U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddha Nagar. Bench-04 Attendance:- Smt. Kalpana Mishra, Member Sl. No. | Complaint Number | Complainant 1. | NCR44/0/0683/2020 | Smt. Shikha Gupta wife of Shri Saurabh Gupta 2. | NCRI44/09/2272/209 | Sandeep Shukla versus M/s Elegant Infracon Pvt. Ltd. A case has been instituted against the respondent by the complainant Smt. Shikha Gupta wife of Shri Saurabh Gupta along with 01 other complainant. The facts of both these complaints are similar and evidence is identical. Both these complaints relate to the same project ELEGANT VILLE (Phase-1). Therefore, their disposal is being made through a single decision. Complaint Number-NCR44/0/0683/2020 Smt. Shikha Gupta wife of Shri Saurabh Gupta shall remain the lead case. The present complaint applications have been instituted by the complainants against the respondent seeking possession along with delayed period interest, otherwise refund of deposited amount along with interest; and refund of deposited amount along with interest has been demanded by complainant Sandeep Shukla.

In brief, the statement of the complainant is that unit PeN-A-I207A was booked by them in the respondent's project ELEGANT VILLE (PHASE-I), for which payment of Rs. 33,5,043/- was made by them to the respondent from time to time on an installment basis. The complainant states that according to the agreement, possession was to be delivered after completion by date 02.04.20I8, but possession has not been delivered by the respondent yet, nor has the project been completed. For this reason, a complaint has been registered by the complainant against the respondent under Section-34 of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act. In support of their statement, copies of documents such as allotment letter dated 07.03.2046, builder buyer agreement dated 03.04.2046, demand letters, receipts of deposited amount, etc. have been filed on behalf of the complainant.

Filing written statement, it was stated by the respondent that on directions of the National Green Tribunal, Noida Development Authority imposed a ban on groundwater extraction, causing delay in arranging water supply for the project, for which the respondent is not liable. In addition, under the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 04.4.2049, a ban was imposed on construction in the entire Delhi NCR due to increasing pollution, in compliance of which the construction work of the project was stopped by the respondent. It was also stated by the respondent that unit was booked by the complainant in their project, but construction work of the project was obstructed due to Covid-19 pandemic, causing delay in completing the project. The respondent also states that due to ill health of the company's director Shri Abhay Kumar in year 2048, Shri Akshay Tyagi was made director of the company, who misused his powers, committed fraud against the company and allottees, and caused damage to the company through mismanagement, whereupon Shri Abhay Kumar approached NCLT Delhi, through which Shri Akshay Tyagi was removed from the post of director of the company. This is also one reason for the delay in the project. The respondent stated in its written statement that they would complete the project and make possession of their unit available to the complainant by February, 2022. Written statement was filed by the respondent in support of its statement.

Arguments of both parties were heard and the file was perused. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following points were framed for determination :- 1. Whether the respondent's project was delayed due to Force Majeure Events? If yes, its effect. 2. Whether the deposited amount of the complainant can be refunded along with interest? 3. Whether the complainant should be granted possession and delayed period interest? If yes, what will be the rate of interest? Determination of Point No. 1: Point No. 1 has been framed to the effect whether the respondent's project was delayed due to Force Majeure Events? If yes, its effect? This issue has also been framed on the basis of pleadings of the respondent, the burden of proving which lies on the respondent. On behalf of the respondent, it was stated that the project was delayed due to some unexpected events (Force Majeure Events) (such as riots, agitation, strikes, industrial disputes, obstruction of services and supplies at the project, change in government policies, obstruction of work due to judicial orders, judgments and decrees, delay in licenses and recommendations, etc.); neither was it stated on behalf of the respondent as to on account of which force majeure events its project was delayed, nor has any evidence regarding force majeure events been filed on record.

In addition, in the same order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Civil Appeal No.-940 // 2047 "Bikram Chatterjee and others versus Union of India and others" at page number-234 and page 440 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 that situation where war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or other natural calamity has occurred; in the case in question no such circumstance has arisen, and the respondent in such a situation is not entitled to get the benefit of this argument. No such evidence has been filed by the respondent from which it can be known that construction work of the project was banned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court and NGT. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is disposed of. Determination of Point No. 2: Point No. 2 has been framed to the effect whether the deposited amount of the complainant can be refunded along with interest? This issue has also been framed on the basis of pleadings of the complainant, the burden of proving which lies on the complainant. It has been stated by the complainant that possession was not delivered by the respondent within the agreed period, on account of which they do not wish to remain with the project and they have demanded refund of deposited amount along with interest.

As far as the question of request for refund by the purchaser is concerned, in this matter it is necessary to read the provisions of the RERA Act as a whole, so that a balanced decision can be taken keeping in view the viewpoints of all parties. Section 48 (4) of the RERA Act provides that :- "Section 8 (4) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed."

In this way, the purchaser has the right that if they do not get possession in accordance with the agreement, they can demand their deposited amount back with interest or remain in the project while receiving interest at a monthly rate. In Section 34 of the RERA Act, along with other functions of RERA, "to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder" is also mentioned. Similarly, in Section 32, among the responsibilities of the Authority for development of the real estate sector, the following are also included :- “32. The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a)protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent,....... any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” From the said provisions it is clear that for ensuring healthy development of the "real estate sector", the responsibility lies upon this Authority to take appropriate decisions viewing the interests of all its stakeholders comprehensively.

In this sequence, by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India", wherein decision was given regarding validity of the RERA Act, at paragraph 424 the Hon'ble High Court made the following observation :- “24. The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth. Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. From this it is clear that after hearing all parties, although in the event of not getting the unit on time, the allottee has the right to demand their amount with interest, nevertheless in view of the above observation, the Authority, on the basis of all facts of the case, can pass orders conforming to 'by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth'.

In the context of balancing the interests between allottees seeking refund of amount and allottees remaining in the project, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of "Chitra Sharma versus Union of India" (744 ,/ 2047) made the following observation in paragraph 40 of the judgment :- "40, As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is lying in deposit before this Court pursuant to the interim directions, on which interest has accrued. The home buyers have earnestly sought the issuance of interim directions to facilitate a pro-rata disbursement of this amount to those of the home buyers who seek a refund. "We are keenly conscious of the fact that the claim of the home buyers who seek a refund of monies deserves to be considered with empathy. Yet, having given our anxious consideration to the plea and on the balance, we are not inclined to accede to it for more than one reason. Firstly 0607777044776 Secondly, the figures which have been made available presently, following the opening of the Web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be mindful of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund."

Keeping in view the observations quoted in the said judgments by the Hon'ble High Court and the Supreme Court and the overall scheme of the RERA Act, it is also clear that if in every case of delay a decision is taken only to return the amount, then surely it would not be in accordance with the objective and scheme of the Act. At the time of taking decision of refund, it will be in the interest of justice to consider the uniqueness of each case, all facts of the case such as the status of construction, timeline of completion, status of commitment of offer of possession by promoters, effect on other stakeholders, especially on allottees remaining with the project, consensus regarding proposed possession date, etc. Keeping all facts and circumstances in view, it will be appropriate that the complainants take possession of their unit within 45 days. Thereafter they can themselves take decision regarding use of the unit for future. In any case, investment of money was made by the complainant in the project for possession, which has been utilized by the respondent in construction of the project. Surely in the event of remaining in the project, interest shall be payable by promoters to allottees for delay as per rules. Keeping the second wave of Covid-19 in view, it will be appropriate that if possession of the unit is not delivered by the respondent within 45 days, then thereafter it will be suitable to refund the amount. Accordingly, Point No.-2 is disposed of.

Determination of Point No. 3: It is also clear that flat buyer agreement was executed between the respondent and the complainant on date 03.04.2046, according to paragraph 49(9) of page No. 6 of which possession was to be delivered to the complainant in 30 months including 24 months and 6 months grace period. As such, in accordance with the above, the complainant was entitled to receive possession of the unit by date 02.0.2048, but possession has not been delivered by the respondent within the stipulated period. It is clear that the project is delayed and in such a situation it appears just to grant delayed period interest to the complainant from date 03.40.2048 till the date of obtaining OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. As to the question till which period the delayed period interest should be granted, in this regard in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50 ,// 2048 "Supertech Limited versus Rajni Goyal", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-

" the period of Interest should close on April 206 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant —Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 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. " According to the above legal position, the complainant shall be entitled to receive delay interest till the date of obtaining OC or offer of possession, whichever is later. In this regard, it is noteworthy that in the petition of Bombay High Court "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. etc. versus Union of India", the Hon'ble High Court has held that :-

"Section 8()(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." Therefore, in light of the above judgment, it is clear that under the provisions of U.P. RERA, interest on delay and principal amount shall be payable in accordance with the agreement entered into between the promoter and purchaser, because the said amount has been utilized by the promoters.

As to the question of rate of interest payable, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 20i8 were notified by the State Government under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 20i6 on date 47.0.2048. In clause 9 of the draft Agreement for Sale / Lease provided as an annexure therein, Events of default of promoters are defined, in which clause 9.26) provides for allottees in the event of default of promoter that:- "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:" The same rate is prescribed in clause 9.30) in the event of default by allottees. Keeping the said provision in view, it appears just to grant delayed period interest to the allottee at the interest rate of McLR+ percent. It is also clarified that if there is delay in any payable amount of the complainant, the respondent may also receive interest at the rate of Mcir+i percent. In addition, in Writ Petition No.-3289/2020 dated 06.02.2020 "Rudra Buildwell Constructions Pvt. Ltd. versus Poonam Sood and others", the Hon'ble High Court has held that :-

"Coming to the next ground of challenge to the impugned order by the petitioner's counsel that the interest awarded by respondent no.l (MCLR+I) is excessive, is also without any merit. It is an admitted fact to the petitioner that respondent no. 1 had booked a flat and till the filing of the writ petition, the possession of the flat has not been given to him. The interest had been awarded in terms of Clause 9.2(ii) of the form of agreement contained in the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 208. The respondent no.2 has given cogent reasons in the impugned order. Respondent no.2 has rightly placed reliance on Clause 9 sub-clause(ii) of the Rules, 20!8 which provides that in the event of default on the part of the promotor, 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 flat at the rate of 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to bring to our notice any Rule in the Rules, 206, providing otherwise."

In accordance with the above, it has been observed by the High Court that under clause 9.2() of U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2048, in the event of delay on the part of the promoter, the allottee shall have the option to terminate the agreement and in this situation the promoter shall be liable to refund all deposited amount within 45 days at the interest rate of State Bank of India home loan rate MCLRt percent per annum. Along with this, the annual interest rate of MCLR+ percent has been considered appropriate and acceptable by the High Court. It is also clarified that under Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 20i7, the annual interest rate was fixed at [MCLR+2 percent (Interest @0.7% S.I. p.a.)], which was approved by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in the concerned case, which has been held proper and correct by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; also in paragraph 8.4 of the same order it is clearly mentioned that :- "The National Commission has rightly awarded Interest @0.7% S.I. p.a. by applying Rule 5 of the Haryana Real. 2 Estate (Regulation And Development) Rules, 20i7 from the date of each installment till 05.02.20I7 i.e. till the date after which the Order of stay of cancellation of the allotment was passed; and thereafter, from the date of the Commission’s final Order till the date on which the amount is refunded with Interest."

Therefore it is clear that the interest rate which was fixed at t07 percent (MCLR+2 percent) by Haryana RERA was also accepted as correct interest rate by the Supreme Court. From this it can be determined that the interest rate fixed by the State Government under the Rules is proper and correct. The principle of linking interest rate with MCLR of State Bank of India has also been accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and held justified. In such situation, the annual interest rate MCLR+ percent fixed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2048 notified by U.P. State Government, which is 1 percent higher than the maximum interest rate of State Bank of India, is proper and correct. In addition, in clause-7 of the Model Agreement by notification number-4740 / 8-3-48-65 Vividh,/ 46 dated 47.40.20i8 of U.P. Government Housing and Urban Planning Section-3, the following is mentioned regarding Force Majeure :- 7. POSSESSION OF THE APARTMENT/PLOT:

#7.] 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 all relevant facts, on date 06.06.2020 by U.P. RERA Authority, due to the effect of Covid-49 (Corona Virus Disease), a period of 6 months from date 25.03.2020, i.e., till date 25.09.2020, has been given for completing all projects, and this period shall be treated as force majeure period. Keeping this in view, for the delay occurred in the project from date 25.03.2020 to date 25.09.2020, no interest shall be paid by promoter to allottees, nor shall any delay interest be charged from complainant. Accordingly, Point No.-3 is disposed of.

Disposing of the above points, the following orders are passed :- Order

1. The respondent is ordered to complete all amenities according to the allotment letter / agreement and ensure delivering possession of the unit of complainants along with OC / CC within 45 days from the date of uploading of order on portal, and execute registry as per rules upon receiving due stamp duty. 2. The respondent shall ensure paying delayed period interest at the rate of MCLR+ percent per annum on the amount deposited by complainant from date 03.40.2048 till the date of obtaining OC / CC or the date of offer of possession, whichever is later. Keeping the force majeure period in view, the delay period and interest for delay occurred in the project from date 25.03.2020 to date 25.09.2020 shall not be calculated, nor shall interest be charged from complainant for any overdue amount for this period. In the case of complainant Sandeep Shukla, calculation shall be made as above according to his flat buyer agreement. 3. The respondent is also directed that according to Section-2(28)0) of the RERA Act, 20:6, if any rate of interest is charged by promoter upon default of allottee after coming into force of RERA, interest at the same rate shall also be paid to allottee upon default by promoter. Therefore, on payment of delayed period, interest shall also be payable by complainant at the interest rate of MCLR+1 percent. 4. If the respondent fails to comply with serial numbers 1 and 2 of the order, then within 45 days thereafter they shall ensure refunding the amount deposited by complainants along with annual interest rate of MCLR+ percent. 5. 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. 6. One copy each of this order be placed on respective files, and computation of amount and interest in each case shall be made in accordance with principles laid down in this order. 7. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section-63 and other relevant provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046. Order be uploaded on portal.

Date:- 08 / 07 / 2022 Kalpana Mishra (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

= भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर। पीठ-04 उपस्थिति:- श्रीमती कल्पना मिश्रा, सदस्य क्रम AO | शिकायत संख्या | शिकायतकर्ताण. | . | NCR44/0/0683/2020 श्रीमती शिखा गुप्ता पत्नी श्री सौरभ गुप्ता 2. | NCRI44/09/2272/209 संदीप शुक्ला बनाम मैसर्स verte इंफ्राकॉन mo feo शिकायतकर्ता श्रीमती शिखा गुप्ता पत्नी श्री सौरभ गुप्ता के साथ 04 अन्य शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्ध वाद योजित किया गया है। इन दोनों शिकायतों के तथ्य समान हैं और एक समान साक्ष्य हैं। यह दोनों शिकायतें एक ही परियोजना ELEGANT VILLE (एप्ृ&87- & 4) से सम्बन्धित है। अतः एक ही निर्णय से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत संख्या- NCR44/0/0683/2020 श्रीमती शिखा गुप्ता पत्नी श्री सौरभ गुप्ता अग्रणी वाद रहेगा। प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्ध विलम्बित अवधि के ब्याज सहित कब्जा अन्यथा जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है एवं शिकायतकर्ता संदीप शुक्ला द्वारा जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये की मांग की गयी है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना ELEGANT VILLE (PHASE-I) में यूनिट PeN-A-I207A बुक करायी गयी थी, जिसके लिये उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 33,5,043 /— रुपये का भुगतान विपक्षी को किया गया। शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अनुबन्ध के अनुसार दिनांक 02.04.20I8 तक we

4 पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है और न ही परियोजना पूर्ण की गयी है। जिस कारण शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण अधिनियम की धारा-34 के अन्तर्गत विपक्षी के विरुद्ध शिकायत दर्ज करायी गयी है। शिकायतकर्ता की ओर से अपने कथन के समर्थन आवंटन पत्र दिनांक 07.03.2046, बिल्डर बायर Whe दिनांक 03.04.2046, मांग पत्र, जमा धनराशि की रसीदें, आदि अभिलेखों की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं।

विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवाद पत्र दाखिल करते हुए कथन किया गया है कि नेशनल ग्रीन ट्रिब्यूनल के निर्देश पर नोएडा विकास प्राधिकरण द्वारा भू-जल दोहन पर रोक लगायी गयी, जिससे परियोजना के लिए पानी की सप्लाई का इंतजाम करने में विलंब कारित हुआ, जिसके लिए विपक्षी उत्तरदायी नहीं है। इसके अतिरिक्त a0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के पारित आदेश दिनांक 04.4.2049 के तहत सम्पूर्ण दिल्‍ली एन.सी.आर. में बढ़ते प्रदूषण के कारण कंस्ट्रक्शन पर रोक लगा दी गयी, जिस पर विपक्षी द्वारा मा0 सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के पारित आदेश का अनुपालन करते हुए परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य रोक दिया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा यह भी अंकित किया गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी परियोजना में यूनिट बुक करायी गयी थी, परन्तु afas—i9, महामारी के कारण परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य बाधित रहा, जिस कारण परियोजना को पूर्ण किये जाने में विलम्ब हुआ। विपक्षी का यह भी कहना है कि उनकी कम्पनी के डायरेक्टर श्री अभय कुमार का वर्ष 2048 में स्वास्थ्य खराब होने के कारण उनके द्वारा श्री अक्षय त्यागी को कम्पनी का डायरेक्टर बनाया गया, जिन्होंने अपनी शक्तियों का गलत इस्तेमाल करते हुए कम्पनी एवं आवंटियों के साथ धोखा किया एवं कुप्रबंध करते हुए कम्पनी को क्षति पहुँचायी, जिस पर श्री अभय कुमार एन.सी.एल.टी. दिल्ली पहुँचे, जिसके माध्यम से श्री अक्षय त्यागी को कम्पनी के डायरेक्टर पद से हटाया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब का यह भी एक कारण है। विपक्षी द्वारा अपने प्रतिवाद पत्र में अंकित किया गया है कि — 2 न शिकायतकर्ता को परियोजना पूर्ण कर फरवरी, 2022 तक उनकी यूनिट का

कब्जा उपलब्ध करा देंगे। विपक्षी द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में प्रतिवाद पत्र दाखिल किया गया है। उभयपक्ष के तर्कों को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। पक्षकारों के अभिवचनों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित बिन्दु विचारणीय किये गये हैं :- 4. क्या Force Majeure Events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलम्बित हुई ? यदि हां तो प्रभाव | 2 कया शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलायी जा सकती है ? 3. क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाए ? यदि हां तो ब्याज की दर क्‍या होगी ? निस्तारण बिन्दु to 4 बिन्दु सं) 4 इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या Force Majeure Events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? यह वाद बिन्दु भी विपक्षी के अभिकथनों के आधार पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार विपक्षी पर है। विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि कुछ अप्रत्याशित घटनाओं (Force Majeure Events) (जैसे दंगा, आंदोलन, हड़ताल, औद्योगिक विवाद, परियोजना पर सेवाओं एवं आपूर्ति का बाधित होना, सरकार का नीति परिवर्तन, न्यायिक err आदेश, निर्णय व डिक्री से कार्य बाधित होना, अनुज्ञप्ति व संस्तुतियों में होने वाला विलंब आदि) के कारण परियोजना विलंबित हुई, विपक्षी की ओर से न तो यह कथन किया गया कि किन फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्ट्स की बाबत उसकी परियोजना विलंबित हुई और न ही फोर्स मैज्योर grea की बाबत कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर दाखिल किया गया है।

इसके अतिरिक्त इसी आदेश में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 // 2047 “बिक्रम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य” के निर्णय के पृष्ठ संख्या-234 एवं Te 440 में फोर्स मैज्योर को निम्नवत्‌ परिभाषित किया है:- (on 3 = 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, प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में ऐसी कोई परिस्थिति उत्पन्न नहीं हुई और विपक्षी ऐसी दशा में वह इस तर्क का लाभ पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है। विपक्षी द्वारा ऐसा कोई साक्ष्य दाखिल नहीं किया गया है, जिससे यह विदित हो सके कि माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय, माननीय उच्च न्यायालय एवं एन.जी.टी. द्वारा परियोजना के निर्माण कार्य पर प्रतिबन्ध लगा दिया गया हो। तद्नुसार बिन्दु Geni निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु tio 2 बिन्दु dere इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जा सकती है? यह वाद बिन्दु भी शिकायतकर्ता के अभिकथनों के आधार पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार शिकायतकर्ता पर है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कथन किया गया है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अनुबंधित अवधि में कब्जा नही दिया गया है, जिस कारण वह परियोजना के साथ नहीं रहना चाहते हैं एवं उनके द्वारा जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने की मांग की गयी है।

जहाँ तक क्रेता द्वारा रिफण्ड के अनुरोध का प्रश्न है, इस विषय में रेरा अधिनियम के प्राविधानों को समग्र रूप से पढ़ा जाना आवश्यक है, ताकि सभी पक्षों के मत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए एक संतुलित निर्णय लिया जा सकें। रेरा एक्ट की धारा 48 (4) में wilds है कि :- "Section 8 (4) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to we 2 other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed." इस VOR क्रेता को यह अधिकार है कि यदि उन्हें एग्रीमेंट के अनुरूप कब्जा नहीं मिलता है तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि को ब्याज सहित वापस मांग सकते हैं अथवा मासिक दर से ब्याज प्राप्त करते हुए परियोजना में बने रहें।

रेरा अधिनियम की धारा 34 में रेरा के अन्य “फंग्शन्स” के साथ-साथ "to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder" का भी उल्लेख है। इसी प्रकार धारा 32 में रियल इस्टेट सेक्टर के विकास हेतु अथॉरिटी के उत्तरदायित्वों में निम्न भी सम्मिलित हैं :- “32. The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a)protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent,....... @any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” उक्त प्राविधानों से यह स्पष्ट है कि “रियल एस्टेट सेक्टर” के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके सभी wa होल्डर्स के हितों को समग्र रूप से देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेने का उत्तरदायित्व इस अथॉरिटी का है। इस क्रम में मा. बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रालि. बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया” जिसमें रेरा अधिनियम की वैद्यानिकता के सम्बंध में निर्णय दिया गया था, के प्रस्तर 424 में मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निम्न संवीक्षण किया :- “24. The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of CH 5

hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth. Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. vat से स्पष्ट है कि सभी पक्षों को सुनने के बाद, यद्यपि समय से इकाई न मिलने की दशा में आवंटी का अपनी धनराशि ब्याज सहित मांगने का अधिकार है, तथापि उक्त वर्णित संवीक्षा को देखते हुए अथॉरिटी, प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों, के आधार पर ‘by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the _allottees, and_issuing directions for _timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth’ अनुरूप आदेश पारित किए जा सकते हैं। एलोटीज़ द्वारा धनराशि वापस किए जाने व परियोजना में बने रहने वाले एलोटीज के हितों में सन्तुलन के प्रसंग में “चित्रा शर्मा बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया” (744 ,/ 2047) के निर्णय में मा. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने निर्णय के प्रस्तर 40 में निम्न ऑब्जरवेशन किया है :-

"40, As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is lying in deposit before this Court pursuant to the interim directions, on which interest has accrued. The home buyers have earnestly sought the issuance of interim directions to facilitate a pro-rata disbursement of this amount to those of the home buyers who seek a refund. "We are keenly conscious of the fact that the claim of the home buyers who seek a refund of monies deserves to be considered with empathy. Yet, having given our anxious consideration to the plea and on the balance, we are not inclined to accede to it for more than one reason. Firstly #०६०७७७७०४४७७६ Secondly, the figures which have been made available presently, following the opening of the Web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be \o~ “>> 6 ~ & of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund."

मा. उच्च न्यायालय एवं सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा vod wei में उद्धरत “ऑब्जरवेशन्स” एवं RI एक्ट की समग्र व्यवस्था को 'देखते हुए यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यदि विलम्ब के प्रत्येक मामले में धनराशि लौटाने का ही निर्णय लिया जाये तो निश्चय ही यह अधिनियम के “ऑब्जेक्टिव” तथा “स्कीम” के अनुरूप न होगा। रिफण्ड का निर्णय लेते समय प्रत्येक मामले की “यूनीकनेस” प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों यथा “कंस्ट्रक्शन” की स्थिति, कम्पलीशन की “टाईम लाईन, प्रोमोटर्स के द्वारा ऑफर ऑफ पजेशन के “कमिटमेन्ट” की स्थिति, अन्य “स्टेक होल्डर्स”, विशेष रूप से परियोजना के साथ बने रहने वाले “एलॉटीज” पर प्रभाव, “प्रस्तावित worm डेट” के विषय में “कन्सेन्स्स” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। समस्त तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए यह उचित होगा कि शिकायतकर्ता 45 दिनों के अन्दर अपनी यूनिट का कब्जा लें। उसके बाद वे स्वयं यूनिट के भविष्य हेतु उपयोग के सम्बन्ध में निर्णय ले सकते हैं। वैसे भी शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा परियोजना में धनराशि का निवेश कब्जे हेतु किया गया था, जिसका उपयोग विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना के निर्माण में किया गया है। निश्चय ही परियोजना में बने रहने की दशा में एलॉटीज़ को विलम्ब हेतु नियमानुसार ब्याज प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा देय होगा। aifas—it9 की द्वितीय लहर को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए उचित होगा कि यदि विपक्षी द्वारा 45 दिनों के अन्दर यूनिट का कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है, तो उसके बाद धनराशि वापस किया जाना उपयुक्त होगा। तदनुसार बिन्दु सं०-2 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु do 3

यह भी स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी एवं शिकायतकर्ता के मध्य फ्लैट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 03.04.2046 को निष्पादित किया गया है, जिसके पृष्ठ to 6 के प्रस्तर 49(9) के अनुसार शिकायतकर्ता को 24 माह एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि (ग्रेस पीरियड) सहित 30 माह में कब्जा दिया जाना था। ऐसे में उपरोक्तानुसार शिकायतकर्ता दिनांक 02.0.2048 तक यूनिट का कब्जा पाने का अधिकारी था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा निर्धारित अवधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। यह स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना विलम्बित है और ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 03.40.2048 से ओ.सी /सी.सी प्राप्त होने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये a 7 Fs की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो, की अवधि तक विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। जहां तक किस अवधि तक विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है, तो इस सम्बंध में सिविल अपील to 6649-50 ,// 2048 ”सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल” में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- " the period of Interest should close on April 206 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant —Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 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 अनुसार ओ.सी. प्राप्त होने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो, की अवधि तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय के “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया” की याचिका में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- "Section 8()(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession —— = it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable."

अत: उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व क्रेता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि प्रमोटर्स err vad धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, तो राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 20i6 के अधीन दिनांक 47.0.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विक्रय /पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 20i8 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विक्रय / पट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के ore प्रकरण Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें WER 9.26) में प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है किः- "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:" यही दर आवंटियों के द्वारा डिफॉल्ट की स्थिति में भी प्रस्तर 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 Mcir+i प्रतिशत की दर से ही ब्याज प्राप्त सकता है।

इसके अतिरिक्त fe संख्या-0.५० .3289/2020 दिनांक 06.02.2020 “रुद्रा बिल्डवेल कस्ट्रक्शन्स wo feo बनाम पूनम सूद एवं अन्य” में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि "Coming to the next ground of challenge to the impugned order by the petitioner's counsel that the interest awarded by GH 9 i no.l (MCLR+I) is excessive, is also without any merit. It is an admitted fact to the petitioner that respondent no. | had booked a flat and till the filing of the writ petition, the possession of the flat has not been given to him. The interest had been awarded in terms of Clause 9.2(ii) of the form of agreement contained in the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 208. The respondent no.2 has given cogent reasons in the impugned order. Respondent no.2 has rightly placed reliance on Clause 9 sub-clause(ii) of the Rules, 20!8 which provides that in the event of default on the part of the promotor, 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 flat at the rate of 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to bring to our notice any Rule in the Rules, 206, providing otherwise."

उपरोक्तानुसार उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा यह we किया गया है कि उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) नियमावली, 2048 की प्रस्तर 9.2(#) के अनसार प्रोमोटर की ओर से विलम्ब किये जाने की स्थिति में आवंटी के पास अनुबन्ध को समाप्त करने का विकल्प होगा एवं इस स्थिति में प्रोमोटर “भारतीय स्टेट बैंक” के होम लोन दर MCLRt प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज दर से 45 दिनों में समस्त जमा धनराशि वापस करने के लिए उत्तरदायी होगा। साथ ही साथ उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा MCLR+ प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज दर को उचित एवं मान्य माना गया है। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि हरियाणा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) नियमावली, 20i7 & ae वार्षिक ब्याज दर [४८ा7४+2 प्रतिशत (Interest &)0.7% &.. 9७.9.) निर्धारित की गयी थी, जो सम्बन्धित मामले में राष्ट्रीय उपभोक्‍ता विवाद निवारण आयोग (NCDRC) द्वारा ayaa किया गया है, जिसको माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा उचित एवं सही माना है, साथ ही इसी आदेश के प्रस्तर 8.4 में भी स्पष्ट रूप से उललेखित है fH: »The National Commission has rightly awarded Interest @0.7% S.I. p.a. by applying Rule 5 of the Haryana Real. 2 Estate (Regulation And Development) Rules, 20i7 from the date of each installment till 05.02.20I7 i.e. till the date after which the Order of stay of cancellation of the allotment was passed; and thereafter, from the date Y— 0 = the Commission’s final Order till the date on which the amount is refunded with Interest." अतः यह स्पष्ट है कि ब्याज दर जो कि t07 प्रतिशत (शटा7२+2 प्रतिशत) हरियाणा रेरा द्वारा निर्धारित किया गया वह सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भी सही ब्याज दर माना गया है।

इससे यह अवधारित किया जा सकता है कि राज्य सरकार द्वारा नियमावली के अन्तर्गत निर्धारित की गयी ब्याज दर उचित एवं सही है। ब्याज दर को स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के McLRH से सम्बद्ध करने के सिद्धान्त को माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा भी Morr गया है और नन्‍्यायोचित ठहराया है। ऐसे में उ0प्र0 राज्य सरकार द्वारा अधिसूचित की गयी भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास), (विक्रय,पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली Rules), 2048 के अन्तर्गत निर्धारित की गयी वार्षिक ब्याज दर McLR+ प्रतिशत, जो कि स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया की अधिकतम ब्याज दर से 4 प्रतिशत ज्यादा है उचित एवं सही है। इसके अतिरिक्त दिनांक 47.40.20i8 को उ0प्र0 शासन आवास एवं शहरी नियोजन अनुभाग-3 की अधिसूचना Weat-4740 / 8-3-48-65 विविध,/ 46 के द्वारा मॉडल एणग्रीमेन्ट के प्रस्तर-7 में फोर्स मैज्योर के सम्बन्ध में निम्न उल्लेख किया गया है :- 7. POSSESSION OF THE APARTMENT/PLOT:

#7.] 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]:" इसी क्रम में समस्त सुसंगत तथ्यों के बाद उ0प्र0 रेरा अथॉरिटी द्वारा दिनांक 06.06.2020 को कोविड-49 (Corona Virus Disease) @ प्रभाव के 44 — 4 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-3 Paka किया जाता है। हैं :-

उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते आदेश विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड होने की तिथि 45 दिनों के अन्दर शिकायतकर्तागण की यूनिट को आवंटन पत्र/अनुबन्ध के अनुसार समस्त सुविधाओं को पूर्ण कराकर ओ.सी./ सी.सी. सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री कराएं। विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 03.40.2048 से ओ.सी. / सी.सी. प्राप्त होने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो, तक की अवधि पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि पर MCLR+ प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज की दर से विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित et) फोर्स मैज्योर पीरियड को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03.2020 से दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब की अवधि एवं विलम्ब हेतु ब्याज की गणना नहीं की जाएगी एवं न ही शिकायतकर्ता से किसी अतिदेय (overdue) धनराशि के लिए इस अवधि का ब्याज लिया जाएगा। शिकायतकर्ता संदीप शुक्ला के प्रकरण में उनके फ्लैट क्रेता अनुबन्ध के अनुरूप उपरोक्‍तानुसार गणना की जायेगी। विपक्षी को यह भी निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम, 20:6 की धारा-2(2४)0) 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 दिया जायेगा। अतः विलम्बित अवधि के भुगतान पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भी १४ट0+। प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर से ब्याज देय होगा। गा 42

= विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्तागण को आदेश के क्रम संख्या 4 व 2 देने में असफल रहता है, तो उसके पश्चात्‌ 45 दिनों के अन्दर शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा जमा की गयी धनराशि McLR+ प्रतिशत की वार्षिक ब्याज दर सहित वापस अदा करना सुनिश्चित we | 5. यदि विपक्षी द्वारा इस आदेश का अनुपालन नहीं किया जाता है, तो शिकायतकर्ता को यह अधिकार होगा कि रेरा प्राधिकरण के माध्यम से अपने आदेश का क्रियान्वयन करा सकेगें। 6. इस आदेश की एक-एक प्रति सम्बंधित पत्रावलियों पर रखी जाए एवं इस आदेश में प्रतिपादित art के अनुरूप धनराशि व ब्याज की प्रत्येक मामले में गणना की जाएगी। 7. 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 जाए। दिनांक:- 08 / 07 / 2022 Kuta >+७_ कल्पना मिश्रा oF| pa (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण