U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar Order under Section-34, Bench-2 (Former Bench-4) Presiding Officer: Mr. T. Dees[?], Member Serial No. | Complaint Number | Complainant | Unit Number | Total Price | Deposited Amount 4. | NCR44/03/06370/2023 | Sanju Gupta | T3-402, 80760-[?] | 60,75,000/— | 22,96,500 /- Na[?] | Etara44II092864/2023[?] | Ragini Singh | Villa-6, Street-09 | 3,57,5,500/— | ,45,00,000 /- Versus M/s Rise Projects Private Limited The complaints in question have been filed against the respondent by the complainant Sanju Gupta together with 04 other complainants. The facts of both these complaints are the same and the evidence is similar. Both these complaints concern the same project, Rise Resort Residences Phase-I. Accordingly, the complaints in question are being disposed of by a single decision. Complaint Number-Itara44/03//06370/2023[?], Sanju Gupta, shall be the lead case. The present complaint application has been instituted by the complainant against the respondent for refund of the entire deposited amount with interest.

Briefly, the lead complainant states that they booked Unit Number-73-402 in the respondent's project Rise Resort Residences EII450-[?] on 42.09.2020. The total price of the unit was Rs. 60,75,000/—, against which they paid Rs. 22,96,500 /- to the respondent from time to time in instalments. The complainant also states that, under paragraph-7.4.4 of the flat-buyer agreement, the respondent was to provide possession of the unit by 34.07.2022. However, the respondent has not provided possession of the unit to date and has still not obtained the project's O.C./C.C. For this reason, the complainant filed this complaint against the respondent under Section-34 of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act for refund of the amount. In support of their statement, the complainant has filed photocopies of documents including the allotment letter, the flat-buyer agreement dated 40.40.2020, the payment plan and the account statement.

In its written reply, the respondent has stated that the complainant was allotted Unit Number-402 in Tower-T3[?] of the project Rise Resort Residences Phase-I. Against that unit, an agreement for sale was duly executed between the parties on 40.40.2020. Under paragraph-7 of that agreement, the respondent was to provide possession of the unit by 34.07.2022. The total price of the unit was Rs. 60,75,000/—, against which the complainant paid Rs. 46,57,427/— to the respondent, and, in addition to delay interest, Rs. 44,23,573,/- was due from the complainant when the said unit was cancelled. It has also been stated that, out of Rs. 7,34,000/— paid by the complainant, Rs. 82,573 ,/“- was paid to the respondent company as service tax/G.S.T. The complainant has incorrectly and unlawfully stated the paid amount as Rs. 22,96,500/— in their original complaint, whereas they attached evidence of Rs. 7,34,000 /-. The complainant was bound to comply with the terms of the detailed payment plan stated in the agreement for sale, and to date the complainant has not even paid the booking amount of Rs. 7,78,250/— in full. The complainant has violated Section-9(6) of the RERA Act, 20l6. The respondent sent demand letters and reminder letters on various dates, 40.44.2024, 48.04.2022, 42.04.2022 and 07.04.2022, requiring the complainant to pay instalments of the amounts due. Copies are attached as Annexure-70.

Because the complainant did not pay the amount due, the respondent sent a pre-cancellation letter for the unit on 0.04.2022 and a final cancellation letter on 28.05.2022, cancelling the unit. Copies of these letters are attached. Thereafter, rights of the third party Jitendra Garg were created in the said unit, and Jitendra Garg himself sold his unit to the current allottee, Bhupinder Sarang. An agreement was also executed for that sale, a copy of which is attached. There was no delay on the respondent's part in handing over possession of the unit, and the project had already been completed by the contractual possession date, namely 34.07.2022 8[?]. The complainant was also informed that their unit was nearing completion and would soon be ready for possession. Delay in the project occurred because of unforeseen events and the complainant's failure to make timely payments against the unit. The respondent has also stated that, because of environmental pollution, the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal completely prohibited all construction activity in Delhi N.C.R., adversely affecting the progress of the project. It has also been stated that the Government of India resorted to some of the world's strictest measures to prevent the spread of the COVID-i9[?] virus and declared a nationwide lockdown from 24 March, 2020. This was extended through various notifications.

As construction materials were unavailable, construction activities were completely disrupted, causing delay in completion of the project. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the respondent has requested dismissal of the present complaint and directions to the complainant to receive the remaining amount after deducting io[?] per cent of the unit's total sale price as earnest money, together with interest. In support of its statement, the respondent has filed photocopies of documents including the written reply, the flat-buyer agreement, demand letters, reminder letters, the pre-cancellation letter dated 40.04.2022 and the cancellation letter dated 28.05.2022. The arguments[?] of both parties were heard and the evidence available in the case file was examined, on the basis of which the following issue was framed: 4. Can the complainant's deposited amount be refunded with interest? Determination of Issue Number-04 Issue Number-04 has been framed as to whether the complainant's deposited amount can be refunded with interest. This issue is based on the complainant's pleadings, and the burden of proving it rests on the complainant.

The complainant states that, under paragraph-7.4.4 of the Flat Buyer Agreement, the respondent was required to provide possession of the unit by 34.07.2022. However, the respondent has not provided possession of the unit to date, nor has the respondent obtained the O.C./C.C. for the project. For this reason, the complainant does not wish to remain in the project. Accordingly, the complainant has requested a refund of the deposited amount with interest.

In response, the respondent filed a reply stating that unit No.-402 in Tower-73 of the project Rise Resort Residences II850-[?] was allotted to the complainant. A duly executed agreement for sale was entered into between the parties on 40.40.2020. Under paragraph-7 of that agreement, the respondent was required to provide possession of the unit by 34.07.2022. The total price of the unit was Rs. 60,75,000/—, against which the complainant paid Rs. 6,57,427/— to the respondent. Apart from interest for delayed payment, an amount of Rs. 44,23,573,/- was payable by the complainant at the time the unit was cancelled. It was further stated that, out of the Rs. 7,34,000/— paid by the complainant, Rs. 82,573,/- was paid to the respondent company towards service tax/G.S.T. In the original complaint, the complainant incorrectly and unlawfully stated the amount paid as Rs. 22,96,500 /-, while attaching evidence of payment of Rs. 7,34,000/-. The complainant was bound to comply with the terms of the detailed payment plan stated in the agreement for sale, and has not even paid the booking amount of Rs. 7,78,250/— in full to date. The complainant violated Section-9(6) of the RERA Act, 206. The respondent sent demand letters and reminder letters to the complainant on various dates, namely 70.4.202, 48.04.2022, 42.04.2022, and 07.04.2022, for payment of the instalments due. Copies are attached as Annexure-). Because the complainant failed to pay the amount due, the respondent sent a pre-cancellation letter for the unit on 40.04.2022 and a final cancellation letter on 28.05.2022, and cancelled the unit. Copies of those letters are attached. Thereafter, rights in the unit were created in favour of a third party, Jitendra Garg, who subsequently sold the unit to its current allottee, Bhupinder Sarang. An agreement was also executed for that sale, a copy of which is attached. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the respondent requested dismissal of the present complaint and directions to the complainant to receive the remaining amount after deduction of earnest money equal to 40 per cent of the total sale price of the unit and interest.

The complainant has filed on the case record a photocopy of the allotment letter/Flat Buyer Agreement dated t0.:0.2020, executed between the parties. Examination of paragraph-7..] concerning possession on page No.-46 shows that the respondent was required to complete construction of the project and provide possession to the complainant before 34.07.2022. However, the respondent did not provide possession of the unit within the prescribed period. Nor has the respondent submitted any evidence showing that construction of the project has been completed and the O.C./C.C. for the project has been obtained from the competent development authority. It is clear that the project is delayed. In these circumstances, it appears just to award the complainant a refund of the deposited amount with interest. The respondent remained unable to give possession to the complainant by the said deadline for possession. In this connection, Section-i8 (4) of the RERA Act expressly states as follows: “Section 8 (II) ‘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.’” Accordingly, if the promoter fails to complete an apartment, plot or building on time within the period stated in the agreement, in accordance with its terms, or is unable to give possession, then, if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, the promoter shall, on the allottee's demand and without prejudice to any other remedy available, be liable to refund the amount received in respect of that apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, with interest.

Where the promoter does not complete construction of the project on time and does not give possession to the allottees in accordance with the agreement, the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held in this connection in Pradeep Kumar Gupta versus Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd.[?], C.C. i89/20:7 4[?], as follows:

“In my opinion, since the OPs were already in default as far as the offer of possession was concerned, when the 5h, 6, 7 & 8 instalments were demanded, the complainants were under no obligation to pay the said instalments. As far as the default in payment of the 4 instalment by the complainants in CC No.999/206 & CC No.2000/206 is concerned, it would be seen that the said instalment was raised at the stage of casting of roof slab of the lower basement. The demand was raised about two weeks before the last date for offering possession of the flats to the said complainants. Since the construction was still at the stage of casting roof slab of the lower basement at that time, the complainants knew that even if they pay the 4 instalment, it was impossible for the OPs to deliver possession of the apartments to them by the last date stipulated in this regard i.e. 23.0.207 or within six months thereafter, i.e. 23.07.20I7 even if the benefit of the grace period was given to them. When a flat buyer who is saddled with a demand applicable at the stage when the construction is at a very initial stage and the demand is raised just two weeks before the last date for offer of possession, he is not expected to sink more money with the builder despite knowing that the builder will not be able to honour his contractual obligation even if the benefit of a grace period of six months which was otherwise available only in case of unforeseen circumstances, is given to him. Therefore, even the complainants in CC No.l999/20l6 & CC No.2000/20I6 cannot be said to be defaulters, in the sense that they would lose their legal right to claim refund of the amount paid by them and the compensation for the defect/deficiencies on the part of the builder in rendering services to them.”

Accordingly, it is clear that if the promoter does not complete construction of the project on time, the allottee will not be liable to pay subsequent instalments, because the builder has breached the terms of the agreement. In such circumstances, the allottee will not be responsible for the promoter's delay in construction or breach of the terms of the agreement. In addition, it is clarified that the Government of Uttar Pradesh, exercising the powers conferred by subsection 4 of section 84 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, read with clause (f) of subsection 2 of section 84 and subsection 2 of section 43, notified the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 208, on 7.:0.20i8. Paragraph 9.2 of the form of sale/lease deed provided as an annexure to these Rules specifies the interest rate in cases of default by promoters (Events of default). Paragraph 9.20) provides as follows for the allottee in the event of default by the promoter: “9,260) Stop making further payments to Promoter as demanded by the Promoter. If the Allottee stops making payments, the Promoter shall correct the situation by completing the construction milestones and only thereafter the Allottee be required to make the next payment without any interest.”

It is clear from the above Rules that if construction of the project is delayed, the allottee shall stop making payments and shall pay the remaining amount without interest after the construction situation has been rectified. It is clear that the project is delayed and that the respondent has not received the O.C./C.C. It is also clarified that the respondent was to provide possession to the complainant by 34.07.2022 and was responsible for fulfilling this obligation. The complainant has sought a refund of the deposited amount with interest. It is clear that possession was not provided to the complainant within the stipulated period and that the respondent has not received the O.C./C.C. for this project. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to withdraw from the project under section 48()(a) of the RERA Act. Furthermore, it is relevant to mention in this connection that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows in Civil Appeal No. 3482// 2049, Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. v. Devashish Rudra:

“It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By 206, nearly seven years had elapsed from the date of agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 20]6. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund.” Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held as follows in Civil Appeal No. 42238 // 2048, Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited v. Govind Raghavan:

“We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.0.20I8 passed by the National Commission. The Appellant - Builder failed to fulfil his contractual obligation of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent - Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Respondent - Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired. During this period, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser had to service a loan that he had obtained for purchasing the flat, by paying Interest @0% to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest.”

Under the legal position set out above, a homebuyer may be required to wait for a reasonable period, but in the event of a prolonged delay, the complainant is entitled to recover the deposited amount even after the completion certificate has been obtained, because possession was not provided to the complainant within the period specified in the agreement and there has been excessive delay in the matter. Since the project was not completed on time, the complainant is entitled in these circumstances to recover the deposited amount with interest. As regards refund of the amount with interest to the complainant, it is pertinent to mention that, in the petition of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others versus Union of India before the Bombay High Court, the Hon'ble High Court held as follows:

"Section 8()(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 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.

In addition, in Case No.-0.0 .3289/2020 dated 06.02.2020, "Rudra Buildwell Ores[?] Pvt. Ltd. versus Poonam Sood and others," the Hon'ble High Court held that, under paragraph 9.27) of the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2048, in the event of delay by the promoter, the allottee shall have the option of terminating the agreement. In such a case, the promoter shall be liable to refund the entire deposited amount within 45 days with annual interest at the State Bank of India's home loan rate of 872+][?] per cent. The High Court also considered the annual interest rate of MCLR+ per cent appropriate and correct. As regards the applicable interest rate, the State Government notified the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2048, on 47.40.2048 under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046. Paragraph 9 of the format of the sale/lease deed given in these rules 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 +l%, 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 order refund of the amount to the allottee at an interest rate of MCLR+ per cent. Issue No.-4 is disposed of accordingly. Upon determination of the above issue, the following orders are passed: Order 4. The respondent is directed to ensure refund of the amount deposited by the complainants, together with interest at the annual rate of MCLR+ per cent, within 45 days from the date on which the order is uploaded to the portal. 2. One copy of this order shall be placed in each of the relevant case files, and the amount and interest in each case shall be calculated in accordance with the principle[?] laid down in this order. 3. If the respondent does not comply with this order, the complainants shall have the right to have their order enforced through the RERA Authority.

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. (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर। आदेश अन्तर्गत धारा-34, पीठ-2 (पूर्व पीठ-4) पीठासीन अधिकारी :- श्री टी. dees, सदस्य जमा धनराशि यूनिट संख्या | सं. शिकायत संख्या कुल मूल्य 4. | NCR44/03/06370/2023 संजू गुप्ता T3-402, 80760- | 60,75,000/— | 22,96,500 /- न एटारा44॥092864/2023 रागिनी सिंह Villa-6, Street- 09 3,57,5,500/— | ,45,00,000 /- बनाम मैसर्स राइज प्रोजेक्ट्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड शिकायतकर्ता संजू गुप्ता के साथ 04 अन्य शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्ध प्रश्नगत शिकायतें योजित की गयी हैं। इन दोनों शिकायतों के तथ्य समान है और एक समान साक्ष्य हैं। यह दोनों शिकायतें एक ही परियोजना Rise Resort Residences Phase-I से सम्बन्धित हैं | अतः: एक ही निर्णय से प्रश्नगत शिकायतों का निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत संख्या- इटारा44/03//06370/2023 संजू गुप्ता अग्रणी वाद रहेगा। प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्ध समस्त जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है।

संक्षेप में अग्रणी शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना Rise Resort Residences ए॥45०- में दिनांक 42.09.2020 को यूनिट संख्या-73-402 बुक करायी गयी थी। यूनिट की कुल मूल्य 60,75,000/— रुपये था, जिसके सापेक्ष उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 22,96,500 /- रुपये का भुगतान विपक्षी को किया war) शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है कि फ्लैट क्रेता अनुबन्ध के प्रस्तर-7.4.4 के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 34.07.2022 तक यूनिट का कब्जा उपलब्ध कराया जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा आज तक यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान नहीं किया गया है और न ही विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक परियोजना का ओ.सी. /सी.सी. प्राप्त किया गया है, जिस कारण शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भू-सम्पदा विनियामंक प्राधिकरण अधिनियम की 27986 4 धारा-34 के अन्तर्गत विपक्षी के विरुद्ध यह शिकायत धनराशि वापस कराये जाने हेतु दर्ज करायी गयी है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटन पत्र फ्लैट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांकित 40.40.2020, पेमेन्ट प्लान, खाता विवरण, आदि अभिलेखों की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गई हैं।

विपक्षी की ओर से लिखित जवाब प्रस्तुत करते हुए यह कथन किया गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता कोः परियोजना Rise Resort Residences Phase-I के crae—T3 में यूनिट संख्या-402 आवंटित की गयी थी, जिसके सापेक्ष उभयपक्षों के मध्य दिनांक 40.40.2020 को बिक्री के लिए विधिवत रूप से अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किया गया, जिसके प्रस्तर-7 के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 34.07.2022 तक यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान किया जाना था। यूनिट का कुल मूल्य 60,75,000/— रुपये था, जिसके सापेक्ष शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा 46,57,427/— रुपये का भुगतान विपक्षी को किया गया तथा शिकायतकर्ता पर विलम्ब ब्याज के अतिरिक्त var यूनिट के निरस्त होने के समय 44,23,573,/- रुपये की धनराशि देय थी। साथ ही यह भी कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भुगतान की गयी धनराशि 7,34,000/— रुपये में से 82,573 ,/“- रुपये विपक्षी कंपनी को सेवा कर/जी.एस.टी. के रूप में भुगतान किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपनी मूल शिकायत में गलत और अवैध रूप से भुगतान की गयी धनराशि 22,96,500/— रुपये अंकित की गयी है तथा शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा 7,34,000 /- रुपये का साक्ष्य संलग्न किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता बिक्री के लिए अनुबन्ध में अंकित विस्तृत भुगतान योजना की शर्तों का अनुपालन करने के लिए बाध्य था और शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा आज तक 7,78,250/— रुपये की बुकिंग धनराशि का भुगतान भी पूर्ण रूप से नहीं किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा रेरा अधिनियम, 20l6 की धारा-9(6) का उल्लंघन किया गया है। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को अपनी देय धनराशि की किश्तों का भुगतान किये जाने हेतु विभिन्‍न दिनांक 40.44.2024, 48.04.2022, 42.04.2022, 07.04.2022, को मांग पत्र व अनुस्मारक पत्र प्रेषित किये गये, जिनकी प्रति अनुलग्नक-70 के रूप में संलग्न है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपनी देय धनराशि का भुगतान न किये जाने के कारण विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 0.04.2022 को यूनिट के प्री-निरस्तीकरण एवं दिनांक 28.05.2022 को अन्तिम निरस्तीकरण पत्र प्रेषित कर यूनिट निरस्त कर दी गयी, जिनकी प्रति संलग्न हैं, जिसके पश्चात्‌ उक्त यूनिट में तृतीय पक्ष जितेन्द्र गर्ग के अधिकार सृजित किये जा चुके हैं और जितेन्द्र गर्ग द्वारा स्वयं अपनी यूनिट वर्तमान आवंटी भूपिन्दर सारंग को विक्रय कर दी गयी है, जिसके लिए अनुबन्ध पत्र भी निष्पादित किया गया है, जिसकी प्रति संलग्न है। विपक्षी की ओर से यूनिट का कब्जा सौंपने में कोई विलम्ब नहीं हुआ है तथा अनुबन्ध के अनुसार

Page 2 कब्जा दिये जाने की तिथि अर्थात 34.07.2022 8 ot ही परियोजना का पूर्ण कर लिया गया था, साथ ही शिकायतकर्ता को सूचित भी किया गया था कि उनकी यूनिट पूर्ण होने वाली है और जल्द ही कब्जे के लिए तैयार हो जाएगी। परियोजना में विलम्ब अप्रत्याशित घटनाओं और शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा यूनिट के सापेक्ष समय पर भुगतान न करने के कारण हुआ। विपक्षी द्वारा यह भी कहा गया है कि पर्यावरण प्रदूषण के कारण माननीय राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण ने दिल्‍ली एन.सी.आर. में किसी भी प्रकार की निर्माण गतिविधि पर पूर्ण रूप से प्रतिबन्ध लगा दिया था, जिससे परियोजना की प्रगति पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पड़ा। साथ ही यह भी कहा गया है कि भारत सरकार ने afas—i9 वायरस के प्रसार को रोकने के लिए विश्व में कुछ सबसे कठोर कार्यवाइयों का सहारा लिया और सम्पूर्ण देश में 24 मार्च, 2020 से राष्ट्रव्यायी लॉकडाउन घोषित किया गया, जिसे विभिन्‍न अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा बढ़ाया गया था, जिस कारण निर्माण की सामग्री उपलब्ध न होने के कारण निर्माण गतिविधियां पूर्ण रूप से बाधित रहीं, जिस कारण परियोजना को पूर्ण किये जाने में विलम्ब हुआ | उपर्युक्त तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए विपक्षी द्वारा वर्तमान शिकायत को खारिज करने तथा यूनिट के कुल बिक्री मूल्य का io प्रतिशत अर्नेस्ट मनी व ब्याज की कटौती करने के पश्चात्‌ शिकायतकर्ता को शेष धनराशि प्राप्त करने हेतु निर्देश दिये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। विपक्षी द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में लिखित जवाब, फ्लैट क्रेता अनुबन्ध, मांग पत्र, अनुस्मारक पत्र, प्री-निरस्तीकरण पत्र दिनांकित 40.04.2022, निरस्तीकरण पत्र दिनांकित 28.05.2022, आदि अभिलेखों की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं।

उभयपक्ष के del को सुना गया व पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों का अवलोकन किया गया, जिसके आधार पर निम्न बिन्दु विचरित किया गया है :- 4. कया शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलायी जा सकती है ? निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-04 निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-04 इस आशय से विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलायी जा सकती है ? यह वाद बिन्दु शिकायतकर्ता के अभिवचनों के आधार पर आधारित है, जिसे साबित करने का भार शिकायतकर्ता पर है ? शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि फ्लैट क्रेता अनुबन्ध के प्रस्तर-7.4.4 के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 34.07.2022 तक यूनिट का कब्जा उपलब्ध कराया Page 3 are: जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा आज तक यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान नहीं किया गया है और न ही विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक परियोजना का ओ.सी. /सी.सी. प्राप्त किया गया है, जिस कारण वह परियोजना में बने रहना नहीं चाहते हैं। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है।

इस पर विपक्षी द्वारा जवाब दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को परियोजना Rise Resort Residences ॥85०- के टॉवर-73 में यूनिट संख्या-402 आवंटित की गयी थी, जिसके सापेक्ष उभयपक्षों के मध्य दिनांक 40.40.2020 को बिक्री के लिए विधिवत रूप से अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किया गया, जिसके प्रस्तर-7 के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 34.07.2022 तक यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान किया जाना. था। यूनिट का कुल मूल्य 60,75,000/— रुपये था, जिसके सापेक्ष शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा 6,57,427/— रुपये का भुगतान विपक्षी को किया गया तथा शिकायतकर्ता पर विलम्ब ब्याज के अतिरिक्त sar यूनिट के निरस्त होने के समय 44,23,573,/- रुपये की धनराशि देय थी। साथ ही यह भी कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भुगतान की गयी धनराशि 7,34,000/— रुपये में से 82,573,/- रुपये विपक्षी कंपनी को सेवा कर /जी. एस.टी. के रूप में भुगतान किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपनी मूल शिकायत में गलत और अवैध रूप से भुगतान की गयी धनराशि 22,96,500 /- रुपये अंकित की गयी है तथा शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा 7,34,000/- रुपये का साक्ष्य संलग्न किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता बिक्री के लिए अनुबन्ध में अंकित विस्तृत भुगतान योजना की शर्तों का अनुपालन करने के लिए बाध्य था और शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा आज तक 7,78,250/— रुपये की बुकिंग धनराशि का भुगतान भी पूर्ण रूप से नहीं किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा रेर अधिनियम, 206 की धारा-9(6) का उल्लंघन किया गया है। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को अपनी देय धनराशि की किश्तों का भुगतान किये जाने हेतु विभिन्‍न दिनांक 70.4.202, 48.04.2022, 42.04.2022, 07.04.2022, को मांग पत्र व अनुस्मारक पत्र प्रेषित किये गये, जिनकी प्रति अनुलग्नक-) के रूप में संलग्न है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपनी देय धनराशि का भुगतान न किये जाने के कारण विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 40.04.2022 को यूनिट के प्री-निरस्तीकरण एवं दिनांक 28.05.2022 को अन्तिम निरस्तीकरण पत्र प्रेषित कर यूनिट निरस्त कर दी गयी, जिनकी प्रति संलग्न हैं, जिसके पश्चात्‌ उक्त यूनिट में तृतीय पक्ष जितेन्द्र गर्ग के अधिकार सृजित किये जा चुके हैं और जितेन्द्र गर्ग द्वारा wa अपनी यूनिट वर्तमान आवंटी भूपिन्दर सारंग को विक्रय कर दी गयी है, जिसके लिए अनुबन्ध पत्र भी निष्पादित किया गया है, जिसकी प्रति संलग्न है। उपर्युक्त तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए विपक्षी द्वारा वर्तमान शिकायत को खारिज

॥ Page 4 | , y करने तथा यूनिट के कुल बिक्री मूल्य का 40 प्रतिशत अर्नेस्ट मनी व ब्याज की कटौती करने के पश्चात्‌ शिकायतकर्ता को शेष धनराशि प्राप्त करने हेतु निर्देश दिये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। पत्रावली पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा आवंटन पत्र/फ्लैट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांकित t0.:0.2020 की छायाप्रति दाखिल की गयी है, जो उभयपक्षों के मध्य निष्पादित है, जिसके पृष्ठ संख्या-46 के कब्जे वाले प्रस्तर-7..] के अवलोकन से विदित है कि विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 34.07.2022 से पूर्व परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण कर शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जां उपलब्ध कराया जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा निर्धारित समयावधि में यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान नहीं किया गया है तथा विपक्षी द्वारा ऐसा कोई साक्ष्य भी प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया है, जिससे यह विदित हो सके कि उनके द्वारा परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण किया जा चुका हो और सक्षम विकास प्राधिकरण से परियोजना का ओ.सी. /सी.सी. प्राप्त किया जा चुका हो। यह स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना विलम्ब की श्रेणी में है। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। उक्त कब्जे की अवधि तक विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहा है। इस सम्बन्ध में रेश अधिनियम की ae—i8 (4) F स्पष्ट रूप से उललेखित है कि :- "Section 8 (॥) “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: Page 5 A | 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." उपरोक्‍तानुसार यदि प्रोमोटर करार के निबन्धों के अनुसार उसमें दिये गये अवधि तक समय से किसी अपार्टपेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन को पूरा करने में असमर्थ रहता है या कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहता है, तो वह उपलब्ध किसी अन्य उपचार पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव डाले बिना आवंटी की मांग पर यदि आवंटी परियोजना से बाहर होना चाहता है, तो प्रकरण के अनुसार, उस अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन के सम्बन्ध में उसके द्वारा प्राप्त धनराशि ब्याज सहित लौटाने का दायी होगा।

यदि प्रमोटर द्वारा परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य समय से पूर्ण नहीं कराया जाता है और आवंटियों को अनुबन्धानुसार कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है, तो माननीय राष्ट्रीय उपभोक्ता विवाद निवारण आयोग द्वारा इस सम्बन्ध में प्रदीप कुमार गुप्ता बनाम इरियो ग्रेस रियलटेक wife. सी.सी. i89/20:7 4 अभिनिर्धारित किया है कि :-

In my opinion, since the OPs were already in default as far as the offer of possession was concerned, when the 5h 6", 7"°& 8" installments were demanded, the complainants were under no obligation to pay the said installments. As far as the default in payment of the 4" installment by the complainants in CC No.999/206 & CC No.2000/206 is concerned, it would be seen that the said installment was raised at the stage of casting of roof slab of the lower basement. The demand was raised about two weeks before the last date for offering possession of the flats to the said complainants. Since the construction was still at the stage of casting roof slab of the lower basement at that time, the complainants knew that even if they pay the 4" installment, it was impossible for the OPs to deliver possession of the apartments to them by the last date stipulated in this regard i.e. 23.0.207 or within six months thereafter, i.e. 23.07.20I7 even if the benefit of the grace period was given to them. When a flat buyer who is saddled with a demand applicable at the stage when the construction is at a very initial stage and the demand is raised just two weeks before the last date for offer of possession, he is not expected to sink more

money with the builder despite knowing that the builder will not be able to honour his contractual obligation even if the benefit of a grace period of six months which was otherwise available only in case of unforeseen circumstances, is given to him.. Therefore, even the complainants in CC No.l999/20l6 & CC No.2000/20I6 cannot be said to be defaulters, in the sense that they would lose their legal right to claim refund of the amount paid by them and the compensation for the defect/deficiencies on the part of the builder in rendering services to them. उपरोक्तानुसार यह स्पष्ट है कि यदि प्रोमोटर द्वारा परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य समय से पूर्ण नहीं किया जाता है, ती आवंटी अपने आगामी किश्तों के भुगतान करने के लिए उत्तरदायी नहीं होगा, क्योंकि बिल्डर द्वारा किये गये अनुबन्ध के शर्तों का उल्लंघन किया गया है। ऐसे में प्रोमोटर द्वारा निर्माण में किये गये flora एवं अनुबन्ध की शर्तों के उल्लंघन के लिए आवंटी उत्तरदायी नहीं होगा। इसके अतिरिक्त इस सम्बंध में स्पष्ट करना है कि उ0प्र0 राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमनन और विकास) अधिनियम की धारा-84 की उपधारा-2 के खण्ड-(च) और धारा-43 की उपधारा-2 के साथ पठित उक्त धारा-84 की उपधारा-4 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का अधिकार प्रयोग करते हुए दिनांक 7.:0.20i8 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास), (विक्रय /पट््‌टा के लिए करार) नियमावली Rules), 208 अधिसूचित की गयी है।

इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विक्रय,/पदट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के Te 9.2 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) BA में ब्याज दर निर्धारित है, जिसके प्रस्तर 9.20) में प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है कि:- 9,260) Stop making further payments to Promoter as demanded by the Promoter. If the Allottee stops making payments, the: Promoter shall correct the situation by completing the construction milestones and only thereafter the Allottee be required to make the next payment without any interest. उपरोक्त नियमावली से यह स्पष्ट है कि' यदि परियोजना के निर्माण में विलम्ब होता है, तो आवंटी द्वारा भुगतान रोक दिया जायेगा और निर्माण की Page 7 स्थिति को सही करने के उपरान्त आवंटी द्वारा बिना ब्याज की शेष धनराशि का भुगतान किया जायेगा। यह स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना विलम्बित है और न ही विपक्षी को ओ.सी. /सी.सी प्राप्त हुई है। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 34.07.2022 तक कब्जा दिया जाना था, जिसको विपक्षी द्वारा पूर्ण करने का दायित्व था। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कहा गया है कि जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलायी जाये। स्पष्ट है कि शिकायतकर्ता को निर्धारित अवधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया और न ही विप्रक्षी को इस परियोजना का ओ.सी. / सी.सी. प्राप्त हुआ है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-48()(ए) के अन्तर्गत वह परियोजना से बाहर आने का अधिकारी है।

इसके अतिरिक्त इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-3482// 2049 कोलकाता वेस्ट इंटरनेशनल सिटी प्रा.लि. बनाम देवाशीष रुद्रा में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- "It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitaly for possession.by 206, nearly seven year has elapsed from the date of agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 20]6. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayet in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund." साथ ही साथ इसी क्रम में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्‍्गागालग के सिविल arte संख्या-42238 // 2048 पायनियर अर्बन लैन्ड एवं इंफ्रास्ट्रक्बर लिमिटेड बनाम गोविन्द राघवन में भी अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

"We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.0.20I8 passed by the National Commission. The Appellant - Builder failed to fulfill his contractual obligation of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent — Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired. During this period, the Respondent — Flat Purchaser had to service a loan that he had obtained for purchasing the flat, by paying Interest @0% to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent — Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the Respondent — Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest." sea दी गयी विधि व्यवस्था में 'गृहक्रेता को एक उचित समय तक प्रतीक्षा कराया जा सकता है व लम्बे विलम्ब की स्थिति में पूर्णता प्रमाण-पत्र प्राप्त होने के उपरान्त भी शिकायतकर्ता जमा धनराशि पाने का अधिकारी है, क्‍योंकि अनुबन्ध में दी गयी अवधि के अनुसार शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा नहीं मिला है व प्रकरण में अत्यधिक विलम्ब हुआ है। चूंकि परियोजना समय से पूर्ण नहीं की गयी है। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है।

जहां तक शिकायकतकर्ता को मय ब्याज धनराशि वापस किये जाने का प्रश्न है, तो 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 trom the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession, The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि 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 द्वारा vad धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है।

इसके अतिरिक्त fe संख्या-0.० .3289/2020 दिनांक 06.02.2020 “रुद्रा बिल्डवेल ores प्रा. लि. बनाम पूनम सूद एवं अन्य” में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) नियमावली, 2048 की प्रस्तर 9.27) के ओनसार 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 ८7२+] 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 सही माना गया है। जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विक्रय,/पद्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 2048 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें दिये गये विक्रय /पट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 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 (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +l% 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 ब्याज़ दर पर धनराशि वापस दिलाये जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। ?०8०९0 उपरोक्त बिन्दु का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते हैं :- आदेश 4... विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड होने की तिथि से 45 दिन के अन्दर शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा जमा धनराशि MCLR+ प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज दर सहित वापस अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। 2. इस आदेश की एक-एक प्रति सम्बन्धित पत्रावली पर रखी जाए एवं इस आदेश में प्रतिपादित fier के अनुरूप धनराशि व ब्याज की प्रत्येक मामले में गणना की जाएगी। 3. यदि विपक्षी द्वारा इस आदेश का अनुपालन नहीं किया जाता है, तो शिकायतकर्तागण को यह अधिकार होगा कि वह रेरा प्राधिकरण के माध्यम से अपने आदेश का क्रियान्वयन करा सकेंगे | 4... इस आदेश का उल्लघंन भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत ग्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाए। (सदस्य) उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण ————_———————————_—_— रच ऋचऋषषधअआऋऋिचंचंऋषाररुरस Page |