U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar Hearing Bench-04A Order under Section 34 Shri Rajeev Kumar, Hon'ble Chairman Sl. No. | Complaint No. | Tower and Unit No. 1. NCRI44/0/8386/202] | Lallan Prasad Yadav | T-37/302 2. [?]44/0/494]/202] | Arvind Kumar Singhal | T-33 [?] 304 3. [?]44/06/5229/202] | Ashwini Kumar Mishra | T-8/002 vs. La Residencia Developers Pvt. Ltd. The complaints have been filed by the complainants, Lallan Prasad Yadav along with 02 other complainants, against the opposite party. The facts of these three complaints are identical and the evidence is common. All three complaints relate to the opposite party's project La Residencia. Therefore they are being disposed of by a single decision. Complaint No. NCRI44/I0/8386/202[?] (Lallan Prasad Yadav) shall remain the lead case. The complaints have been instituted by the complainants against the opposite party seeking possession and interest for the delayed period.

In brief, the complainant (Lallan Prasad Yadav) states that they booked unit no. [?]-37/302 in the opposite party's project La Residencia, the total price of which was Rs. 32,52,325/-, against which the complainant has paid Rs. 25,5,020/-. The opposite party had given a promise to complete the project and hand over possession, but did not hand over possession of the unit within the stipulated period, and the project is delayed. Accordingly the complainant has requested possession and interest for the delayed period. In support of the complainant's statement, photocopies of records have been filed, including a detailed written complaint dated 24.03.2022, the application, the allotment-cum-flat buyer agreement dated 46.07.2004, receipts of deposits, demand letters and other records. The opposite party, by filing its written response, has stated that the Authority allotted plot no. [?]-06, area 97,226.62 sq. metres, and while dividing it, M/s La Residencia Developers [?] was allotted plot no. [?]-064, area 80026.62 sq. metres. The project was launched on 46.03.2044. The project has a total of 39 towers.

Phase-4 of the project has [?] towers (Tower-4 to 48), with 4,408 units. Of these towers, [i2 [?]] towers have obtained OC, and for the remaining towers an application has been made before the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority to obtain OC. Possession is being given in the towers for which OC has been obtained, and at present possession of 4480 units has been given. Phase-2 of the project has a total of 44 towers (Tower-49 to 29), in which finishing work is in progress, and possession of the unit will be given in June 2022 + 6 months' grace period. Phase-3 of the project has a total of 40 towers (Tower-30 to 39), in which finishing work is in progress, and possession of the unit along with all facilities will be given by December 2022 + 6 months' grace period. The project was delayed due to various court orders. Construction remained closed from 49.07.20 to 24.08.20I2. During this period several writ petitions were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by farmers. After March 2043, construction started slowly. From March 2044 to the year 2043, the pace of construction remained very slow. Finally, on 4.05.205 the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the land acquisition in Writ Petition No. 4506/20i5, "Savitri Devi vs. Government of U.P. and Others". In such circumstances, the 4-year delay should be treated as a zero period. The opposite party's project is registered with RERA.

On 23.07.2049 the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the transfer of 632 units to the Amrapali Group. At present the company is engaged in sorting out the units so that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's direction can be complied with. The opposite company filed an intervention application in Writ Petition No. o40/20:7, "Vikram Chatterjee and Others vs. Union of India and Others", in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by its order dated 44.0.2049, restrained the company La Residencia from separating any property. Accordingly, because of the restraint on resale for the past 44 months, the company and the project have been adversely affected, the company has been put in distress, and its cash flow is also affected. Along with this sluggish business environment, the company and project have been further affected. Even so, the company is managing to start construction work. Because of the injunction order, construction has slowed; in the compliance order the opposite party has already filed an affidavit. Finishing work in the project is going on at a rapid pace, and possession of the unit will be given to the complainant in December 2022 + 6 months' grace period.

The complainant booked flat no. 737/302 on the third floor of Tower-[?]37 of the project. Against the total price of the flat, Rs. 32,52,325/- plus taxes etc., the complainant paid Rs. 24,64,480/-. As per the agreement dated 46.07.204, possession of the unit was to be given within 42 months + 6 months' grace period. If possession is delayed, the opposite party shall pay compensation as per clause 49(0) of the agreement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the opposite party to hand over 632 flats in this project, "La Residencia", on the basis that the project is an equity of the Amrapali Group, and the opposite party has filed an application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for consideration of the matter. The opposite party seeks that La Residencia be treated as an independent project, and that Rs. 445 crore be paid to the opposite party in lieu of the construction and land cost of all 632 flats allotted. On these grounds the opposite party has requested that appropriate orders be passed. In the case in question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed on 23.07.2049 the transfer of 632 units to the Amrapali Group. The opposite party has not clarified whether the complainant's flat is among the 632 units under the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Further, in the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 29.06.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 940/20:7, "Vikram Chatterjee and Others vs. Union of India and Others", with I.A. 4o—768786/2048, I.A. No. 409882/2020, I.A. No. 74865/2020, I.A. No. 453344/2049, I.A. No. 420307/2020, I.A. No. 123299/2020 and I.A. 40-6397/202 (in relation to the La Residencia project), the Supreme Court has not stayed U.P. RERA from passing orders. The matter remained before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for about 2 years, and apart from a separate monitoring arrangement for the 632 flats of the Amrapali Group, under the Hon'ble Supreme Court's final order the project is now to be completed by the present promoters. The arguments of both parties were heard and the file perused, on the basis of which the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the opposite party's project was delayed due to force majeure events? If so, what is the effect? 2. Whether the complainants should be granted possession and interest for the delayed period? If so, at what rate will the interest be? Disposal of Issue No. 1: Issue No. 1 is framed to the effect of whether in fact the project was delayed due to force majeure events. This issue is framed on the opposite party's averments, and the burden of proving it lies on the opposite party.

The opposite party has stated that the project was delayed due to various court orders. From March 2044 to the year 20:3 the pace of construction remained very slow. Finally the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the land acquisition in Writ Petition No. 4506/2045, "Savitri Devi vs. U.P. Government and Others". In such circumstances, the 4-year delay should be treated as a zero period. Although it has not been made clear whether there was any stay order on construction, in the present case the agreement is of the year 2047, and by then land-related matters had already been decided. In this regard, clause 9(a) of the agreement reads as follows:

"79(2).. [?] the Developer shall complete the development/construction of the flat within 36 months from the date of signing of agreement which may vary for + 6 months. That the Developer shall not be held responsible or liable for not performing any of its obligations or undertakings provided for in this Agreement if such performance is prevented, delayed or hindered by act of God, fire, storm, flood, explosion, war, riot, terrorist act, sabotage, court cases, injunctions not within the reasonable control of the Developer. The completion date is subject to force majeure conditions. No claim by way of damages/compensation shall lie against the Developer in case of delay in handing over the possession on account of the force majeure condition and the Developer shall be entitled to a reasonable extension of time for the delivery of possession of the flat to the allottee." In its order dated 04.4.2049 passed in Civil Appeal No. 43029/4985, "M.C. Mehta vs. Government of India", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given the following directions:

"With respect to demolition and construction activities we direct that no demolition and construction activities take place in Delhi and NCR region. In case it is found that such activity is done, the local administration as well as the municipal authorities including the Zonal Commissioners, Deputy Zonal Commissioners shall be personally held responsible for all such activities. They have to act in furtherance of the Court's order and to ensure that no such activity takes place. We direct that construction, demolition and activities be stopped forthwith as well as garbage burning. In case, any person is found in construction and demolition activity and garbage burning in Delhi and NCR region, he/she shall be penalized. Any person is doing construction and demolition activity in violation of this order, shall be penalized with Rs.1 Lac for such activity. For garbage burning he/she shall be penalized with Rs.5,000/- and besides liable for violation of the order passed by this Court to be dealt with in accordance with law." Further, in the order dated 09.42.2049 passed in the above Civil Appeal No. 43029//4985, the following directions were given: "In the affidavit dated 05.2.209, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has stated as under:-

'2. That it is respectfully submitted that it is normally experienced that in month of December depending upon Climatic Condition the AQI category varies. As a matter of fact, last year (2018) 8 days in the month of December were in severe AQI category. Presently the situation not being severe, CPCB is of considered opinion that partial ban could be in place of construction activities in as much as no construction should be permitted during night time (6.00 pm to 6.00 am). The ban imposed could be partially lifted by permitting activities during day time (6.00 am to 6.00 pm), subject to the criteria stipulated in GRAP, wherein strict enforcement of rules for dust control in construction activities and closure of non-compliant sites is mandated in moderate to poor AQI category and further a ban on construction activities may be imposed by EPCA if Ambient AIR quality levels persist in severe+/emergency category for 48 hours or more.' Hence, the ban is relaxed in terms of the recommendations made by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), as quoted above. However, conditions for raising construction be scrupulously followed."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court imposed a ban on construction for the period (from 04.4.2049 to 44.02.2020), and by its order dated 09.2.20I9 [?] removed the complete [?] ban and imposed a partial ban in its place. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court imposed a restriction on construction for 35 days (from 04.4.20I9 to 09.2.2049) and 33 days ([?]) (from 40.2.20I9 to 44.02.2020, from 6 pm to 6 am). In pursuance of the above orders, construction was affected for a total of 68 days. In such a case the opposite party is entitled to partial benefit for the 68 days during which construction was affected. On all relevant facts, by order dated 06.06.2020 the RERA Authority, due to the effect of COVID-49 (Corona Virus Disease), granted an additional period of 6 months from 25.03.2020, i.e., up to 25.09.2020, for completing all projects, and this additional period shall be treated as due to force majeure. Having regard to this, 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 taken on the complainant's overdue amount. Accordingly point No. 4 is disposed of. Disposal of Issue No. 2: Issue No. 2 is framed to the effect of whether the complainants should be granted possession and interest for the delayed period, and if so at what rate. This issue is framed on the basis of the complainants' averments, and the burden of proving it lies on the complainants.

The complainant (Lallan Prasad Yadav) has stated that the opposite party had given a promise to complete the project and hand over possession, but did not hand over the unit within the stipulated period, and the project is delayed. Accordingly the complainant has requested possession and interest for the delayed period. The opposite party, by filing its written response, has stated that Phase-4 of the project has a total of 48 towers (Tower-4 to i8), with 4,408 units. Of these towers, 42 towers have obtained OC, and for the remaining [?] an application has been made before the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority to obtain OC. Possession is being given in the towers for which OC has been obtained, and at present possession of 4480 units has been given. Phase-2 of the project has a total of 44 towers (Tower-49 to 29), in which finishing work is in progress, and possession of the unit will be given in June 2022 + 6 months' grace period. Phase-3 has a total of 40 towers (Tower-30 to 39), in which finishing work is in progress, and possession along with all facilities will be given by December 2022 + 6 months' grace period. Finishing work in the project is going on at a rapid pace, and possession of the unit will be given to the complainant in December 2022 + 6 months' grace period. Section 78 (7) of the RERA Act provides: "If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building,-

(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed." Accordingly, the allottee has the right that if possession is not given in accordance with the agreement, they may demand return of the amount deposited with interest, or remain in the project receiving interest for each month of delay. However, in the present cases the complainants have requested possession and interest for the delayed period.

In Civil Appeal No. 940/2017, "Vikram Chatterjee and Others vs. Union of India and Others", with I.A. No. 468486/2078, I.A. No. 409882/2020, I.A. No. 44865/2020, I.A. No. 75334/2049, I.A. No. 420307/2020, I.A. No. 123299/2020 and I.A. No. 6397/2024 (in relation to the La Residencia project), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 29.06.2024 has not stayed U.P. RERA from passing orders. Apart from a separate monitoring arrangement for the 632 flats payable against the Amrapali Group's capital investment, the Supreme Court's order has directed that the project is now to be completed by the present promoters only. In the case of the complainant (Ashwini Kumar Mishra), it is clear from the OC dated 27.0.2016 available on file that the opposite party has completed construction up to [?] Tower [?], and the unit allotted to the complainant (Ashwini Kumar Mishra) is unit no. 7-18/002. In such a case it would be appropriate that the opposite party give possession of the unit to the complainant (Ashwini Kumar Mishra) at the earliest. In clause 9(7) of the agreement dated 46.07.2044 filed on file by the complainant (Lallan Prasad Yadav), the following is stated: "79(09).. [?] the Developer shall complete the development/construction of the flat within 36 months from the date of signing of agreement which may vary for + 6 months."

Accordingly, as above, the flat was to be handed over to the complainant from the date of execution of the agreement, 46.07.20i[?], within 36 + 6 months (grace period), i.e., by 46.04.2045, but the opposite party has not given possession within the said stipulated period. It is also to be considered that the matter remained before the Hon'ble Supreme Court between 23.07.2049 and 29.06.2024. In this view, the project cannot be said to be in the category of excessive delay. Further, under force majeure, the opposite party is entitled to the benefit for a total period of 68 days (as described in the point for determination above). As to up to what period interest should be awarded, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50/208, "Supertech Limited vs. Rajni Goyal", has held: "the period of Interest should close on April 2016 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 2016. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 2016 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 shall be entitled to delay interest up to the date of OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. In such a case it appears just to award the complainant interest for the delayed period from i6.07.20i5 + 68 days, i.e., 26.03.20i5, up to the date of OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. As regards liability for interest, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Union of India" has held that: "Section 8(1)(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."

Accordingly, in light of the above judgment, it is clear that under the provisions of U.P. RERA, interest on the delay and on the principal amount shall be payable as per the agreement between the promoter and the buyer, because the promoters have used the said amount. Under clause 9(b) of the agreement there is a provision for an amount at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square foot per month during the period of delay, under which the complainant is entitled to the amount. Under the provisions of RERA, there is a provision to pay the amount at the same rate at which the opposite party has received it. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20i6 came into force on 0.05.20:7. By the notification dated 03.05.2047 of the U.P. Housing and Urban Planning Department, Section-2, the Governor granted approval for functioning as the Regulatory Authority in U.P. from 07.05.20:7; that is, from 04.05.2047 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 came into force in U.P., i.e., in U.P. the Act became effective from 04.05.20i7. The enforcement of this Act is prospective. Therefore compensation for the period before 07.05.20:7 shall be calculated under the provisions of the allotment letter / agreement, and interest for the period from 04.05.207 onwards shall be calculated under the provisions of the Act. Section 2(za) of the RERA Act provides: "(za) 'interest' means the rates of interest payable by the promoter or the allottee, as the case may be.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause— (i) the rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default; (ii) the interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the amount or any part thereof till the date the amount or part thereof and interest thereon is refunded, and the interest payable by the allottee to the promoter shall be from the date the allottee defaults in payment to the promoter till the date it is paid;" As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2046 notified on 7.0.2078 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Sale/Lease Agreement) Rules, 2048. In the sale/lease deed format annexed to them, the Events of Default of promoters are defined in clause 9, in which clause 9.20 provides for the allottee, in the event of default by the promoter, that: "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +% unless provided otherwise under the Rules, within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:"

The same rate is prescribed in clause 9.3(i) for default by allottees. Having regard to that provision, it appears just to award the allottee interest for the delayed period at the rate of MCLR+1[?] per cent. It is also clarified that if any amount due from the complainant is overdue, the opposite party too may recover interest only at the rate of MCLR+[?] per cent. The same definition of interest is also given in Section 2(27)0) of the RERA Act. This interest rate determination has also been held to be proper by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 42238/2018, "Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Govindan [?]", on 02.04.2049 held that: "5.3. The Respondent further submitted that the National Commission had ordered payment of Interest as per the statutory Rules ie. Rule 5 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 207 @I0.7% S.I. p.a. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser submitted that he had obtained a loan for Rs. 3,30,00,000/- from Standard Chartered Bank to purchase the flat in question, and had entered into a Tripartite Loan Agreement with the Bank and the Builder. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser had to pay Interest @0% p.a. for servicing the loan for the entire period. Hence, Interest @0.7% S.I. p.a. awarded by the National Commission was just and fair."

As stated above, it is clear that under the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2047, the annual interest rate was fixed at MCLR+2 per cent (@0.7% S.I. p.a.), which was applied by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in the case concerned and which the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held to be just and correct. In the same order, clause 8.4 states that: "The National Commission has rightly awarded Interest @i0.7% S.I. p.a. by applying Rule 5 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Rules, 207 from the date of each installment till 05.02.207 i.e. till the date after which the Order of stay of cancellation of the allotment was passed; and thereafter, from the date of the Commission's final Order till the date on which the amount is refunded with Interest." Accordingly, it is clear that the interest rate of 40.7 per cent (MCLR+2%) fixed by Haryana RERA has also been held by the Supreme Court to be the correct interest rate. Further, in the judgment dated 06.02.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. C-3289/2020, "[?] Buildwell [?] Pvt. Ltd. vs. Poonam Sood and Others", it has been mentioned that:

"Coming to the next ground of challenge to the impugned order by the petitioner's counsel that the interest awarded by respondent no.1 (MCLR+1) is excessive, is also without any merit. It is an admitted fact to the petitioner that respondent no.1 had booked a flat and till the filing of the writ petition, the possession of the flat has not been given to him. The interest had been awarded in terms of Clause 9.2(ii) of the form of agreement contained in the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 208. The respondent no.2 has given cogent reasons in the impugned order. Respondent no.2 has rightly placed reliance on Clause 9 sub-clause(ii) of the Rules, 208 which provides that in the event of default on the part of the promotor, the allottee shall have the option of terminating the agreement in which case the promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the allottee under any head whatsoever, towards the purchase of the flat at the rate of MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India + % unless provided otherwise under the Rules within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to bring to our notice any Rule in the Rules, 206, providing otherwise."

Thereafter, in Writ Petition No. [?]-9220/2020, "Habitech Infrastructure Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Others", the Hon'ble High Court, making an important observation on 06.07.2020, has recorded that: "On 2.09.209 the respondent authority directed the petitioner to refund the entire amount alongwith interest @ MCLR + 1% from the date of deposit till the date of order. Thereafter, recovery certificate and citation was issued on 07.02.2020 .. and only on complaint under Section 18 authority proceeded to direct for the refund of the money alongwith payment of interest @ MCLR + 1%, which was in view of Real Estate (Regulation & Development) (Agreement to Sale) Regulations, 208.............. Thus power of refund of amount along with interest which has been provided under Section 8, with the authority was rightly exercised by it in the interest of justice." The Hon'ble High Court has also held that the order given by the RERA Authority's Bench at the annual interest rate of MCLR + [?] per cent under the Rules is just and correct. Accordingly, from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court it can be determined that the interest rate fixed by the State Government under the Rules is just and correct. The principle of linking the interest rate to the State Bank of India's MCLR+1[?] per cent has also been accepted and justified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In such case, the annual interest rate of [?] per cent fixed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Sale/Lease Agreement) Rules, 20:8, notified by the U.P. State Government, which is somewhat higher than the maximum interest rate of the State Bank of India, is just and correct. Accordingly, Point No. 2 is disposed of. Disposing of the above points, the following orders are passed: The opposite party is directed to ensure that, after completing all facilities of the flats of the complainants at serial numbers 4 to 2 of the above table as per the agreement, it gives possession along with OC/CC by 34.42.2022, and that, after obtaining the payable stamp duty, it executes the registry as per rules. For the complainant at serial number 3 of the above table, the opposite party shall, after completing all facilities of the flat as per the agreement, give possession along with OC/CC by 30.06.2022 and execute the registry as per rules.

The opposite party is directed to ensure payment to the complainant, by way of delay interest at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square foot per month for the period from 26.03.20i5 to 30.04.2047, and from 04.05.2047 up to the date of receipt of OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later, and interest at MCLR+1[?] per cent on the amount deposited by the complainant himself. This interest amount shall be adjusted against the final payable amount; if the interest amount exceeds the amount payable, it shall be refunded to the complainant. Having regard to the force majeure period, the interest for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020 shall not be calculated. Also, if the complainant has any overdue amount in this period, no interest for this period shall be payable on it. For the cases of the other complainants, delay interest shall be calculated as per the agreement in the manner set out above. The opposite party is directed that, under Section 2(za) of the RERA Act, 20I6, if after the RERA came into force any interest rate is charged by the promoter for the allottee's default, the same rate shall be paid by the promoter to the allottee on the promoter's default. Accordingly, on delayed payment the complainant shall also be liable to pay interest at MCLR+[?] per cent. If any amount has been taken from the allottee at a higher rate for delay after the RERA came into force, the interest for the delayed period shall also be calculated at that rate.

A copy of this order shall be kept on each related file, and the amount and interest shall be calculated in each case in accordance with the principles laid down in this order. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 and other relevant provisions. Order to be uploaded on the portal. If the opposite party does not comply with this order, the complainants shall have the right to get their order enforced through the RERA Authority. Date: 20 64/2022 (Rajeev Kumar) (Chairman) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | सुनवाई पीठ-04ए आदेश अन्तर्गत धारा-34 श्री राजीव कुमार, माननीय अध्यक्ष कम शिकायत संख्या |... | टॉवर एवं संख्या यूनिट संख्या | | NCRI44/0/8386/202] लल्लन प्रसाद यादव T-37/302 2 फ्टारा44/0/494]/202] अरविन्द कुमार सिंघल प-33॥304 3. पटारा44/06/5229/202] अश्विनी कुमार मिश्रा प-8/002 | बनाम ला रेज़िडेन्सिया डेवलपर्स प्रा0 लि0 शिकायतकर्ता ced प्रसाद यादव के साथ 02 अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध वाद योजित किये गये हैं। इन तीनों शिकायतों के तथ्य समान है और एक समान साक्ष्य हैं। यह तीनों शिकायतें विपक्षी की परियोजना La Residentia से सम्बन्धित है। अतः एक ही निर्णय से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत संख्या :- NCR44/I0/8386/202 Geet WATS यादव अग्रणी वाद रहेगा। प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता (eed प्रसाद यादव) का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना La Residentia में यूनिट संख्या-प-37/302 बुक करायी गयी थी, जिसकी कुल कीमत 32,52,325 /- रूपये थी, जिसके सापेक्ष शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा 25,5,020/— रूपये की धनराशि का भुगतान किया गया है। विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिये जाने का वचन दिया गया था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा निर्धारित अवधि में यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान नहीं किया गया और परियोजना विलम्बित है। अतः है 2 शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है।

शिकायतकर्ता की .ओर से अपने कथन के समर्थन में विस्तृत लिखित शिकायत पत्र दिनांकित 24.03.2022 की प्रति, आवेदन पत्र, आवंटन कम फ्लैट बायर एग्रीमेन्ट दिनांक 46.07.2004, जमा धनराशि की रसीदें, माँग पत्रों आदि अभिलेखों की छायाप्रतियाँ दाखिल की गयी है। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवादपत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि प्राधिकरण द्वारा प्लॉट नं०-0प्त-06, क्षेत्रफल 97,226.62 वर्ग मीटर आवंटित किया गया, जिसको बाटते हुए मैसर्स ला रेसीडेन्सिया डेवलपर्स wo fio को प्लॉट नं०-0प्त-064, क्षेत्रफल 80026.62 वर्ग मीटर आवंटित किया गया। परियोजना दिनांक 46.03.2044 को लॉन्च की गयी थी। परियोजना में कुल 39 टॉवर्स है। परियोजना के फेज़-4 में कुल is टॉवर्स (टॉवर-4 से 48 तक) हैं, जिसमें 4,408 यूनिटस्‌ हैं। उक्त टॉवर्स में से i2 टॉवर्स का ओ.सी. प्राप्त किया जा चुका है और अवशेष टॉवर्स का ओसी. प्राप्त किये जाने हेतु ग्रेटर नोएडा औद्योगिक विकास प्राधिकरण के समक्ष आवेदन किया जा चुका है। जिन टॉवरों का ओ.सी. प्राप्त किया जा चुका है, उसमें यूनिटों का कब्जा दिया जा रहा है और वर्तमान में 4480 यूनिटों का कब्जा दिया जा चुका है। परियोजना के फेज़-2 में कुल 44 टॉवर्स (टॉवर-49 से 29 तक) हैं, जिसमें फिनिशिंग कार्य चल रहा है और जून 2022 + 6 माह ग्रेस पीरियड में यूनिट का कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। परियोजना के फेज़-3 में कुल 40 टॉवर्स (टॉवर-30 से 39 तक) हैं, जिसमें फिनिशिंग कार्य चल रहा है और दिसम्बर 2022 + 6 माह ग्रेस पीरियड में यूनिट का कब्जा और सभी सुविधाओं सहित दिसम्बर 2022 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा।

परियोजना विभिन्‍न न्यायालय के आदेशों के कारण विलम्बित हुई। दिनांक 49.07.20 से दिनांक 24.08.20I2 तक निर्माण कार्य बन्द रहा। इस अवधि में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष किसानों द्वारा कई Re याचिकायें योजित की गयी। मार्च 2043 के बाद निर्माण कार्य धीमी गति से शुरू हुआ। मार्च 2044 से वर्ष 2043 तक निर्माण कार्य की गति बहुत धीमी रही। अन्ततः दिनांक 4.05.205 को माननीय सर्वोच्च. न्यायालय द्वारा भूमि अधिग्रहण को रिट याचिका संख्या-4506 /20i5 “सावित्री देवी बनाम उ0प्र0 सरकार एवं आदि“ में स्वीकृति दी गयी। ऐसे में 4 वर्ष विलम्ब को शून्य पीरियड माना जाना चाहिए। विपक्षी की परियोजना रेरा में पंजीकृत है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दिनांक 23.07.2049 को 632 यूनिटों को आम्रपाली ग्रुप को स्थानांतरित करने का निर्देश दिया। वर्तमान में ‘Y 3 कम्पनी यूनिटों का छांटने में लगी है, ताकि माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के निर्देश का अनुपालन किया जा सके।

विपक्षी कंपनी ने Re याचिका संख्या o40/20:7 "बिकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य" में एक हस्तक्षेप आवेदन दायर किया, जिसमें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने कम्पनी ला रेजिडेन्सिया को दिनांक 44.0.2049 के आदेश के माध्यम से किसी भी संपत्ति को अलग करने से रोक दिया। अतः विगत 44 माह से इसकी पुनर्विक्रय पर रोक के कारण कंपनी, परियोजना पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पड़ा है और इसने कंपनी को संकट में डाल दिया है, इस कारण कंपनी का नकदी प्रवाह भी प्रभावित होता है। इस सुस्त कारोबारी माहौल के साथ कंपनी / परियोजना को और अधिक प्रभावित किया है, फिर भी कंपनी निर्माण कार्य को प्रारम्भ करने का प्रबंधन कर रही है, निषेधाज्ञा आदेश के कारण निर्माण धीमा हो गया है, अनुपालन बाघा आदेश में विपक्षी ने पहले ही एक हलफनामा दायर किया है। परियोजना में फिनिशिंग का कार्य तीव्र गति चल रहा है और दिसम्बर 2022 + 6 माह ग्रेस पीरियड में शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी परियोजना के टॉवर-'-37 के तृतीय तल पर फ्लैट संख्या-737/302 बुक कराया गया था। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा फ्लैट की कुल कीमत 32,52,325 /- रूपये + कर आदि के सापेक्ष 24,64,480 //- रूपये की धनराशि का भुगतान किया गया। अनुबन्ध दिनांक 46.07.204 के अनुसार यूनिट का कब्जा 42 माह + 6 माह ग्रेस पीरियड दिया जाना था। यदि यूनिट का कब्जा दिये जाने में देरी की जाती है, तो वह अनुबन्ध के प्रस्तर-49(०) के अनुसार क्षतिपूर्ति अदा करेगें।

माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने इस परियोजना, “ला रेजिडेन्सिया” में, आम्रपाली समूह की “इक्विटी” होने के आधार पर विपक्षी को 632 फ्लैट सौंपने के निर्देश दिये गये, जिस पर विचार करने -के लिए विपक्षी ने माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष एक आवेदन दायर किया है। “ला रेजिडेन्सिया” को स्वतंत्र परियोजना के रूप में मानने और सभी समर्पित किए गए 632 फ्लैटस्‌ के निर्माण एवं भूमि की लागत की एवज में उन्हें रु. 445 करोड़ विपक्षी के पक्ष में दिए जाने चाहिए। इन आधारों पर विपक्षी द्वारा समुचित आदेश पारित किये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दिनांक 23.07.2049 को 632 यूनिटों को आम्रपाली ग्रुप को स्थानांतरित करने का निर्देश दिया। विपक्षी द्वारा यह स्पष्ट नहीं किया गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता का फ्लैट माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के अधीन 632 यूनिटों में से है अथवा नहीं। इसके अतिरिक्त माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय सिविल अपील Wea-o40 /20:7 "बिकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य" में आई.ए. 4o—768786 / 2048, आई.ए. नं0--409882 / 2020, १ | आई.ए. *0—74865 / 2020, आई.ए. नं0-453344 / 2049, आई.ए. नं0-420307 / 2020, आई.ए. नं0-१23299 / 2020 एवं आई.ए. 40-6397 /202 (लॉ रेसीडेन्सिया प्रोजेक्ट के सम्बन्ध में) में दिनांक 29.06.2024 को पारित आदेश में उ0प्र0 रेरा को आदेश पारित करने में स्थगन नहीं लगाया है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में प्रकरण लगभग 2 वर्ष विचारार्थ था तथा आम्रपाली ग्रुप के 632 फ्लैटस्‌ के लिए पृथक अनुश्रवण व्यवस्था के अतिरिक्त माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के अन्तिम आदेश में वर्तमान प्रमोटर्स द्वारा ही अब परियोजना पूर्ण की जानी है।

उभयपक्ष के तर्कों को सुना गया व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया, जिसके आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचरित किये गये :- ॥ क्‍या force majeure events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? 2. क्या शिकायतकर्तागण को कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाये? यदि हाँ तो ब्याज की दर क्‍या होगी ? निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 बिन्दु संख्या-। 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। विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि परियोजना विभिन्‍न न्यायालय के आदेशों के कारण विलम्बित हुई। मार्च 2044 से वर्ष 20:3 तक निर्माण कार्य की गति बहुत धीमी रही। अन्ततः माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भूमि अधिग्रहण को Re याचिका संख्या-4506 / 2045 “सावित्री देवी बनाम उ0प्र0 सरकार एवं आदि” में स्वीकृति दी गयी। ऐसे में 4 वर्ष विलम्ब को शून्य पीरियड माना जाना चाहिए। यद्यपि यह स्पष्ट नहीं किया गया है कि क्या निर्माण पर कोई स्थगनादेश था तथापि प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में अनुबन्ध वर्ष 2047 का है एवं तब तक भूमि सम्बन्धी प्रकरण निर्णीत हो चुके थे। इस सम्बन्ध में अनुबन्ध के We 9(a) निम्नलिखिल उल्लेखित है:- 79(2).. मम the Developer shall complete the development/construction of the flat within 36 months from the date of signing of agreement which may very for + 6 months. That the Developer shall not be held के

responsible or liable for not performing any of its obligations or undertakings provided for in this Agreement if such performance is prevented, delayed or hindered by act of God, fire, storm, flood, explosion, war, ~ riot, terrorist act, sabotage, court cases, injunctions not within the reasonable control of the Developer. The completion date is subject to force majeure conditions. No claim by way of damages/ compensation shall lie against the Developer in case of delay in handing over the possession on account of the force majeure condition and the Developer shall be entitled to a reasonable extension of time for the delivery of possession of the flat to the allottee. माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-43029 / 4985 “एम. सी. मेहता बनाम भारत सरकार“ में पारित आदेश दिनांक 04.44.2049 में निम्नलिखित निर्देश दिये है :- With respect to demolition and construction activities we direct that no demolition and construction activities take place in Delhi and NCR region. In case it is found that such activity is done, the local administration as well as the municipal authorities including the Zonal Commissioners, Deputy Zonal Commissioners shall be personally held responsible for all such activities. They have to act in furtherance of the Court’s order and to ensure that no such activity takes place.

We direct that construction, demolition and activities be stopped forthwith as well as garbage burning. In case, any person is found in construction and demolition activity and garbage burning in Delhi and NCR region, he/she shall be ~ penalized. Any person is doing construction and demolition activity in violation of this order, shall be penalized with Rs.l Lac for such activity. For garbage burning he/she shall be penalized with Rs.5,000/- and besides liable for violation of the order passed by this Court to be dealt with in accordance with law. Of इसके अतिरिक्त उपरोक्त सिविल अपील संख्या-43029 // 4985 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 09.42.2049 में निम्नलिखित निर्देश दिये है — In the affidavit dated 05.2.209, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has stated as under:-

"2. That it is respectfully submitted that it is normally experienced that in month of December depending upon Climatic Condition the AQI category varies. As a matter of fact, last year (20I8) 8 days in the month of December were in severe AQI category. Presently the situation not being severe, CPCB is of considered opinion that partial ban could be in place of construction activities in as much as no construction should be permitted during night time (6.00 pm to 6.00 am). The ban imposed could be partially lifted by permitting activities during day time (6.00 am to 6.00 pm), subject to the criteria stipulated in GRAP, wherein strict emforcement of rules for dust control in construction activities and closure of non-compliant sites is mandated in moderate to poor AQI category and further a bank on construction activities may be imposed by EPCA if Ambient AIR quality levels persist in severe+/emergency category for 48 hours or more." Hence, the ban is relaxed in terms of the recommendations made by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), as quoted above. However, conditions for raising construction be scrupulously followed.

माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा (दिनांक 04.4.2049 से दिनांक 44.02.2020) की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगायी गयी है, जिसमें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 09.2.20I9 4 पूर्ण wire को हटाते हुए आंशिक प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया। ऐसे में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा 35 दिन (दिनांक 04.4420i9 से दिनांक 09.2.2049) एवं 33 दिन (6652) (दिनांक 40.2.20I9 से दिनांक 44.02.2020 तक da 6 बजे से सुबह 6 बजे तक) की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया। अतः उपरोक्त उल्लेखित आदेशों के कम में कुल 68 दिनों में निर्माण प्रभावित रहा। विपक्षी ऐसी दशा में कुल 68 दिन निर्माण कार्य प्रभावित रहने के कारण आंशिक रूप से लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है। न 7 समस्त सुसंगत तथ्यों पर flared wowo रेरा अथॉरिटी द्वारा दिनांक 06.06.2020 को कोविड-49 (Corona Virus Disease) के प्रभाव के कारण सभी परियोजनाओं को पूर्ण करने हेतु दिनोक 25.03.2020 से 6 माह की अतिरिक्त अवधि अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक की अवधि दे दी गयी है और यह अतिरिक्त अवधि फोर्स मैज्योर grey के कारण मानी जायेगी। इसको दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03.2020 से दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु कोई ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा आवंटियों को नहीं दिया जाएगा और न ही शिकायतकर्ता के अतिदेय पर कोई विलम्ब ब्याज लिया जायेगा। तदनुसार बिन्दु संख्या-4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2

निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 इस आशय से विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या शिकायतकर्तागण को कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाये? यदि हाँ तो ब्याज की दर क्‍या होगी ? यह वाद बिन्दु शिकायतकर्तागण के अभिकथनों के आधार पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार शिकायतकर्तागण पर है। शिकायतकर्ता (लल्लन प्रसाद यादव) द्वारा कथन किया गया है कि विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिये जाने का वचन दिया गया था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा निर्धारित अवधि में यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान नहीं किया गया और परियोजना विलम्बित है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है इस पर विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवादपत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि परियोजना के फेज-4 में कुल 48 टॉवर्स (टॉवर-4 से i8 तक) हैं, जिसमें 4,408 यूनिटस्‌ हैं। उक्त टॉवर्स में से 42 टॉवर्स का ओ.सी. प्राप्त किया जा चुका है और अवशेष cad का ओ-सी. प्राप्त किये जाने हेतु ग्रेटर नोएडा औद्योगिक विकास प्राधिकरण के समक्ष आवेदन किया जा चुका है। जिन टॉवरों का ओ.सी. प्राप्त किया जा चुका है, उसमें यूनिटों का कब्जा दिया जा रहा है और वर्तमान में 4480 यूनिटों का कब्जा दिया जा चुका है। परियोजना के फेज-2 में कुल 44 टॉवर्स (टॉवर-49 से 29 तक) हैं, जिसमें फिनिशिंग कार्य चल रहा है और जून 2022 + 6 माह ग्रेस पीरियड में यूनिट का कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। परियोजना के फेज-3 में कुल 40 टॉवर्स (टॉवर-30 से 39 तक) हैं, जिसमें फिनिशिंग कार्य चल रहा है और दिसम्बर 2022 + 6 माह ग्रेस पीरियड में यूनिट का कब्जा और सभी सुविधाओं सहित दिसम्बर 2022 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। परियोजना में फिनिशिंग का कार्य तीव्र ‘ff

गति चल रहा है और दिसम्बर 2022 + 6 माह ग्रेस पीरियड में शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। रेरा एक्ट की धारा ia () में प्राविधान है कि :- Section 78 (7) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give posteusession of an apartment, plot or building,- (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.

इस प्रकार केता को यह अधिकार है कि यदि उन्हें एग्रीमेंट के अनुरूप कब्जा नही मिलता तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि को ब्याज सहित वापिस माँग सकते हैं अथवा प्रत्येक माह के विलम्ब के लिए ब्याज प्राप्त करते हुए परियोजना में बने रहें, परन्तु प्रश्नगत प्रकरणों शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय सिविल अपील संख्या-940 /20:7 "बिकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य" में आई.ए. नं०-468486 /2078, आई. ए. नं0--409882 / 2020, आई.ए. नं0--44865 / 2020, आई.ए. A0—-75334 / 2049, amg. नं०-420307,/ 2020, आई.ए..._ नं0-१23299,// 2020 एवं आई.ए. नं0-6397 / 2024 (लॉ रेसीडेन्सिया प्रोजेक्ट के सम्बन्ध में) में दिनांक 29.06.2024 को पारित आदेश में उ0प्र0 tr को आदेश पारित करने में स्थगन नहीं लगाया है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के आदेश में आम्रपाली ग्रुप की पूँजी निवेश के सापेक्ष देय 632 फ्लैटस्‌ के लिए पृथक अनुश्रवण व्यवस्था के अतिरिक्त वर्तमान प्रमोटर्स को ही अब परियोजना पूर्ण की जानी है। ऐसा आदेश दिये हैं। शिकायतकर्ता (अश्विनी कुमार मिश्रा) के प्रकरण में पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध ओ.सी. दिनांक 27.0.20i6 से यह स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना के cia Bis तक का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण किया जा चुका है और शिकायतकर्ता (अश्विनी कुमार मिश्रा) को आवंटित यूनिट संख्या- 7-i8/002 है। ऐसे में उचित होगा कि विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता (अश्विनी कुमार मिश्रा) को शीघ्र यूनिट का कब्जा उपलब्ध करायें। पत्रावली पर शिकायतकर्ता (ett प्रसाद यादव) द्वारा दाखिल अनुबन्ध दिनांक 46.07.2044 के प्रस्तर-9(७) में निम्नलिखित seers किया गया है :-

79(०9).. शात्रा the Developer shall complete the development/construction of the flat within 36 months Jrom the date of signing of agreement which may very for + 6 months. अतः उपरोक्‍तानुसार शिकायतकर्ता को अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किये जानें की तिथि 46.07.20i से 36 + 6 माह (a पीरियड) अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 46.04.2045 तक फ्लैट का कब्जा दिया जाना था, किन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा उक्त निर्धारित अवधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। यह भी विचारणीय है कि प्रकरण दिनांक 23.07.2049 से दिनांक 29.06.2024 के बीच माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में विचारणीय रहा। इस दृष्टि से परियोजना अत्यधिक विलम्बित श्रेणी में नहीं कही जा सकती। इसके अतिरिक्त फोर्स मैज्योर के मद में विपक्षी कुल 68 दिन की अवधि के लिए लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है। (जैसा कि निस्तारण बिन्दु den में वर्णित है|) जहाँ तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बन्ध में सिविल अपील wo 6649-50 ,/ 208 "सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल" में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है किः- "the period of Interest should close on April 20l6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 20l6. The Respondent — V/ १0 Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 206 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent — Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession. "

उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार ओ.सी. /सी.सी. अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक i6.07.20i5 + 68 दिन अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 26.03.20i5 से ओ.सी /सी.सी. प्राप्त किये जाने की तिथि अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। जहाँ तक ब्याज देयता का प्रश्न है, माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा “नीलकमल Raced waar प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया” के वाद में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- "Section 8(l)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on - demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable. "

अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व केता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल > 4 धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्योंकि wed द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। अनुबन्ध के WAR 9(b) में परियोजना के विलम्ब की अवधि में 5,/- रूपये प्रतिवर्ग फूट प्रतिमाह की दर से धनराशि का प्राविधान रहता है, जिसके अनुसार शिकायतकर्ता धनराशि पाने का अधिकारी है, रेरा के प्राविधानों के अनुसार जिस दर से विपक्षी द्वारा धनराशि प्राप्त की गयी है उसी दर से धनराशि देने का प्राविधान है। इस सम्बन्ध में भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम, 20i6 का प्रवर्तन दिनाक 0.05.20:7 को हुआ, जिसके सम्बन्ध में उ0प्र० आवास एवं शहरी नियोजन अनुभाग-2 की अधिसूचना दिनांक 03.05.2047 से उ0प्र0 में रेगुलेटरी अथॉरिटी के रूप मे कार्य करने की स्वीकृति राज्यपाल, महोदय ने दिनांक 07.05.20:7 से प्रदान की अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 04.05.2047 से भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 का प्रवर्तन उ0प्र0 में प्रारम्भ हुआ अर्थात्‌ उ0प्र0 में यह अधिनियम दिनांक 04. 05.20i7 से लागू हुआ है। इस अधिनियम का प्रवर्तन प्रोस्पेक्टिव है। अतः दिनांक 07.05.20:7 से पूर्व की अवधि के लिए प्रतिकर की गणना आवंटन पत्र/अनुबन्ध क्रे प्रावधानों के अन्तर्गत की जायेगी और दिनांक 04.05.207 से आगे की अवधि के लिए ब्याज की गणना अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अन्तर्गत की जायेगी। रेरा एक्ट की धारा 2(za) में प्राविधान है कि :- (za) "interest" means the rates of interest payable by the - promoter or the allottee, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause—

(i) the rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default; (ii) the interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the amount or any part thereof till the date the amount or part thereof and interest thereon is refunded, and the interest payable by the allottee to the promoter shall be from the date the allottee defaults in payment to the promoter till the date it is paid; जहाँ तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, तो राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 7.0.2078 को pS ॥2 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 9.20 में प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है किः- "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India + % unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:"

यही दर आवंटियों के द्वारा डिफॉल्ट की स्थिति में भी प्रस्तर 9.30) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को MCLR+I प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि यंदि शिकायतकर्ता की कोई धनराशि अतिदेय है, तो उस पर विपक्षी भी MCLRt प्रतिशत की दर से ही ब्याज प्राप्त कर सकता है। रेरा की धारा-2(2७)0) में भी यही ब्याज की परिभाषा दी गयी है। इस ब्याज दर के निर्धारण को माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भी उचित माना गया है। इस सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-42238 /20i8 “पायनियर अर्बन लैन्ड एवं इन्फास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड बनाम गोविन्दन wear” में दिनांक 02.04.2049 को अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- 5.3. The Respondent further submitted that the National Commission had ordered payment of Interest as per the statutory Rules ie. Rule 5 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 207 @I0.7% S.I. p.a. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser submitted that he had obtained a loan for Rs. 3,30,00,000/- from Standard Chartered Bank to purchase the flat in question, and had entered into a Tripartite Loan Agreement with the Bank and the Builder. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser had to pay Interest @0% p.a. for servicing the loan for the entire - period. Hence, Interest @0.7% S.I. p.a. awarded by the National Commission was just and fair. y ve HES}

उपरोक्तानुसार यह स्पष्ट है कि हरियाणा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) नियमावली, 2047 के द्वारा वार्षिक ब्याज दर MCLR+2 प्रतिशत (प्राक्घ०्४६ @0.7% Sl. pa) की दर से निर्धारित की गयी थी, जो सम्बन्धित मामले में राष्ट्रीय उपभोक्ता विवाद निवारण आयोग (NCDRC) द्वारा arya किया गया है, जिसको माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भी उचित एवं सही माना गया है, साथ ही इसी आदेश के प्रस्तर 8.4 में यह उलल्‍लेखित है कि :- The National Commission has rightly awarded Interest @i0.7% S.I. p.a. by applying Rule 5 of the Haryana Real. 2 Estate (Regulation And Development) Rules, 207 from the date of each installment till 05.02.207 i.e. till the date after which the Order of stay of cancellation of the allotment was passed; and thereafter, from the date of the Commission’s final Order till the date on which the amount is refunded with Interest. अतः यह we है कि ब्याज दर जो कि 40.7 प्रतिशत (MCLR+2%) हरियाणा रेरा द्वारा निर्धारित किया गया है, वह सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भी सही ब्याज दर माना गया है। इसके अतिरिक्त माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या-सी-3289 ,/ 2020 “wat बिल्डवेल ayaa प्रा.लि. बनाम पूनम सूद एवं अन्य” में दिनांक 06.02.2020 को पारित निर्णय में यह उललेखित किया गया है कि:-

Coming to the next ground of challenge to the impugned order by the petitioner's counsel that the interest awarded by respondent no.] (MCLR+I) is excessive, is also without any merit. It is an admitted fact to the petitioner that respondent no.I had booked a flat and till the filing of the writ petition, the possession of the flat has not been given to him. The interest had been awarded in terms of Clause 9.2(ii) of the form of agreement contained in the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 208. The respondent no.2 has given cogent reasons in the impugned order. Respondent no.2 has rightly placed reliance on Clause 9 sub-clause(ii) of the Rules, 208 which provides that in the event of default on the part of the promotor, the allottee shall have the option of terminating the agreement in which case the promoter shall be liable to “ 34 refund the entire money paid by the allottee under any head whatsoever, towards the purchase of the flat at the rate of MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India + % unless provided otherwise under the Rules within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to bring to our notice any Rule in the Rules, 206, providing otherwise. तत्पश्चात्‌ रिट याचिका WeT-*it-9220 /2020 “हैबीटेक SORTA लिमिटेड बनाम उ0प्र0 राज्य सरकार एवं अन्य” में दिनांक 06.07.2020 को महत्वपूर्ण ऑब्जर्वेशन देते हुए यह उल्‍लेखित किया है किः-

On 2.09.209 the respondent authority directed the petitioner to refund the entire amount alongwith interest @ MCLR + I% from the date of deposit till the date of order. Thereafter, recovery certificate and citation was issued on 07.02.2020 .. and only on complaint under Section l8 authority proceeded to direct for the refund of the money alongwith payment of interest @ MCLR + I%, which was in view of Real Estate (Regulation & Development) (Agreement to Sale) Regulations, 208.............."००"न्‍हञञ--+ Thus power of refund of amount along with interest which has been provided under Section 8, with the authority was rightly exercised by it in the interest of justice. माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भी रेरा प्राधिकरण के पीठ द्वारा नियमावली के अन्तर्गत MCLR + % की वार्षिक ब्याज दर से दिये गये आदेश को उचित एवं सही माना है। अतः उपरोकतानुसार माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय एवं माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दिये गये निर्णय से यह अवधारित किया जा सकता है कि राज्य सरकार द्वारा नियमावली के अन्तर्गत निर्धारित की गयी ब्याज दर उचित एवं सही है। ब्याज दर को स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के MCLR+I प्रतिशत से सम्बद्ध करने के सिद्धान्त को माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा भी स्वीकारा गया है और न्यायोचित ठहराया है। ऐसे में उ0प्र0 राज्य सरकार द्वारा अधिसूचित की गयी भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास), (विकय पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली, 20:8 के अन्तर्गत निर्धारित की गयी वार्षिक ब्याज दर ध८ा,९+] प्रतिशत, जो कि स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया की i5

अधिकतम ब्याज दर से werd ज्यादा है, उचित एवं सही है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-2 Peake किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते है। आदेश fave को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह उपरोक्त सारणी के क्रमांक संख्या-4 से 2 तक के शिकायतकर्तागण के फ्लैटस्‌ की समस्त सुविधाओं को अनुबन्ध के अनुसार पूर्ण कराकर दिनांक 34.42.2022 तक ओ.सी »सी.सी सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री EW तथा उपरोक्त सारणी के क्रमांक संख्या-3 के शिकायतकर्ता के फ्लैट की समस्त सुविधाओं को अनुबन्ध के अनुसार पूर्ण कराकर दिनांक 30.06.2022 तक ओ.सी/सी.सी सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें।

2. विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 26.03.20i5 से दिनांक 30.04.2047 तक 5/- रूपये प्रतिवर्ग फुट प्रतिमाह की दर से व दिनांक 04.05.2047 से ओ.सी. /सी.सी. प्राप्त किये जाने की तिथि अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो, तक की अवधि पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा स्वयं जमा धनराशि पर विलम्ब ब्याज के रूप में MCLR+I प्रतिशत ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की 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 इस अवधि में शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा यदि कोई अतिदेय (Over Dues) है, तो उस पर भी इस अवधि का ब्याज देय न होगा। अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण के प्रकरणों में उपरोक्तानुसार अनुबन्ध के अनुरूप विलम्ब ब्याज की गणना की जायेगी। 3. विपक्षी को यह निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम, 20I6 की धारा Aza) 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 Oy 6 पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भी MCLRH 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।

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। दिनांक :-20 64/2022 Ww ’ Aap ot (राजीव कुमार) (अध्यक्ष) Boro भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण

U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar Hearing Bench-04A Order under Section 34 Shri Rajeev Kumar, Hon'ble Chairman Sl. No. | Complaint No. | Tower and Unit No. 1. NCRI44/0/8386/202] | Lallan Prasad Yadav | T-37/302 2. [?]44/0/494]/202] | Arvind Kumar Singhal | T-33 [?] 304 3. [?]44/06/5229/202] | Ashwini Kumar Mishra | T-8/002 vs. La Residencia Developers Pvt. Ltd. The complaints have been filed by the complainants, Lallan Prasad Yadav along with 02 other complainants, against the opposite party. The facts of these three complaints are identical and the evidence is common. All three complaints relate to the opposite party's project La Residencia. Therefore they are being disposed of by a single decision. Complaint No. NCRI44/I0/8386/202[?] (Lallan Prasad Yadav) shall remain the lead case. The complaints have been instituted by the complainants against the opposite party seeking possession and interest for the delayed period.

In brief, the complainant (Lallan Prasad Yadav) states that they booked unit no. [?]-37/302 in the opposite party's project La Residencia, the total price of which was Rs. 32,52,325/-, against which the complainant has paid Rs. 25,5,020/-. The opposite party had given a promise to complete the project and hand over possession, but did not hand over possession of the unit within the stipulated period, and the project is delayed. Accordingly the complainant has requested possession and interest for the delayed period. In support of the complainant's statement, photocopies of records have been filed, including a detailed written complaint dated 24.03.2022, the application, the allotment-cum-flat buyer agreement dated 46.07.2004, receipts of deposits, demand letters and other records. The opposite party, by filing its written response, has stated that the Authority allotted plot no. [?]-06, area 97,226.62 sq. metres, and while dividing it, M/s La Residencia Developers [?] was allotted plot no. [?]-064, area 80026.62 sq. metres. The project was launched on 46.03.2044. The project has a total of 39 towers.

Phase-4 of the project has [?] towers (Tower-4 to 48), with 4,408 units. Of these towers, [i2 [?]] towers have obtained OC, and for the remaining towers an application has been made before the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority to obtain OC. Possession is being given in the towers for which OC has been obtained, and at present possession of 4480 units has been given. Phase-2 of the project has a total of 44 towers (Tower-49 to 29), in which finishing work is in progress, and possession of the unit will be given in June 2022 + 6 months' grace period. Phase-3 of the project has a total of 40 towers (Tower-30 to 39), in which finishing work is in progress, and possession of the unit along with all facilities will be given by December 2022 + 6 months' grace period. The project was delayed due to various court orders. Construction remained closed from 49.07.20 to 24.08.20I2. During this period several writ petitions were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by farmers. After March 2043, construction started slowly. From March 2044 to the year 2043, the pace of construction remained very slow. Finally, on 4.05.205 the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the land acquisition in Writ Petition No. 4506/20i5, "Savitri Devi vs. Government of U.P. and Others". In such circumstances, the 4-year delay should be treated as a zero period. The opposite party's project is registered with RERA.

On 23.07.2049 the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the transfer of 632 units to the Amrapali Group. At present the company is engaged in sorting out the units so that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's direction can be complied with. The opposite company filed an intervention application in Writ Petition No. o40/20:7, "Vikram Chatterjee and Others vs. Union of India and Others", in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by its order dated 44.0.2049, restrained the company La Residencia from separating any property. Accordingly, because of the restraint on resale for the past 44 months, the company and the project have been adversely affected, the company has been put in distress, and its cash flow is also affected. Along with this sluggish business environment, the company and project have been further affected. Even so, the company is managing to start construction work. Because of the injunction order, construction has slowed; in the compliance order the opposite party has already filed an affidavit. Finishing work in the project is going on at a rapid pace, and possession of the unit will be given to the complainant in December 2022 + 6 months' grace period.

The complainant booked flat no. 737/302 on the third floor of Tower-[?]37 of the project. Against the total price of the flat, Rs. 32,52,325/- plus taxes etc., the complainant paid Rs. 24,64,480/-. As per the agreement dated 46.07.204, possession of the unit was to be given within 42 months + 6 months' grace period. If possession is delayed, the opposite party shall pay compensation as per clause 49(0) of the agreement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the opposite party to hand over 632 flats in this project, "La Residencia", on the basis that the project is an equity of the Amrapali Group, and the opposite party has filed an application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for consideration of the matter. The opposite party seeks that La Residencia be treated as an independent project, and that Rs. 445 crore be paid to the opposite party in lieu of the construction and land cost of all 632 flats allotted. On these grounds the opposite party has requested that appropriate orders be passed. In the case in question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed on 23.07.2049 the transfer of 632 units to the Amrapali Group. The opposite party has not clarified whether the complainant's flat is among the 632 units under the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Further, in the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 29.06.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 940/20:7, "Vikram Chatterjee and Others vs. Union of India and Others", with I.A. 4o—768786/2048, I.A. No. 409882/2020, I.A. No. 74865/2020, I.A. No. 453344/2049, I.A. No. 420307/2020, I.A. No. 123299/2020 and I.A. 40-6397/202 (in relation to the La Residencia project), the Supreme Court has not stayed U.P. RERA from passing orders. The matter remained before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for about 2 years, and apart from a separate monitoring arrangement for the 632 flats of the Amrapali Group, under the Hon'ble Supreme Court's final order the project is now to be completed by the present promoters. The arguments of both parties were heard and the file perused, on the basis of which the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the opposite party's project was delayed due to force majeure events? If so, what is the effect? 2. Whether the complainants should be granted possession and interest for the delayed period? If so, at what rate will the interest be? Disposal of Issue No. 1: Issue No. 1 is framed to the effect of whether in fact the project was delayed due to force majeure events. This issue is framed on the opposite party's averments, and the burden of proving it lies on the opposite party.

The opposite party has stated that the project was delayed due to various court orders. From March 2044 to the year 20:3 the pace of construction remained very slow. Finally the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the land acquisition in Writ Petition No. 4506/2045, "Savitri Devi vs. U.P. Government and Others". In such circumstances, the 4-year delay should be treated as a zero period. Although it has not been made clear whether there was any stay order on construction, in the present case the agreement is of the year 2047, and by then land-related matters had already been decided. In this regard, clause 9(a) of the agreement reads as follows:

"79(2).. [?] the Developer shall complete the development/construction of the flat within 36 months from the date of signing of agreement which may vary for + 6 months. That the Developer shall not be held responsible or liable for not performing any of its obligations or undertakings provided for in this Agreement if such performance is prevented, delayed or hindered by act of God, fire, storm, flood, explosion, war, riot, terrorist act, sabotage, court cases, injunctions not within the reasonable control of the Developer. The completion date is subject to force majeure conditions. No claim by way of damages/compensation shall lie against the Developer in case of delay in handing over the possession on account of the force majeure condition and the Developer shall be entitled to a reasonable extension of time for the delivery of possession of the flat to the allottee." In its order dated 04.4.2049 passed in Civil Appeal No. 43029/4985, "M.C. Mehta vs. Government of India", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given the following directions:

"With respect to demolition and construction activities we direct that no demolition and construction activities take place in Delhi and NCR region. In case it is found that such activity is done, the local administration as well as the municipal authorities including the Zonal Commissioners, Deputy Zonal Commissioners shall be personally held responsible for all such activities. They have to act in furtherance of the Court's order and to ensure that no such activity takes place. We direct that construction, demolition and activities be stopped forthwith as well as garbage burning. In case, any person is found in construction and demolition activity and garbage burning in Delhi and NCR region, he/she shall be penalized. Any person is doing construction and demolition activity in violation of this order, shall be penalized with Rs.1 Lac for such activity. For garbage burning he/she shall be penalized with Rs.5,000/- and besides liable for violation of the order passed by this Court to be dealt with in accordance with law." Further, in the order dated 09.42.2049 passed in the above Civil Appeal No. 43029//4985, the following directions were given: "In the affidavit dated 05.2.209, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has stated as under:-

'2. That it is respectfully submitted that it is normally experienced that in month of December depending upon Climatic Condition the AQI category varies. As a matter of fact, last year (2018) 8 days in the month of December were in severe AQI category. Presently the situation not being severe, CPCB is of considered opinion that partial ban could be in place of construction activities in as much as no construction should be permitted during night time (6.00 pm to 6.00 am). The ban imposed could be partially lifted by permitting activities during day time (6.00 am to 6.00 pm), subject to the criteria stipulated in GRAP, wherein strict enforcement of rules for dust control in construction activities and closure of non-compliant sites is mandated in moderate to poor AQI category and further a ban on construction activities may be imposed by EPCA if Ambient AIR quality levels persist in severe+/emergency category for 48 hours or more.' Hence, the ban is relaxed in terms of the recommendations made by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), as quoted above. However, conditions for raising construction be scrupulously followed."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court imposed a ban on construction for the period (from 04.4.2049 to 44.02.2020), and by its order dated 09.2.20I9 [?] removed the complete [?] ban and imposed a partial ban in its place. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court imposed a restriction on construction for 35 days (from 04.4.20I9 to 09.2.2049) and 33 days ([?]) (from 40.2.20I9 to 44.02.2020, from 6 pm to 6 am). In pursuance of the above orders, construction was affected for a total of 68 days. In such a case the opposite party is entitled to partial benefit for the 68 days during which construction was affected. On all relevant facts, by order dated 06.06.2020 the RERA Authority, due to the effect of COVID-49 (Corona Virus Disease), granted an additional period of 6 months from 25.03.2020, i.e., up to 25.09.2020, for completing all projects, and this additional period shall be treated as due to force majeure. Having regard to this, 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 taken on the complainant's overdue amount. Accordingly point No. 4 is disposed of. Disposal of Issue No. 2: Issue No. 2 is framed to the effect of whether the complainants should be granted possession and interest for the delayed period, and if so at what rate. This issue is framed on the basis of the complainants' averments, and the burden of proving it lies on the complainants.

The complainant (Lallan Prasad Yadav) has stated that the opposite party had given a promise to complete the project and hand over possession, but did not hand over the unit within the stipulated period, and the project is delayed. Accordingly the complainant has requested possession and interest for the delayed period. The opposite party, by filing its written response, has stated that Phase-4 of the project has a total of 48 towers (Tower-4 to i8), with 4,408 units. Of these towers, 42 towers have obtained OC, and for the remaining [?] an application has been made before the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority to obtain OC. Possession is being given in the towers for which OC has been obtained, and at present possession of 4480 units has been given. Phase-2 of the project has a total of 44 towers (Tower-49 to 29), in which finishing work is in progress, and possession of the unit will be given in June 2022 + 6 months' grace period. Phase-3 has a total of 40 towers (Tower-30 to 39), in which finishing work is in progress, and possession along with all facilities will be given by December 2022 + 6 months' grace period. Finishing work in the project is going on at a rapid pace, and possession of the unit will be given to the complainant in December 2022 + 6 months' grace period. Section 78 (7) of the RERA Act provides: "If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building,-

(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed." Accordingly, the allottee has the right that if possession is not given in accordance with the agreement, they may demand return of the amount deposited with interest, or remain in the project receiving interest for each month of delay. However, in the present cases the complainants have requested possession and interest for the delayed period.

In Civil Appeal No. 940/2017, "Vikram Chatterjee and Others vs. Union of India and Others", with I.A. No. 468486/2078, I.A. No. 409882/2020, I.A. No. 44865/2020, I.A. No. 75334/2049, I.A. No. 420307/2020, I.A. No. 123299/2020 and I.A. No. 6397/2024 (in relation to the La Residencia project), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 29.06.2024 has not stayed U.P. RERA from passing orders. Apart from a separate monitoring arrangement for the 632 flats payable against the Amrapali Group's capital investment, the Supreme Court's order has directed that the project is now to be completed by the present promoters only. In the case of the complainant (Ashwini Kumar Mishra), it is clear from the OC dated 27.0.2016 available on file that the opposite party has completed construction up to [?] Tower [?], and the unit allotted to the complainant (Ashwini Kumar Mishra) is unit no. 7-18/002. In such a case it would be appropriate that the opposite party give possession of the unit to the complainant (Ashwini Kumar Mishra) at the earliest. In clause 9(7) of the agreement dated 46.07.2044 filed on file by the complainant (Lallan Prasad Yadav), the following is stated: "79(09).. [?] the Developer shall complete the development/construction of the flat within 36 months from the date of signing of agreement which may vary for + 6 months."

Accordingly, as above, the flat was to be handed over to the complainant from the date of execution of the agreement, 46.07.20i[?], within 36 + 6 months (grace period), i.e., by 46.04.2045, but the opposite party has not given possession within the said stipulated period. It is also to be considered that the matter remained before the Hon'ble Supreme Court between 23.07.2049 and 29.06.2024. In this view, the project cannot be said to be in the category of excessive delay. Further, under force majeure, the opposite party is entitled to the benefit for a total period of 68 days (as described in the point for determination above). As to up to what period interest should be awarded, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50/208, "Supertech Limited vs. Rajni Goyal", has held: "the period of Interest should close on April 2016 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 2016. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 2016 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 shall be entitled to delay interest up to the date of OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. In such a case it appears just to award the complainant interest for the delayed period from i6.07.20i5 + 68 days, i.e., 26.03.20i5, up to the date of OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. As regards liability for interest, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Union of India" has held that: "Section 8(1)(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."

Accordingly, in light of the above judgment, it is clear that under the provisions of U.P. RERA, interest on the delay and on the principal amount shall be payable as per the agreement between the promoter and the buyer, because the promoters have used the said amount. Under clause 9(b) of the agreement there is a provision for an amount at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square foot per month during the period of delay, under which the complainant is entitled to the amount. Under the provisions of RERA, there is a provision to pay the amount at the same rate at which the opposite party has received it. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20i6 came into force on 0.05.20:7. By the notification dated 03.05.2047 of the U.P. Housing and Urban Planning Department, Section-2, the Governor granted approval for functioning as the Regulatory Authority in U.P. from 07.05.20:7; that is, from 04.05.2047 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 came into force in U.P., i.e., in U.P. the Act became effective from 04.05.20i7. The enforcement of this Act is prospective. Therefore compensation for the period before 07.05.20:7 shall be calculated under the provisions of the allotment letter / agreement, and interest for the period from 04.05.207 onwards shall be calculated under the provisions of the Act. Section 2(za) of the RERA Act provides: "(za) 'interest' means the rates of interest payable by the promoter or the allottee, as the case may be.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause— (i) the rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default; (ii) the interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the amount or any part thereof till the date the amount or part thereof and interest thereon is refunded, and the interest payable by the allottee to the promoter shall be from the date the allottee defaults in payment to the promoter till the date it is paid;" As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2046 notified on 7.0.2078 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Sale/Lease Agreement) Rules, 2048. In the sale/lease deed format annexed to them, the Events of Default of promoters are defined in clause 9, in which clause 9.20 provides for the allottee, in the event of default by the promoter, that: "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +% unless provided otherwise under the Rules, within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:"

The same rate is prescribed in clause 9.3(i) for default by allottees. Having regard to that provision, it appears just to award the allottee interest for the delayed period at the rate of MCLR+1[?] per cent. It is also clarified that if any amount due from the complainant is overdue, the opposite party too may recover interest only at the rate of MCLR+[?] per cent. The same definition of interest is also given in Section 2(27)0) of the RERA Act. This interest rate determination has also been held to be proper by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 42238/2018, "Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Govindan [?]", on 02.04.2049 held that: "5.3. The Respondent further submitted that the National Commission had ordered payment of Interest as per the statutory Rules ie. Rule 5 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 207 @I0.7% S.I. p.a. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser submitted that he had obtained a loan for Rs. 3,30,00,000/- from Standard Chartered Bank to purchase the flat in question, and had entered into a Tripartite Loan Agreement with the Bank and the Builder. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser had to pay Interest @0% p.a. for servicing the loan for the entire period. Hence, Interest @0.7% S.I. p.a. awarded by the National Commission was just and fair."

As stated above, it is clear that under the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2047, the annual interest rate was fixed at MCLR+2 per cent (@0.7% S.I. p.a.), which was applied by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in the case concerned and which the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held to be just and correct. In the same order, clause 8.4 states that: "The National Commission has rightly awarded Interest @i0.7% S.I. p.a. by applying Rule 5 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Rules, 207 from the date of each installment till 05.02.207 i.e. till the date after which the Order of stay of cancellation of the allotment was passed; and thereafter, from the date of the Commission's final Order till the date on which the amount is refunded with Interest." Accordingly, it is clear that the interest rate of 40.7 per cent (MCLR+2%) fixed by Haryana RERA has also been held by the Supreme Court to be the correct interest rate. Further, in the judgment dated 06.02.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. C-3289/2020, "[?] Buildwell [?] Pvt. Ltd. vs. Poonam Sood and Others", it has been mentioned that:

"Coming to the next ground of challenge to the impugned order by the petitioner's counsel that the interest awarded by respondent no.1 (MCLR+1) is excessive, is also without any merit. It is an admitted fact to the petitioner that respondent no.1 had booked a flat and till the filing of the writ petition, the possession of the flat has not been given to him. The interest had been awarded in terms of Clause 9.2(ii) of the form of agreement contained in the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 208. The respondent no.2 has given cogent reasons in the impugned order. Respondent no.2 has rightly placed reliance on Clause 9 sub-clause(ii) of the Rules, 208 which provides that in the event of default on the part of the promotor, the allottee shall have the option of terminating the agreement in which case the promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the allottee under any head whatsoever, towards the purchase of the flat at the rate of MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India + % unless provided otherwise under the Rules within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to bring to our notice any Rule in the Rules, 206, providing otherwise."

Thereafter, in Writ Petition No. [?]-9220/2020, "Habitech Infrastructure Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Others", the Hon'ble High Court, making an important observation on 06.07.2020, has recorded that: "On 2.09.209 the respondent authority directed the petitioner to refund the entire amount alongwith interest @ MCLR + 1% from the date of deposit till the date of order. Thereafter, recovery certificate and citation was issued on 07.02.2020 .. and only on complaint under Section 18 authority proceeded to direct for the refund of the money alongwith payment of interest @ MCLR + 1%, which was in view of Real Estate (Regulation & Development) (Agreement to Sale) Regulations, 208.............. Thus power of refund of amount along with interest which has been provided under Section 8, with the authority was rightly exercised by it in the interest of justice." The Hon'ble High Court has also held that the order given by the RERA Authority's Bench at the annual interest rate of MCLR + [?] per cent under the Rules is just and correct. Accordingly, from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court it can be determined that the interest rate fixed by the State Government under the Rules is just and correct. The principle of linking the interest rate to the State Bank of India's MCLR+1[?] per cent has also been accepted and justified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In such case, the annual interest rate of [?] per cent fixed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Sale/Lease Agreement) Rules, 20:8, notified by the U.P. State Government, which is somewhat higher than the maximum interest rate of the State Bank of India, is just and correct. Accordingly, Point No. 2 is disposed of. Disposing of the above points, the following orders are passed: The opposite party is directed to ensure that, after completing all facilities of the flats of the complainants at serial numbers 4 to 2 of the above table as per the agreement, it gives possession along with OC/CC by 34.42.2022, and that, after obtaining the payable stamp duty, it executes the registry as per rules. For the complainant at serial number 3 of the above table, the opposite party shall, after completing all facilities of the flat as per the agreement, give possession along with OC/CC by 30.06.2022 and execute the registry as per rules.

The opposite party is directed to ensure payment to the complainant, by way of delay interest at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square foot per month for the period from 26.03.20i5 to 30.04.2047, and from 04.05.2047 up to the date of receipt of OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later, and interest at MCLR+1[?] per cent on the amount deposited by the complainant himself. This interest amount shall be adjusted against the final payable amount; if the interest amount exceeds the amount payable, it shall be refunded to the complainant. Having regard to the force majeure period, the interest for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020 shall not be calculated. Also, if the complainant has any overdue amount in this period, no interest for this period shall be payable on it. For the cases of the other complainants, delay interest shall be calculated as per the agreement in the manner set out above. The opposite party is directed that, under Section 2(za) of the RERA Act, 20I6, if after the RERA came into force any interest rate is charged by the promoter for the allottee's default, the same rate shall be paid by the promoter to the allottee on the promoter's default. Accordingly, on delayed payment the complainant shall also be liable to pay interest at MCLR+[?] per cent. If any amount has been taken from the allottee at a higher rate for delay after the RERA came into force, the interest for the delayed period shall also be calculated at that rate.

A copy of this order shall be kept on each related file, and the amount and interest shall be calculated in each case in accordance with the principles laid down in this order. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 and other relevant provisions. Order to be uploaded on the portal. If the opposite party does not comply with this order, the complainants shall have the right to get their order enforced through the RERA Authority. Date: 20 64/2022 (Rajeev Kumar) (Chairman) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | सुनवाई पीठ-04ए आदेश अन्तर्गत धारा-34 श्री राजीव कुमार, माननीय अध्यक्ष कम शिकायत संख्या |... | टॉवर एवं संख्या यूनिट संख्या | | NCRI44/0/8386/202] लल्लन प्रसाद यादव T-37/302 2 फ्टारा44/0/494]/202] अरविन्द कुमार सिंघल प-33॥304 3. पटारा44/06/5229/202] अश्विनी कुमार मिश्रा प-8/002 | बनाम ला रेज़िडेन्सिया डेवलपर्स प्रा0 लि0 शिकायतकर्ता ced प्रसाद यादव के साथ 02 अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध वाद योजित किये गये हैं। इन तीनों शिकायतों के तथ्य समान है और एक समान साक्ष्य हैं। यह तीनों शिकायतें विपक्षी की परियोजना La Residentia से सम्बन्धित है। अतः एक ही निर्णय से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत संख्या :- NCR44/I0/8386/202 Geet WATS यादव अग्रणी वाद रहेगा। प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता (eed प्रसाद यादव) का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना La Residentia में यूनिट संख्या-प-37/302 बुक करायी गयी थी, जिसकी कुल कीमत 32,52,325 /- रूपये थी, जिसके सापेक्ष शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा 25,5,020/— रूपये की धनराशि का भुगतान किया गया है। विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिये जाने का वचन दिया गया था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा निर्धारित अवधि में यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान नहीं किया गया और परियोजना विलम्बित है। अतः है 2 शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है।

शिकायतकर्ता की .ओर से अपने कथन के समर्थन में विस्तृत लिखित शिकायत पत्र दिनांकित 24.03.2022 की प्रति, आवेदन पत्र, आवंटन कम फ्लैट बायर एग्रीमेन्ट दिनांक 46.07.2004, जमा धनराशि की रसीदें, माँग पत्रों आदि अभिलेखों की छायाप्रतियाँ दाखिल की गयी है। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवादपत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि प्राधिकरण द्वारा प्लॉट नं०-0प्त-06, क्षेत्रफल 97,226.62 वर्ग मीटर आवंटित किया गया, जिसको बाटते हुए मैसर्स ला रेसीडेन्सिया डेवलपर्स wo fio को प्लॉट नं०-0प्त-064, क्षेत्रफल 80026.62 वर्ग मीटर आवंटित किया गया। परियोजना दिनांक 46.03.2044 को लॉन्च की गयी थी। परियोजना में कुल 39 टॉवर्स है। परियोजना के फेज़-4 में कुल is टॉवर्स (टॉवर-4 से 48 तक) हैं, जिसमें 4,408 यूनिटस्‌ हैं। उक्त टॉवर्स में से i2 टॉवर्स का ओ.सी. प्राप्त किया जा चुका है और अवशेष टॉवर्स का ओसी. प्राप्त किये जाने हेतु ग्रेटर नोएडा औद्योगिक विकास प्राधिकरण के समक्ष आवेदन किया जा चुका है। जिन टॉवरों का ओ.सी. प्राप्त किया जा चुका है, उसमें यूनिटों का कब्जा दिया जा रहा है और वर्तमान में 4480 यूनिटों का कब्जा दिया जा चुका है। परियोजना के फेज़-2 में कुल 44 टॉवर्स (टॉवर-49 से 29 तक) हैं, जिसमें फिनिशिंग कार्य चल रहा है और जून 2022 + 6 माह ग्रेस पीरियड में यूनिट का कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। परियोजना के फेज़-3 में कुल 40 टॉवर्स (टॉवर-30 से 39 तक) हैं, जिसमें फिनिशिंग कार्य चल रहा है और दिसम्बर 2022 + 6 माह ग्रेस पीरियड में यूनिट का कब्जा और सभी सुविधाओं सहित दिसम्बर 2022 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा।

परियोजना विभिन्‍न न्यायालय के आदेशों के कारण विलम्बित हुई। दिनांक 49.07.20 से दिनांक 24.08.20I2 तक निर्माण कार्य बन्द रहा। इस अवधि में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष किसानों द्वारा कई Re याचिकायें योजित की गयी। मार्च 2043 के बाद निर्माण कार्य धीमी गति से शुरू हुआ। मार्च 2044 से वर्ष 2043 तक निर्माण कार्य की गति बहुत धीमी रही। अन्ततः दिनांक 4.05.205 को माननीय सर्वोच्च. न्यायालय द्वारा भूमि अधिग्रहण को रिट याचिका संख्या-4506 /20i5 “सावित्री देवी बनाम उ0प्र0 सरकार एवं आदि“ में स्वीकृति दी गयी। ऐसे में 4 वर्ष विलम्ब को शून्य पीरियड माना जाना चाहिए। विपक्षी की परियोजना रेरा में पंजीकृत है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दिनांक 23.07.2049 को 632 यूनिटों को आम्रपाली ग्रुप को स्थानांतरित करने का निर्देश दिया। वर्तमान में ‘Y 3 कम्पनी यूनिटों का छांटने में लगी है, ताकि माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के निर्देश का अनुपालन किया जा सके।

विपक्षी कंपनी ने Re याचिका संख्या o40/20:7 "बिकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य" में एक हस्तक्षेप आवेदन दायर किया, जिसमें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने कम्पनी ला रेजिडेन्सिया को दिनांक 44.0.2049 के आदेश के माध्यम से किसी भी संपत्ति को अलग करने से रोक दिया। अतः विगत 44 माह से इसकी पुनर्विक्रय पर रोक के कारण कंपनी, परियोजना पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पड़ा है और इसने कंपनी को संकट में डाल दिया है, इस कारण कंपनी का नकदी प्रवाह भी प्रभावित होता है। इस सुस्त कारोबारी माहौल के साथ कंपनी / परियोजना को और अधिक प्रभावित किया है, फिर भी कंपनी निर्माण कार्य को प्रारम्भ करने का प्रबंधन कर रही है, निषेधाज्ञा आदेश के कारण निर्माण धीमा हो गया है, अनुपालन बाघा आदेश में विपक्षी ने पहले ही एक हलफनामा दायर किया है। परियोजना में फिनिशिंग का कार्य तीव्र गति चल रहा है और दिसम्बर 2022 + 6 माह ग्रेस पीरियड में शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी परियोजना के टॉवर-'-37 के तृतीय तल पर फ्लैट संख्या-737/302 बुक कराया गया था। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा फ्लैट की कुल कीमत 32,52,325 /- रूपये + कर आदि के सापेक्ष 24,64,480 //- रूपये की धनराशि का भुगतान किया गया। अनुबन्ध दिनांक 46.07.204 के अनुसार यूनिट का कब्जा 42 माह + 6 माह ग्रेस पीरियड दिया जाना था। यदि यूनिट का कब्जा दिये जाने में देरी की जाती है, तो वह अनुबन्ध के प्रस्तर-49(०) के अनुसार क्षतिपूर्ति अदा करेगें।

माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने इस परियोजना, “ला रेजिडेन्सिया” में, आम्रपाली समूह की “इक्विटी” होने के आधार पर विपक्षी को 632 फ्लैट सौंपने के निर्देश दिये गये, जिस पर विचार करने -के लिए विपक्षी ने माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष एक आवेदन दायर किया है। “ला रेजिडेन्सिया” को स्वतंत्र परियोजना के रूप में मानने और सभी समर्पित किए गए 632 फ्लैटस्‌ के निर्माण एवं भूमि की लागत की एवज में उन्हें रु. 445 करोड़ विपक्षी के पक्ष में दिए जाने चाहिए। इन आधारों पर विपक्षी द्वारा समुचित आदेश पारित किये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दिनांक 23.07.2049 को 632 यूनिटों को आम्रपाली ग्रुप को स्थानांतरित करने का निर्देश दिया। विपक्षी द्वारा यह स्पष्ट नहीं किया गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता का फ्लैट माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के अधीन 632 यूनिटों में से है अथवा नहीं। इसके अतिरिक्त माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय सिविल अपील Wea-o40 /20:7 "बिकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य" में आई.ए. 4o—768786 / 2048, आई.ए. नं0--409882 / 2020, १ | आई.ए. *0—74865 / 2020, आई.ए. नं0-453344 / 2049, आई.ए. नं0-420307 / 2020, आई.ए. नं0-१23299 / 2020 एवं आई.ए. 40-6397 /202 (लॉ रेसीडेन्सिया प्रोजेक्ट के सम्बन्ध में) में दिनांक 29.06.2024 को पारित आदेश में उ0प्र0 रेरा को आदेश पारित करने में स्थगन नहीं लगाया है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में प्रकरण लगभग 2 वर्ष विचारार्थ था तथा आम्रपाली ग्रुप के 632 फ्लैटस्‌ के लिए पृथक अनुश्रवण व्यवस्था के अतिरिक्त माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के अन्तिम आदेश में वर्तमान प्रमोटर्स द्वारा ही अब परियोजना पूर्ण की जानी है।

उभयपक्ष के तर्कों को सुना गया व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया, जिसके आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचरित किये गये :- ॥ क्‍या force majeure events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? 2. क्या शिकायतकर्तागण को कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाये? यदि हाँ तो ब्याज की दर क्‍या होगी ? निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 बिन्दु संख्या-। 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। विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि परियोजना विभिन्‍न न्यायालय के आदेशों के कारण विलम्बित हुई। मार्च 2044 से वर्ष 20:3 तक निर्माण कार्य की गति बहुत धीमी रही। अन्ततः माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भूमि अधिग्रहण को Re याचिका संख्या-4506 / 2045 “सावित्री देवी बनाम उ0प्र0 सरकार एवं आदि” में स्वीकृति दी गयी। ऐसे में 4 वर्ष विलम्ब को शून्य पीरियड माना जाना चाहिए। यद्यपि यह स्पष्ट नहीं किया गया है कि क्या निर्माण पर कोई स्थगनादेश था तथापि प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में अनुबन्ध वर्ष 2047 का है एवं तब तक भूमि सम्बन्धी प्रकरण निर्णीत हो चुके थे। इस सम्बन्ध में अनुबन्ध के We 9(a) निम्नलिखिल उल्लेखित है:- 79(2).. मम the Developer shall complete the development/construction of the flat within 36 months from the date of signing of agreement which may very for + 6 months. That the Developer shall not be held के

responsible or liable for not performing any of its obligations or undertakings provided for in this Agreement if such performance is prevented, delayed or hindered by act of God, fire, storm, flood, explosion, war, ~ riot, terrorist act, sabotage, court cases, injunctions not within the reasonable control of the Developer. The completion date is subject to force majeure conditions. No claim by way of damages/ compensation shall lie against the Developer in case of delay in handing over the possession on account of the force majeure condition and the Developer shall be entitled to a reasonable extension of time for the delivery of possession of the flat to the allottee. माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-43029 / 4985 “एम. सी. मेहता बनाम भारत सरकार“ में पारित आदेश दिनांक 04.44.2049 में निम्नलिखित निर्देश दिये है :- With respect to demolition and construction activities we direct that no demolition and construction activities take place in Delhi and NCR region. In case it is found that such activity is done, the local administration as well as the municipal authorities including the Zonal Commissioners, Deputy Zonal Commissioners shall be personally held responsible for all such activities. They have to act in furtherance of the Court’s order and to ensure that no such activity takes place.

We direct that construction, demolition and activities be stopped forthwith as well as garbage burning. In case, any person is found in construction and demolition activity and garbage burning in Delhi and NCR region, he/she shall be ~ penalized. Any person is doing construction and demolition activity in violation of this order, shall be penalized with Rs.l Lac for such activity. For garbage burning he/she shall be penalized with Rs.5,000/- and besides liable for violation of the order passed by this Court to be dealt with in accordance with law. Of इसके अतिरिक्त उपरोक्त सिविल अपील संख्या-43029 // 4985 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 09.42.2049 में निम्नलिखित निर्देश दिये है — In the affidavit dated 05.2.209, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has stated as under:-

"2. That it is respectfully submitted that it is normally experienced that in month of December depending upon Climatic Condition the AQI category varies. As a matter of fact, last year (20I8) 8 days in the month of December were in severe AQI category. Presently the situation not being severe, CPCB is of considered opinion that partial ban could be in place of construction activities in as much as no construction should be permitted during night time (6.00 pm to 6.00 am). The ban imposed could be partially lifted by permitting activities during day time (6.00 am to 6.00 pm), subject to the criteria stipulated in GRAP, wherein strict emforcement of rules for dust control in construction activities and closure of non-compliant sites is mandated in moderate to poor AQI category and further a bank on construction activities may be imposed by EPCA if Ambient AIR quality levels persist in severe+/emergency category for 48 hours or more." Hence, the ban is relaxed in terms of the recommendations made by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), as quoted above. However, conditions for raising construction be scrupulously followed.

माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा (दिनांक 04.4.2049 से दिनांक 44.02.2020) की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगायी गयी है, जिसमें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 09.2.20I9 4 पूर्ण wire को हटाते हुए आंशिक प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया। ऐसे में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा 35 दिन (दिनांक 04.4420i9 से दिनांक 09.2.2049) एवं 33 दिन (6652) (दिनांक 40.2.20I9 से दिनांक 44.02.2020 तक da 6 बजे से सुबह 6 बजे तक) की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया। अतः उपरोक्त उल्लेखित आदेशों के कम में कुल 68 दिनों में निर्माण प्रभावित रहा। विपक्षी ऐसी दशा में कुल 68 दिन निर्माण कार्य प्रभावित रहने के कारण आंशिक रूप से लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है। न 7 समस्त सुसंगत तथ्यों पर flared wowo रेरा अथॉरिटी द्वारा दिनांक 06.06.2020 को कोविड-49 (Corona Virus Disease) के प्रभाव के कारण सभी परियोजनाओं को पूर्ण करने हेतु दिनोक 25.03.2020 से 6 माह की अतिरिक्त अवधि अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक की अवधि दे दी गयी है और यह अतिरिक्त अवधि फोर्स मैज्योर grey के कारण मानी जायेगी। इसको दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03.2020 से दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु कोई ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा आवंटियों को नहीं दिया जाएगा और न ही शिकायतकर्ता के अतिदेय पर कोई विलम्ब ब्याज लिया जायेगा। तदनुसार बिन्दु संख्या-4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2

निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 इस आशय से विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या शिकायतकर्तागण को कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाये? यदि हाँ तो ब्याज की दर क्‍या होगी ? यह वाद बिन्दु शिकायतकर्तागण के अभिकथनों के आधार पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार शिकायतकर्तागण पर है। शिकायतकर्ता (लल्लन प्रसाद यादव) द्वारा कथन किया गया है कि विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिये जाने का वचन दिया गया था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा निर्धारित अवधि में यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान नहीं किया गया और परियोजना विलम्बित है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है इस पर विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवादपत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि परियोजना के फेज-4 में कुल 48 टॉवर्स (टॉवर-4 से i8 तक) हैं, जिसमें 4,408 यूनिटस्‌ हैं। उक्त टॉवर्स में से 42 टॉवर्स का ओ.सी. प्राप्त किया जा चुका है और अवशेष cad का ओ-सी. प्राप्त किये जाने हेतु ग्रेटर नोएडा औद्योगिक विकास प्राधिकरण के समक्ष आवेदन किया जा चुका है। जिन टॉवरों का ओ.सी. प्राप्त किया जा चुका है, उसमें यूनिटों का कब्जा दिया जा रहा है और वर्तमान में 4480 यूनिटों का कब्जा दिया जा चुका है। परियोजना के फेज-2 में कुल 44 टॉवर्स (टॉवर-49 से 29 तक) हैं, जिसमें फिनिशिंग कार्य चल रहा है और जून 2022 + 6 माह ग्रेस पीरियड में यूनिट का कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। परियोजना के फेज-3 में कुल 40 टॉवर्स (टॉवर-30 से 39 तक) हैं, जिसमें फिनिशिंग कार्य चल रहा है और दिसम्बर 2022 + 6 माह ग्रेस पीरियड में यूनिट का कब्जा और सभी सुविधाओं सहित दिसम्बर 2022 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। परियोजना में फिनिशिंग का कार्य तीव्र ‘ff

गति चल रहा है और दिसम्बर 2022 + 6 माह ग्रेस पीरियड में शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। रेरा एक्ट की धारा ia () में प्राविधान है कि :- Section 78 (7) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give posteusession of an apartment, plot or building,- (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.

इस प्रकार केता को यह अधिकार है कि यदि उन्हें एग्रीमेंट के अनुरूप कब्जा नही मिलता तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि को ब्याज सहित वापिस माँग सकते हैं अथवा प्रत्येक माह के विलम्ब के लिए ब्याज प्राप्त करते हुए परियोजना में बने रहें, परन्तु प्रश्नगत प्रकरणों शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय सिविल अपील संख्या-940 /20:7 "बिकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य" में आई.ए. नं०-468486 /2078, आई. ए. नं0--409882 / 2020, आई.ए. नं0--44865 / 2020, आई.ए. A0—-75334 / 2049, amg. नं०-420307,/ 2020, आई.ए..._ नं0-१23299,// 2020 एवं आई.ए. नं0-6397 / 2024 (लॉ रेसीडेन्सिया प्रोजेक्ट के सम्बन्ध में) में दिनांक 29.06.2024 को पारित आदेश में उ0प्र0 tr को आदेश पारित करने में स्थगन नहीं लगाया है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के आदेश में आम्रपाली ग्रुप की पूँजी निवेश के सापेक्ष देय 632 फ्लैटस्‌ के लिए पृथक अनुश्रवण व्यवस्था के अतिरिक्त वर्तमान प्रमोटर्स को ही अब परियोजना पूर्ण की जानी है। ऐसा आदेश दिये हैं। शिकायतकर्ता (अश्विनी कुमार मिश्रा) के प्रकरण में पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध ओ.सी. दिनांक 27.0.20i6 से यह स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना के cia Bis तक का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण किया जा चुका है और शिकायतकर्ता (अश्विनी कुमार मिश्रा) को आवंटित यूनिट संख्या- 7-i8/002 है। ऐसे में उचित होगा कि विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता (अश्विनी कुमार मिश्रा) को शीघ्र यूनिट का कब्जा उपलब्ध करायें। पत्रावली पर शिकायतकर्ता (ett प्रसाद यादव) द्वारा दाखिल अनुबन्ध दिनांक 46.07.2044 के प्रस्तर-9(७) में निम्नलिखित seers किया गया है :-

79(०9).. शात्रा the Developer shall complete the development/construction of the flat within 36 months Jrom the date of signing of agreement which may very for + 6 months. अतः उपरोक्‍तानुसार शिकायतकर्ता को अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किये जानें की तिथि 46.07.20i से 36 + 6 माह (a पीरियड) अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 46.04.2045 तक फ्लैट का कब्जा दिया जाना था, किन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा उक्त निर्धारित अवधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। यह भी विचारणीय है कि प्रकरण दिनांक 23.07.2049 से दिनांक 29.06.2024 के बीच माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में विचारणीय रहा। इस दृष्टि से परियोजना अत्यधिक विलम्बित श्रेणी में नहीं कही जा सकती। इसके अतिरिक्त फोर्स मैज्योर के मद में विपक्षी कुल 68 दिन की अवधि के लिए लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है। (जैसा कि निस्तारण बिन्दु den में वर्णित है|) जहाँ तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बन्ध में सिविल अपील wo 6649-50 ,/ 208 "सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल" में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है किः- "the period of Interest should close on April 20l6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 20l6. The Respondent — V/ १0 Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 206 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent — Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession. "

उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार ओ.सी. /सी.सी. अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक i6.07.20i5 + 68 दिन अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 26.03.20i5 से ओ.सी /सी.सी. प्राप्त किये जाने की तिथि अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। जहाँ तक ब्याज देयता का प्रश्न है, माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा “नीलकमल Raced waar प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया” के वाद में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- "Section 8(l)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on - demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable. "

अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व केता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल > 4 धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्योंकि wed द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। अनुबन्ध के WAR 9(b) में परियोजना के विलम्ब की अवधि में 5,/- रूपये प्रतिवर्ग फूट प्रतिमाह की दर से धनराशि का प्राविधान रहता है, जिसके अनुसार शिकायतकर्ता धनराशि पाने का अधिकारी है, रेरा के प्राविधानों के अनुसार जिस दर से विपक्षी द्वारा धनराशि प्राप्त की गयी है उसी दर से धनराशि देने का प्राविधान है। इस सम्बन्ध में भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम, 20i6 का प्रवर्तन दिनाक 0.05.20:7 को हुआ, जिसके सम्बन्ध में उ0प्र० आवास एवं शहरी नियोजन अनुभाग-2 की अधिसूचना दिनांक 03.05.2047 से उ0प्र0 में रेगुलेटरी अथॉरिटी के रूप मे कार्य करने की स्वीकृति राज्यपाल, महोदय ने दिनांक 07.05.20:7 से प्रदान की अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 04.05.2047 से भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 का प्रवर्तन उ0प्र0 में प्रारम्भ हुआ अर्थात्‌ उ0प्र0 में यह अधिनियम दिनांक 04. 05.20i7 से लागू हुआ है। इस अधिनियम का प्रवर्तन प्रोस्पेक्टिव है। अतः दिनांक 07.05.20:7 से पूर्व की अवधि के लिए प्रतिकर की गणना आवंटन पत्र/अनुबन्ध क्रे प्रावधानों के अन्तर्गत की जायेगी और दिनांक 04.05.207 से आगे की अवधि के लिए ब्याज की गणना अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अन्तर्गत की जायेगी। रेरा एक्ट की धारा 2(za) में प्राविधान है कि :- (za) "interest" means the rates of interest payable by the - promoter or the allottee, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause—

(i) the rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default; (ii) the interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the amount or any part thereof till the date the amount or part thereof and interest thereon is refunded, and the interest payable by the allottee to the promoter shall be from the date the allottee defaults in payment to the promoter till the date it is paid; जहाँ तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, तो राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 7.0.2078 को pS ॥2 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 9.20 में प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है किः- "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India + % unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:"

यही दर आवंटियों के द्वारा डिफॉल्ट की स्थिति में भी प्रस्तर 9.30) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को MCLR+I प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि यंदि शिकायतकर्ता की कोई धनराशि अतिदेय है, तो उस पर विपक्षी भी MCLRt प्रतिशत की दर से ही ब्याज प्राप्त कर सकता है। रेरा की धारा-2(2७)0) में भी यही ब्याज की परिभाषा दी गयी है। इस ब्याज दर के निर्धारण को माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भी उचित माना गया है। इस सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-42238 /20i8 “पायनियर अर्बन लैन्ड एवं इन्फास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड बनाम गोविन्दन wear” में दिनांक 02.04.2049 को अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- 5.3. The Respondent further submitted that the National Commission had ordered payment of Interest as per the statutory Rules ie. Rule 5 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 207 @I0.7% S.I. p.a. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser submitted that he had obtained a loan for Rs. 3,30,00,000/- from Standard Chartered Bank to purchase the flat in question, and had entered into a Tripartite Loan Agreement with the Bank and the Builder. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser had to pay Interest @0% p.a. for servicing the loan for the entire - period. Hence, Interest @0.7% S.I. p.a. awarded by the National Commission was just and fair. y ve HES}

उपरोक्तानुसार यह स्पष्ट है कि हरियाणा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) नियमावली, 2047 के द्वारा वार्षिक ब्याज दर MCLR+2 प्रतिशत (प्राक्घ०्४६ @0.7% Sl. pa) की दर से निर्धारित की गयी थी, जो सम्बन्धित मामले में राष्ट्रीय उपभोक्ता विवाद निवारण आयोग (NCDRC) द्वारा arya किया गया है, जिसको माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भी उचित एवं सही माना गया है, साथ ही इसी आदेश के प्रस्तर 8.4 में यह उलल्‍लेखित है कि :- The National Commission has rightly awarded Interest @i0.7% S.I. p.a. by applying Rule 5 of the Haryana Real. 2 Estate (Regulation And Development) Rules, 207 from the date of each installment till 05.02.207 i.e. till the date after which the Order of stay of cancellation of the allotment was passed; and thereafter, from the date of the Commission’s final Order till the date on which the amount is refunded with Interest. अतः यह we है कि ब्याज दर जो कि 40.7 प्रतिशत (MCLR+2%) हरियाणा रेरा द्वारा निर्धारित किया गया है, वह सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भी सही ब्याज दर माना गया है। इसके अतिरिक्त माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या-सी-3289 ,/ 2020 “wat बिल्डवेल ayaa प्रा.लि. बनाम पूनम सूद एवं अन्य” में दिनांक 06.02.2020 को पारित निर्णय में यह उललेखित किया गया है कि:-

Coming to the next ground of challenge to the impugned order by the petitioner's counsel that the interest awarded by respondent no.] (MCLR+I) is excessive, is also without any merit. It is an admitted fact to the petitioner that respondent no.I had booked a flat and till the filing of the writ petition, the possession of the flat has not been given to him. The interest had been awarded in terms of Clause 9.2(ii) of the form of agreement contained in the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 208. The respondent no.2 has given cogent reasons in the impugned order. Respondent no.2 has rightly placed reliance on Clause 9 sub-clause(ii) of the Rules, 208 which provides that in the event of default on the part of the promotor, the allottee shall have the option of terminating the agreement in which case the promoter shall be liable to “ 34 refund the entire money paid by the allottee under any head whatsoever, towards the purchase of the flat at the rate of MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India + % unless provided otherwise under the Rules within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to bring to our notice any Rule in the Rules, 206, providing otherwise. तत्पश्चात्‌ रिट याचिका WeT-*it-9220 /2020 “हैबीटेक SORTA लिमिटेड बनाम उ0प्र0 राज्य सरकार एवं अन्य” में दिनांक 06.07.2020 को महत्वपूर्ण ऑब्जर्वेशन देते हुए यह उल्‍लेखित किया है किः-

On 2.09.209 the respondent authority directed the petitioner to refund the entire amount alongwith interest @ MCLR + I% from the date of deposit till the date of order. Thereafter, recovery certificate and citation was issued on 07.02.2020 .. and only on complaint under Section l8 authority proceeded to direct for the refund of the money alongwith payment of interest @ MCLR + I%, which was in view of Real Estate (Regulation & Development) (Agreement to Sale) Regulations, 208.............."००"न्‍हञञ--+ Thus power of refund of amount along with interest which has been provided under Section 8, with the authority was rightly exercised by it in the interest of justice. माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भी रेरा प्राधिकरण के पीठ द्वारा नियमावली के अन्तर्गत MCLR + % की वार्षिक ब्याज दर से दिये गये आदेश को उचित एवं सही माना है। अतः उपरोकतानुसार माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय एवं माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दिये गये निर्णय से यह अवधारित किया जा सकता है कि राज्य सरकार द्वारा नियमावली के अन्तर्गत निर्धारित की गयी ब्याज दर उचित एवं सही है। ब्याज दर को स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के MCLR+I प्रतिशत से सम्बद्ध करने के सिद्धान्त को माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा भी स्वीकारा गया है और न्यायोचित ठहराया है। ऐसे में उ0प्र0 राज्य सरकार द्वारा अधिसूचित की गयी भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास), (विकय पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली, 20:8 के अन्तर्गत निर्धारित की गयी वार्षिक ब्याज दर ध८ा,९+] प्रतिशत, जो कि स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया की i5

अधिकतम ब्याज दर से werd ज्यादा है, उचित एवं सही है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-2 Peake किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते है। आदेश fave को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह उपरोक्त सारणी के क्रमांक संख्या-4 से 2 तक के शिकायतकर्तागण के फ्लैटस्‌ की समस्त सुविधाओं को अनुबन्ध के अनुसार पूर्ण कराकर दिनांक 34.42.2022 तक ओ.सी »सी.सी सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री EW तथा उपरोक्त सारणी के क्रमांक संख्या-3 के शिकायतकर्ता के फ्लैट की समस्त सुविधाओं को अनुबन्ध के अनुसार पूर्ण कराकर दिनांक 30.06.2022 तक ओ.सी/सी.सी सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें।

2. विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 26.03.20i5 से दिनांक 30.04.2047 तक 5/- रूपये प्रतिवर्ग फुट प्रतिमाह की दर से व दिनांक 04.05.2047 से ओ.सी. /सी.सी. प्राप्त किये जाने की तिथि अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो, तक की अवधि पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा स्वयं जमा धनराशि पर विलम्ब ब्याज के रूप में MCLR+I प्रतिशत ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की 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 इस अवधि में शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा यदि कोई अतिदेय (Over Dues) है, तो उस पर भी इस अवधि का ब्याज देय न होगा। अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण के प्रकरणों में उपरोक्तानुसार अनुबन्ध के अनुरूप विलम्ब ब्याज की गणना की जायेगी। 3. विपक्षी को यह निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम, 20I6 की धारा Aza) 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 Oy 6 पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भी MCLRH 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।

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। दिनांक :-20 64/2022 Ww ’ Aap ot (राजीव कुमार) (अध्यक्ष) Boro भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण