4. Do agreements executed before RERA came into force fall outside the scope of RERA? 2. Is the case not maintainable before the project completion date of 30.4.2020 given in RERA? 3. Was the opposite party's project delayed due to force majeure events? If so, what is the effect? 4. Since the agreement contains an arbitration clause, does this Bench lack jurisdiction to hear the case? 5. Is the complainant entitled to possession and interest for the delayed period? Decision on Issue No. 4 Issue No. 1 [?] considers whether agreements made before RERA came into force fall outside the scope of RERA. In this regard, the observation given by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2737/20i7, "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Union of India", is important, in which it is clearly stated: "The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section 4(2)(I)(C) enables the promoter to give fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered into between him and the allottees so that he is not visited with penal consequences laid down under RERA. In other words, by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh time line under Section 4(2)(I)(C) he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale."

From the above legal position it is clear that under the provisions of RERA, the completion and possession clauses given in the agreement cannot be rewritten. Under Section 4(2)(I)(C) the promoter may give a fresh timeline, which does not depend on the agreement, and by virtue of that provision the promoter can be saved only from penalty under RERA. Hence it is determined that the promoter is liable for the possession date given in the agreement. It is also clear under RERA that "on-going" projects definitely fall within the scope of the RERA Act. Issue No. 4 is disposed of. Decision on Issue No. 2 Issue No. 2 considers whether the case is not maintainable before the completion period given in RERA. In this regard, the observation given by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2737,/2047, "Neelkamal Realtors [?] Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Union of India", is important, and it is clearly stated in its paragraph 449 that: "Under the provisions of RERA, the promoter is given a facility to revise the date of completion of project and declare the same under Section 4. The RERA does not contemplate rewriting of contract between the flat purchaser and the promoter. The promoter would tender an application for registration with the necessary preparations and requirements in law."

From the above observation it is clear that RERA gives an incomplete project a new date for completion, so that the promoter completes the remaining works of its project quickly and within the prescribed time period. It is also made clear that a previously executed agreement will not be rewritten. In such a case, the opposite party's contention that the case in question is not maintainable before the completion date of 30.4.2020 given in RERA is baseless. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is disposed of [?]. Decision on Issue No. 3 Issue No. 3 considers whether the project was in fact delayed because of force majeure events. This issue is considered on the opposite party's averments, and the burden of proving them lies on the opposite party. The force majeure clause of the agreement signed between the parties, at paragraph 24, reads: 2. FORCE MAJEURE

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

In respect of force majeure, the above clause states that if the project is not developed because of delay such as non-availability of materials for development, non-availability of water and electricity facilities, a dispute between the construction agency and the developer, or an order, government notification, riot or earthquake, then it shall be the developer's responsibility to refund the money to the allottees as per the terms of the allotment letter. The terms and conditions of allotment may be changed on account of force majeure reasons, and if the scheme is cancelled because of circumstances beyond the developer's control, no compensation shall be payable. The opposite party has stated that the project was delayed due to certain unforeseen events (force majeure events). However, no evidence has been placed on the case file in support of any specific force majeure event showing that work on the project land was obstructed. In this regard, the Hon'ble NCDRC, in Consumer Complaint e-30/20I6, "Neeru Kaushal and Others v. Unitech Limited", in paragraph 44 of its decision, has made the following observation on delay in a project due to force majeure:

"Coming to the plea of Force Majeure taken by the opposite party. It may be noted that issue raised by the opposite party is no more res integra. Similar pleas to explain the delay in construction were taken by the opposite party in Consumer Complaint No.347 of 294 Swarn Talwar and 2 Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. and other connected consumer complaints which pertain to the alleged deficiency i.e. failure of the opposite party to deliver possession of the booked apartments in the same project. In the aforesaid matters, Coordinate Bench of this Commission vide order dated 4.08.20I5 declined to accept the plea of Force Majeure taken by the opposite party. The relevant reasoning of the Coordinate Bench rejecting the plea of Force Majeure is reproduced as under: "Coming to the pleas that there was recession in the economy and a disruption due to agitation by farmers and acute shortage of labour, etc., the following view taken by us In Satish Kumar Pandey (Supra) is relevant.

"Neither any new legislation was enacted nor an existing rule, regulation or order was amended stopping suspending or delaying the construction of the complex in which apartments were agreed to be sold to the complainants. There is no allegation of any lock-out or strike by the labour at the site of the project. There is no allegation of any slow-down having been resorted to by the labourers of the opposite party or the contractors engaged by it at the site of the project. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God which could have delayed the completion of the project within the time stipulated in the Buyers Agreement. It was contended by the counsel for the OP that the expression 'slow down' would include economic slow-down or recession in the Real Estate sector. I, however, find no merit in this contention. The word 'slow down' having been used alongwith the words lock-out and strike, I has to be read ejusdem generis with the words lock-out and strike and therefore, can mean only a slow down if resorted by the labourers engaged in construction of the project."" Further, in Civil Appeal No. 940 / 2047, "Vikram Chatterjee and Others v. Union of India and Others", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined force majeure at page 234 and paragraph si0 F [?] as follows: "Force majeure shall mean a case of war, flood drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature"

From the above definition of force majeure it is clear that force majeure is a situation in which war, flood, drought, fire, storm, earthquake or another natural calamity has occurred. In the present case, the project was delayed on account of a land dispute and similar reasons, which were not within the control of the opposite party. In addition, due to the effect of "Covid", an additional period of six months has been granted [?] to all projects. Accordingly, Issue No. 3 is disposed of. Decision on Issue No. 4 The opposite party has also argued that the agreement contains an arbitration clause, so any dispute between the complainant and the opposite party can be settled only through an arbitrator, and this Bench has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in "M/s MGF [?] Limited v. Aftab Singh", 208 SCC Online SC 277, has held: "55. In view of the afore-going discussion, we arrive at the following conclusions: (i) the disputes which are to be adjudicated and governed by statutory enactments, established for specific public Purpose to sub-serve a particular public policy are not arbitrable; (ii) there are vast domains of the legal universe that are non-arbitrable and kept at a distance from private dispute resolution; (iii) the subject amendment was meant for a completely different purpose, leaving status quo ante unaltered and subsequently reaffirmed and restated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court;

(iv) Section 2(3) of the Arbitration Act recognizes schemes under other legislations that make disputes non-arbitrable and" In light of the legal positions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that some disputes cannot be resolved by an arbitrator even after an arbitration agreement; the jurisdiction of specially constituted authorities cannot be displaced merely by an arbitration clause. For all such disputes for which special bodies have been created by law and given jurisdiction, an arbitrator is not competent to resolve the dispute. In light of the above legal positions it is clear that Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 will override the Arbitration Act. The Hon'ble NCDRC, applying the reasoning given in "A. Ayyaswamy v. Paramasivam and Others", (206) 0 SCC 386, concluded that the same principle applies to disputes under the Real Estate Act as well, because that Act provides a special mechanism for resolving disputes between homebuyers and builders. In view of the principles propounded above, the question of referring the matter to an arbitrator ends automatically. Accordingly, Issue No. 4 is disposed of. Decision on Issue No. 5

The complainant's submission is that the opposite party was to complete the project and hand over possession to the complainant, but has not yet handed over possession. At the hearing before the Bench on 24.08.2020, the complainant requested possession of an alternative plot in some other developed project of the opposite party, to which the opposite party said that the complainant's originally allotted plot would be completed and possession given by March 2024. In support of the complainant's statement, a copy of the Residential Plot Allotment Arrangement dated 06.08.2043 has been filed. Under clause 3.4 on construction and possession, the complainant was to construct a building on the allotted plot within 3 years from the date of receiving the possession notice from the opposite party, after getting the plan sanctioned from the competent authority; and under clause 3.2, the complainant was to take possession within 30 days of the opposite party sending the possession notice. In the present case, the opposite party has not yet given the complainant any possession notice. In such a situation it would not be proper to say that the opposite party will give possession as it pleases and that the date of possession would be endless. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal Nos. 3533-3534 / 2047, "M/s Fortune Infrastructure and Others v. Trevor D'Lima and Others", has clearly laid down in paragraph 45:

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

In accordance with the above observation and legal position of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession. Where no date of possession is given in the agreement, a period of 3 years has been considered a reasonable time for completing the work, in view of the facts and circumstances. In the present case, the plot allotment arrangement was executed on 06.08.2073. In view of the facts and circumstances, a period of 4.5 years was a reasonable time for handing over possession of the plot to the complainant. In such a situation the complainant was entitled to possession of the plot by 06.02.20i8, but the opposite party did not give possession within the prescribed period. As far as interest for the delay in possession of the project, and the amount payable, is concerned, it appears just that the complainant be given interest for the delayed period from 07.02.208 till the date of O.C./C.C. or offer of possession, whichever is later. In this regard, the Maharashtra High Court, in the petition "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Union of India", has held:

"Section 8(I)(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 till handing over of the possession. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." Therefore, in light of the above judgment, it is clear that under the provisions of U.P. RERA, interest for the delay and on the principal amount shall be payable in accordance with the agreement between the promoter and the buyer, because the promoters have used the said amount.

