U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddha Nagar. Hearing Bench- 01A Shri Rajive Kumar, Chairman Complaint Number :- +TARA 44/0/0204/2020 Satish Bansal vs M/s Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. The present complaint application has been instituted by the complainant against the respondent seeking possession of the allotted plot and delayed interest, alternatively refund of the deposited amount along with interest. In brief, the statement of the complainant is that plot number 96 was booked by them in the respondent's project WAVE CITY NH-24 GHAZIABAD through application form dated 04.44.2005, against which payment of Rs. 43,85,.64/- was made by them from time to time on an installment basis. According to the Residential Plot Allottee Arrangement executed between the parties, possession of the plot was to be delivered by 04.0.2045, but possession was not delivered by the respondent within the stipulated timeframe. The complainant has paid the full sale price. In addition, during the hearing before the Bench on date 04.0.2042, it was stated by the complainant that they are ready to take an equivalent alternative plot in another developed sector of the respondent's project, but the respondent is unwilling to give an alternative plot. Hence, the complainant requested for delivery of possession of the plot and interest for the delayed period.

In support of their statement, receipts of deposited amount and copies of Plot Allottee Arrangement have been filed by the complainant. Submitting written statement, it was stated by the respondent that plot no. 296 in Sector-04 of the project WAVE CITY NH-24 GHAZIABAD was allotted to the complainant. In the agreement executed on 04.0.2042 between the complainant and the respondent, no definite date of possession was given. Under the RERA registration, the completion date of the project is 30.06.2022. They are making efforts to complete the project and will deliver possession to the complainant by the completion date given in RERA. Along with this, during the hearing before the Bench on date 04.0.2042, 23.06.2020, it was stated by the respondent that due to land disputes etc. in Sector-4, development work could not be done; therefore, if the complainant is willing to take an alternative plot in another developed sector, they may be given possession of an equivalent alternative plot in another developed sector. In support of its contention, written arguments, order dated 30.04.2042 passed by the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20.03.20, copy of the project map etc. have been filed by the respondent. Arguments of both parties were heard and the file perused, on the basis of which the following points for determination have been framed:—

1. Whether agreements entered into prior to RERA do not fall within the ambit of RERA? 2. Whether provisions of RERA will not apply when agreement was executed between parties prior to registration in RERA? 3. Whether the present suit is not maintainable prior to the completion date of the project 30.06.2022 given in RERA? 4. Whether the respondent's project was delayed due to force majeure events? If yes, its effect? 5. Whether this Bench lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter due to an arbitration clause in the agreement? 6. Whether the complainant should be granted possession and interest for the delayed period? Determination of Point No. 1 Point No. 1 relates to whether agreements entered into prior to RERA do not fall within the ambit of RERA. In this regard, observation made by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2737 / 2047 "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Union of India" is significant, wherein it was clearly mentioned that:—

"The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section 4(2)(I)(C) enables the promoter to give fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered into between him and the allottees so that he is not visited with penal consequences laid down under RERA. In other words, by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh time line under Section 4(2)(I)(C) he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale." From the aforesaid legal principles, it is clear that according to the provisions of RERA, clauses of completion and handing over possession given in the agreement cannot be rewritten. Under Section 4(2)(I)(C), the promoter can give a fresh timeline, which shall not depend on the agreement, and by virtue of the provisions in the said section the promoter can only be saved from penal consequences under RERA. Therefore, it is held that the promoter is liable for the date of possession given in the agreement. It is also clear under the RERA Act that "ongoing" projects definitely fall within the ambit of the RERA Act. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is disposed of. Determination of Point No.-2

Point No. 2 is framed on the issue whether agreements entered into prior to RERA do not fall within the ambit of RERA? In this regard, observation made by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2737/20i7 "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Union of India" is significant, wherein in paragraph-86 it was clearly mentioned that:— "On behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that registration of ongoing project under RERA would be contrary to the contractual rights established between the promoter and allottee under the agreement for sale executed prior to registration under RERA. In that sense, the provisions have retrospective or retroactive application. After assessing, we find that the projects already completed are not in any way affected and, therefore,no vested or accrued rights are getting affected by RERA. The RERA will apply after getting the project registered. In that sense, the application of RERA is prospective in nature." From the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble High Court, it is clear that although agreement was executed between promoter and allottee prior to RERA registration, if the project is registered in RERA, all provisions of RERA shall apply. It is clear that the project in question is registered in RERA and falls under the ongoing category. In such circumstances, all provisions of RERA shall apply. Accordingly, Point No.-2 is disposed of. Determination of Point No.-3

Point No. 3 is framed on the issue whether the suit is not maintainable prior to the completion period given in RERA? In this regard, observation made by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 277 2047 "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Union of India" is significant, wherein in paragraph-449 it was clearly mentioned that:— "Under the provisions of RERA, the promoter is given a facility to revise the date of completion of project and declare the same under Section 4. The RERA does not contemplate rewriting of contract between the flat purchaser and the promoter. The promoter would tender an application for registration with the necessary preparations and requirements in law."

From the above observation, it is clear that in the RERA Act, registration of incomplete projects is provided under Section 3 and Section 4. Promoter is given registration under Section 4 to complete the project and declare a completion date, so that they can be protected from penal cancellation of registration under Section 7 and 8 of the Act. But it does not mean that the agreement entered into between buyer and promoter stands nullified. In such circumstances, the respondent cannot be freed from contractual liabilities. In the agreement executed between complainant and respondent, possession was to be delivered by 04.0.2045, and the complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for completion date of project 30.06.2022 given in RERA. Under the Act, any aggrieved person has the right to file a complaint before the Authority under Section 31. Therefore, the present complaint is maintainable prior to the completion date given in RERA. Accordingly, Point No.-3 is disposed of. Determination of Point No.-4 Point No.-4 is framed on the issue whether the respondent's project was actually delayed due to force majeure events? If yes, its effect? This point is framed on the assertions of the respondent, the burden of proving which lies on the respondent. In clause 04/40 of the Residential Plot Allottee Arrangement executed between complainant and respondent, it is provided regarding force majeure that:—

"The Applicant(s) agrees that Developer shall not be responsible or liable for not delivering the possession of the Plot on the date of communication of completion/possession of the Plot/Unit by the Developer, if the completion of the Project is delayed due to delay by the statutory authorities in issuing approvals/permissions/sanctions and/or non-availability of essential inputs like steel, cement, bricks, stone, sand and/or water and electricity supply or any other matter beyond Developer's control or by reason of civil commotion, war, enemy action, earthquake, change in laws, court order or any act of God etc. ("Force Majeure Event"). In the event of Force Majeure, the Developer shall be entitled to extension of time in delivery of possession of the Plot. It is further understood and agreed by the Applicant(s) that the Developer as a result of any contingency including force majeure reserves its right to alter, add or vary the terms and conditions of the allotment or if the circumstances beyond Developer's control so warrant, the Developer may suspend the scheme for such period as it may consider expedient and no compensation of any nature whatsoever can be claimed by the Applicant for the period of delay/suspension of scheme."

As stated above, regarding force majeure it is provided that if delay occurs due to non-availability of materials for development, water and electricity facilities, disputes between construction agency and developer, government orders/notifications, riots, earthquake, etc., the developer can refund the money to allottees as per rules of allotment letter. Due to force majeure reasons, terms and conditions of allotment may be varied and if circumstances beyond developer's control warrant, the scheme may be suspended without any compensation. It has been stated on behalf of respondent that due to certain unforeseen events (force majeure events), the project was delayed. No evidence has been filed on record by the respondent in support of any specific force majeure events to show that work on the project land was obstructed. In this regard, the Hon'ble NCDRC in Consumer Complaint No.-4430 / 206 "Neeru Kaushal & Anr. vs Unitech Limited", in paragraph 44 of the judgment, made the following observation regarding delay of project due to force majeure:—

"Coming to the plea of Force Majeure taken by the opposite party. It may be noted that issue raised by the opposite party is no more resintegra. Similar pleas to explain the delay in construction were taken by the opposite party in Consumer Complaint No.347 of 294 Swarm Talwar and 2 Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. and other connected consumer complaints which pertain to the alleged deficiency i.e. failure of the opposite party to deliver possession of the booked apartments in the same project. In the aforesaid matters, Coordinate Bench of this Commission vide order dated 4.08.205 declined to accept the plea of Force Majeure taken by the opposite party. The relevant reasoning of the Coordinate Bench rejecting the plea of Force Majeure is reproduced as under: 'Coming to the pleas that there was recession in the economy and a disruption due to agitation by farmers and acute shortage of labour, etc., the following view taken by us In Satish Kumar Pandey (Supra) is relevant.

"Neither any new legislation was enacted nor an existing rule, regulation or order was amended stopping suspending or delaying the construction of the complex in which apartments were agreed to be sold to the complainants. There is no allegation of any lock-out or strike by the labour at the site of the project. There is no allegation of any slow-down having been resorted to by the labourers of the opposite party or the contractors engaged by it at the site of the project. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God which could have delayed the completion of the project within the time stipulated in the Buyers Agreement. It was contended by the counsel for the OP that the expression 'slow down' would include economic slow-down or recession in the Real Estate sector. I, however, find no merit in this contention. The word 'slow down' having been used alongwith the words lock-out and strike, I has to be read ejusdem generis with the words lock-out and strike and therefore, can mean only a slow down if resorted by the labourers engaged in construction of the project."'" In addition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.-940 / 2047 "Bikram Chatterjee & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.", at page 234 and paragraph 440 of the judgment, defined force majeure as follows:— "Force majeure shall mean a case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature."

From the above definition of force majeure, it is clear that force majeure is a situation in which war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other natural calamity occurs. In the matter in question, the project was delayed due to land disputes etc., which was not within the control of the respondent. Accordingly, Point No.-4 is disposed of. Determination of Point No.-5 Argument was also presented on behalf of the respondent that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, due to which any dispute between complainant and respondent can only be resolved through an arbitrator and this Bench does not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited vs Aftab Singh" 208 SCC Online SC 2 held that:— "Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2046 bars jurisdiction of Civil Court. At the same time, Section 88 of RERA Act provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In addition, Section 89 of RERA Act gives overriding effect to the provisions of this Act over any inconsistent laws. The remedy under RERA is an additional special remedy created by Parliament for the protection of consumers in the real estate sector."

From the aforesaid legal principles, it is clear that the existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement does not bar the jurisdiction of this Authority to hear the complaint under RERA. Therefore, this Bench has full jurisdiction to hear the matter in question. Accordingly, Point No.-5 is disposed of. Determination of Point No.-6 The complainant states that possession was to be delivered by the respondent by date 04.40.20I5 as per the agreement, but possession has not been delivered by the respondent within the specified timeframe. On the other hand, it has been stated by the respondent that in the agreement executed between the parties, no specific date of possession was given. Under RERA registration, the project's completion date is 30.06.2022. Along with this, during hearings before the Bench on date 04.0.2042, 23.06.2020, it was stated by the respondent that due to land disputes etc. in Sector-4, development work could not be carried out; therefore, if the complainant is willing to take an alternative plot in another developed sector, they may be given possession of an equivalent alternative plot in another developed sector.

In support of their statement, a copy of Residential Plot Allottee Arrangement dated 04.40.2042 has been filed by the complainant. Perusal of clause 3.1 thereof reveals that the allottee had to get building plan approved from the competent authority for construction work and complete construction within 3 years from the date of intimation of possession from the respondent, and as per clause 3.2, the complainant had to take possession within 30 days of notice of possession sent by the respondent. But in the matter in question, notice for possession has not been given by the respondent to the complainant till date. In such circumstances, it would not be proper to say that the respondent can deliver possession at their whim and the possession date would be endless. In this regard, in Civil Appeal No. 3533-3534 /207 "M/s Fortune Infrastructures & Anr. vs Trevor D'Lima & Ors.", paragraph 45, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that:—

"Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 204. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered."

According to the aforesaid observation and legal principles of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of a flat. Where possession date is not provided in the agreement, considering the facts and circumstances, a time period of 3 years is considered reasonable for completing this work. In the present case, the Residential Plot Allottee Arrangement was executed on date 04.40.2042. Upon verification on the RERA portal, the date of start of construction work in the project is given as 02.4.203 and the project completion date is given as 29.03.2022. In the matter in question, the project was delayed due to force majeure events like land disputes etc., which was beyond the control of the respondent, due to which hindrance occurred in work. Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, a period of 4.5 years from the date of execution of Residential Plot Allottee Arrangement 04.0.20:2 was a reasonable time period for delivering possession of the flat to the complainant. In such circumstances, the complainant was entitled to receive possession of their flat by date 04.04.2047, but possession was not delivered by the respondent within the stipulated timeframe.

So far as the question of paying interest/amount for the delay in project possession is concerned, directing payment of delayed period interest to the complainant as aforesaid from date 05.04.2047 till obtaining OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later, appears justifiable. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2737/20:7 "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Union of India" held that:— "Section 8()(0) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable."

Therefore, in light of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that under the provisions of U.P. RERA, interest is payable on the delay and principal amount in accordance with the agreement entered into between promoter and buyer, because the said funds were utilized by the promoters. Regarding the question of rate of interest, in Civil Appeal No. 50-50 / 2048 "Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Sangeeta", the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that interest @ 9% per annum is reasonable. In this sequence, on date 47.20.2078, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2048 were notified under the RERA Act, wherein under Rule 9.2(i) and 9.3(i) the interest rate is prescribed as MCLR+1% per annum. As to up to what date interest is payable, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50 / 2048 "Supertech Limited vs Rajni Goyal" held that:— "the period of Interest should close on April 20l6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant —Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 206. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 206 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent — Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession."

According to the aforesaid legal principle, the complainant shall be entitled to receive delayed interest up to obtaining OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. In such circumstances, the complainant shall be entitled to receive interest for delay up to obtaining OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. In addition, in clause-7 of the Model Agreement notified by U.P. Government Housing and Urban Planning Section-3 vide Notification No.-4740 /8—3—78-65 Vividh / 46 dated 7.:0.20i8, it is mentioned regarding force majeure that:— "7. POSSESSION OF THE APARTMENT/PLOT:

Schedule for possession of the said [Apartment/Plot] - The Promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot] to the Allottee and the Common Areas to the association of Allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, is the essence of the Agreement. The Promoter assures to hand over possession of the [Apartment/Plot] along with ready and complete Common Areas with all specifications, amenities and facilities of the Project in place on , unless there is delay or failure due to war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project ("Force Majeure"). If, however, the completion of the Project is delayed due to the Force Majeure conditions then the Allottee agrees that the Promoter shall be entitled to the extension of time for delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot]:"

In this sequence, after considering all relevant facts, on date 20.05.2020, due to the effect of Covid-49 (Corona Virus Disease), an extension of 6 months from date 25.03.2020 i.e. up to date 25.09.2020 was granted by the U.P. RERA Authority for completing all projects, and this period shall be treated as a force majeure period. In view of this, no interest shall be paid by the promoter to allottees for the delay in the project from date 25.03.2020 to date 25.09.2020, nor shall any delayed interest be charged from the complainant. Accordingly, Point No.-6 is disposed of. Disposing of the above points, the following orders are passed: Order The respondent is ordered to deliver possession of an equivalent alternative plot in another developed project with the consent of the complainant at previous rates, for which OC/CC has already been obtained, by date 30.42.2020, otherwise ensure delivery of possession of the original allotted plot to the complainant along with OC/CC by date 34.03.2024 and execute registry as per rules upon receiving due stamp duty.

The respondent shall ensure paying amount as delayed interest at the rate of MCLR + 1% to the complainant from date 05.04.2047 till obtaining OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. Simultaneously, it is also clarified that this interest amount shall be adjusted in the final payment amount, and if the interest amount exceeds the payable amount, it shall be refunded to the complainant as per rules. Keeping the force majeure period in view, interest shall not be calculated for the delay occurred in the project from date 25.03.2020 to date 25.09.2020. The respondent is also directed that under Section 2(za)(i) of the RERA Act, 20:6, if any interest rate is charged by the promoter upon default by the allottee after implementation of RERA, the same interest rate shall be paid to the allottee upon default by the promoter. Therefore, interest at the interest rate of MCLR + 1% shall also be payable by the complainant on delayed payments. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section-63 and other relevant provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046. The order be uploaded on the portal. If this order is not complied with by the respondent, the complainant shall have the right to get their order executed through the RERA Authority. Date: 28 / 07 / 2020 (Rajive Kumar) (Chairman) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर। सुनवाई पीठ-0॥ए श्री राजीव कुमार, अध्यक्ष शिकायत संख्या :- |टारा44/0/0204/2020 सतीश बंसल बनाम मैसर्स उप्पल चढढा हाई-टेक डेवलपर्स wo feo प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध विकसित परियोजना में वैकल्पिक प्लॉट का कब्जा अथवा मूल आवंटित प्लॉट का कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा दिनांक 04.44. 2005 को विपक्षी की परियोजना UCHDPL Sec-I8, Plots 4 प्लॉट संख्या-96 बुक किया गया, जिसके लिए शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 43,85,.64 /— रूपये का भुगतान किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 04.0.2045 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिये जाने का दायित्व था, परन्तु कब्जा अभी तक नहीं दिया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना i वर्ष से अधिक विलम्बित है और विपक्षी द्वारा प्लॉट का कब्जा बुकिंग की तिथि से 36 माह में दिये जाने का आश्वासन दिया गया था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा आवंटन पत्र दिनांक 04.0.2042 को हस्ताक्षरित किया गया। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी की विकसित परियोजना में वैकल्पिक प्लॉट का कब्जा अथवा मूल आवंटित प्लॉट का कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता की ओर से अपने कथन के समर्थन में जमा धनराशि की रसीदें, प्लॉट एलॉटी अरेन्जमेन्ट दिनांक 04.0.2042 की छायाप्रतियाँ दाखिल की गयी हैं।

विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवादपत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को उनकी नामित परियोजना Wave City के Waer-i8 4 प्लॉट TeA-296, Brookwood Enclave आवंटित की गयी थी, परन्तु ले-आऊट में कुछ परिवर्तन होने » 2 के कारण अंतिम रूप से पुनः वही यूनिट आवंटित की गयी । परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण विलम्बित हुई, जो कि उनके नियंत्रण में नहीं था। स्थानीय किसानों द्वारा धरना प्रर्दशन के कारण कार्यों में बाधा उत्पन्न हुई, माननीय न्यायालयों के भूमि अधिग्रहण के wer आदेश के कारण परियोजना विलम्बित हुई। परियोजना रेरा में पंजीकृत करायी गयी है, जिसमें पूर्णता की तिथि 30.06.2022 दी गयी है। उभय पक्षों के मध्य अनुबन्ध दिनांक 04.0.2042 को निष्पादित कराया गया, जिसके अनुसार 36 माह में कब्जा दिया जाना था। इसके अतिरिक्‍त पीठ के समक्ष सुनवाई के दौरान दिनांक 23.06.2020 को विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता के प्लॉट को पूर्ण कर मार्च 202 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। विपक्षी द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में लिखित बहस, माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 30.04.2042, उ0प्र०0 शासन आवास एवं शहरी नियोजन अनुभाग-3 का कार्यालय ज्ञाप दिनांक 20.03.20i7 की छायाप्रतियाँ दाखिल की गयी है। उभयपक्ष के तर्कों को सुना गया व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया, जिसके आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचरित किये गये :- 4... क्या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेरा के दायरे में नहीं आते हैं ? 2. क्या पक्षकारों के मध्य रेरा लागू होने से पूर्व अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किये जाने पर रेरा के प्राविधान लागू नहीं होगें ? 3. क्या प्रश्नगत वाद रेरा में दी गयी परियोजना की पूर्णता तिथि 30.06.2022 से पूर्व पोषणीय नहीं है ?

4. कया force majeure events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? 5... क्‍या अनुबन्ध में आरबिट्रैशन क्लॉज होने के कारण वाद की सुनवाई का क्षेत्रिधिकार इस पीठ को नही है ? 6. क्या शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाये ? निस्तारण बिन्दु dea बिन्दु संख्या इस तथ्य पर Pata है कि क्या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेरा के दायरे में नहीं आते है? इस सम्बन्ध में बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 2737 / 2047 “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्राएलि0 एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया“ में दिया गया आब्जर्वेशन महत्वपूर्ण है जिसमें स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लिखित किया गया है कि — "The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section 4(2)(I)(C) enables the promoter to give fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered into between him and the allottees so that he is not visited with penal consequences laid down under RERA. In other words, by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh time line under Section 4(2)(I)(C) he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale."

उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था से यह we है कि रेरा के प्राविधान के अनुसार अनुबन्ध में दिये गये पूर्णता एवं कब्जे देने के प्रस्तर का पुनर्लेखन नहीं किया जा सकता। धारा 4(2)()(सी) के अन्तर्गत प्रोमोटर एक नई समय सीमा दे सकता है, जो कि अनुबन्ध पर निर्भर नहीं होगा और उक्त धारा रेरा में दिये गये प्राविधान के परिणाम स्वरूप केवल अर्थदंड से बचाया जा सकता है। अतः इससे अवधारित किया जाता है कि प्रोमोटर अनुबन्ध में दिये गये कब्जे की तिथि के लिए उत्तरदायी है। यह भी रेरा अधिनियम में स्पष्ट है कि “ऑन wea” परियोजनायें निश्चित रूप से रेरा अधिनियम की परिधि में आते है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या 4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 बिन्दु संख्या 2 इस तथ्य पर विचरित है क्‍या Ww आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेरा के दायरे में नहीं आते है? इस सम्बन्ध में बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 2737/20i7 “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्राण्लि0 एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया” में दिया गया आब्जर्वेशन महत्वपूर्ण है जिसके प्रस्तर-86 में स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लिखित किया गया है कि-: On behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that registration of ongoing project under RERA would be contrary to the contractual rights established between the promoter and allottee under the agreement for sale executed prior to registration under RERA. In that sense, the provisions have retrospective or retroactive application. After assessing, we find that the projects a

already completed are not in any way affected and, therefore,no vested or accrued rights are getting affected by RERA. The RERA will apply after getting the project registered. In that sense, the application of RERA is prospective in nature. उपरोक्त माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आर्ब्जेवेशन से यह we है कि यद्यपि ww पंजीकरण से पूर्व प्रोमोटर एवं आवंटी के मध्य अनुबन्ध निष्पादित हुए हैं, परन्तु यदि परियोजना को रेरा में पंजीकरण कराया जाता है, तो रेरा के सभी प्राविधान लागू होगें | स्पष्ट है कि प्रश्नगत परियोजना को रेरा में पंजीकृत कराया गया है और यह ऑनगोईंग की श्रेणी में है। ऐसी दशा में रेरा के सभी प्राविधान लागू होगें। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-2 frenRa किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-3 बिन्दु संख्या 3 इस तथ्य पर विचरित है क्या रेरा में दी गयी पूर्णता की अवधि से पूर्व वाद पोषणीय नहीं है ? इस सम्बंध में बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा fe याचिका संख्या- 277 2047 “नीलकमल Raced सबअर्बन प्राएलि0 एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया” में दिया गया आब्जर्वेशन महत्वपूर्ण है, जिसके प्रस्तर-449 में स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लिखित किया गया है कि :- "Under the provisions of RERA, the promoter is given a facility to revise the date of completion of project and declare the same under Section 4. The RERA does not contemplate rewriting of contract between the flat purchaser and the promoter. The promoter would tender an application for registration with the necessary preparations and requirements in law."

उपरोक्त आब्जर्वेशन से यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा अधिनियम में अपूर्ण परियोजना के पूर्णता हेतु नई तिथि दिये जाने की सुविधा दी गयी है, जिससे कि प्रोमोटर अपनी परियोजना के शेष कार्यों को शीघ्र एवं निर्धारित समयावधि के अन्दर पूर्ण कर लें और यह भी स्पष्ट किया गया है कि पूर्व में किये गये अनुबन्ध का पुर्नलेखन नहीं किया जायेगा। ऐसे में विपक्षी का कथन कि प्रश्नगत वाद रेरा में दी गयी तिथि 30.06.2022 से पूर्व पोषणीय न का तर्क बलहीन है। cage बिन्दु संख्या-3 Pena किया जाता है। a ‘) निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 बिन्दु संख्या-4 इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या वास्तव में परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस होने कारण विलम्बित हुई? यह बिन्दु विपक्षी के अभिकथनों पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार विपक्षी पर है। उभय पक्ष के मध्य हस्ताक्षरित अनुबन्ध का प्रस्तर-22 निम्नलिखित उल्लेखित है :- 22. FORCE MAJEURE

The ALLOTTEE agrees that the Allotment of the 'PLOT' is subject to force majeure clause which inter-alia include delay on account of non-availability of steel, cement or any other materials for developing the area and implementation of the Scheme, or water supply or electric power or slow down strike or due to a dispute with the construction agency employed by the DEVELOPER, civil commotion or by reason of war, or enemy action or earthquake or any act of God, delay in certain decisions/clearances from statutory body(ies), or if non- delivery of possession is as a result of any notice, order, rules or notification of the Government and /or any other public or Compatant Authority or for any other reason(s) beyond the control of the DEVELOPER and for any of the aforesaid evet, the DEVELOPER shall be entitled to a reasonable corresponding extension of the time of delivery of possession of the said Plot’ on account of force majeure circumatances and in such eventually the ALLOTTEE(S) will not claim any amount of money by way of refund/damages/compensation/interest, etc. from the DEVELOPER. In ०४४० of DEVELOPER abandoning the scheme for any reason beyond its control then the DEVELOPER'S liability shull be limitd to the refund of the amount paid by the ALLOTTEE(S) as per the terms of Allotment Letter. It is further categorically understood by the Applicant(s) that the Developer as a result of any contingency including force majeure reserves its right to alter, add or vary the terms and conditions of the of the allotment or if the circumstances beyond Developer's control so warrant, the Developer may suspend the scheme for such period as it may consider expedient and no compensation of any nature whatsoever can be claimed by

DIS the Applicant for the period of delay/suspension of scheme. उपरोक्तानुसार फोर्स मैज्योर के सम्बन्ध में यह बताया गया है कि यदि विलम्ब, जैसे कि विकास हेतु समान उपलब्ध न होना, पानी और बिजली की सुविधायें उपलब्ध न होना, निर्माण एजेन्सी एवं विकासकर्ता के मध्य विवाद होना, आदेश, सरकार की अधिसूचना, दंगा, भूकम्प, के कारण परियोजना में विकास नहीं किया जाता है, तो यह विकासकर्ता का दायित्व होगा कि आवंटन पत्र के नियम के अनुसार आवंटियों को पैसा लौटा दिया जायेगा। फोर्स मैज्योर कारणों की वजह से आवंटन के नियम एवं शर्तों में परिवर्तन किया जा सकता है और यदि उक्त फोर्स मैज्योर विकासकर्ता के नियंत्रण से परे पस्थितियों के कारण स्कीम को निरस्त कर सकता है, जिसके लिए कोई क्षतिपूर्ति देय नहीं होगी। विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि कुछ अप्रत्याशित घटनाओं (force majeure events) के कारण परियोजना विलंबित हुई। विपक्षी की ओर से किसी स्पेसिफिक फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के समर्थन में कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर दाखिल नहीं किया गया है, जिससे की विदित हो कि परियोजना की भूमि पर कार्य बाधित हुआ। इस सम्बंध में माननीय एन.सी.डी.आर.सी द्वारा उपभोक्ता शिकायत संख्या-4430,/ 206 “ नीरू कौशल एवं अन्य बनाम यूनिटेक लिमिटेड” में निर्णय के प्रस्तर 44 में फोर्स मैज्योर द्वारा परियोजना विलम्बित होने के लिए निम्न ऑबजरवेशन किया है :-

"Coming to the plea of Force Majeure taken by the opposite party. It may be noted that issue raised by the opposite party is no more resintegra. Similar pleas to explain the delay in construction were taken by the opposite party in Consumer Complaint No.347 of 294 Swarm Talwar and 2 Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. and other connected consumer complaints which pertain to the alleged deficiency i.e. failure of the opposite party to deliver possession of the booked apartments in the same project. In the aforesaid matters, Coordinate Bench of this Commission vide order dated 4.08.205 declined to accept the plea of Force Majeure taken by the opposite party. The relevant reasoning of the Coordinate Bench rejecting the plea of Force Majeure is reproduced as under: "Coming to the pleas that there was recession in the economy and a disruption due to agitation by farmers and acute shortage of labour, etc., the following view taken by us In Satish Kumar Pandey (Supra) is relevant.

"Neither any new legislation was enacted nor an existing rule, regulation or order was amended stopping suspending or delaying the construction of the complex in which apartments were agreed to be sold to the complainants. There is no allegation of any lock- out or strike by the labour at the site of the project. There is no allegation of any slow-down having been resorted to by the labourers of the opposite party or the contractors engaged by it at the site of the project. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God which could have delayed the completion of the project within the time stipulated in the Buyers Agreement. It was contended by the counsel for the OP that the expression 'slow down' would include economic slow- down or recession in the Real Estate sector. I, however, find no merit in this contention. The word ‘slow down' having been used alongwith the words lock-out and strike, I has to be read ejusdem generis with the words lock-out and strike and therefore, can mean only a slow down if resorted by the labourers engaged in construction of the project." इसके अतिरिक्त माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 / 2047 “विकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य” में निर्णय के पृष्ठ संख्या-234 एवं प्रस्तर 440 में फोर्स मैज्योर को निम्नवत्‌ परिभाषित किया हैः- "Force majeure shall mean a case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature."

उपरोक्त फोर्स मैज्योर के परिभाषा से यह स्पष्ट है कि फोर्स मैज्योर वह स्थिति है, जिसमें की युद्ध, बाढ़, सूखा, आग, तूफान, भूकम्प या अन्य प्रकृतिक आपदा आई हो, QI प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में परियोजना भूमि विवाद आदि के कारण विलम्बित हुई है, जो कि विपक्षी के नियंत्रण में नहीं था। तदनुसार बिन्दु संख्या-4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-5 विपक्षी की ओर से यह भी तर्क प्रस्तुत किया गया है कि अनुबन्ध में आरबिट्रेशन का क्लाज है, जिस कारण शिकायतकर्ता व विपक्षी के मध्य किसी भी विवाद को केवल आर्बिट्रेटर के माध्यम से ही निस्तारित किया जा सकता है और इस पीठ को इस शिकायत को सुने जाने की क्षेत्राधिकारिता प्राप्त नही है। इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा “मैसर्स एमआर एम.जी.एफ. लैन्ड लिमिटेड बनाम आफताब सिंह" 208 SCC Online SC 2 में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- “55. In view of the afore-going discussion, we arrive at the following conclusions: (i) the disputes which are to be adjudicated and governed by statutory enactments, established for specific public purpose to sub-serve a particular public policy are not arbitrable; (ii) there are vast domains of the legal universe that are non-arbitrable and kept at a distance from private dispute resolution; (iii) the subject amendment was meant for a completely different purpose, leaving status quo ante unaltered and subsequently reaffirmed and restated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; (iv) Section 2(3)of the Arbitration Act recognizes schemes under other legislations that make disputes non- arbitrable and

माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा पारित उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्थाओ के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि कुछ विवादों का निराकरण आरबिट्रेटर द्वारा आरबिट्रेशन अनुबन्ध के पश्चात्‌ भी नहीं की जा सकती है। विशेष रूप से गठित प्राधिकरणों का क्षेत्राधिकार मात्र आरबिट्रेशन क्लॉज के आवरण से बेदखल नही किया जा सकता है। ऐसे सभी विवाद जिसके लिए विधि द्वारा विशेष निकाय बनाये गये है और इसका क्षेत्राधिकार दिया गया है, इस प्रकार विवाद को निस्तारित करने के लिए आरबिट्रेटर सक्षम नही है। उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्थाओं के प्रकाश में यह स्पष्ट है कि भू-सम्पदा “ms रु 9 एवं विकास प्राधिकरण अधिनियम 2046 की धारा 79, आरबिट्रेशन एक्ट पर अभिभूत होगा। माननीय एन.सी.डी.आर.सी. ने “ए.अय्यास्वामी बनाम पारमाशिवम एवं अन्य“, (206) 0 SCC 386 में दिए तर्क को लागू करने के लिए यह निष्कर्ष निकाला है कि यही सिद्धान्त, रियल एस्टेट अधिनियम के तहत उक्त मामलों में भी लागू होता है, क्योंकि यह अधिनियम गृहकेताओं एवं facet के बीच विवादों के समाधान के लिए एक विशेष तंत्र प्रदान करता है। उपरोक्त प्रतिपादित सिद्धांतों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए विपक्षी द्वारा आरबिट्रेटर को संदर्भित करने का प्रश्न स्वतः समाप्त हो जाता है। तदनुसार बिन्दु संख्या-5 Prem किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-6

शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 04.40.20I5 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिये जाने का दायित्व था, परन्तु कब्जा अभी तक नहीं दिया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना 4 वर्ष से अधिक विलम्बित है और विपक्षी द्वारा प्लॉट का कब्जा बुकिंग की तिथि से 36 माह में दिये जाने का आश्वासन दिया गया था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा आवंटन पत्र दिनांक 04.0.2042 को हस्ताक्षरित किया गया। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी की विकसित परियोजना में वैकल्पिक प्लॉट का कब्जा अथवा मूल आवंटित प्लॉट का कब्जा दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है, जिस पर विपक्षी का कहना है कि उभय पक्षों के मध्य अनुबन्ध दिनांक 04.0.2042 को निष्पादित कराया गया, जिसके अनुसार 36 माह में कब्जा दिया जाना था। इसके अतिरिक्त पीठ के समक्ष सुनवाई के दौरान दिनांक 23.06.2020 को विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता के प्लॉट को पूर्ण कर मार्च 2024 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा।

शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में प्लॉट viel अरेन्जमेन्ट दिनांक o4.020I2 की प्रति दाखिल की गयी है, जिसमें निर्माण एवं कब्जे के meres के अनुसार शिकायतकर्ता को अपने आवंटित प्लॉट पर भवन का निर्माण कार्य हेतु, सक्षम प्राधिकरण से प्लॉन स्वीकृत कराकर, विपक्षी से कब्जे हेतु सूचना प्राप्त करने की तिथि से 3 वर्ष में निर्माण कराया जाना था एवं प्रस्तर--3.2 के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा कब्जे हेतु सूचना भेजे जाने के 30 दिनों में शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा प्राप्त करना था, परन्तु प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जे हेतु सूचना अभी तक नहीं दी गयी है। ऐसे में यह कहना उचित नहीं होगा कि विपक्षी स्वेच्छानुसार कब्जा देगें और कब्जे की तिथि अंतहीन होगी | af १0 इस सम्बन्ध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के सिविल अपील संख्या 3533-3534 /207 “मैसर्स फार्च्यून इन्फास्ट्रक्चर्स एवं अन्य बनाम ट्रेवर डेलिमा एवं अन्य“ के प्रस्तर 45 में स्पष्ट रूप से निर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

"Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 204. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered.

उपरोक्त माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के आर्ब्जेवेशन एवं विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार फ्लैट के कब्जे हेतु किसी व्यक्ति को अनिश्चित समय तक प्रतीक्षा नहीं करा सकता, जहाँ अनुबन्ध में कब्जे की तिथि नहीं दी गयी है वहाँ तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए 3 वर्ष का समयावधि इस कार्य को पूर्ण कराये जाने हेतु उचित समय माना है। प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में रेसीडेन्सियल प्लॉट एलॉटी अरेन्जमेन्ट का निष्पादन दिनांक 04. 40.2042 को किया गया है और रेरा पोर्टल पर जाँच के उपरान्त परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य शुरू किये जाने की तिथि 02.4.203 दी गयी है और परियोजना की पूर्णता तिथि 29.03.2022 दी गयी है। प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में परियोजना भूमि विवाद आदि फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण विलम्बित हुई, जो कि विपक्षी के नियंत्रण में नहीं था, जिस कारण कार्यों में बाधा उत्पन्न हुई। समस्त तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए रेसीडेन्सियल प्लॉट एलॉटी अरेन्जमेन्ट के निष्पादन की तिथि 04.0.20:2 से 4.5 वर्ष में शिकायतकर्ता को फ्लैट का कब्जा दिया जाना उचित समयावधि था। ऐसे में शिकायतकर्ता अपने फ्लैट का > y i2 कब्जा दिनांक 04.04.2047 तक प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा निर्धारित समयावधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया। जहाँ तक परियोजना के कब्जे में हो रहे विलम्ब के लिए ब्याज/धनराशि Rad जाने का प्रश्न है, तो शिकायतकर्ता को उपरोकतानुसार दिनांक 05.04.2047 से ओ.सी /सी.सी अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है।

इस सम्बन्ध में उल्लेखनीय है कि माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 2737/20:7 “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्राणलि0 एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया“ में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- "Section 8()(0) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि 50५0 Ww के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व Sar के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है।

जहाँ तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, तो राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 20i6 के अधीन दिनांक 47.20.2078 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विकय,/पटटा के लिए करार) नियमावली 2048 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विकय/पटटा विलेख के 2 प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.26) में प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है कि :- "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India + % unless provided otherwise under the Rules within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:" यही दर आवंटियों के द्वारा डिफॉल्ट की स्थिति में भी प्रस्तर 9.30) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को MCLR+ प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि यदि शिकायतकर्ता की कोई देय धनराशि में विलम्ब है, तो विपक्षी भी MCLR+I प्रतिशत की दर से ही ब्याज प्राप्त सकता है। जहाँ तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बन्ध में सिविल अपील Wo 6649-50,//2048 "सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल" में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि:-

"the period of Interest should close on April 20 6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 20l6. The Respondent - Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 206 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent — Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession. " उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था के के अनुसार ओ.सी.//सी.सी. मिलने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने हु \ 43 अधिकारी होगा। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता ओ.सी./सी.सी अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो तक की अवधि पर ब्याज पाने के अधिकारी होगें। इसके अतिरिक्त दिनांक 7.:0.20i8 को उ0प्र0 शासन आवास एवं शहरी नियोजन अनुभाग-3 की अधिसूचना संख्या-4740 /8—3—78-65 विविध / 46 के द्वारा मॉडल एग्रीमेन्ट के प्रस्तर-7 में फोर्स मैज्योर के सम्बन्ध में निम्न उल्लेख किया गया है :- 7. POSSESSION OF THE APARTMENT/PLOT:

"प] Schedule for possession of the said [Apartment/Plot] - The Promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot] to the Allottee and the Common Areas to the association of Allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, is the essence of the Agreement. The Promoter assures to hand over possession of the [Apartment/Plot] along with ready and complete Common Areas with all specifications, amenities and facilities of the Project in place on ५ unless there is delay or failure due to war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project ("Force Majeure"). If, however, the completion of the Project is delayed due to the Force Majeure conditions then the Allottee agrees that the Promoter shall be entitled to the extension of time for delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot]}:" इसी कम में समस्त सुसंगत तथ्यों के बाद उ0प्र0 रेरा अथॉरिटी द्वारा दिनांक 20.05. 2020 को कोविड-49 (Corona Virus Disease) के wa के कारण सभी परियोजनाओं को पूर्ण करने हेतु दिनाक 25.03.2020 से 6 माह की अवधि अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक की अवधि दे दी गयी है और यह अवधि फोर्स मैज्योर की अवधि मानी जायेगी। इसको दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03.2020 से दिनांक 25. 09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु कोई ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा आवंटियों को नहीं दिया जाएगा और न ही शिकायतकर्ता से कोई विलम्ब ब्याज लिया जायेगा। तदनुसार बिन्दु संख्या-6 निस्तारित किया जाता है। pi 34

उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते है। आदेश विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह शिकायतकर्ता की सहमति से अपनी किसी अन्य विकसित परियोजना में समकक्ष इकाई का वैकल्पिक प्लॉट पूर्ववर्ती दरों पर, जिसका ओ.सी./सी.सी. प्राप्त किया जा चुका हो, का कब्जा दिनांक 30.42.2020 तक दें अन्यथा शिकायतकर्ता को मूल आवंटित प्लॉट का कब्जा ओ.सी. / सी.सी. सहित दिनांक 34.03.2024 तक देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें। विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 05.04.2047 से ओ.सी /सी.सी अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक विलम्ब ब्याज के रूप में ४टा,२+ प्रतिशत की दर से धनराशि अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। साथ ही यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की धनराशि में समायोजित की जायेगी और यदि ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक है, तो नियमानुसार शिकायतकर्ता को वापस की जाये। फोर्स मैज्योर पीरियड को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03.2020 से दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु ब्याज की गणना नहीं की जायेगी। विपक्षी को यह भी निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम, 20:6 की धारा avai) के अनुसार यदि रेरा लागू होने के बाद कोई ब्याज दर आवंटी के डिफॉल्ट से प्रोमोटर द्वारा लिया जाता है, तो उसी दर से ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा डिफॉल्ट किये जाने पर भी आवंटी को fear जायेगा। अतः विलम्बित भुगतान पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भी MCLR+ प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर से ब्याज देय होगा।

इस आदेश का उल्लघंन भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। यदि विपक्षी द्वारा इस आदेश का अनुपालन नहीं किया जाता है, तो A 5 शिकायतकर्ता को यह अधिकार होगा कि रेरा प्राधिकरण के माध्यम से अपने आदेश का कियान्वयन करा सकेगें। दिनांक =p / 847 2020 (राजीव कुमार) (अध्यक्ष) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण