U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar Order under Section-34, Bench-II Present: Mrs. Kalpana Mishra, Member Complaint Number: 48244/0/8875/2022 Nipun Jain Versus Rise Projects Pvt. Ltd. The present complaint application has been instituted by the complainant against the respondent for refund of the deposited amount with interest. Briefly, the complainant states that he booked Unit No.-7-0 in the respondent's project Rise Resorts Residences ?II949-[?]. Its total price was Rs. 47,00,375/—, against which he paid Rs. 44,00,375/— from time to time in instalments. The complainant states that the respondent's project is delayed by 32 months and that the respondent has still not completed construction of the project. Accordingly, the complainant has requested refund of the deposited amount with interest against the respondent. In support of his statement, the complainant has filed photocopies of the written complaint application, the allotment/agreement dated 27.08.2078, receipts for the deposited amount, and other documents.

In its reply in support of its statement, the respondent has stated that the project in question is registered with RERA. The complainant applied in the year 208 for its project Rise Resorts Residences Phase-l, following which an agreement was executed between the parties on 27.08.208. Under the provision[?] of the agreement, subject to force majeure, the respondent was to provide possession of the unit by 34.07.2022. The present complaint filed by the complainant is premature. Construction of the project was delayed because of force majeure events beyond its control. In view of rising pollution in Delhi NCR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and N.G.T. prohibited construction work from October 2049 to January 2020. Construction work was affected by COVID-49 and the restrictions imposed on construction work by the National Green Tribunal from time to time. The respondent has stated that the complainant will be given possession of the unit by June 2023. On the basis of the above facts, dismissal of the complainant's complaint has been requested. The arguments of both parties were heard and the case file was examined, on the basis of which the following issues were framed: l. Was the respondent's project delayed because of force majeure events? If so, what is the effect? Can the complainant's deposited amount be refunded? If not, what relief will be admissible? Determination of Issue No.-4

The issue[?] has been framed as to whether the respondent's project was delayed because of force majeure events and, if so, what the effect is. This issue has been framed on the respondent's assertions, and the burden of proving it rests on the respondent. The respondent has stated that the project was delayed because of force majeure events beyond its control. Restrictions imposed by the Hon'ble N.G.T. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the outbreak of the COVID-i9[?] pandemic adversely affected construction work on the project. In its order dated 04.44.2049 passed in Civil Appeal No.-43029 / 4985, “M.C. Mehta versus Government of India”, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued the following directions: With respect to demolition and construction activities we direct that no demolition and construction activities take place in Delhi and NCR region. In case it is found that such activity is done, the local administration as well as the municipal authorities including the Zonal Commissioners, Deputy Zonal Commissioners shall be personally held responsible for all such activities. They have to act in furtherance of the Court's order and to ensure that no such activity takes place.

We direct that construction, demolition and activities be stopped forthwith as well as garbage burning. In case any person is found engaged in construction and demolition activity and garbage burning in Delhi and NCR region, that person shall be penalized. Any person doing construction and demolition activity in violation of this order shall be penalized with 5.] lakh[?] for such activity. For garbage burning he/she shall be penalized with Rs.5,000/- and shall besides be liable for violation of the order passed by this Court, to be dealt with in accordance with law. In addition, the following directions were issued in the order dated 09.42.2049 passed in the said Civil Appeal No.-43029 / 4985: In the affidavit dated 05.!2.20I9, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has stated as under:

“]2. That it is respectfully submitted that it is normally experienced that in the month of December, depending upon climatic conditions, the AQI category varies. As a matter of fact, last year (208), 8 days in the month of December were in the severe AQI category. Presently the situation not being severe, CPCB is of the considered opinion that a partial ban could be in place on construction activities, inasmuch as no construction should be permitted during night time (6.00 pm to 6.00 am). The ban imposed could be partially lifted by permitting activities during day time (6.00 am to 6.00 pm), subject to the criteria stipulated in GRAP, wherein strict enforcement of rules for dust control in construction activities and closure of non-compliant sites is mandated in the moderate to poor AQI[?] category, and further a ban on construction activities may be imposed by EPCA if ambient air quality levels persist in the severe+/emergency category for 48 hours or more.” Hence, the ban is relaxed in terms of the recommendations made by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), as quoted above. However, the conditions for raising construction shall be scrupulously followed.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court prohibited construction work for the period from 04.44.20:9 to 74.02.2020. In that period, by its order dated 09.42.209, the Hon'ble Supreme Court lifted the complete prohibition and imposed a partial prohibition. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court prohibited construction work for 35 days (from 04.4.2049 to 09.:2.20I9) and for 33 days (6652) (from 40.42. 2049 to 44.02.2020, from 6 in the evening to 6 in the morning). In these circumstances, the respondent is entitled to the benefit of a total of 35+33 5 68 days because construction work remained affected. After considering all relevant facts, the U.P. RERA Authority, on 06.06.2020, granted all projects an additional period of 6 months from 25.03.2020, namely until 25.09.2020, for completion because of the effects of COVID-49 (Corona Virus Disease), and this additional period shall be regarded as arising from force majeure events. In view of this, the promoter shall not pay the allottees any interest for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020, nor shall any delay interest be charged to the complainant. Issue No.-4 is disposed of accordingly. Determination of Issue No.-2

The complainant states that the respondent's project is delayed by 32 months and that the respondent has still not completed the construction work on the project. Accordingly, the complainant has requested that the amount deposited with the respondent be refunded with interest. In response, the respondent has stated that possession of the unit will be provided to the complainant by June 2023. It is undisputed that the complainant booked a flat in the respondent's project. There is also no dispute that the respondent has been unable to provide possession within the period stipulated in the agreement. As regards the purchaser's request for a refund, it is necessary to read the provisions of the RERA Act as a whole so that a balanced decision can be taken while considering the views of all parties. Section 48 () of the RERA Act provides as follows: Section 8. Return of Amount and Compensation- (l) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building.- (a) 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.” Thus, the purchaser has the right, if possession is not received in accordance with the agreement, to seek a refund of the deposited amount with interest, or to remain in the project while receiving interest for every month of delay. Along with RERA's other functions, Section 34 of the RERA Act also mentions, in sub-clause (f), “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”. Similarly, the Authority's responsibilities for the development of the real estate sector under Section 32 include the following: “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.” The above provisions make it clear that, to ensure the healthy development of the “real estate sector”, this Authority is responsible for taking appropriate decisions by considering the interests of all its stakeholders as a whole. In this connection, in Writ Petition No.-2737 /20:7, “Neelkamal Realtors[?] Suburban Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India”, in which the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decided the validity of the RERA Act, the Hon'ble High Court made the following observation in paragraph q24:

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. Provisions of Section 77 refer to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 72, 74, 76 and /9. A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not[?] be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work.”

It is clear from the above that, after hearing all parties, although the allottee has the right to seek the return of the amount with interest if the unit is not received on time, in view of the observations described above, the Authority may pass orders on the basis of all the facts of the case in accordance with “by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit. directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth”. In the context of the conflict[?] between refunding amounts to allottees and the interests of allottees remaining in the project, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observation in paragraph 40 of its judgment in “Chitra Sharma versus Union of India” (744 / 2047):

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

In view of the “observations” quoted in the above paragraphs by the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court, and the overall framework of the RERA Act, it is also clear that deciding to refund the amount in every case of delay would certainly be inconsistent with the “objective” and “scheme” of the Act. When deciding on a refund, it would be in the interests of justice to consider the “uniqueness” of each case and all the facts of the matter, such as the status of the project[?], the “timeline” for completion, the status of the promoters' “commitment” regarding the offer of possession, the effect on other “stakeholders”, particularly the “allottees” remaining with the project, and the “consensus” on the “proposed possession date”. Regarding the constitution of RERA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 420 on page 244 of the order passed on 2307209 in Civil Appeal No. 940 /20:7, “Bikam Chatterjee and Others v. Union of India and Others”, stated as follows:

“It is apparent that RERA intends protection of home-buyers and aims at completion of the buildings. The buildings have to be completed, for that, we are required to pass orders. We have already assigned the task to NBCC for completion of buildings as the promoters/builders have failed to complete the building within the time fixed and the time which could have been extended. Now, more than l0 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the promoter/builder. The maximum time fixed in RERA has also expired and extension could not have been beyond ] year.” Accordingly, it has been clarified that RERA exists to protect the interests of allottees, and its objective is to enable homebuyers to receive their homes/flats by ensuring that promoters complete all development work on the buildings. Thereafter, paragraph 437 on page 255 of the order states as follows: “The provisions of RERA are beneficial to the home buyers and are intended to insulate them from fraudulent action, ensures completion of the building and it is the duty of the court to protect and ensure the home buyers' interest and at the same time to hold them responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under the said statute. We are not absolving the home buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At the same time, they have the right of enforcement of their right for compensation due to undue delay in completion of the project.”

The above observation also clarifies that the provisions of RERA benefit homebuyers and protect the interests of allottees against any breach of trust, and that RERA is responsible for supervising the completion of buildings. The duties and responsibilities of the parties have been prescribed in the Act. Homebuyers have also been granted the right, in the event of delay in the project, to receive interest for the delay in accordance with the rules until the project is completed. Subsequently, regarding RERA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 29 on page 86 of the order dated 09.08.209 in Civil Appeal No. 43/20:9, “Pioneer Ada As[?] and Infrastructure Limited and Others v. Union of India and Others”, stated as follows: “The object of RERA is to see that real estate projects come to fruition within the stated period and to see that allottees of such projects are not left in the lurch and are finally able to realise their dream of a home, or be paid compensation if such dream is shattered, or at least get back monies that they had advanced towards the project with interest. At the same time, recalcitrant allottees are not to be tolerated, as they must also perform their part of the bargain, namely, to pay instalments as and when they become due and payable.”

The important observation made in the above order is that RERA's objective is to ensure, under its supervision and oversight, that promoters complete real estate projects within a specified period, so that allottees are not deprived of receiving their flats and can obtain the homes of their dreams. At the same time, recalcitrant allottees have also been held responsible for failing to cooperate in completing the project. It has also been stated that allottees should duly fulfil their obligations, principally by ensuring timely payment of instalments, so that the project can be completed. Thus, under the legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court above, it is clear that RERA's principal objective is to ensure that promoters complete projects and that allottees duly pay their instalments, so that projects can be completed within the stipulated period. To protect the interests of allottees, they will also be entitled to the benefit of interest if the project is delayed. However, before this, the complainant also has a responsibility to pay their instalments on time. The respondent has stated that possession of the flat allotted to the complainant in the project will be provided in June 2023, which is in the near future. Considering all the circumstances, it would be appropriate for the complainant to take possession upon completion of the project by 30.06.2023. Thereafter, they can decide for themselves regarding the future use of the unit.

In any event, the complainant invested money in the project to obtain possession, and the respondent used that money for construction of the project. Certainly, if the allottees remain in the project, interest for the delay will be payable to them by the promoters in accordance with the rules. Paragraph 9.4 of the allotment/agreement letter dated 27. 08.2048, filed on the record by the complainant, states that the respondent was to provide possession of the unit by 34.07.2022, subject to force majeure. However, the complainant filed the present complaint before the RERA Authority on 48.04.2022, before the date for providing possession under the agreement. The respondent has not filed any evidence on the record showing that possession of the unit has been provided to the complainant. The respondent has stated that possession of the unit will be provided to the complainant by June 2023. In addition, the respondent is entitled to the benefit of a total period of 68 days on account of force majeure. (As described in determination of Issue No. 2.) As regards the period for which interest is to be awarded, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50 / 2048, "Supertech Limited versus Rajni Goyal":

"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 20l6 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent-Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession." Under the above legal position, the complainant shall be entitled to delay interest until the date on which the O.C./C.C. is obtained or possession is offered, whichever is later. In these circumstances, it appears just to award the complainant interest for the period of delay from 34.07.2022 + 68 days, namely from 08.40.2022, until the date on which the O.C./C.C. is obtained or possession is offered. As regards liability for interest, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as follows in "Neelkamal Realtors[?] Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others versus Union of India":

"Section 8(l)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable[?] on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay until handing over possession. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty, as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in 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 until such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." Accordingly, in light of the above decision, it is clear that under the provisions of U.P. RERA, interest for the delay and on the principal amount shall be payable in accordance with the agreement entered into between the promoter and the purchaser, since the promoters have used the said amount. Section 2(29) of the RERA Act provides as follows: (za) "Interest" means the rates of interest payable by the promoter or the allottee, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause—

(i) The rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default; (ii) The interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the amount or any part thereof until the date the amount or part thereof and interest thereon is refunded, and the interest payable by the allottee to the promoter shall be from the date the allottee defaults in payment to the promoter until the date it is paid. As regards the applicable interest rate, the State Government notified the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 20:8, on 7.020I8 under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20i6. Paragraph 9 of the format of the sale/lease deed given as an annexure defines the promoter's Events of default. Paragraph 9.20) provides as follows for the allottee in the event of the promoter's default: "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement, in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal[?] Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India + %, unless provided otherwise under the Rules, within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice."

The same rate is also prescribed in paragraph 9.30) in the event of default by the allottees. Having regard to this provision, it appears just to award the allottee interest for the period of delay at an interest rate of |48,Rs.+[?] per cent. It is also clarified that if any amount of the complainant is overdue, the respondent may also receive interest on it only at the rate of MCLR+I per cent. Section-2(2)0) of RERA also gives the same definition of interest. Issue No.-2 is disposed of accordingly. Upon determination of the above issues, the following orders are passed. Order 4. The respondent is directed to complete all amenities in the complainant's unit in accordance with the allotment letter/agreement, ensure that possession is given with the O.C./C.C. by 30.06.2023, and carry out registration in accordance with the rules after receiving the outstanding stamp duty.

2. The respondent shall ensure payment to the complainant of interest at MCLR+I per cent on the amount deposited by the complainant, from 08.40.2022 until the date on which the O.C./C.C. is obtained or possession is offered. This interest amount shall be adjusted against the final payment amount. If the interest amount exceeds the amount payable, it shall be refunded to the complainant. Having regard to the force majeure period, interest for delay in the project shall not be calculated from 25.03.2020 to 25.09. 2020. Further, if the complainant has any overdue amount (Over Dues), interest for this period shall not be payable on that amount either. 3. The respondent is also directed that, under Section 2(20)() of the RERA Act, 20:6, if, after RERA came into force, the promoter charges any rate of interest for default by the allottee, interest at the same rate shall also be paid to the allottee in the event of default by the promoter. Accordingly, the complainant shall also be liable to pay interest for delayed payment at the rate of '48a72+][?] per cent. If, after RERA came into force, any amount has been collected from the allottee for delay at a higher rate, the interest amount for the period of delay shall also be calculated at that same rate. 4. 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 shall be uploaded to the portal.

5. If the respondent does not comply with this order, the complainant shall have the right to have their order enforced through the RERA Authority. Date: 26 / 42 / 2022 (Kalpana Mishra) (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर। आदेश अन्तर्गत धारा-34, पीठ-॥ उपस्थिति:- श्रीमती कल्पना मिश्रा, सदस्य शिकायत संख्या:- ४८२44/0/8875/2022 निपुन जैन बनाम राइज़ प्रोजेक्ट्स प्रा0 लि0 प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना Rise Resorts Residences ?॥9४९- में यूनिट सं०--७-0 बुक की गई थी। जिसकी कुल कीमत 47,00,375/— रूपये थी, जिसके सापेक्ष उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 44,00,375/— रूपये का भुगतान किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना 32 माह विलम्बित है और अभी तक विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण नहीं किया गया है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्ध जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में लिखित शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र, आंवटन /अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांकित 27.08.2078, जमा धनराशि की रसीदें आदि की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं।

| विपक्षी द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन मे जवाब दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि प्रश्नगत परियोजना रेरा मे पंजीकृत है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी प्रश्नगत परियोज॑ना Rise Resorts Residences Phase-l में वर्ष 208 में आवेदन किया गया , जिसके अनुक्रम में उभयपक्षों के मध्य अनुबंध-पत्र दिनांक 27.08.208 को निष्पादित किया गया। अनुबन्ध के wea. के अनुसार फोर्स मैज्योर आधीन विपक्षी द्वारा यूनिट का कब्जा 34.07.2022 तक प्रदान किया जाना था। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा योजित वर्तमान शिकायत प्री-मैच्योर हैं। परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण विलम्बित हुआ, जो कि उनके नियंत्रण में नहीं था। दिल्‍ली NCR में बढ़ते हुए प्रदूषण को ध्यान में रखते हुए माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय एवं एन.जी.टी. द्वारा अक्टूबर 2049 से जनवरी 2020 तक निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगा दी गयी थी। कोविड-49 के कारण एवं समय-समय पर राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण द्वारा निर्माण तर? 3 el Page I कार्य पर प्रतिबन्ध लगाये जाने पर निर्माण कार्य प्रभावी रहा। विपक्षी द्वारा अंकित किया गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा जून 2023 तक प्रदान कर दिया जाएगा। उपरोक्त तथ्यों के आधार पर शिकायतकर्ता की शिकायत खारिज किये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। उभयपक्ष के तर्कों को सुना गया व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया, जिसके आधार पर निम्न बिन्दु विचरित किये गये हैं :- l. क्‍या force majeure events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हाँ तो प्रभाव? क्या शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जा सकती है? यदि नहीं तो क्‍या अनुतोष अनुमन्य होगा ? N निस्तारण बिन्दु We—4

बिन्दु vert इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि क्या force majeure events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हाँ तो प्रभाव? यह वाद बिन्दु विपक्षी के अभिकथनों पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार विपक्षी पर है। विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण विलम्बित हुई, जो कि उनके नियंत्रण में नहीं था। माननीय एन.जी.टी. एवं माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा लगाये गये प्रतिबन्ध ud aifas—i9 महामारी फैलने के कारण परियोजना के निर्माण कार्य पर विपरीत प्रभाव पड़ा है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-43029 / 4985 “एम. सी. मेहता बनाम भारत सरकार” में पारित आदेश दिनांक 04.44.2049 में निम्नलिखित निर्देश दिये है :- With respect to demolition and construction activities we direct that no demolition and construction activities take place in Delhi and NCR region. In case it is found that such activity is done, the local administration as well as the municipal authorities including the Zonal Commissioners, Deputy Zonal Commissioners shall be personally held responsible for all such activities. They have to act in furtherance of the Court’s order and to ensure that no such activity takes place. We direct that construction, demolition and activities bestopped forthwith as well as garbage burning. In case, any personis found in construction and demolition activity and garbageburning in Delhi and NCR region, nA be Page 2

penalized. Any person is doing construction and demolition activity in violation of this order, shall be penalized with 5.] Lac for such activity.For garbage burning he/she shall be penalized with Rs.5,000/- and besides liable for violation of theorder passed by this Court tobe dealt with in accordance with law. इसके अतिरिक्त sate सिविल अपील संख्या-43029 / 4985 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 09.42.2049 में निम्नलिखित निर्देश दिये है :- In the affidavit dated 05.!2.20I9, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has stated as under:- "]2. That it is respectfully submitted that it is normally experienced that in month of December depending upon Climatic Condition the AQI category varies. As a matter of fact, last year (208) 8 days in the month of December were in severe AQI category. Presently the situation not being severe, CPCB is of considered opinion that partial ban could be in place of construction activities in as much as no construction should be permitted during night time (6.00 pm to 6.00 am). The ban imposed could be partially lifted by permitting activities during day time (6.00 am to 6.00 pm), subject to the criteria stipulated in GRAP, wherein strict emforcement of rules for dust control in construction activities and closure of non-compliant sites is mandated in moderate to poor AQ] category and further a bank on construction activities may be imposed by EPCA if Ambient AIR quality levels persist in severe+/emergency category for 48 hours or more."

Hence, the ban is relaxed in terms of the recommendations made by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), as quoted above. However, conditions for raising construction be scrupulously followed. माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा (दिनांक 04.44.20:9 से दिनांक 74.02.2020) की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगायी गयी है, जिसमें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 09.42.209 में पूर्ण प्रतिबन्ध को हटाते हुए आंशिक प्रतिबन्ध लगाया war) ऐसे में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा 35 दिन (दिनांक 04.4.2049 से दिनांक 09.:2.20I9) एवं 33 दिन (6652) (दिनांक 40.42. 2049 से दिनांक 44.02.2020 तक Wa 6 बजे से सुबह 6 बजे तक) की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया। विपक्षी ऐसी दशा में कुल 35+33 5 68 दिन निर्माण कार्य प्रभावित रहने के कारण लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है। समस्त सुसंगत तथ्यों पर विचारोपरान्त उ0प्र0 wr अथॉरिटी द्वारा दिनांक 06.06.2020 को कोविड-49 (Corona Virus Disease) के प्रभाव के कारण सभी Page 3 परियोजनाओं को पूर्ण करने हेतु दिनाक 25.03.2020 से 6 माह की अतिरिक्‍त अवधि अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक की अवधि दे दी गयी है और यह अतिरिक्त अवधि फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण 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। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2

शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना 32 माह विलम्बित है और अभी तक विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण नहीं किया गया है। अत: शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्ध जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है, जिस पर विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा जून 2023 तक प्रदान कर दिया जाएगा। यह निर्विवादित है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना में फ्लैट बुक कराया था। इस तथ्य पर भी कोई विवाद नहीं है कि विपक्षी अनुबंधित अवधि में कब्जा प्रदान करने में असमर्थ रहा है। जहाँ तक केता 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 () में प्राविधान है कि :- Section 8. Return of Amount and Compensation- (l) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building.- (a) 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, a for, Page 4 every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed. इस प्रकार केता को यह अधिकार है कि यदि उन्हें एग्रीमेंट के अनुरूप कब्जा नहीं मिलता तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि को ब्याज सहित वापिस माँग सकते हैं अथवा प्रत्येक माह के विलम्बित हेतु ब्याज प्राप्त करते हुए परियोजना में बने रहें। रेरा अधिनियम की धारा 34 में रेरा के अन्य “HIRT के साथ-साथ सब-क्लॉज (f) F "to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder" का भी उल्लेख है। इसी प्रकार धारा 32 में रियल gee सेक्टर के विकास हेतु अथॉरिटी के उत्तरदायित्यों में निम्न भी सम्मिलित हैं :- “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,....... @Jany 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 eo होल्डर्स के हितों को समग्र रूप से देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेने का उत्तरदायित्व इस ऑथरिटी का है। इस कम में माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 2737 /20:7 “नीलकमल Raced सबअरबन प्रा.लि. बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया”, जिसमें रेरा अधिनियम की वैद्यानिकता के सम्बंध में निर्णय दिया गया था, के प्रस्तर q24 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 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. Provisions of Section 77 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 72, 74, 76 and /9, A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should i any (I Page 5 apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work.” उक्त से स्पष्ट है कि सभी पक्षों को सुनने के बाद, यद्यपि समय से इकाई न मिलने की दशा में आवंटी का अपनी धनराशि ब्याज सहित मांगने का अधिकार है, तथापि उक्त वर्णित संवीक्षा को देखते हुए अथॉरिटी, प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों, के आधार पर ‘hy moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, the allottees, and

issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit. directions for timely completion of project, transit _ accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth’ के अनुरूप आदेश पारित किए जा सकते हैं। एलोटीज़ द्वारा धनराशि वापस किए जाने व परियोजना में बने रहने वाले एलोटीज के हितों में wae के प्रसंग में “चित्रा शर्मा बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया” (744 / 2047) के निर्णय में मा. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने निर्णय के प्रस्तर 40 में निम्न ऑबजरवेशन किया है :-

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

मा. उच्च न्यायालय एवं सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा उक्त प्रस्तरों में उद्धरत “ऑबजरवेशनस्‌” एवं रेरा एक्ट की समग्र व्यवस्था को देखते हुए यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यदि विलम्ब के प्रत्येक मामले में धनराशि लौटाने का ही निर्णय लिया जाये तो निश्चय ही यह अधिनियम के “ऑबजेक्टिव” तथा “स्कीम” के अनुरूप न होगा। Revs का निर्णय लेते समय प्रत्येक मामले की “यूनीकनेस” प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों यथा mage” -की स्थिति, कम्पलीशन की “टाईम लाईन", प्रोमोटर्स के द्वारा ऑफर ऑफ पजेशन के “कमिटमेन्ट” की स्थिति, अन्य “स्टेक ak विशेष रूप Page 6 से परियोजना के साथ बने रहने वाले “एलॉटीज” पर प्रभाव, “प्रस्तावित पज़ेशन डेट” के विषय में “कन्सेन्सस्‌” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। रेरा के गठन के सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 /20:7 “बिकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य” में दिनांक 2307209 को परित आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-244 के प्रस्तर-420 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है:-

"Yt is apparent that RERA intends protection of home- buyers and aims at completion of the buildings. The buildings have to be completed, for that, we are required to pass orders. We have already assigned the task to NBCC for completion of buildings as the promoters/builders have failed to complete the building within the time fixed and the time which could have been extended. Now, more than l0 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the promoter/builder. The maximum time fixed in RERA has also expired and extension could not have been beyond ] year." उक्तानुसार यह स्पष्ट किया गया है कि रेश आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए है और उसका लक्ष्य यह है कि प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा बिल्डिंग के समस्त विकास कार्यों को पूर्ण कराते हुए गृहक्रेताओं को उनका आवास / फ्लैट मिल सके। तत्कमानुसार आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-255 के प्रस्तर-437 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया हैः- "The provisions of RERA are beneficial to the home buyers and are intended to insulate them from fraudulent action, ensures completion of the building and it is the duty of the court to protect and ensure the home buyers’interest and at the same time to hold them responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under the said statute. We are not absolving the home buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At the same time, they have the right of enforcement of their right for compensation due to undue delay in completion of the project."

vat आब्जर्वेशन में यह भी we किया गया है कि रेरा के प्राविधान गृहकेताओं के लिए लाभकारी हैं और किसी प्रकार के विश्वासघात होने से आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए हैं एवं बिल्डिंग को पूर्ण कराने हेतु निगरानी का कार्य रेरा का है और पक्षकारों के कर्तव्यों एवं उत्तरदायित्व अधिनियम में तय किये गये हैं। यह भी लाभ दिया गया है कि परियोजना विलम्ब होने पर गृहकेताओं का यह अधिकार होगा कि वह विलम्ब के लिए परियोजना पूर्ण होने तक नियमानुसार ब्याज पा सके। oie है Page 7 इसी के पश्चात्‌ पुनः रेरा के सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील dem43/20:9 “पायनियर ada as एंड इन्फास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य” में दिनांक 09.08.209 को आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-86 के प्रस्तर-29 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया हैः- "The object of RERA is to see that real estate projects come to fruition within the stated period and to see that allottees of such projects are not left in the lurch and are finally able to realise their dream of a home, or be paid compensation if such dream is shattered, or at least get back monies that they had advanced towards the project with interest. At the same time, recalcitrant allottees are not to be tolerated, as they must also perform their part of the bargain, namely, to pay instalments as and when they become due and payable." उक्त आदेश में महत्वपूर्ण आब्जर्वेशन यह दिया गया है कि रेरा का लक्ष्य है कि वह अपनी निगरानी एवं देखरेख में प्रोमोटर्स निर्धारित अवधि में फलस्वरूप पूर्ण करा ली जाये, जिससे कि आवंटी

पाने से वंचित न हो जाये और उन्हें अपने सपनों का घर मिल सके, साथ ही साथ दुर्दम्य (Recalcitrant) आवंटियों को भी परियोजना पूर्ण कराने का सहयोग न करने में कि आवंटी अपने कर्तव्यों को सम्यक रूप का समय से भुगतान करना सुनिश्चित उत्तरदायित्व माना है। यह भी कहा गया है से पूर्ण करें, मुख्य रूप से जैसे कि किश्तों कर लें, जिससे कि परियोजना को पूर्ण किया जा सके। ऐसे में उपरोक्त माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्धारित की गयी विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा का मुख्य उद्देश्य, परियोजना को फलस्वरूप प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा पूर्ण कराना और आवंटियों द्वारा सम्यक रूप से अपनी टर्स द्वारा भू-सम्पदा परियोजना को एक अपने फ्लैटस्‌ किश्तों का भुगतान सुनिश्चित कर लिया जाना, जिससे कि परियोजना को निर्धारित अवधि में पूर्ण कराया जा सके। आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए परियोजना विलम्ब होने पर ब्याज का लाभ भी आवंटियों को देय होगा, परन्तु इससे भुगतान करें। q उपयोग के सम्बन्ध में निर्णय ले सकते हैं। पूर्व शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी उत्तरदायित्व होगा कि वह अपनी किश्तों का समय से विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना में शिकायतकर्ता को आवंटित फ्लैट का कब्जा दिये जाने की बात कही गयी है, जो कि निकट की अवधि है। समस्त परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए यह उचित होगा कि शिकायतकर्ता दिनांक 30.06.2023 तक परियोजना पूर्ण होने पर कब्जा लें। उसके बाद वे स्वयं यूनिट वैसे भी शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा देय i जून 2023 में के भविष्य हेतु 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 में एलॉटीज को विलम्ब हेतु नियमानुसार ब्याज प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा रहने की दशा Page 8 | पत्रावली पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा दाखिल आवंटन /अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनाकित 27. 08.2048 के प्रस्तर-9.4 में उल्लेख किया गया है कि विपक्षी द्वारा फोर्स मैज्योर के अधीन दिनांक 34.07.2022 तक यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान किया जाना था, परन्तु शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रशशगत शिकायत अनुबन्ध पत्र के अनुसार कब्जा प्रदान किये जाने की तिथि के पूर्व ही दिनांक 48.04.2022 को वर्तमान शिकायत रेरा प्राधिकरण समक्ष योजित की गई है। विपक्षी द्वारा ऐसा भी कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर दाखिल नहीं किया गए है जिसके अवलोकन से यह विदित हो की उनके द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता उनकी का कब्जा प्रदान कर दिया गया हो, विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा जून 2023 तक प्रदान कर दिया जाएगा | इसके अतिरिक्त फोर्स मैज्योर के मद में विपक्षी कुल 68 दिन की अवधि के लिए लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है। (जैसा कि निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 में वर्णित है|) =p Ss 4| | aD) Ss, जहाँ तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज Rad जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बन्ध में सिविल अपील tio 6649-50 / 2048 "सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल" में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है किः- + 4

"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 ate as April 20l6. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 20l6 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent — Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession. " उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार ओ.सी. /सी.सी. अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 34.07.2022 + 68 दिन अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 08.40.2022 से ओ.सी. /सी.सी. अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि तक विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। जहाँ तक ब्याज देयता का प्रश्न है। माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा “नीलकमल Raced सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया” के वाद में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि — "Section 8(l)(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 fe Page 9 अतः उपरोक्त

any other reason, he is q 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 til] such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable. " | निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व केता 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। रेरा एक्ट की धारा 2(29) में प्राविधान है कि :- (za) "Interest" means the rates of interest payable by the promoter or the allottee, as the case may be. Explanation.-For the purpose of this clause— (i) The rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default;

(ii) the interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the amount or any part thereof till the date the amount or part thereof and interest thereon is refunded, and the interest payable by the Allottee to the promoter shall be from the date the allottee defaults in payment to the promoter till the date it is paid; जहाँ तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, तो राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 20i6 के अधीन दिनांक 7.020I8 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विकय,/पटटा के लिए करार) नियमावली 20:8 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विकय ,/पटटा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें wax 9.20) 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 हा / se Page 0 a Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India + % unless provided otherwise under forty-five days of receiving the terminatio the Rules. within n 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 |४८,₹+ प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया T जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता

है। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि यदि शिकायतकर्ता की कोई धनराशि अतिदेय है, तो उस पर विपक्षी भी MCLR+I प्रतिशत की दर है। रेरा की धारा-2(2)0) में भी यही ब्याज की परिभाषा संख्या-2 निस्तारित किया जाता है। से ही ब्याज प्राप्त कर सकता षा दी गयी है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश आदेश पारित किये जाते है। 4. foueft को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह शिकायतकर्ता की यूनिट समस्त सुविधाओं को आवंटन-पत्र /अनुबन्ध के अनुसार पूर्ण कराकर दिनांक 30.06.2023 तक ओ.सी. /सी.सी. सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें। 2. विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 08.40.2022 से ओ.सी /सी.सी अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि तक शिकायतकर्ता MCLR+I प्रतिशत ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की धनराशि में समायोजित की जायेगी। ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक होने पर शिकायतकर्ता को वापस की जायेगी। 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 T द्वारा स्वयं जमा धनराशि पर साथ ही यदि शिकायतकर्ता का कोई अतिदेय भी इस अवधि का ब्याज देय न होगा। 3. विपक्षी को यह भी निर्देशित किया जाता है (Over Dues) है, तो उस पर कि रेरा अधिनियम, 20:6 की धारा 2(2०)() के अनुसार यदि रेरा लागू होने के डिफॉल्ट से प्रोमोटर द्वारा लिया जाता है, द्वारा डिफॉल्ट किये जाने पर भी आवंटी को

भुगतान पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भी '४८ा7२+] प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर से ब्याज देय होगा। यदि इससे अधिक दर से कोई धनराशि रेरा लागू होने के बाद आवंटी से विलम्ब हेतु ली गयी है, तो विलम्बित अवधि हेतु ब्याज की के बाद कोई ब्याज दर आवंटी तो उसी दर से ब्याज प्रोमोटर दिया जायेगा। अतः विलम्बित धनराशि की भी उसी दर से गणना की जायेगी। ol Page l4 4. 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। 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 कियान्वयन करा सकेगें। दिनांक :- 26 / 42 / 2022 Kune. (कल्पना मिश्रा) (सदस्य) | उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण Page 2