As regards the rate of interest payable: the State Government, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20i6, notified on 47.40.2048 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2048. In the sale/lease deed format given as an annexure to these Rules, the events of default by the promoter are defined in paragraph 9, and paragraph 9.2) provides for the allottee, in case the promoter is in default, as follows: "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 fixed in paragraph 9.30) for default by allottees. In view of this provision, the allottee is held entitled to delay interest for the delayed period at the rate of MCLR+[?] percent. It is also made clear that if the complainant has any delay in an amount payable, the opposite party may also receive interest at the rate of MCLR+[?] percent. As to the period up to which interest is to be granted: in this regard, in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50/20:8, "Supertech Limited v. Rajni Goyal", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:

"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 20I6 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." As per the above legal position, the complainant will be entitled to interest for the delay till the date of receipt of O.C./C.C. or offer of possession, whichever is later. In such a case the complainant will be entitled to interest for the period up to the date of O.C./C.C. or offer of possession, whichever is later. Further, by notification No. 4740/8-3--8-65 Miscellaneous/46 dated 47.0.208 of the U.P. Government, Housing and Urban Planning Section-3, the following has been mentioned regarding force majeure in paragraph 7 of the Model Agreement:

"7. Schedule for possession of the said [Apartment/Plot] - The Promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot] to the Allottee and the Common Areas to the association of Allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, is the essence of the Agreement. The Promoter assures to hand over possession of the [Apartment/Plot] along with ready and complete Common Areas with all specifications, amenities and facilities of the Project in place on [?] unless there is delay or failure due to war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project ("Force Majeure"). If, however, the completion of the Project is delayed due to the Force Majeure conditions then the Allottee agrees that the Promoter shall be entitled to the extension of time for delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot]:" In this sequence, after considering all relevant facts, the U.P. RERA Authority, by its order dated 20.05.2020, in view of the effect of COVID--49 (Corona Virus Disease), granted all projects a period of six months from 25.03.2020, that is up to 25.09.2020, to complete the projects, and this period shall be treated as the force majeure period. Keeping this in view, no interest for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020 shall be paid by the promoter to the allottees, and no delay interest shall be charged from the complainant.

Accordingly, Issue No. 5 is disposed of. ORDER Disposing of the above issues, the following orders are passed. The opposite party is directed to hand over possession of the originally allotted plot to the complainants, along with O.C./C.C., by 34.03.2020; or, with the consent of the complainants, at rates fixed earlier, to ensure possession of an alternative plot in any other developed project of its own for which O.C./C.C. has already been obtained, by 34.05.2024; and to get the registry done as per rules after receiving the payable stamp duty. The opposite party shall ensure [?] payment to the complainant of delay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant, from 07.02.2048 till the date of O.C./C.C. or offer of possession, whichever is later, at the rate of ॥40.2+ [?] percent. This interest amount shall be adjusted against the final amount payable. If the interest amount exceeds the amount payable, it shall be returned to the complainant. Keeping in view the force majeure period, interest shall not be calculated for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020. Also, if the complainant has any overdue amounts, interest for this period shall not be payable on them. In the case of other complainants, delay interest shall be calculated in accordance with the agreement, CRITI [?].

The opposite party is further directed that, as per Section 2(24)6) of the RERA Act, 2046, if after RERA came into force any interest rate is charged by the promoter for the allottee's default, the same rate of interest shall also be given to the allottee when the promoter defaults. Accordingly, interest at the rate of MCLR+[?] percent shall also be payable by the complainant on delayed payment. If any amount has been taken from the allottee for delay after RERA came into force at a higher rate than this, the interest for the delayed period shall also be calculated at that same rate. 4. A copy of this order shall be placed on each of the relevant case files, and the amount and interest in each case shall be calculated in accordance with the principles laid down in this order. 5. Any violation of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 and other relevant provisions. This order shall be uploaded on the portal. 6. If the opposite party does not comply with this order, the complainants shall have the right to get their order implemented through the RERA Authority. Dated 29 /2 )/ 2020 28 (Rajeev Kumar) (Chairman) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | * सुनवाई पीठ-04ए E-Court श्री राजीव कुमार, अध्यक्ष कम संख्या शिकायत संख्या शिकायतकर्तागण ] ॥टार44/03/5457/2020 दीपांशु अग्रवाल 2 7८२44/03/5460/2020 | दीपांशु अग्रवाल व लोकेश म अग्रवाल बनाम मैसर्स उप्पल चड्ढा हाई-टेक डेवलपर्स प्राईवेट लिमिटेड शिकायतकर्ता दीपांशु अग्रवाल के साथ 04 अन्य शिकायतकंर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध वाद योजित किया गया है। इन दोनों शिकायतों के तथ्य समान है और एक समान साक्ष्य हैं। यह दोनों शिकायतें UCHDPL- ४०००-5 ए०४७ से सम्बन्धित है। अत: एक ही निर्णय से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत संख्या :- NCRI44/03/5457/2020 दीपांशु अग्रवाल अग्रणी वाद रहेगा। 7 प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के -विरूद्द कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने हेतु रांरिथत किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी की * परियोजना UCHDPL- 8०००-३5 Plots 4 प्लॉट संख्या-78! बुक किया गया, जिसके 'लिए शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 44,86,267 /-रूपये का भुगतान किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, किन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया। पीठ के समक्ष सुनवाई के दौरान दिनांक 24.08.2020 को शिकायतकर्ता Os 2 द्वारा विपक्षी की किसी अन्य विकसित परियोजना में वैकल्पिक प्लॉट का कब्जा दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है।

शिकायतकर्ता की ओर से अपने कथन के समर्थन में विपक्षी का पत्र दिनांक 30.08.2043, आवेदन पत्र दिनांक 23.08.2043, जमा धनराशि की रसीदें, रेसीडेन्सियल प्लॉट एलॉटी अरेन्जमेन्ट दिनांक 06.08.2043, खाता विवरण की छायाप्रतियाँ दाखिल की गयी हैं। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवादपत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को उनकी नामित परियोजना Wave City & aex-i5 F प्लॉट संख्या-78 आवंटित की गयी। परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण विलम्बित हुई,.जो कि उनके नियंत्रण में नहीं था। स्थानीय किसानों द्वारा धरना प्रर्दशन के कारण कार्य कराये . जाने में बाधा उत्पन्न हुई। दिल्ली NCR में बढ़ते हुए प्रदूषण को ध्यान में रखते हुए माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अक्टूबर 209 से जनवरी 2020 तक निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगा दी गयी थी। इसके अतिरिक्त wa 6 बजे से प्रातः 6 बजे तक के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगा दी गयी थी जिसके कारण भी परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य विलम्बित हुआ है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा आदेश पारित करते हुए दिनांक 30.04.2042 को भूमि पर स्थगन लगा दिया था, जो कि पुनः दिनांक 09.04. 20i5 को gfe की गयी है, जिसके उपरान्त किसानों द्वारा दाखिल की गयी अपत्तियों को दिनांक 40.03.20॥7 को खारिज कर दिया गया था। प्रश्नगत परियोजना की पूर्णता तिथि 30.4.2020 दी गयी है। इसके अतिरिक्त विपक्षी द्वारा पीठ क़े समक्ष सुनवाई के दौरान दिनांक 24.08.2020 को कहा war. fe शिकायतकर्ता की मूल आवंटित प्लॉट को पूर्ण कर मार्च 2024 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। उभयपक्ष को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। * यक्षकारों के अभिवचनों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचारणीय किये गये :-

4... क्या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेरा के दायरे में नहीं आते हैं ? 2. क्या प्रश्नगत वाद रेरा गें वी गयी परियोजना की पूर्णता तिथि 30.4.2020 से पूर्व पोषणीय नहीं है ? 3. क्या force majeure events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? 4... क्‍या अनुबन्ध में आरबिट्रैशन ait होने के कारण वाद. की सुनवाई का क्षेत्रिधिकार इस पीठ को नही है ? oh 3 5. क्या शिकायतकर्ता कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है? निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 बिन्दु संख्या i इस तथ्य पर विचरित है कि क्‍या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेरा के दायरे में नहीं आते है? इस सम्बंध में मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 2737/20i7 “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्राएलि0 एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया“ में दिया गया आब्जर्वेशनं महत्वपूर्ण है जिसमें स्पष्ट रूप से. उल्लिखित किया गया है कि :- "The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section 4(2)(I)(C) enables the promoter to give fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered into between him and the allottees so that he is not visited with penal consequences laid down under RERA. In other words, by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh time line under Section 4(2)(I)(C) he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale."

उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था से यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा के प्राविधान के अनुसार अनुबन्ध में दिये गये पूर्णता एवं कब्जे देने के प्रस्तर का पुनर्लेखन नहीं किया जा सकता। धारा . 4(2)0)(सी) के अन्तर्गत प्रोमोटर एक नई समय सीमा दे सकता है, जो कि अनुबन्ध पर निर्भर नहीं होगा और उक्त धारा रेरा में दिये गये प्राविधान के परिणाम स्वरूप केवल अर्थदंड से बचाया जा सकता है। अतः इससे अवधारित किया जाता है कि प्रोमोटर अनुबन्ध में दिये गये कब्जे की तिथि के लिए उत्तरदायी है। यह भी रेरा अधिनियम में स्पष्ट है कि “ऑन गोईग” परियोजनायें निश्चित रूप से रेरा अधिनियम की परिधि में आते है। dager बिन्दु संख्या 4 Pena किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 '. बिन्दु संख्या 2 इस तथ्य पर विचरित है क्या रेरा में दीं गयी पूर्णता की अवधि से पूर्व वाद पोषणीय नहीं है ? इस सम्बंध में मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 2737,/2047 “नीलकमल रियलटर्स waar प्राएलि0 एवं अन्य, बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया” में दिया गया आब्जर्वेशन महत्वपूर्ण है, जिसके प्रस्तर-449 में स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लिखित किया गया है कि :- "Under the provisions of RERA, the promoter is given a facility to revise the date of completion of project and declare the same under Section 4. The RERA does not contemplate rewriting of contract between the flat purchaser and the promoter. The promoter would tender an application for registration with the necessary preparations and requirements in law."

उपरोक्त आब्जर्वेशन से यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा अधिनियम में अपूर्ण परियोजना के पूर्णता हेतु नई तिथि दिये जाने की सुविधा दी गयी है, जिससे कि प्रोमोटर अपनी परियोंजना के शेष कार्यों को शीघ्र एवं निर्धारित समयावधि के अन्दर पूर्ण कर लें और यह भी स्पष्ट किया गया है कि पूर्व में किये गये अनुबन्ध का पुर्नलेखन नहीं किया जायेगा। ऐसे में विपक्षी का कथन कि प्रश्नगत वाद रेरा में दी गयी तिथि 30.4.2020 : से पूर्व पोषणीय न होने का तर्क बलहीन है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-2 freak किया जांता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-3 बिन्दु संख्या-3 इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या वास्तव में परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस होने कारण विलम्बित हुई? यह बिन्दु विपक्षी के अभिकथनों पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार विपक्षी पर है। '. उभय पक्ष के मध्य हस्ताक्षरित अनुबन्ध का प्रस्तर-24 निम्नलिखित उल्लेखित है :- ॥ 2. FORCE MAJEURE The ALLOTTEE agrees that the Allotment of the 'PLOT' is subject to force majeure clause which inter-alia include delay on account of non-availability of steel, cement or any other materials for developing the area and implementation of the Scheme, or water supply or electric power or slow down strike or due to a dispute with the construction agency employed by the DEVELOPER, civil commotion or by reason of war, or enemy action or earthquake or any act of .God, delay in =)

decisions/clearances from statutory body(ies), or if non- delivery of possession is as a result of any notice, order, rules or notification of the Government and /or any other public or Compatant Authority or for any other reasqn(s) beyond the control of the DEVELOPER and for any of the aforesaid evet, the DEVELOPER shall be entitled to a reasonable corresponding extension of the time of delivery of possession of the said 'Plot' on account of force majeure circumatances and in such eventually the ALLOTTEE(S) will not claim any amount of money by way of refund/damages/compensation/interest, etc. from’ the DEVELOPER. In case of DEVELOPER abandoning the scheme for any reason beyond its control then the DEVELOPER'S liability shall be limitd to the refund of the amount paid by the ALLOTTEE(S) as per the terms of Allotment Letter. It is further categorically understood by the Applicant(s) that the Developer as a result of any contingency including force majeure reserves its right to alter, add or vary the terms and conditions of the of the allotment or if the circumstances beyond Developer's control so warrant, the Developer may suspend the scheme for such period as it may consider expedient and no compensation of any nature whatsoever can be claimed by the Applicant for the period of delay/suspension of scheme.

उपरोक्‍तानुसार फोर्स मैज्योर के सम्बन्ध में यह बतायां गया है कि यदि विलम्ब, जैसे कि विकास हेतु समान उपलब्ध न होना, पानी और बिजली की सुविधायें उपलब्ध न - होना, निर्माण एजेन्सी एवं विकासकर्ता के मध्य विवाद होना; आदेश, सरकार की अधिसूचना, दंगा, भूकम्प, के कारण परियोजना में विकास नहीं किया जाता है, तो यह विकासकर्ता का दायित्व होगा कि आवंटन पत्र के नियम के अनुसार आवंटियों को पैसा लौटा दिया जायेगा। फोर्स मैज्योर कारणों की वजह से आवंठन के नियम एवं शर्तों में परिवर्तन किया जा सकता है और यदि उक्त फोर्स मैज्योर विकासकर्ता के नियंत्रण से परे पस्थितियों के कारण स्कीम को निरस्त कर सकता है, जिसके लिए कोई क्षतिपूर्ति देय नहीं होगी। विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि कुछ अप्रत्याशित घटनाओं (force majeure events) के कारण परियोजना विलंबित हुई। विपक्षी की ओर से ला स्पेसिफिक फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के समर्थन में कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर दाखिल नहीं किया गया है, जिससे की विदित हो कि परियोजना की भूमि पर कार्य बाधित हुआ। इस सम्बन्ध में माननीय एन.सी.डी.आर.सी द्वारा उपभोक्ता शिकायत . e-30/20I6 “ नीरू कौशल एवं अन्य बनाम यूनिटेक लिमिटेड” में निर्णय के प्रस्तर 44 में फोर्स मैज्योर द्वारा परियोजना विलम्बित होने के लिए निम्न ऑबजरवेशन किया है :-

"Coming to the plea of Force Majeure taken by the opposite party. It may be noted that issue raised by the opposite party is no more resintegra. Similar pleas to explain the delay in construction were taken by the opposite party in Consumer Complaint No.347 of 294 Swarn Talwar and 2 Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. and other connected consumer complaints which pertain to the alleged deficiency i.e. failure of the opposite party to deliver possession of the booked apartments in the same project. In the aforesaid matters, Coordinate Bench of this Commission vide order dated 4.08.20I5 declined to accept the plea of Force Majeure taken by the opposite party. The relevant reasoning of the Coordinate Bench rejecting the plea of Force Majeure is reproduced as under: "Coming to the pleas that there was recession in the economy and a disruption due to agitation by farmers and acute shortage of labour, etc., the following view taken by us In Satish Kumar Pandey (Supra) is relevant.

"Neither any new legislation was enacted nor an existing rule, regulation or order was amended stopping suspending or delaying the construction of the complex in which apartments were agreed to be sold to the complainants. There is no allegation of any lock- out or strike by the labour at the site of the project. There is no allegation of any slow-down having been resorted to by the labourers of the opposite party or the contractors engaged by it at the site of the project. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God which could have delayed the completion of the project within the time stipulated in the Buyers Agreement. It was contended by the counsel for the OP that the expression 'slow down' would include economic slow- down or recession in the Real Estate sector. I, however, find no merit in this contention. The word ‘slow down' having been used alongwith the words lock-out and strike, I has to be read ejusdem generis with the words lock-out and strike and therefore, can mean only a slow down if resorted by the labourers engaged in construction of the project." इसके अतिरिक्त माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 ,/ 2047 “विकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य“ में निर्णय के पृष्ठ संख्या-234 एवं प्रस्तर si0 F फोर्स मैज्योर को निम्नवत्‌ परिभाषित किया है:- ter Force majeure shall mean a case of war, flood drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature

उपरोक्त फोर्स मैज्योर के परिभाषा से यह स्पष्ट है कि फोर्स मैज्योर वह स्थिति है, जिसमें की युद्ध, बाढ़, सूखा, आग, तूफान, भूकम्प या अन्य प्रकृतिक आपदा आई हो, प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में परियोजना भूमि विवाद आदि के कारण विलम्बित हुई है, जो कि विपक्षी के नियंत्रण में नहीं था। इसके अतिरिक्त “कोविड” के प्रभाव के कारण छः: माह की अतिरिक्त अवधि सभी परियोजनाओं को ager कराई गई है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-3 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 विपक्षी की ओर से यह भी तर्क प्रस्तुत किया गया हैं कि अनुबन्ध में आरबिट्रेशन का aero है, जिस कारण शिकायतकर्ता व विपक्षी के मध्य किसी भी विवांद को केवल आर्बिट्रेटर के माध्यम से ही निस्तारित किया जा सकता है और इस पीठ को इस शिकायत को सुने जाने की क्षेत्राधिकारिता प्राप्त नही है। इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा “मैसर्स एमआर एम.जी.एफ. ces लिमिटेड बनाम आफताब सिंह" 208 SCC Online SC 277 में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- ol “55. In view of the afore-going discussion, we arrive at the following conclusions: (i) the disputes which are to be adjudicated and governed by statutory enactments, established for specific public Purpose to sub-serve a particular public policy are not arbitrable; ; t (ii) there are vast domains of the legal universe that are ‘non-arbitrable and kept at a distance from private dispute resolution; (iii) the subject amendment was meant for a completely different purpose, leaving status quo ante unaltered and subsequently reaffirmed and restated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; :

(iv) Section 2(3) of the Arbitration Act recognizes schemes under other legislations that make disputes non- arbitrable and माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा पारित saad विधि व्यवस्थाओ के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि कुछ विवादों का निराकरण आरबिट्रेटर द्वारा आरबिट्रेशन अनुबन्ध के पश्चात्‌ भी नहीं की जा सकती है। विशेष रूप से गठित प्राधिकरणों का क्षेत्राधिकार मात्र आरबिट्रेशन क्लॉज के आवरण से बेदखल नही किया जा सकता है। ऐसे सभी विवाद जिसके लिए विधि द्वारा विशेष निकाय बनाये गये है और इसका क्षेत्राधिकार दिया गया है, इस प्रकार विवाद को rena करने के लिए आरबिट्रेटर सक्षम नही है। उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्थाओं के प्रकाश. में यह स्पष्ट है कि भू-सम्पदा विनियामक 'एवं विकास प्राधिकरण अधिनियम 2046 की धारा 79, आरबिट्रेशन एक्ट पर अभिमभूत . होगा। माननीय एन.सी.डी.आर.सी. ने “ए.अय्यास्वामी बनाम पारमाशिवम एवं अन्य“, (206) 0 SCC 386 में दिए तर्क को लागू करने के लिए यह निष्कर्ष निकाला है कि यही- सिद्धान्त, रियल wee अधिनियम के तहत vat मामलों में भी लागू होता है, क्योंकि यह अधिनियम गृहकेताओं एवं बिल्डरों के बीच विवादों के समाधान के लिए एक विशेष तंत्र प्रदान करता है। उपरोक्त प्रतिपादित सिद्धांतों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए विपक्षी द्वारा आरबिट्रेटर को संदर्भित करने का प्रश्न स्वतः समाप्त हो जाता है। तदनुसार बिन्दु संख्या- 4 Pena किया जाता है| निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-5 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, किन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया। पीठ

के समक्ष सुनवाई के दौरान दिनांक 24.08.2020 को शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी की किसी अन्य विकसित परियोजना में वैकल्पिक प्लॉट का कब्जा दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है, जिस पर विपक्षी का कहना है कि शिकायतकर्ता की मूल आवंटित प्लॉट को पूर्ण कर मार्च 2024 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में रेसीडेन्सियल प्लॉट एलॉटी अरेन्जमेन्ट दिनांक 06.08.2043 की प्रति दाखिल की गयी है, जिसमें निर्माण एवं कब्जे के प्रस्तर-3.4 के अनुसार शिकायतकर्ता को अपने आवंटित प्लॉट पर भवन का निर्माण कार्य हेतु, सक्षम प्राधिकरण से प्लॉन स्वीकृत कराकर, विपक्षी से कब्जे हेतु सूचना प्राप्त करने की तिथि से 3 वर्ष में निर्माण कराया जाना था एवं प्रस्तर-3.2 के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा कब्जे हेतु सूचना भेजे जाने के 30 दिनों में शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा प्राप्त करना था, परन्तु प्रश्नगत प्रकरण. में विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जे हेतु सूचना अभी तक नहीं दी गयी है। ऐसे में यह कहना उचित नहीं होगा कि विपक्षी स्वेच्छानुसार कब्जा देगें और कंब्जे की तिथि अंतहीन होगी। इस सम्बन्ध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के सिविल अपील संख्या 3533--3534 // 2047 “मैसर्स फार्च्यून इन्फास्ट्रक्चर्स एवं अन्य बनाम ट्रेवर डेलिमा एवं अन्य” के प्रस्तर 45 में स्पष्ट रूप से निर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

“Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there’ was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 204. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered. उपरोक्त माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के आर्ब्जेवैशन एवं विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार wie क॑ कब्जे हेतु किसी व्यक्ति को अनिश्चित समय तक प्रतीक्षा नहीं करा सकता, i0

जहाँ अनुबन्ध में कब्जे की तिथि नहीं दी गयी है वहाँ तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए 3 वर्ष का समयावधि इस कार्य को पूर्ण कराये जाने हेतु उचित समय माना है। प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में प्लॉट एलॉटी अरेन्जमेन्ट का निष्पादन दिनांक 06.08.2073 को किया गया है। तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए 4.5 वर्ष में शिंकायतकर्ता को प्लॉट का कब्जा दिया जाना उचित समयावधि था। ऐसे में शिकायतकर्ता अपने प्लॉट का कब्जा दिनांक 06.02.20i8 तक प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा निर्धारित समयावधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया। जहाँ तक परियोजना के कब्जें में हो रहे विलम्ब के लिए. ब्याज/धनराशि दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है, तो शिकायतकर्ता को उपरोक्‍तानुसार दिनांक 07.02.208 से ओ.सी /सी.सी अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। इस सम्बन्ध में उल्लेखनीय है कि महाराष्ट्र उच्च न्यायालय के “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रा.लि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया” की याचिका में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- ._

"Section 8(I)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not recived 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 उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व केतां 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। है i2

जहाँ तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, तो राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 20i6 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विकय,/पटटा के लिए करार) नियमावली 2048 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विकय ,/पटटा विलेख के , प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.2) में प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है किः- "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +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 ब्याज दर पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि यदि शिकायतकर्ता की कोई देय धनराशि में विलम्ब है, तो विपक्षी भी McLRH प्रतिशत की दर से ही ब्याज प्राप्त सकता है। जहाँ तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बन्ध में सिविल अपील Wo 6649-50 /20:8 "सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल" में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि

"the period of Interest should close on April 206 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant —Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 20l6. The Respondent - Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 20I6 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. " 2 उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार ओ.सी. / सी.सी. मिलने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता ओ.सी.//सी.सी अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक की अवधि पर ब्याज पाने के अधिकारी होगें। gad अतिरिक्त दिनांक 47.0.208 को उ0प्र0 शासन आवास एवं शहरी नियोजन अनुभाग-3 की अधिसूचना संख्या-4740 / 8-3—-8-65 विविध / 46 के द्वारा मॉडल एग्रीमेन्ट के प्रस्तर-7 में फोर्स मैज्योर के सम्बन्ध में निम्न उल्लेख किया गया as 7. POSSESSION OF THE APARTMENT/PLOT:

"7. Schedule for possession of the said [Apartment/Plot] - The Promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot] to the Allottee and the Common Areas to the association of Allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, is the essence of the Agreement. The Promoter assures to hand over possession of the [Apartment/Plot] along with ready and complete Common Areas with all specifications, amenities and facilities of the Project in place on रे unless there is delay or failure due to war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project ("Force Majeure"). If, however, the completion of the Project is delayed due to the Force Majeure conditions then the Allottee agrees that the Promoter shall be entitled to the extension of time for delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot]:" इसी कम में समस्त सुसंगत तथ्यों के बाद उ0प्र0 रेरा अथॉरिटी द्वारा दिनांक 20.05. 2020 को कोविड--49 (Corona Virus Disease) के प्रभाव के कारंण सभी परियोजनाओं को पूर्ण करने हेतु दिनाक 25.03.2020 से 6 माह की अवधि अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक की अवधि दे दी गयी है और यह अवधि फोर्स मैज्योर की अवधि मानी जायेगी। इसको दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03.2020 से दिनांक 25. 09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु कोई ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा आवंटियों को : नहीं दिया जाएगा और न ही शिकायतकर्ता से कोई विलम्ब ब्याज लिया जायेगा। qaqa बिन्दु संख्या-5 Prana किया जाता है। J 43

उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते है। आदेश विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह शिकायतकर्तागण को मूल आवंटित प्लॉट का कब्जा ओ.सी./सी.सी. सहित दिनांक 34.03.2020 तक अथवा शिकायतकर्तागण की सहमति से पूर्व में तय दरों पर, अपनी किसी अन्य विकसित परियोजना में वैकल्पिक प्लॉट, जिसका ओ.सी./सी.सी. प्राप्त किया जा चुका हो, का कब्जा दिनांक 34.05.2024 तक देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें। विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 07.02.2048 से ओ.सी. / सी.सी. अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि पर विलम्ब ब्याज के रूप में ॥४0.२+ प्रतिशत ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित ot) ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान कीं देय 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। साथ ही यदि शिकायतकर्ता का कोई अतिदेय (Over Dues) है, तो उस पर भी इस अवधि का ब्याज देय न होगा। अन्य शिकायतकर्ता के प्रकरण में विलम्ब ब्याज के लिए अनुबन्ध के अनुरूप CRITI गणना की जायेगी। विपक्षी को यह भी निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा 2(2४)6) के अनुसार यदि रेरा लागू होने के बाद कोई ब्याज दर आवंटी के डिफॉल्ट से प्रोमोटर द्वारा लिया जाता है, तो उसी दर से ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा डिफॉल्ट किये जाने पर भी आवंटी को दिया जायेगा। अतः -विलम्बित भुगतान पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भी MCLR+H 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 धनराशि की भी उसी दर से गणना की जायेगी। pin 22 34 4. इस आदेश की एक-एक प्रति सम्बन्धित पत्रावलियों पर रखी जाये एवं इस आदेश में प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्त के अनुरूप धनराशि व ब्याज की प्रत्येक मामले में . गणना की जायेगी। 5. 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। 6. यदि -विपक्षी द्वारा इस आदेश का अनुपालन नहीं किया जाता है, तो शिकायतकर्तागण को यह अधिकार होगा कि रेरा प्राधिकरण के माध्यम से अपने आदेश का कियान्वयन करा सकेगें। दिनांक29 /2 )/ 2020 २८ ॥ 2 ०0 (राजीव कुमार) (अध्यक्ष) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण

4. Do agreements executed before RERA came into force fall outside the scope of RERA? 2. Is the case not maintainable before the project completion date of 30.4.2020 given in RERA? 3. Was the opposite party's project delayed due to force majeure events? If so, what is the effect? 4. Since the agreement contains an arbitration clause, does this Bench lack jurisdiction to hear the case? 5. Is the complainant entitled to possession and interest for the delayed period? Decision on Issue No. 4 Issue No. 1 [?] considers whether agreements made before RERA came into force fall outside the scope of RERA. In this regard, the observation given by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2737/20i7, "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Union of India", is important, in which it is clearly stated: "The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section 4(2)(I)(C) enables the promoter to give fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered into between him and the allottees so that he is not visited with penal consequences laid down under RERA. In other words, by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh time line under Section 4(2)(I)(C) he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale."

From the above legal position it is clear that under the provisions of RERA, the completion and possession clauses given in the agreement cannot be rewritten. Under Section 4(2)(I)(C) the promoter may give a fresh timeline, which does not depend on the agreement, and by virtue of that provision the promoter can be saved only from penalty under RERA. Hence it is determined that the promoter is liable for the possession date given in the agreement. It is also clear under RERA that "on-going" projects definitely fall within the scope of the RERA Act. Issue No. 4 is disposed of. Decision on Issue No. 2 Issue No. 2 considers whether the case is not maintainable before the completion period given in RERA. In this regard, the observation given by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2737,/2047, "Neelkamal Realtors [?] Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Union of India", is important, and it is clearly stated in its paragraph 449 that: "Under the provisions of RERA, the promoter is given a facility to revise the date of completion of project and declare the same under Section 4. The RERA does not contemplate rewriting of contract between the flat purchaser and the promoter. The promoter would tender an application for registration with the necessary preparations and requirements in law."

From the above observation it is clear that RERA gives an incomplete project a new date for completion, so that the promoter completes the remaining works of its project quickly and within the prescribed time period. It is also made clear that a previously executed agreement will not be rewritten. In such a case, the opposite party's contention that the case in question is not maintainable before the completion date of 30.4.2020 given in RERA is baseless. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is disposed of [?]. Decision on Issue No. 3 Issue No. 3 considers whether the project was in fact delayed because of force majeure events. This issue is considered on the opposite party's averments, and the burden of proving them lies on the opposite party. The force majeure clause of the agreement signed between the parties, at paragraph 24, reads: 2. FORCE MAJEURE

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

In respect of force majeure, the above clause states that if the project is not developed because of delay such as non-availability of materials for development, non-availability of water and electricity facilities, a dispute between the construction agency and the developer, or an order, government notification, riot or earthquake, then it shall be the developer's responsibility to refund the money to the allottees as per the terms of the allotment letter. The terms and conditions of allotment may be changed on account of force majeure reasons, and if the scheme is cancelled because of circumstances beyond the developer's control, no compensation shall be payable. The opposite party has stated that the project was delayed due to certain unforeseen events (force majeure events). However, no evidence has been placed on the case file in support of any specific force majeure event showing that work on the project land was obstructed. In this regard, the Hon'ble NCDRC, in Consumer Complaint e-30/20I6, "Neeru Kaushal and Others v. Unitech Limited", in paragraph 44 of its decision, has made the following observation on delay in a project due to force majeure:

"Coming to the plea of Force Majeure taken by the opposite party. It may be noted that issue raised by the opposite party is no more res integra. Similar pleas to explain the delay in construction were taken by the opposite party in Consumer Complaint No.347 of 294 Swarn Talwar and 2 Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. and other connected consumer complaints which pertain to the alleged deficiency i.e. failure of the opposite party to deliver possession of the booked apartments in the same project. In the aforesaid matters, Coordinate Bench of this Commission vide order dated 4.08.20I5 declined to accept the plea of Force Majeure taken by the opposite party. The relevant reasoning of the Coordinate Bench rejecting the plea of Force Majeure is reproduced as under: "Coming to the pleas that there was recession in the economy and a disruption due to agitation by farmers and acute shortage of labour, etc., the following view taken by us In Satish Kumar Pandey (Supra) is relevant.

"Neither any new legislation was enacted nor an existing rule, regulation or order was amended stopping suspending or delaying the construction of the complex in which apartments were agreed to be sold to the complainants. There is no allegation of any lock-out or strike by the labour at the site of the project. There is no allegation of any slow-down having been resorted to by the labourers of the opposite party or the contractors engaged by it at the site of the project. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God which could have delayed the completion of the project within the time stipulated in the Buyers Agreement. It was contended by the counsel for the OP that the expression 'slow down' would include economic slow-down or recession in the Real Estate sector. I, however, find no merit in this contention. The word 'slow down' having been used alongwith the words lock-out and strike, I has to be read ejusdem generis with the words lock-out and strike and therefore, can mean only a slow down if resorted by the labourers engaged in construction of the project."" Further, in Civil Appeal No. 940 / 2047, "Vikram Chatterjee and Others v. Union of India and Others", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined force majeure at page 234 and paragraph si0 F [?] as follows: "Force majeure shall mean a case of war, flood drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature"

From the above definition of force majeure it is clear that force majeure is a situation in which war, flood, drought, fire, storm, earthquake or another natural calamity has occurred. In the present case, the project was delayed on account of a land dispute and similar reasons, which were not within the control of the opposite party. In addition, due to the effect of "Covid", an additional period of six months has been granted [?] to all projects. Accordingly, Issue No. 3 is disposed of. Decision on Issue No. 4 The opposite party has also argued that the agreement contains an arbitration clause, so any dispute between the complainant and the opposite party can be settled only through an arbitrator, and this Bench has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in "M/s MGF [?] Limited v. Aftab Singh", 208 SCC Online SC 277, has held: "55. In view of the afore-going discussion, we arrive at the following conclusions: (i) the disputes which are to be adjudicated and governed by statutory enactments, established for specific public Purpose to sub-serve a particular public policy are not arbitrable; (ii) there are vast domains of the legal universe that are non-arbitrable and kept at a distance from private dispute resolution; (iii) the subject amendment was meant for a completely different purpose, leaving status quo ante unaltered and subsequently reaffirmed and restated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court;

(iv) Section 2(3) of the Arbitration Act recognizes schemes under other legislations that make disputes non-arbitrable and" In light of the legal positions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that some disputes cannot be resolved by an arbitrator even after an arbitration agreement; the jurisdiction of specially constituted authorities cannot be displaced merely by an arbitration clause. For all such disputes for which special bodies have been created by law and given jurisdiction, an arbitrator is not competent to resolve the dispute. In light of the above legal positions it is clear that Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 will override the Arbitration Act. The Hon'ble NCDRC, applying the reasoning given in "A. Ayyaswamy v. Paramasivam and Others", (206) 0 SCC 386, concluded that the same principle applies to disputes under the Real Estate Act as well, because that Act provides a special mechanism for resolving disputes between homebuyers and builders. In view of the principles propounded above, the question of referring the matter to an arbitrator ends automatically. Accordingly, Issue No. 4 is disposed of. Decision on Issue No. 5

The complainant's submission is that the opposite party was to complete the project and hand over possession to the complainant, but has not yet handed over possession. At the hearing before the Bench on 24.08.2020, the complainant requested possession of an alternative plot in some other developed project of the opposite party, to which the opposite party said that the complainant's originally allotted plot would be completed and possession given by March 2024. In support of the complainant's statement, a copy of the Residential Plot Allotment Arrangement dated 06.08.2043 has been filed. Under clause 3.4 on construction and possession, the complainant was to construct a building on the allotted plot within 3 years from the date of receiving the possession notice from the opposite party, after getting the plan sanctioned from the competent authority; and under clause 3.2, the complainant was to take possession within 30 days of the opposite party sending the possession notice. In the present case, the opposite party has not yet given the complainant any possession notice. In such a situation it would not be proper to say that the opposite party will give possession as it pleases and that the date of possession would be endless. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal Nos. 3533-3534 / 2047, "M/s Fortune Infrastructure and Others v. Trevor D'Lima and Others", has clearly laid down in paragraph 45:

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

In accordance with the above observation and legal position of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession. Where no date of possession is given in the agreement, a period of 3 years has been considered a reasonable time for completing the work, in view of the facts and circumstances. In the present case, the plot allotment arrangement was executed on 06.08.2073. In view of the facts and circumstances, a period of 4.5 years was a reasonable time for handing over possession of the plot to the complainant. In such a situation the complainant was entitled to possession of the plot by 06.02.20i8, but the opposite party did not give possession within the prescribed period. As far as interest for the delay in possession of the project, and the amount payable, is concerned, it appears just that the complainant be given interest for the delayed period from 07.02.208 till the date of O.C./C.C. or offer of possession, whichever is later. In this regard, the Maharashtra High Court, in the petition "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Union of India", has held:

"Section 8(I)(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 till handing over of the possession. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." Therefore, in light of the above judgment, it is clear that under the provisions of U.P. RERA, interest for the delay and on the principal amount shall be payable in accordance with the agreement between the promoter and the buyer, because the promoters have used the said amount.

As regards the rate of interest payable: the State Government, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20i6, notified on 47.40.2048 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2048. In the sale/lease deed format given as an annexure to these Rules, the events of default by the promoter are defined in paragraph 9, and paragraph 9.2) provides for the allottee, in case the promoter is in default, as follows: "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 fixed in paragraph 9.30) for default by allottees. In view of this provision, the allottee is held entitled to delay interest for the delayed period at the rate of MCLR+[?] percent. It is also made clear that if the complainant has any delay in an amount payable, the opposite party may also receive interest at the rate of MCLR+[?] percent. As to the period up to which interest is to be granted: in this regard, in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50/20:8, "Supertech Limited v. Rajni Goyal", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:

"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 20I6 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." As per the above legal position, the complainant will be entitled to interest for the delay till the date of receipt of O.C./C.C. or offer of possession, whichever is later. In such a case the complainant will be entitled to interest for the period up to the date of O.C./C.C. or offer of possession, whichever is later. Further, by notification No. 4740/8-3--8-65 Miscellaneous/46 dated 47.0.208 of the U.P. Government, Housing and Urban Planning Section-3, the following has been mentioned regarding force majeure in paragraph 7 of the Model Agreement:

"7. Schedule for possession of the said [Apartment/Plot] - The Promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot] to the Allottee and the Common Areas to the association of Allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, is the essence of the Agreement. The Promoter assures to hand over possession of the [Apartment/Plot] along with ready and complete Common Areas with all specifications, amenities and facilities of the Project in place on [?] unless there is delay or failure due to war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project ("Force Majeure"). If, however, the completion of the Project is delayed due to the Force Majeure conditions then the Allottee agrees that the Promoter shall be entitled to the extension of time for delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot]:" In this sequence, after considering all relevant facts, the U.P. RERA Authority, by its order dated 20.05.2020, in view of the effect of COVID--49 (Corona Virus Disease), granted all projects a period of six months from 25.03.2020, that is up to 25.09.2020, to complete the projects, and this period shall be treated as the force majeure period. Keeping this in view, no interest for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020 shall be paid by the promoter to the allottees, and no delay interest shall be charged from the complainant.

Accordingly, Issue No. 5 is disposed of. ORDER Disposing of the above issues, the following orders are passed. The opposite party is directed to hand over possession of the originally allotted plot to the complainants, along with O.C./C.C., by 34.03.2020; or, with the consent of the complainants, at rates fixed earlier, to ensure possession of an alternative plot in any other developed project of its own for which O.C./C.C. has already been obtained, by 34.05.2024; and to get the registry done as per rules after receiving the payable stamp duty. The opposite party shall ensure [?] payment to the complainant of delay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant, from 07.02.2048 till the date of O.C./C.C. or offer of possession, whichever is later, at the rate of ॥40.2+ [?] percent. This interest amount shall be adjusted against the final amount payable. If the interest amount exceeds the amount payable, it shall be returned to the complainant. Keeping in view the force majeure period, interest shall not be calculated for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020. Also, if the complainant has any overdue amounts, interest for this period shall not be payable on them. In the case of other complainants, delay interest shall be calculated in accordance with the agreement, CRITI [?].

The opposite party is further directed that, as per Section 2(24)6) of the RERA Act, 2046, if after RERA came into force any interest rate is charged by the promoter for the allottee's default, the same rate of interest shall also be given to the allottee when the promoter defaults. Accordingly, interest at the rate of MCLR+[?] percent shall also be payable by the complainant on delayed payment. If any amount has been taken from the allottee for delay after RERA came into force at a higher rate than this, the interest for the delayed period shall also be calculated at that same rate. 4. A copy of this order shall be placed on each of the relevant case files, and the amount and interest in each case shall be calculated in accordance with the principles laid down in this order. 5. Any violation of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 and other relevant provisions. This order shall be uploaded on the portal. 6. If the opposite party does not comply with this order, the complainants shall have the right to get their order implemented through the RERA Authority. Dated 29 /2 )/ 2020 28 (Rajeev Kumar) (Chairman) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | * सुनवाई पीठ-04ए E-Court श्री राजीव कुमार, अध्यक्ष कम संख्या शिकायत संख्या शिकायतकर्तागण ] ॥टार44/03/5457/2020 दीपांशु अग्रवाल 2 7८२44/03/5460/2020 | दीपांशु अग्रवाल व लोकेश म अग्रवाल बनाम मैसर्स उप्पल चड्ढा हाई-टेक डेवलपर्स प्राईवेट लिमिटेड शिकायतकर्ता दीपांशु अग्रवाल के साथ 04 अन्य शिकायतकंर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध वाद योजित किया गया है। इन दोनों शिकायतों के तथ्य समान है और एक समान साक्ष्य हैं। यह दोनों शिकायतें UCHDPL- ४०००-5 ए०४७ से सम्बन्धित है। अत: एक ही निर्णय से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत संख्या :- NCRI44/03/5457/2020 दीपांशु अग्रवाल अग्रणी वाद रहेगा। 7 प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के -विरूद्द कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने हेतु रांरिथत किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी की * परियोजना UCHDPL- 8०००-३5 Plots 4 प्लॉट संख्या-78! बुक किया गया, जिसके 'लिए शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 44,86,267 /-रूपये का भुगतान किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, किन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया। पीठ के समक्ष सुनवाई के दौरान दिनांक 24.08.2020 को शिकायतकर्ता Os 2 द्वारा विपक्षी की किसी अन्य विकसित परियोजना में वैकल्पिक प्लॉट का कब्जा दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है।

शिकायतकर्ता की ओर से अपने कथन के समर्थन में विपक्षी का पत्र दिनांक 30.08.2043, आवेदन पत्र दिनांक 23.08.2043, जमा धनराशि की रसीदें, रेसीडेन्सियल प्लॉट एलॉटी अरेन्जमेन्ट दिनांक 06.08.2043, खाता विवरण की छायाप्रतियाँ दाखिल की गयी हैं। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवादपत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को उनकी नामित परियोजना Wave City & aex-i5 F प्लॉट संख्या-78 आवंटित की गयी। परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण विलम्बित हुई,.जो कि उनके नियंत्रण में नहीं था। स्थानीय किसानों द्वारा धरना प्रर्दशन के कारण कार्य कराये . जाने में बाधा उत्पन्न हुई। दिल्ली NCR में बढ़ते हुए प्रदूषण को ध्यान में रखते हुए माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अक्टूबर 209 से जनवरी 2020 तक निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगा दी गयी थी। इसके अतिरिक्त wa 6 बजे से प्रातः 6 बजे तक के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगा दी गयी थी जिसके कारण भी परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य विलम्बित हुआ है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा आदेश पारित करते हुए दिनांक 30.04.2042 को भूमि पर स्थगन लगा दिया था, जो कि पुनः दिनांक 09.04. 20i5 को gfe की गयी है, जिसके उपरान्त किसानों द्वारा दाखिल की गयी अपत्तियों को दिनांक 40.03.20॥7 को खारिज कर दिया गया था। प्रश्नगत परियोजना की पूर्णता तिथि 30.4.2020 दी गयी है। इसके अतिरिक्त विपक्षी द्वारा पीठ क़े समक्ष सुनवाई के दौरान दिनांक 24.08.2020 को कहा war. fe शिकायतकर्ता की मूल आवंटित प्लॉट को पूर्ण कर मार्च 2024 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। उभयपक्ष को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। * यक्षकारों के अभिवचनों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचारणीय किये गये :-

4... क्या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेरा के दायरे में नहीं आते हैं ? 2. क्या प्रश्नगत वाद रेरा गें वी गयी परियोजना की पूर्णता तिथि 30.4.2020 से पूर्व पोषणीय नहीं है ? 3. क्या force majeure events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? 4... क्‍या अनुबन्ध में आरबिट्रैशन ait होने के कारण वाद. की सुनवाई का क्षेत्रिधिकार इस पीठ को नही है ? oh 3 5. क्या शिकायतकर्ता कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है? निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 बिन्दु संख्या i इस तथ्य पर विचरित है कि क्‍या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेरा के दायरे में नहीं आते है? इस सम्बंध में मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 2737/20i7 “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्राएलि0 एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया“ में दिया गया आब्जर्वेशनं महत्वपूर्ण है जिसमें स्पष्ट रूप से. उल्लिखित किया गया है कि :- "The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section 4(2)(I)(C) enables the promoter to give fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered into between him and the allottees so that he is not visited with penal consequences laid down under RERA. In other words, by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh time line under Section 4(2)(I)(C) he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale."

उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था से यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा के प्राविधान के अनुसार अनुबन्ध में दिये गये पूर्णता एवं कब्जे देने के प्रस्तर का पुनर्लेखन नहीं किया जा सकता। धारा . 4(2)0)(सी) के अन्तर्गत प्रोमोटर एक नई समय सीमा दे सकता है, जो कि अनुबन्ध पर निर्भर नहीं होगा और उक्त धारा रेरा में दिये गये प्राविधान के परिणाम स्वरूप केवल अर्थदंड से बचाया जा सकता है। अतः इससे अवधारित किया जाता है कि प्रोमोटर अनुबन्ध में दिये गये कब्जे की तिथि के लिए उत्तरदायी है। यह भी रेरा अधिनियम में स्पष्ट है कि “ऑन गोईग” परियोजनायें निश्चित रूप से रेरा अधिनियम की परिधि में आते है। dager बिन्दु संख्या 4 Pena किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 '. बिन्दु संख्या 2 इस तथ्य पर विचरित है क्या रेरा में दीं गयी पूर्णता की अवधि से पूर्व वाद पोषणीय नहीं है ? इस सम्बंध में मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 2737,/2047 “नीलकमल रियलटर्स waar प्राएलि0 एवं अन्य, बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया” में दिया गया आब्जर्वेशन महत्वपूर्ण है, जिसके प्रस्तर-449 में स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लिखित किया गया है कि :- "Under the provisions of RERA, the promoter is given a facility to revise the date of completion of project and declare the same under Section 4. The RERA does not contemplate rewriting of contract between the flat purchaser and the promoter. The promoter would tender an application for registration with the necessary preparations and requirements in law."

उपरोक्त आब्जर्वेशन से यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा अधिनियम में अपूर्ण परियोजना के पूर्णता हेतु नई तिथि दिये जाने की सुविधा दी गयी है, जिससे कि प्रोमोटर अपनी परियोंजना के शेष कार्यों को शीघ्र एवं निर्धारित समयावधि के अन्दर पूर्ण कर लें और यह भी स्पष्ट किया गया है कि पूर्व में किये गये अनुबन्ध का पुर्नलेखन नहीं किया जायेगा। ऐसे में विपक्षी का कथन कि प्रश्नगत वाद रेरा में दी गयी तिथि 30.4.2020 : से पूर्व पोषणीय न होने का तर्क बलहीन है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-2 freak किया जांता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-3 बिन्दु संख्या-3 इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या वास्तव में परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस होने कारण विलम्बित हुई? यह बिन्दु विपक्षी के अभिकथनों पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार विपक्षी पर है। '. उभय पक्ष के मध्य हस्ताक्षरित अनुबन्ध का प्रस्तर-24 निम्नलिखित उल्लेखित है :- ॥ 2. FORCE MAJEURE The ALLOTTEE agrees that the Allotment of the 'PLOT' is subject to force majeure clause which inter-alia include delay on account of non-availability of steel, cement or any other materials for developing the area and implementation of the Scheme, or water supply or electric power or slow down strike or due to a dispute with the construction agency employed by the DEVELOPER, civil commotion or by reason of war, or enemy action or earthquake or any act of .God, delay in =)

decisions/clearances from statutory body(ies), or if non- delivery of possession is as a result of any notice, order, rules or notification of the Government and /or any other public or Compatant Authority or for any other reasqn(s) beyond the control of the DEVELOPER and for any of the aforesaid evet, the DEVELOPER shall be entitled to a reasonable corresponding extension of the time of delivery of possession of the said 'Plot' on account of force majeure circumatances and in such eventually the ALLOTTEE(S) will not claim any amount of money by way of refund/damages/compensation/interest, etc. from’ the DEVELOPER. In case of DEVELOPER abandoning the scheme for any reason beyond its control then the DEVELOPER'S liability shall be limitd to the refund of the amount paid by the ALLOTTEE(S) as per the terms of Allotment Letter. It is further categorically understood by the Applicant(s) that the Developer as a result of any contingency including force majeure reserves its right to alter, add or vary the terms and conditions of the of the allotment or if the circumstances beyond Developer's control so warrant, the Developer may suspend the scheme for such period as it may consider expedient and no compensation of any nature whatsoever can be claimed by the Applicant for the period of delay/suspension of scheme.

उपरोक्‍तानुसार फोर्स मैज्योर के सम्बन्ध में यह बतायां गया है कि यदि विलम्ब, जैसे कि विकास हेतु समान उपलब्ध न होना, पानी और बिजली की सुविधायें उपलब्ध न - होना, निर्माण एजेन्सी एवं विकासकर्ता के मध्य विवाद होना; आदेश, सरकार की अधिसूचना, दंगा, भूकम्प, के कारण परियोजना में विकास नहीं किया जाता है, तो यह विकासकर्ता का दायित्व होगा कि आवंटन पत्र के नियम के अनुसार आवंटियों को पैसा लौटा दिया जायेगा। फोर्स मैज्योर कारणों की वजह से आवंठन के नियम एवं शर्तों में परिवर्तन किया जा सकता है और यदि उक्त फोर्स मैज्योर विकासकर्ता के नियंत्रण से परे पस्थितियों के कारण स्कीम को निरस्त कर सकता है, जिसके लिए कोई क्षतिपूर्ति देय नहीं होगी। विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि कुछ अप्रत्याशित घटनाओं (force majeure events) के कारण परियोजना विलंबित हुई। विपक्षी की ओर से ला स्पेसिफिक फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के समर्थन में कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर दाखिल नहीं किया गया है, जिससे की विदित हो कि परियोजना की भूमि पर कार्य बाधित हुआ। इस सम्बन्ध में माननीय एन.सी.डी.आर.सी द्वारा उपभोक्ता शिकायत . e-30/20I6 “ नीरू कौशल एवं अन्य बनाम यूनिटेक लिमिटेड” में निर्णय के प्रस्तर 44 में फोर्स मैज्योर द्वारा परियोजना विलम्बित होने के लिए निम्न ऑबजरवेशन किया है :-

"Coming to the plea of Force Majeure taken by the opposite party. It may be noted that issue raised by the opposite party is no more resintegra. Similar pleas to explain the delay in construction were taken by the opposite party in Consumer Complaint No.347 of 294 Swarn Talwar and 2 Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. and other connected consumer complaints which pertain to the alleged deficiency i.e. failure of the opposite party to deliver possession of the booked apartments in the same project. In the aforesaid matters, Coordinate Bench of this Commission vide order dated 4.08.20I5 declined to accept the plea of Force Majeure taken by the opposite party. The relevant reasoning of the Coordinate Bench rejecting the plea of Force Majeure is reproduced as under: "Coming to the pleas that there was recession in the economy and a disruption due to agitation by farmers and acute shortage of labour, etc., the following view taken by us In Satish Kumar Pandey (Supra) is relevant.

"Neither any new legislation was enacted nor an existing rule, regulation or order was amended stopping suspending or delaying the construction of the complex in which apartments were agreed to be sold to the complainants. There is no allegation of any lock- out or strike by the labour at the site of the project. There is no allegation of any slow-down having been resorted to by the labourers of the opposite party or the contractors engaged by it at the site of the project. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God which could have delayed the completion of the project within the time stipulated in the Buyers Agreement. It was contended by the counsel for the OP that the expression 'slow down' would include economic slow- down or recession in the Real Estate sector. I, however, find no merit in this contention. The word ‘slow down' having been used alongwith the words lock-out and strike, I has to be read ejusdem generis with the words lock-out and strike and therefore, can mean only a slow down if resorted by the labourers engaged in construction of the project." इसके अतिरिक्त माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 ,/ 2047 “विकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य“ में निर्णय के पृष्ठ संख्या-234 एवं प्रस्तर si0 F फोर्स मैज्योर को निम्नवत्‌ परिभाषित किया है:- ter Force majeure shall mean a case of war, flood drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature

उपरोक्त फोर्स मैज्योर के परिभाषा से यह स्पष्ट है कि फोर्स मैज्योर वह स्थिति है, जिसमें की युद्ध, बाढ़, सूखा, आग, तूफान, भूकम्प या अन्य प्रकृतिक आपदा आई हो, प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में परियोजना भूमि विवाद आदि के कारण विलम्बित हुई है, जो कि विपक्षी के नियंत्रण में नहीं था। इसके अतिरिक्त “कोविड” के प्रभाव के कारण छः: माह की अतिरिक्त अवधि सभी परियोजनाओं को ager कराई गई है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-3 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 विपक्षी की ओर से यह भी तर्क प्रस्तुत किया गया हैं कि अनुबन्ध में आरबिट्रेशन का aero है, जिस कारण शिकायतकर्ता व विपक्षी के मध्य किसी भी विवांद को केवल आर्बिट्रेटर के माध्यम से ही निस्तारित किया जा सकता है और इस पीठ को इस शिकायत को सुने जाने की क्षेत्राधिकारिता प्राप्त नही है। इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा “मैसर्स एमआर एम.जी.एफ. ces लिमिटेड बनाम आफताब सिंह" 208 SCC Online SC 277 में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- ol “55. In view of the afore-going discussion, we arrive at the following conclusions: (i) the disputes which are to be adjudicated and governed by statutory enactments, established for specific public Purpose to sub-serve a particular public policy are not arbitrable; ; t (ii) there are vast domains of the legal universe that are ‘non-arbitrable and kept at a distance from private dispute resolution; (iii) the subject amendment was meant for a completely different purpose, leaving status quo ante unaltered and subsequently reaffirmed and restated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; :

(iv) Section 2(3) of the Arbitration Act recognizes schemes under other legislations that make disputes non- arbitrable and माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा पारित saad विधि व्यवस्थाओ के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि कुछ विवादों का निराकरण आरबिट्रेटर द्वारा आरबिट्रेशन अनुबन्ध के पश्चात्‌ भी नहीं की जा सकती है। विशेष रूप से गठित प्राधिकरणों का क्षेत्राधिकार मात्र आरबिट्रेशन क्लॉज के आवरण से बेदखल नही किया जा सकता है। ऐसे सभी विवाद जिसके लिए विधि द्वारा विशेष निकाय बनाये गये है और इसका क्षेत्राधिकार दिया गया है, इस प्रकार विवाद को rena करने के लिए आरबिट्रेटर सक्षम नही है। उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्थाओं के प्रकाश. में यह स्पष्ट है कि भू-सम्पदा विनियामक 'एवं विकास प्राधिकरण अधिनियम 2046 की धारा 79, आरबिट्रेशन एक्ट पर अभिमभूत . होगा। माननीय एन.सी.डी.आर.सी. ने “ए.अय्यास्वामी बनाम पारमाशिवम एवं अन्य“, (206) 0 SCC 386 में दिए तर्क को लागू करने के लिए यह निष्कर्ष निकाला है कि यही- सिद्धान्त, रियल wee अधिनियम के तहत vat मामलों में भी लागू होता है, क्योंकि यह अधिनियम गृहकेताओं एवं बिल्डरों के बीच विवादों के समाधान के लिए एक विशेष तंत्र प्रदान करता है। उपरोक्त प्रतिपादित सिद्धांतों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए विपक्षी द्वारा आरबिट्रेटर को संदर्भित करने का प्रश्न स्वतः समाप्त हो जाता है। तदनुसार बिन्दु संख्या- 4 Pena किया जाता है| निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-5 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, किन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया। पीठ

के समक्ष सुनवाई के दौरान दिनांक 24.08.2020 को शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी की किसी अन्य विकसित परियोजना में वैकल्पिक प्लॉट का कब्जा दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है, जिस पर विपक्षी का कहना है कि शिकायतकर्ता की मूल आवंटित प्लॉट को पूर्ण कर मार्च 2024 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में रेसीडेन्सियल प्लॉट एलॉटी अरेन्जमेन्ट दिनांक 06.08.2043 की प्रति दाखिल की गयी है, जिसमें निर्माण एवं कब्जे के प्रस्तर-3.4 के अनुसार शिकायतकर्ता को अपने आवंटित प्लॉट पर भवन का निर्माण कार्य हेतु, सक्षम प्राधिकरण से प्लॉन स्वीकृत कराकर, विपक्षी से कब्जे हेतु सूचना प्राप्त करने की तिथि से 3 वर्ष में निर्माण कराया जाना था एवं प्रस्तर-3.2 के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा कब्जे हेतु सूचना भेजे जाने के 30 दिनों में शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा प्राप्त करना था, परन्तु प्रश्नगत प्रकरण. में विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जे हेतु सूचना अभी तक नहीं दी गयी है। ऐसे में यह कहना उचित नहीं होगा कि विपक्षी स्वेच्छानुसार कब्जा देगें और कंब्जे की तिथि अंतहीन होगी। इस सम्बन्ध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के सिविल अपील संख्या 3533--3534 // 2047 “मैसर्स फार्च्यून इन्फास्ट्रक्चर्स एवं अन्य बनाम ट्रेवर डेलिमा एवं अन्य” के प्रस्तर 45 में स्पष्ट रूप से निर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

“Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there’ was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 204. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered. उपरोक्त माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के आर्ब्जेवैशन एवं विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार wie क॑ कब्जे हेतु किसी व्यक्ति को अनिश्चित समय तक प्रतीक्षा नहीं करा सकता, i0

जहाँ अनुबन्ध में कब्जे की तिथि नहीं दी गयी है वहाँ तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए 3 वर्ष का समयावधि इस कार्य को पूर्ण कराये जाने हेतु उचित समय माना है। प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में प्लॉट एलॉटी अरेन्जमेन्ट का निष्पादन दिनांक 06.08.2073 को किया गया है। तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए 4.5 वर्ष में शिंकायतकर्ता को प्लॉट का कब्जा दिया जाना उचित समयावधि था। ऐसे में शिकायतकर्ता अपने प्लॉट का कब्जा दिनांक 06.02.20i8 तक प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा निर्धारित समयावधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया। जहाँ तक परियोजना के कब्जें में हो रहे विलम्ब के लिए. ब्याज/धनराशि दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है, तो शिकायतकर्ता को उपरोक्‍तानुसार दिनांक 07.02.208 से ओ.सी /सी.सी अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। इस सम्बन्ध में उल्लेखनीय है कि महाराष्ट्र उच्च न्यायालय के “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रा.लि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया” की याचिका में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- ._

"Section 8(I)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not recived 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 उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व केतां 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। है i2

जहाँ तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, तो राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 20i6 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विकय,/पटटा के लिए करार) नियमावली 2048 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विकय ,/पटटा विलेख के , प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.2) में प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है किः- "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +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 ब्याज दर पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि यदि शिकायतकर्ता की कोई देय धनराशि में विलम्ब है, तो विपक्षी भी McLRH प्रतिशत की दर से ही ब्याज प्राप्त सकता है। जहाँ तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बन्ध में सिविल अपील Wo 6649-50 /20:8 "सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल" में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि

"the period of Interest should close on April 206 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant —Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 20l6. The Respondent - Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 20I6 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. " 2 उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार ओ.सी. / सी.सी. मिलने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता ओ.सी.//सी.सी अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक की अवधि पर ब्याज पाने के अधिकारी होगें। gad अतिरिक्त दिनांक 47.0.208 को उ0प्र0 शासन आवास एवं शहरी नियोजन अनुभाग-3 की अधिसूचना संख्या-4740 / 8-3—-8-65 विविध / 46 के द्वारा मॉडल एग्रीमेन्ट के प्रस्तर-7 में फोर्स मैज्योर के सम्बन्ध में निम्न उल्लेख किया गया as 7. POSSESSION OF THE APARTMENT/PLOT:

"7. Schedule for possession of the said [Apartment/Plot] - The Promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot] to the Allottee and the Common Areas to the association of Allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, is the essence of the Agreement. The Promoter assures to hand over possession of the [Apartment/Plot] along with ready and complete Common Areas with all specifications, amenities and facilities of the Project in place on रे unless there is delay or failure due to war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project ("Force Majeure"). If, however, the completion of the Project is delayed due to the Force Majeure conditions then the Allottee agrees that the Promoter shall be entitled to the extension of time for delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot]:" इसी कम में समस्त सुसंगत तथ्यों के बाद उ0प्र0 रेरा अथॉरिटी द्वारा दिनांक 20.05. 2020 को कोविड--49 (Corona Virus Disease) के प्रभाव के कारंण सभी परियोजनाओं को पूर्ण करने हेतु दिनाक 25.03.2020 से 6 माह की अवधि अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक की अवधि दे दी गयी है और यह अवधि फोर्स मैज्योर की अवधि मानी जायेगी। इसको दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03.2020 से दिनांक 25. 09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु कोई ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा आवंटियों को : नहीं दिया जाएगा और न ही शिकायतकर्ता से कोई विलम्ब ब्याज लिया जायेगा। qaqa बिन्दु संख्या-5 Prana किया जाता है। J 43

उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते है। आदेश विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह शिकायतकर्तागण को मूल आवंटित प्लॉट का कब्जा ओ.सी./सी.सी. सहित दिनांक 34.03.2020 तक अथवा शिकायतकर्तागण की सहमति से पूर्व में तय दरों पर, अपनी किसी अन्य विकसित परियोजना में वैकल्पिक प्लॉट, जिसका ओ.सी./सी.सी. प्राप्त किया जा चुका हो, का कब्जा दिनांक 34.05.2024 तक देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें। विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 07.02.2048 से ओ.सी. / सी.सी. अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि पर विलम्ब ब्याज के रूप में ॥४0.२+ प्रतिशत ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित ot) ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान कीं देय 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। साथ ही यदि शिकायतकर्ता का कोई अतिदेय (Over Dues) है, तो उस पर भी इस अवधि का ब्याज देय न होगा। अन्य शिकायतकर्ता के प्रकरण में विलम्ब ब्याज के लिए अनुबन्ध के अनुरूप CRITI गणना की जायेगी। विपक्षी को यह भी निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा 2(2४)6) के अनुसार यदि रेरा लागू होने के बाद कोई ब्याज दर आवंटी के डिफॉल्ट से प्रोमोटर द्वारा लिया जाता है, तो उसी दर से ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा डिफॉल्ट किये जाने पर भी आवंटी को दिया जायेगा। अतः -विलम्बित भुगतान पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भी MCLR+H 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 धनराशि की भी उसी दर से गणना की जायेगी। pin 22 34 4. इस आदेश की एक-एक प्रति सम्बन्धित पत्रावलियों पर रखी जाये एवं इस आदेश में प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्त के अनुरूप धनराशि व ब्याज की प्रत्येक मामले में . गणना की जायेगी। 5. 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। 6. यदि -विपक्षी द्वारा इस आदेश का अनुपालन नहीं किया जाता है, तो शिकायतकर्तागण को यह अधिकार होगा कि रेरा प्राधिकरण के माध्यम से अपने आदेश का कियान्वयन करा सकेगें। दिनांक29 /2 )/ 2020 २८ ॥ 2 ०0 (राजीव कुमार) (अध्यक्ष) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण