 48 एवं १9 में से किसी भी धारा के अन्तर्गत agar cit Yc के भुगतान के सम्बन्ध में कोई के प्राविधान नहीं है। मा. उप्र. Wer अपीलीय अधिकरण ने अपील संख्या-04 /202 नरेन्द्र वर्मा बनाम मेसर्स पंचशील este प्रा.लि. निर्णत दिनांक 47-07-2023 & मामले में निर्णय के प्रस्तर-9.24 एवं 9.22 में यह अवधारित किया है कि अश्योर्ड रिटर्न, कमिटेड चार्जेज, पेमेंट ऑफ ई.एम.आई. बाई प्रोमोटर आदि एक स्वतंत्र वाणिज्यिक व्यवस्था होती है। कभी-कभी प्रोमोटर द्वारा खरीदारों एवं निवेशकों को आकर्षित करने के लिए ऐसे प्रस्ताव दिए जाते हैं, जिनका मुख्य उद्देश्य लाभ अर्जित करना होता है। रेरा अधिनियम में ऐसा कोई भी प्राविधान नहीं है, जिसके आधार पर अश्योर्ड रिटर्न, कमिटेड चार्जेज, पेमेंट ऑफ ई.एम.आई. बाई प्रोमोटर आदि का परीक्षण एवं न्‍्यायनिर्णयन किया जा सके।

9.2l In our considered view, the assured return or committed charges, payment of EMls by promoter on behalf of buyer etc. are independent commercial arrangements between the parties which sometime a promoter/developer offer, in order to attract buyers/investors or users who may invest either in under construction or pre-launched/new launched projects. Out of these independent commercial arrangements between promoter and buyer, the commercial effect would generally involve transactions having profit as their main aim. Piecing the threads together, therefore, so long as an amount is ‘raised under a real estate agreement, which is done with profit as the main aim, such agreement between the developer and home buyer would have the “commercial effect" as both the parties have "commercial" interest in the same The real estate developer seeking to make a profit on the sale of the apartment. and the flat/apartment purchaser profiting by the sale of the apartment. Whereas the object of promulgation of the Real of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 20 6 aims to create and ensure sale of immovable property in efficient and transparent manner and to protect the interest of the consumers in the real estate sector and not to ihe forum for profit purposes/unjust enrichment. ae Page 0 of 2 E-Court

9.22 On the basis of the above. we are of the considered view that there is no provision under the Scheme of Act 20I6 for examining and deciding the issues relating to the provisions of assured return/committed charges or payment of Pre-EMI by promoter for a fixed period or till possession etc. or commercial effect in an allotment letter/builder buyer agreement for purchase of flat/apartment/plot. The issue is answered accordingly. मा. अपीलीय अधिकरण की उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था में भी यह स्पष्ट किया गया है कि रेरा अधिनियम के अंतर्गत अश्योर्ड cha रेन्‍्ट/रिटर्न के भुगतान का आदेश पारित किए जाने से सम्बन्धित कोई विधिक प्राविधान नहीं है। न्यूटेक प्रोमोटर्स एण्ड डेवलपर्स के मामले में पारित निर्णय के प्रस्तर-86 के द्वारा मा. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने सुस्थापित कर दिया है कि न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा मात्र प्रतिकर का न्यायनिर्णयन किया जा सकता है। शेष अन्य अनुतोष प्राधिकरण द्वारा ही स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य हैं। मा. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के निर्णय के प्रस्तर-86 के अनुसार रेरा अधिनियम के प्राविधानों का अनुपालन सुनिश्चित करने हेतु निर्देश देने की शक्ति व अधिकारिता रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-37 के अधीन मा. प्राधिकरण को प्राप्त है। धारा-37 के प्राविधान निम्नवत हैं:- Sec.37. Powers of Authority to issue directions.

The Authority may, for the purpose of discharging its functions under the provisions of this Act or rules or regulations made thereunder, issue directions from time to time, to the promoters or allottees or real estate agents, as the case may be, as it may consider necessary and such directions shall be binding on all concerned. उपरोक्त विधिक प्राविधानों एवं =e निर्णयों के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट है कि 2, 44, 8 व १9 के किसी प्राविधान के उल्लंघन को साबित किए जाने पर ही णयिक अधिकारी द्वारा aRi—7i व 72 के अधीन निर्धारित प्रकिया के अनुसार र का निर्धारण किया जा सकता है। धारा-42, 44, 8 व १9 में से किसी भी धारा के अंतर्गत अश्योर्ड cot Re » रिटर्न के सम्बन्ध में कोई भी प्राविधान नहीं है। इसलिए न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा अश्योर्ड at we »रिटर्न प्रतिकर के रूप में भुगतान किए जाने का आदेश पारित नहीं किया जा सकता | धारा-% के उपरोक्त प्राविधानों के अनुसार seas लीज रेन्ट/रिटर्न का भुगतान करने हेतु विपक्षी को निर्देशित करने की शक्ति व अधिकारिता BE, यिश्निर्णायक्र-अधिकारी को Fines l4 ०42 E-Court प्राप्त नहीं है। gaunt बिन्दु GIA उपरोकतानुसार नकारात्मक रूप से निर्णीत किया जाता है। आदेश शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत परिवाद नन्‍्यायहित में अस्वीकार किया जाता है। पक्षकार अपना-अपना व्यय स्वयं वहन करेंगे। निर्णय को पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। पत्रावली दाखिल दफ्तर की जाय। दिनांक--27--06--2026 Page 42 ए42