U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar Hearing Bench-04 Order under Section-34

| Sr. No. | Complaint No. | Complainant | Unit No. | Allotment/agreement date | Possession due date as per allotment agreement | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | [?] | Etar44/05/94067/2022 | Priyanka Kumari | T-7-754 | 07.02.2074 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. November 207 | | 2 | [?]tara44/06/95366/2022 | [?] | 8773... | 03.02.2074 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. November 207 | | 3 | NCRI44/06/9532/2022 | Archana Sharma | 05245 | 45.0.2045 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. July 2079 | | 4 | NCRI44/06/95400/2022 | Geetu Rastogi | 7-2-2273 | 07.052004 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. February 2048 | | 5 | NCRI44/06/9530/2022 | R. Anil [?] | 08074 | 27.0320i5 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. December 20:8 | | 6 | Itara44/05/93895/2022 | Maheshwari [?] | [?]-2-2445 | 30.04.2074 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. October 2047 | | 7 | NCRI44/06/953/2022 | Rajendra Kumar Baghel | 5082 | 30.0.2044 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. July 2048 | | 8 | NCRI44/06/9533/2022 | Harpreet Singh | 0894 | 28.04.2045 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. October 2048 | | 9 | NCRI[?]44/06/95330/2022 | Ankita Sukhija | 2043 | 27.04.2048 | 34.03.2049 | | 10 | NCRI44/06/9536/2022 | Vedanand | [?] 034 | 44.02.2044 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. November 2047 | | 11 | Chhatar44/06/95329/2022 | Varsha Gupta | 8226 | 07.08.2045 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. May 2049 | | 12 | NCRI44/06/95333/2022 | Aarti Devi | 3064 | 45.02.2048 | 30.06.208 | | 13 | NCRI44/06/95335/2022 | Nidhi Poddar [?] | [?] | 29.05.2048 | 34.03.2049 | | 14 | NCRI4/0@OSSI6OD | Akash Kumar | 4063 | 42.02.2044 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. November 2047 | | 15 | NCRI44/06/95340/2022 | Rohit Kumar | 2045 | 42.04.2049 | 34.08.209 | | 16 | NCR 44/06/95320/2022 | Shachi Chawla | [35 | 30.07.20i4 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. October 207 | | 17 | NCRI44/06/9535/2022 | Niranjan Thakur | 4236 | 24.0.208 | 34.03.209 | | 18 | NCRI44/06/9538/2022 | Niyamika Verma | 04i23 | 06.07.2045 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. April 209 | | 19 | [?]tar44/05/9464[?]/2022 | Sunil Kumar | 584 | 08.05.20i4 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. February 2078 |

Versus ATS Realty Pvt. Ltd. Along with complainant Priyanka Kumari, [is] [?] other complainants have filed this case against the opposite party. The facts and evidence of all these complaints are the same. These complaints relate to the opposite party's project ATS Allure. Therefore they are being disposed of by a single decision. Complaint [den] NCRI44/05/94067/2022, the file of Priyanka Chawla, shall be the lead case. The complainants have instituted this case against the opposite party seeking possession of the unit and interest for the delayed period. In brief, the lead complainant states that they booked unit no. T-7-7454 in the opposite party's project ATS Allure, the total price of which was Rs. 36,70,000,//-. Against this the complainant has paid Rs. 33,39,407/- to the opposite party. The complainant has requested possession of the unit and interest for the delayed period. In support of their statement the complainant has filed photocopies of the allotment letter, emails and the occupancy certificate dated 30.03.2022. The opposite party has filed a counter-statement stating that the complainant has alleged that the opposite party has violated its contractual obligations (Contractual obligation), and therefore the jurisdiction to decide the matter lies with the civil court, so the case should be dismissed. Page 2

The authority has no jurisdiction to decide the allegation made by the complainant, and in support of this the opposite party has cited the judgment passed in Appeal No. 6/20:8, Sameer Mahavar v. MG Housing Pvt. Ltd., by the Haryana Appellate Court, Chandigarh. Construction work in the project has been obstructed due to force majeure and the COVID-49 pandemic. The opposite party was committed to hand over the unit to the complainant within the time period, but the project was delayed because of the COVID-49 pandemic. Until the complainant pays the remaining balance amount, the complainant is not entitled to take possession of the unit. The arguments of both parties were heard and the file was examined, on the basis of which the following points arise for consideration:- t. Was the opposite party's project delayed because of force majeure events? If yes, what is the effect? 2. [an] Should the complainants be awarded possession and interest for the delayed period? If yes, what will be the rate of interest? Determination of point [?] Point [vee] considers the question whether the project was in fact delayed because of force majeure events. This point is considered on the opposite party's allegations, and the burden of proving them lies on the opposite party. The opposite party has stated that the project was delayed due to force majeure events, which were beyond its control. The project was delayed because of the spread of the COVID-49 pandemic.

The order passed by the Hon'ble NGT dated i0::20 states the following at page no. 47:- ps Section-3 Page 3 "6. All the construction, demolition activities and transportation of construction material shall be stopped temporarily till the ambient air quality standards are brought down below 'the severe pollution standards afore- stated." List the matter for further d irections on 9th January, 207. The evidence does not make clear until when the said temporary order remained in force, and what orders were passed on 09.04.2047. The order passed by the Hon'ble NGT dated 094 .20I7 states the following at page no. 6:- !. All the construction (structural) activity of any kind in the entire NCR is hereby prohibited and will not be carried on by any person, private or Government Authority in the entire NCR till the next date of hearing. However, the internal finishing and interior work (causing no dust whatsoever) where no construction material is used can be carried on. List these matters on Tuesday that is |4th November, 20I7 when we will consider whether these directions should be vacated or continued for any longer time. The order passed by the Hon'ble NGT dated 47.44.2047 states the following at page no. 5:- The Eastern and Western Express highway have already been permitted and are hereby permitted to continue their construction work but all construction activity should take all preventive and precautionary steps to ensure that they

do not generate pollution by dust which is beyond the prescribed limits. In the order dated 04.44.2049 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 43029 // 4985, "M.C. Mehta v. Government of India", the following directions have been given:- "With respect to demolition and Construction activities we direct that no demolition and reconstruction 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." In the order dated 09.42.2049 the following directions have been 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 (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 Contro! Board (CPCB), as quoted above. However, conditions for raising construction be scrupulously followed. Civil Appeal No. 43029 / 4985, passed Page 5

In the Hon'ble NGT's order dated 09.4.20i7 and the order dated 47.4.2077, 9 days (from 09.44.2047 to 7.94.207) were specified, and in the press note issued by the Environment Pollution Authority, [?] days (from 04.44.2048 to 70.47.2078), and in the directions issued by the Environment Pollution Authority dated 25.0.209, 25 days (from 26.40.20:9 to 30.0.20i9, [?] 6 pm to 6 am), in the directions dated 04.4.2049, 5 days (from 04.44.2049 to 08.47.20I9), and for the period from 04.44.2049 to 44.02.2020 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, construction work was stopped. In the order dated 09.2.209 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a partial ban was imposed [wit ko sent]. In such circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court has imposed a ban on construction work for 35 days (from 04.44.2049 to 09.42.2049) and for 33 days (66+2) (from 40.42.2049 to 44.02.2020, [Wee] 6 pm to 6 am). In such a case the opposite party is entitled to the benefit, as construction work was affected for a total of 9+0+2.5+35+33 = 89.5 (90 in round figures) days.

Because of the first wave of COVID-49 (Corona Virus Disease), construction work of projects was adversely affected. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Central Government, the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, after considering the relevant facts, by its order dated 06.06.2020 [Bowo], and giving effect to [?] (Corona Virus Disease), granted an additional period of 6 months for completing projects, from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020. After this, the second wave of COVID-49 (Corona Virus Disease) from April 202 to June 2024, i.e. 3 months, also adversely affected the construction work of projects. Thus, as construction work was affected for a total of 09 months due to COVID-49, the opposite party is entitled to the benefit, which falls within the definition of force majeure circumstances. [Tea] point number 4 is disposed of. Determination of point number 2 Point [Were] considers the question whether the complainant should be awarded possession and interest for the delayed period. If yes, what will be the rate of interest? On examination of the file it is clear that an allotment letter was executed between the complainant and the opposite party on 07.02.204, under which, as per paragraph number 7.2, the complainant was to receive possession of the unit within 42 months and 3 months, i.e. by November 2047, but the complainant has still not received possession of the unit.

In its counter-statement the opposite party has argued that the complainant can obtain possession of the unit by paying the remaining amount. On examination of the file it is also clear that the opposite party received the occupancy certificate on 30.03. 2022, which is available on the file. As regards up to what period interest is to be awarded, in this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50 /20i8, "Supertech Limited v. Rajni [Wary]", has held that:- "the period of Interest should close on April 20]6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant —Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 20l6. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 206 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent — Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession. " In accordance with the above legal position, the complainant will be entitled to delay interest up to the date of O.C./C.C. or the offer of possession, whichever is later. Page 7 As regards liability for interest, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held in the case "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India [?]" that:-

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

As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government has notified, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046, on 7.40.2048, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2078. In it, in the format of the sale/lease deed given as an annexure, [BRA] 9 defines the promoters' default cases (Events of default), in which paragraph 9.2()) provides for the allottee, in the event of the promoter's default, 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 By whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along ms Section-32 Page 8 with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:" The same rate is also fixed in paragraph 9.30) for the event of default by allottees. Having regard to this provision, it appears just to award the allottee interest for the delayed period at the rate of MCLR+I [?] per cent. It is also made clear that if any amount of the complainant is overdue, the opposite party can also receive interest on it only at the rate of 78|,20| [?] per cent. The same definition of interest is also given in Section 2(04)0) of RERA.

In the judgment passed on 06.02.2020 by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No.-C-3289 / 2020, "[?] Constructions [?] v. Poonam Sood and Others", it has been stated that:- "Coming to the next ground of challenge to the impugned order by the petitioner's counsel that the interest awarded by respondent no.| (MCLR+l) is excessive, is also without any merit. It is an admitted fact to the petitioner that respondent no. had booked a flat and till the filing of the writ petition, the possession of the Mat 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, 20!8. 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, 20I8 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, 20]6, provid ing otherwise."

Thereafter, in Writ Petition No.-C-9120 /2020, "Haibitek surge Limited v. State of U.P. and Others", giving an important observation on 06.07.2020, it has been stated that:- "On 2.09.20!9 the respondent authority directed the petitioner to refund the entire amount alongwith interest @ MCLR + % 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 ]8 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 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 the order given by the RERA Authority's Bench, under the rules, at the annual interest rate of [FT] MCLR + % to be proper and correct. Therefore, in accordance with the above decisions given by 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 proper and correct. The principle of linking the interest rate to the State Bank of India [AMCLR+I] per cent has also been accepted and justified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In such circumstances, the annual interest rate fixed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2048 notified by the U.P. State Government, which is [?] per cent higher than the maximum interest rate of the State Bank of India, is proper and correct. Accordingly, point number 2 is disposed of. Disposing of the above points, the following orders are passed:- ORDER The opposite party is directed to ensure that, within 60 days from the date of uploading of this order, it completes all the facilities of the unit allotted to the complainant as per the agreement and gives possession along with O.C./C.C., and, on receipt of the payable stamp duty, gets the registry done as per rules.

The opposite party shall ensure that it pays interest at MCLR+ per cent on the amount deposited by the complainant themselves, from 04.42.207 up to the date of receipt of O.C./C.C. or the offer of possession, whichever is later. This interest amount shall be adjusted in the final payment amount. If the interest amount exceeds the amount payable, it shall be refunded to the complainant. Having regard to the force majeure period, interest shall not be calculated for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020, and for the second wave from April 2024 to June 2024, i.e. both together, a total of 09 months. Also, if the complainant has any overdues (Over Dues), interest for this period shall not be payable on them either. In the cases of the other complainants, delay interest shall be calculated separately as above in accordance with the allotment letter / agreement. The opposite party is directed that, in accordance with Section [?] of the RERA Act, 20i6, if after RERA comes into force any interest rate is charged by the promoter on account of the allottee's default, the same rate shall be given to the allottee when the promoter defaults. Accordingly, interest at MCLR+ per cent shall also be payable by the complainant on delayed payment. Page 4 If any amount has been taken from the allottee for delay at a higher rate after RERA came into force, the interest on the delayed period shall also be calculated at that same rate.

4. Any violation of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20:6 and other relevant provisions. The order shall be uploaded on the portal. A copy of this order shall be placed on each of the said related files. 5. If the opposite party does not comply with this order, the complainant shall have the right to get the order enforced through the RERA Authority. Date:- Der/or 2023 (Rajeev Kumar) Chairman U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Section-3 Page 2

उ0 प्र0 भू-संम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | सुनवाई पीठ-04 ए आदेश अन्तर्गत धारा-34 कम शिकायत संख्या “— आवंटित आवंटन अनुबंधानुसार ~— संख्या यूनिट संख्या तिथि दिये जाने की तिथि गा एटार44/05/94067/2022 प्रियंका कुमारी T-7-754 | 07.02.2074 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात नवम्बर 207 2 ॥टरा44/06/95366/2022 8773... 03.02.2074 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात नवम्बर 207 3 NCRI44/06/9532/2022 अर्चना शर्मा 05245 45.0.2045 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात जुलाई 2079 4 NCRI44/06/95400/2022 गीतू रस्तोगी. | 7-2-2273 | 07.052004 | 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात फरवरी 2048 5 NCRI44/06/9530/2022 आर अनिल मे 08074 «| 27.0320i5 | 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात दिसम्बर 20:8 | | उटरा44/05/93895/2022 |... | माहेश्वरी प-2-2445 | 30.04.2074 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात अक्टूबर 2047 7 NCRI44/06/953/2022 | राजेन्द्र कुमार बाघेल 5082 30.0.2044 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात जुलाई 2048 | | NCRI44/06/9533/2022 हरप्रीत सिंह 0894 28.04.2045 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात अक्टूबर 2048 |? | ॥7टछ44/06/95330/2022 अंकिता सुखीजा 2043 27.04.2048 34.03.2049 0 NCRI44/06/9536/2022 वेदानंद oat 034 44.02.2044 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात नवम्बर 2047 ]] छटर44/06/95329/2022 वर्षा गुप्ता 8226 07.08.2045 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात मई 2049 2 NCRI44/06/95333/2022 आरती देवी 3064 45.02.2048 30.06.208 ]53 NCRI44/06/95335/2022 निधि पोद्दार श्थ्वा 29.05.2048 34.03.2049 4 NCRI4/0@OSSI6OD आकाश कुमार 4063 42.02.2044 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात नवम्बर 2047 5 NCRI44/06/95340/2022 रोहित कुमार 2045 42.04.2049 34.08.209 Section-3 Page l ऊँ पः

]6 NCR 44/06/95320/2022 शाची चावला [35 30.07.20i4 | 42 माह + 3 माह | अर्थात अक्टूबर 207 7 NCRI44/06/9535/2022 निरंजन ठाकुर 4236 24.0.208 34.03.209 i8 NCRI44/06/9538/2022 नियामिका वर्मा_| 04i23 06.07.2045 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात अप्रैल 209 I9 | ्टार44/05/9464|/2022 सुनील कुमार 584 08.05.20i4 | 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात फरवरी 2078 बनाम एटीएस रिएलटी प्रा.लि. शिकायतकर्ता प्रियंका कुमार के साथ is अन्य शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध वाद योजित किया गया है। इन सभी शिकायतों के तथ्य और साक्ष्य एक समान हैं। यह शिकायतें विपक्षी की परियोजना ATS Allure से सम्बन्धित है। अतः एक ही निर्णय से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत den NCRI44/05/94067/2022 प्रियंका चावला की पत्रावली अग्रणी वाद रहेगा | शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध यूनिट का कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने हेतु यह वाद संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में अग्रणी शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना ATS Allure ¥ यूनिट संख्या टी-7- 7454 बुक करायी गयी थी, जिसकी कुल कीमत 36,70,000,//- रूपये थी, जिसके सापेक्ष शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा रु 33,39,407 /— विपक्षी को भुगतान किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता ने यूनिट का कब्जा व विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटन पत्र, ईमेल, व अधिभोग प्रमाण पत्र दिनांक 30.03.2022 की छायाप्रतियाँ दाखिल की गयी है।

विपक्षी की ओर से प्रतिवाद पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया जिसमें यह उल्लिखित किया गया कि शिकायतकर्ता ने यह आरोप लगाया है कि विपक्षी ने अनुबंधात्मक दायित्व (Contractual obligation) का उल्लंघन किया है, जिस कारण इसका निस्तारण किये जाने का क्षेत्राधिकार सिविल कोर्ट का है। इस प्रकार वाद को निरस्त Section 3) कक ह ः ह ह Page 2 किया जाए। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा लगाये गये आरोप का निस्तारण करने का क्षेत्राधिकार प्राधिकरण को नहीं है, जिसके समर्थन में हरियाणा अपीलीय न्यायालय, चण्डीगढ़ द्वारा अपील संख्या 6 /20:8 समीर महावर बनाम एमजी हाउसिंग प्रा.लि. में पारित निर्णय का संदर्भ अंकित किया है। फोर्स मैज्योर व कोविड-49 महामारी के कारण परियेजना में निर्माण कार्य बाधित हुआ है। विपक्षी शिकायतकर्ता को समय अवधि के अन्दर यूनिट का कब्जा दिये जाने के लिए वचनबद्ध था परन्तु कोविड-49 महामारी के कारण परियोजना विलम्बित हुआ। शिकायतकर्ता जब तक अपना अवशेष धनराशि भुगतान नहीं करता है तब तक वह यूनिट का कब्जा लिये जाने का अधिकारी नहीं है। a उभयपक्ष के तर्कों को सुना गया व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया, जिसके आधार पर निम्न बिन्दु विचारणीय है :- t. क्या force majeure events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? 2. an शिकायतकर्तागण को कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाये? यदि हाँ तो ब्याज की क्‍या दर होगी ? निस्तारण बिन्दु Hee बिन्दु vee 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 फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण विलम्बित हुई, जो कि उनके नियंत्रण में नहीं था। कोविड-49 महामारी फैलने के कारण परियोजना विलम्बित हुआ। माननीय एन.जी.टी. द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक i0::20 के पृष्ठ संख्या-47 पर निम्नलिखित उल्लेखित है :- ps Section-3 Page 3 "6. All the construction, demolition activities and transportation of construction material shall be stopped temporarily till the ambient air quality standards are brought down below ‘the severe pollution standards afore- stated." List the matter for further d irections on 9th January, 207. साक्ष्य द्वारा यह स्पष्ट नहीं किया गया है कि उक्त अस्थाई आदेश कब तक लागू रहा एवं दिनांक 09.04.2047 को क्या आदेश पारित हुए। माननीय एन.जी.टी. द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 094 .20I7 के पृष्ठ संख्या-6 पर निम्नलिखित उललेखित है :- !. All the construction (structural) activity of any kind in the entire NCR is hereby prohibited and will not be carried on by any person, private or Government Authority in the entire NCR till the next date of hearing. However, the internal finishing and interior work (causing no dust whatsoever) where no construction material is used can be carried on. List these matters on Tuesday that is |4th November, 20I7 when we will consider whether these directions should be vacated or continued for any longer time. माननीय एन.जी.टी. द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 47.44.2047 के पृष्ठ संख्या-5 पर निम्नलिखित उल्लेखित है :-

The Eastern and Western Express highway have already been permitted and are hereby permitted to continue their construction work but all construction activity should take all preventive and precautionary steps to ensure that they do not generate pollution by dust which is beyond the prescribed limits. 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 कि direct that no demolition and reconstruction activities take activities take Section-3. 7 इसके अतिरिक्त उपरोक्त सिविल अपील 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. 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 Contro! Board (CPCB), as quoted above. However, conditions for raising construction be scrupulously followed. J पील संख्या-43029 / 4985 में पारित $८घंगा-34..._ Page 5 माननीय एन.जी.टी./87« के आदेश दिनांक 09.4.20i7 एवं दिनांक 47.4.2077 में 9 दिन (दिनांक 09.44.2047 से दिनांक 7.94.207), पर्यावरण प्रदूषण प्राधिकरण द्वारा जारी किये गये प्रेस नोट में to दिन (दिनांक 04.44.2048 से दिनांक 70.47.2078), पर्यावरण प्रदूषण प्राधिकरण द्वारा जारी किये गये निर्देश दिनांक

ss of 4) 25.0.209 में 25 दिन (दिनांक 26.40.20:9 से दिनांक 30.0.20i9 तक Wa 6 बजे से सुबह 6 बजे तक), दिनांक 04.4.2049 में 5 दिन (दिनांक 04.44.2049 से दिनांक 08.47.20I9 तक) एवं माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा (दिनांक 04.44.2049 से दिनांक 44.02.2020) की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगायी गयी है, जिसमें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 09.2.209 में पूर्ण wit को sent हुए आंशिक प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया | ऐसे में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा 35 दिन (दिनांक 04.44.2049 से दिनांक 09.42.2049) एवं 33 दिन (66+2) (दिनांक 40.42.2049 से दिनांक 44.02.2020 तक Wee बजे से सुबह 6 बजे तक) की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया। विपक्षी ऐसी दशा में कुल 9+0+2.5+35+33 = 89.5 (90 in round figures) दिन निर्माण कार्य प्रभावित रहने के कारण लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है।

कोविड-.49 (Corona Virus Disease) की प्रथम Ja के प्रभाव के कारण परियोजनाओं के निर्माण कार्य पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पड़ा, जिसके क्रम में केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा जारी निर्देशानुसार Bowo भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण द्वारा सुसंगत तथ्यों पर विचारोपरान्त दिनांक 06.06.2020 को आदेश पारित करते हुए arfts—ig (Corona Virus Disease) के प्रभाव के कारण परियोजनाओं को पूर्ण करने हेतु दिनाक 25.03.2020 से 25.09.2020 तक अर्थात 6 माह की अतिरिक्त अवधि प्रदान की गयी, जिसके उपरान्त कोविड--49 (Corona Virus Disease) की द्वितीय aa अप्रैल 202 से जून 2024 तक अर्थात 3 माह प्रभावी होने के कारण भी परियोजनाओं के निर्माण कार्य पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पड़ा। इस प्रकार कुल 09 माह कोविड--49 के कारण निर्माण कार्य प्रभावित होने के कारण विपक्षी लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है, जो कि फोर्स मैज्योर की परिस्थितियों की परिभाषा में आती है| Tea बिन्दु संख्या-4 निस्तारित किया हि ( जाता है। oO \ a निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 बिन्दु Were इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि gar शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाये? यदि हाँ तो ब्याज की क्‍या दर होगी? पत्रावली के अवलोकन से विदित है कि शिकायतकर्ता व विपक्षी के मध्य दिनांक 07.02.204 को आवंटन पत्र निष्पादित हुआ जिसके प्रस्तर संख्या 7.2 के अनुसार 42 माह तथा 3 माह अर्थात नवम्बर 2047 तक यूनिट का कब्जा शिकायतकर्ता को प्राप्त होना था परन्तु अभी तक शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा प्राप्त नहीं हुआ है। विपक्षी की ओर से प्रतिवादपत्र में यह तर्क प्रस्तुत किया गया कि शिकायतकर्ता अवशेष धनराशि भुगतान करके यूनिट का कब्जा प्राप्त कर सकता है।

पत्रावली के अवलोकन से यह भी विदित है कि विपक्षी को दिनांक 30.03. 2022 को अधिभोग पत्र प्राप्त हो चुका है जो पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध है। जहाँ तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बन्ध में सिविल अपील सं० 6649-50 /20i8 "सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम॑ रजनी Wary माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है किः- "the period of Interest should close on April 20]6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant —Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 20l6. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 206 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent — Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession. " उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार ओ.सी./सी.सी. अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा 2५ 56९7णा-3] ः हे है Page 7 जहाँ तक ब्याज देयता का प्रश्न है, माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्राललि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ gard वाद में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

"Section 8(I)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to -give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of Suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason. he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not 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. " अत: उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व Sar के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्योंकि प्रमोटर्स GNI Sat धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है।

जहाँ तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, तो राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 7.40.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियनन और विकास) (विकय »पटटा के लिए करार) नियमावली 2078 घिसूचित की गयी हैं| इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विकय /ucer विलेख के प्रारूप BRA 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, ८2 जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.2()) में प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है कि:-- "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head By whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along ms Section-32 Page 8 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+IUfaee की चित प्रतीत होता है ब्याज दर पर विलग्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना =e यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि यदि शिकायतकर्ता की कोई धनराशि अतिदेय है, तो प्राप्त उस पर विपक्षी भी ७८।,२०। प्रतिशत की दर से ही ब्याज प्राप्त कर सकता है। रेरा की धारा-2(०४)0)में भी यही ब्याज की परिभांषा दी गयी है माननीय. उच्च. न्यायालय इलाहाबाद द्वारा रिट याचिका संख्या-सी-3289 / 2020 “wal flesda कस्ट्रक्शन्स wife. 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+l) is excessive, is also without any merit. It is an admitted fact to the petitioner that respondent no. had booked a flat and till the filing of the writ petition, the possession of the Mat 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, 20!8. 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, 20I8 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, 20]6, provid ing otherwise.

तत्पश्चात्‌ू Re याचिका संख्या-सी-9१20 /2020 “हैबीटेक surge लिमिटेड बनाम उ0प्र0 राज्य सरकार एवं अन्य” में दिनांक 06.07.2020 को महत्वपूर्ण ऑब्जर्वेशन देते हुए यह उललेखित किया है Ar On 2.09.20!9 the respondent authority directed the petitioner to refund the entire amount alongwith interest @ MCLR + % 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 ]8 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 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 FT MCLR + % की वार्षिक ब्याज दर से दिये गये आदेश को उचित एवं सही माना है। @ अतः: उपरोक्तानुसार 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 AMCLR+! 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, 2048 के अन्तर्गत निर्धारित हवाओं की गयी वार्षिक ब्याज excesses, जो कि स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया की अधिकतम ब्याज दर से । प्रतिशत ज्यादा है, उचित एवं सही है। तदनुसार बिन्दु संख्या-2 निस्तारित किया जाता है। । उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते है। आदेश विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि आदेश अपलोड होने की तिथि से 60 दिन में शिकायतकर्ता को आवंटित यूनिट का कब्जा अनुबन्धानुसार समस्त सुविधाओं को पूर्ण करते हुये ओ.सी /सी.सी के साथ कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें। विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 04.42.207 से ओ.सी /सी.सी प्राप्त होने की तिथि अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि जो बाद में हो तक शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा स्वयं जमा धनराशि पर MCLR+ प्रतिशत ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की धनराशि में समायोजित की जायेगी। ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक होने पर शिकायतकर्ता को वापस की जायेगी। फोर्स मैज्योर पीरियड को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03.2020 से दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक एव द्वितीय वेव अप्रैल 2024 से जून 2024 तक अर्थात दोनों da मिलाकर कुल 09 माह परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु ब्याज की गणना नहीं की जायेगी। साथ ही यदि शिकायतकर्ता का कोई अतिदेय (Over Dues) है, तो उस पर भी इस अवधि का ब्याज देय न होगा। अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण के प्रकरणों में आवंटन पत्र /अनुबन्ध के अनुरूप उपरोक्तानुसार पृथक-पृथक रूप से विलम्ब ब्याज की गणना की जायेगी।

विपक्षी को यह निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम, 20i6 की धारा ANS अनुसार यदि रेरा लागू होने के बाद कोई ब्याज दर आवंटी के डिफॉल्ट से प्रोमोटर द्वारा लिया जाता है, तो उसी दर से ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा डिफॉल्ट किये जाने पर भी आवंटी को दिया जायेगा। अतः विलम्बित भुगतान पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भी MCLR+ प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर से ब्याज देय $९८घ०१-३१ Page 4 ov 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 का उल्लघंन भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 20:6 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। आदेश की एक-एक प्रति उक्त सम्बन्धित | पत्रावली पर रखी जाए। 5. यदि विपक्षी द्वारा इस आदेश का अनुपालन नहीं किया जाता है, तो शिकायतकर्ता को यह अधिकार होगा कि रेरा प्राधिकरण के माध्यम से अपने आदेश का कियान्वयन करा wa | दिनांक Der/or 2023 eee ’ 2.५७, 72 - 2% (राजीव कुमार) अध्यक्ष उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण Section-3 Page 2

U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar Hearing Bench-04 Order under Section-34

| Sr. No. | Complaint No. | Complainant | Unit No. | Allotment/agreement date | Possession due date as per allotment agreement | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | [?] | Etar44/05/94067/2022 | Priyanka Kumari | T-7-754 | 07.02.2074 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. November 207 | | 2 | [?]tara44/06/95366/2022 | [?] | 8773... | 03.02.2074 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. November 207 | | 3 | NCRI44/06/9532/2022 | Archana Sharma | 05245 | 45.0.2045 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. July 2079 | | 4 | NCRI44/06/95400/2022 | Geetu Rastogi | 7-2-2273 | 07.052004 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. February 2048 | | 5 | NCRI44/06/9530/2022 | R. Anil [?] | 08074 | 27.0320i5 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. December 20:8 | | 6 | Itara44/05/93895/2022 | Maheshwari [?] | [?]-2-2445 | 30.04.2074 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. October 2047 | | 7 | NCRI44/06/953/2022 | Rajendra Kumar Baghel | 5082 | 30.0.2044 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. July 2048 | | 8 | NCRI44/06/9533/2022 | Harpreet Singh | 0894 | 28.04.2045 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. October 2048 | | 9 | NCRI[?]44/06/95330/2022 | Ankita Sukhija | 2043 | 27.04.2048 | 34.03.2049 | | 10 | NCRI44/06/9536/2022 | Vedanand | [?] 034 | 44.02.2044 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. November 2047 | | 11 | Chhatar44/06/95329/2022 | Varsha Gupta | 8226 | 07.08.2045 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. May 2049 | | 12 | NCRI44/06/95333/2022 | Aarti Devi | 3064 | 45.02.2048 | 30.06.208 | | 13 | NCRI44/06/95335/2022 | Nidhi Poddar [?] | [?] | 29.05.2048 | 34.03.2049 | | 14 | NCRI4/0@OSSI6OD | Akash Kumar | 4063 | 42.02.2044 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. November 2047 | | 15 | NCRI44/06/95340/2022 | Rohit Kumar | 2045 | 42.04.2049 | 34.08.209 | | 16 | NCR 44/06/95320/2022 | Shachi Chawla | [35 | 30.07.20i4 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. October 207 | | 17 | NCRI44/06/9535/2022 | Niranjan Thakur | 4236 | 24.0.208 | 34.03.209 | | 18 | NCRI44/06/9538/2022 | Niyamika Verma | 04i23 | 06.07.2045 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. April 209 | | 19 | [?]tar44/05/9464[?]/2022 | Sunil Kumar | 584 | 08.05.20i4 | 42 months + 3 months, i.e. February 2078 |

Versus ATS Realty Pvt. Ltd. Along with complainant Priyanka Kumari, [is] [?] other complainants have filed this case against the opposite party. The facts and evidence of all these complaints are the same. These complaints relate to the opposite party's project ATS Allure. Therefore they are being disposed of by a single decision. Complaint [den] NCRI44/05/94067/2022, the file of Priyanka Chawla, shall be the lead case. The complainants have instituted this case against the opposite party seeking possession of the unit and interest for the delayed period. In brief, the lead complainant states that they booked unit no. T-7-7454 in the opposite party's project ATS Allure, the total price of which was Rs. 36,70,000,//-. Against this the complainant has paid Rs. 33,39,407/- to the opposite party. The complainant has requested possession of the unit and interest for the delayed period. In support of their statement the complainant has filed photocopies of the allotment letter, emails and the occupancy certificate dated 30.03.2022. The opposite party has filed a counter-statement stating that the complainant has alleged that the opposite party has violated its contractual obligations (Contractual obligation), and therefore the jurisdiction to decide the matter lies with the civil court, so the case should be dismissed. Page 2

The authority has no jurisdiction to decide the allegation made by the complainant, and in support of this the opposite party has cited the judgment passed in Appeal No. 6/20:8, Sameer Mahavar v. MG Housing Pvt. Ltd., by the Haryana Appellate Court, Chandigarh. Construction work in the project has been obstructed due to force majeure and the COVID-49 pandemic. The opposite party was committed to hand over the unit to the complainant within the time period, but the project was delayed because of the COVID-49 pandemic. Until the complainant pays the remaining balance amount, the complainant is not entitled to take possession of the unit. The arguments of both parties were heard and the file was examined, on the basis of which the following points arise for consideration:- t. Was the opposite party's project delayed because of force majeure events? If yes, what is the effect? 2. [an] Should the complainants be awarded possession and interest for the delayed period? If yes, what will be the rate of interest? Determination of point [?] Point [vee] considers the question whether the project was in fact delayed because of force majeure events. This point is considered on the opposite party's allegations, and the burden of proving them lies on the opposite party. The opposite party has stated that the project was delayed due to force majeure events, which were beyond its control. The project was delayed because of the spread of the COVID-49 pandemic.

The order passed by the Hon'ble NGT dated i0::20 states the following at page no. 47:- ps Section-3 Page 3 "6. All the construction, demolition activities and transportation of construction material shall be stopped temporarily till the ambient air quality standards are brought down below 'the severe pollution standards afore- stated." List the matter for further d irections on 9th January, 207. The evidence does not make clear until when the said temporary order remained in force, and what orders were passed on 09.04.2047. The order passed by the Hon'ble NGT dated 094 .20I7 states the following at page no. 6:- !. All the construction (structural) activity of any kind in the entire NCR is hereby prohibited and will not be carried on by any person, private or Government Authority in the entire NCR till the next date of hearing. However, the internal finishing and interior work (causing no dust whatsoever) where no construction material is used can be carried on. List these matters on Tuesday that is |4th November, 20I7 when we will consider whether these directions should be vacated or continued for any longer time. The order passed by the Hon'ble NGT dated 47.44.2047 states the following at page no. 5:- The Eastern and Western Express highway have already been permitted and are hereby permitted to continue their construction work but all construction activity should take all preventive and precautionary steps to ensure that they

do not generate pollution by dust which is beyond the prescribed limits. In the order dated 04.44.2049 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 43029 // 4985, "M.C. Mehta v. Government of India", the following directions have been given:- "With respect to demolition and Construction activities we direct that no demolition and reconstruction 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." In the order dated 09.42.2049 the following directions have been 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 (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 Contro! Board (CPCB), as quoted above. However, conditions for raising construction be scrupulously followed. Civil Appeal No. 43029 / 4985, passed Page 5

In the Hon'ble NGT's order dated 09.4.20i7 and the order dated 47.4.2077, 9 days (from 09.44.2047 to 7.94.207) were specified, and in the press note issued by the Environment Pollution Authority, [?] days (from 04.44.2048 to 70.47.2078), and in the directions issued by the Environment Pollution Authority dated 25.0.209, 25 days (from 26.40.20:9 to 30.0.20i9, [?] 6 pm to 6 am), in the directions dated 04.4.2049, 5 days (from 04.44.2049 to 08.47.20I9), and for the period from 04.44.2049 to 44.02.2020 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, construction work was stopped. In the order dated 09.2.209 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a partial ban was imposed [wit ko sent]. In such circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court has imposed a ban on construction work for 35 days (from 04.44.2049 to 09.42.2049) and for 33 days (66+2) (from 40.42.2049 to 44.02.2020, [Wee] 6 pm to 6 am). In such a case the opposite party is entitled to the benefit, as construction work was affected for a total of 9+0+2.5+35+33 = 89.5 (90 in round figures) days.

Because of the first wave of COVID-49 (Corona Virus Disease), construction work of projects was adversely affected. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Central Government, the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, after considering the relevant facts, by its order dated 06.06.2020 [Bowo], and giving effect to [?] (Corona Virus Disease), granted an additional period of 6 months for completing projects, from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020. After this, the second wave of COVID-49 (Corona Virus Disease) from April 202 to June 2024, i.e. 3 months, also adversely affected the construction work of projects. Thus, as construction work was affected for a total of 09 months due to COVID-49, the opposite party is entitled to the benefit, which falls within the definition of force majeure circumstances. [Tea] point number 4 is disposed of. Determination of point number 2 Point [Were] considers the question whether the complainant should be awarded possession and interest for the delayed period. If yes, what will be the rate of interest? On examination of the file it is clear that an allotment letter was executed between the complainant and the opposite party on 07.02.204, under which, as per paragraph number 7.2, the complainant was to receive possession of the unit within 42 months and 3 months, i.e. by November 2047, but the complainant has still not received possession of the unit.

In its counter-statement the opposite party has argued that the complainant can obtain possession of the unit by paying the remaining amount. On examination of the file it is also clear that the opposite party received the occupancy certificate on 30.03. 2022, which is available on the file. As regards up to what period interest is to be awarded, in this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50 /20i8, "Supertech Limited v. Rajni [Wary]", has held that:- "the period of Interest should close on April 20]6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant —Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 20l6. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 206 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent — Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession. " In accordance with the above legal position, the complainant will be entitled to delay interest up to the date of O.C./C.C. or the offer of possession, whichever is later. Page 7 As regards liability for interest, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held in the case "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India [?]" that:-

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

As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government has notified, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046, on 7.40.2048, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2078. In it, in the format of the sale/lease deed given as an annexure, [BRA] 9 defines the promoters' default cases (Events of default), in which paragraph 9.2()) provides for the allottee, in the event of the promoter's default, 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 By whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along ms Section-32 Page 8 with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:" The same rate is also fixed in paragraph 9.30) for the event of default by allottees. Having regard to this provision, it appears just to award the allottee interest for the delayed period at the rate of MCLR+I [?] per cent. It is also made clear that if any amount of the complainant is overdue, the opposite party can also receive interest on it only at the rate of 78|,20| [?] per cent. The same definition of interest is also given in Section 2(04)0) of RERA.

In the judgment passed on 06.02.2020 by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No.-C-3289 / 2020, "[?] Constructions [?] v. Poonam Sood and Others", it has been stated that:- "Coming to the next ground of challenge to the impugned order by the petitioner's counsel that the interest awarded by respondent no.| (MCLR+l) is excessive, is also without any merit. It is an admitted fact to the petitioner that respondent no. had booked a flat and till the filing of the writ petition, the possession of the Mat 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, 20!8. 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, 20I8 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, 20]6, provid ing otherwise."

Thereafter, in Writ Petition No.-C-9120 /2020, "Haibitek surge Limited v. State of U.P. and Others", giving an important observation on 06.07.2020, it has been stated that:- "On 2.09.20!9 the respondent authority directed the petitioner to refund the entire amount alongwith interest @ MCLR + % 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 ]8 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 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 the order given by the RERA Authority's Bench, under the rules, at the annual interest rate of [FT] MCLR + % to be proper and correct. Therefore, in accordance with the above decisions given by 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 proper and correct. The principle of linking the interest rate to the State Bank of India [AMCLR+I] per cent has also been accepted and justified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In such circumstances, the annual interest rate fixed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2048 notified by the U.P. State Government, which is [?] per cent higher than the maximum interest rate of the State Bank of India, is proper and correct. Accordingly, point number 2 is disposed of. Disposing of the above points, the following orders are passed:- ORDER The opposite party is directed to ensure that, within 60 days from the date of uploading of this order, it completes all the facilities of the unit allotted to the complainant as per the agreement and gives possession along with O.C./C.C., and, on receipt of the payable stamp duty, gets the registry done as per rules.

The opposite party shall ensure that it pays interest at MCLR+ per cent on the amount deposited by the complainant themselves, from 04.42.207 up to the date of receipt of O.C./C.C. or the offer of possession, whichever is later. This interest amount shall be adjusted in the final payment amount. If the interest amount exceeds the amount payable, it shall be refunded to the complainant. Having regard to the force majeure period, interest shall not be calculated for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020, and for the second wave from April 2024 to June 2024, i.e. both together, a total of 09 months. Also, if the complainant has any overdues (Over Dues), interest for this period shall not be payable on them either. In the cases of the other complainants, delay interest shall be calculated separately as above in accordance with the allotment letter / agreement. The opposite party is directed that, in accordance with Section [?] of the RERA Act, 20i6, if after RERA comes into force any interest rate is charged by the promoter on account of the allottee's default, the same rate shall be given to the allottee when the promoter defaults. Accordingly, interest at MCLR+ per cent shall also be payable by the complainant on delayed payment. Page 4 If any amount has been taken from the allottee for delay at a higher rate after RERA came into force, the interest on the delayed period shall also be calculated at that same rate.

4. Any violation of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20:6 and other relevant provisions. The order shall be uploaded on the portal. A copy of this order shall be placed on each of the said related files. 5. If the opposite party does not comply with this order, the complainant shall have the right to get the order enforced through the RERA Authority. Date:- Der/or 2023 (Rajeev Kumar) Chairman U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Section-3 Page 2

उ0 प्र0 भू-संम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | सुनवाई पीठ-04 ए आदेश अन्तर्गत धारा-34 कम शिकायत संख्या “— आवंटित आवंटन अनुबंधानुसार ~— संख्या यूनिट संख्या तिथि दिये जाने की तिथि गा एटार44/05/94067/2022 प्रियंका कुमारी T-7-754 | 07.02.2074 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात नवम्बर 207 2 ॥टरा44/06/95366/2022 8773... 03.02.2074 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात नवम्बर 207 3 NCRI44/06/9532/2022 अर्चना शर्मा 05245 45.0.2045 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात जुलाई 2079 4 NCRI44/06/95400/2022 गीतू रस्तोगी. | 7-2-2273 | 07.052004 | 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात फरवरी 2048 5 NCRI44/06/9530/2022 आर अनिल मे 08074 «| 27.0320i5 | 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात दिसम्बर 20:8 | | उटरा44/05/93895/2022 |... | माहेश्वरी प-2-2445 | 30.04.2074 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात अक्टूबर 2047 7 NCRI44/06/953/2022 | राजेन्द्र कुमार बाघेल 5082 30.0.2044 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात जुलाई 2048 | | NCRI44/06/9533/2022 हरप्रीत सिंह 0894 28.04.2045 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात अक्टूबर 2048 |? | ॥7टछ44/06/95330/2022 अंकिता सुखीजा 2043 27.04.2048 34.03.2049 0 NCRI44/06/9536/2022 वेदानंद oat 034 44.02.2044 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात नवम्बर 2047 ]] छटर44/06/95329/2022 वर्षा गुप्ता 8226 07.08.2045 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात मई 2049 2 NCRI44/06/95333/2022 आरती देवी 3064 45.02.2048 30.06.208 ]53 NCRI44/06/95335/2022 निधि पोद्दार श्थ्वा 29.05.2048 34.03.2049 4 NCRI4/0@OSSI6OD आकाश कुमार 4063 42.02.2044 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात नवम्बर 2047 5 NCRI44/06/95340/2022 रोहित कुमार 2045 42.04.2049 34.08.209 Section-3 Page l ऊँ पः

]6 NCR 44/06/95320/2022 शाची चावला [35 30.07.20i4 | 42 माह + 3 माह | अर्थात अक्टूबर 207 7 NCRI44/06/9535/2022 निरंजन ठाकुर 4236 24.0.208 34.03.209 i8 NCRI44/06/9538/2022 नियामिका वर्मा_| 04i23 06.07.2045 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात अप्रैल 209 I9 | ्टार44/05/9464|/2022 सुनील कुमार 584 08.05.20i4 | 42 माह + 3 माह अर्थात फरवरी 2078 बनाम एटीएस रिएलटी प्रा.लि. शिकायतकर्ता प्रियंका कुमार के साथ is अन्य शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध वाद योजित किया गया है। इन सभी शिकायतों के तथ्य और साक्ष्य एक समान हैं। यह शिकायतें विपक्षी की परियोजना ATS Allure से सम्बन्धित है। अतः एक ही निर्णय से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत den NCRI44/05/94067/2022 प्रियंका चावला की पत्रावली अग्रणी वाद रहेगा | शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध यूनिट का कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने हेतु यह वाद संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में अग्रणी शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना ATS Allure ¥ यूनिट संख्या टी-7- 7454 बुक करायी गयी थी, जिसकी कुल कीमत 36,70,000,//- रूपये थी, जिसके सापेक्ष शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा रु 33,39,407 /— विपक्षी को भुगतान किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता ने यूनिट का कब्जा व विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटन पत्र, ईमेल, व अधिभोग प्रमाण पत्र दिनांक 30.03.2022 की छायाप्रतियाँ दाखिल की गयी है।

विपक्षी की ओर से प्रतिवाद पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया जिसमें यह उल्लिखित किया गया कि शिकायतकर्ता ने यह आरोप लगाया है कि विपक्षी ने अनुबंधात्मक दायित्व (Contractual obligation) का उल्लंघन किया है, जिस कारण इसका निस्तारण किये जाने का क्षेत्राधिकार सिविल कोर्ट का है। इस प्रकार वाद को निरस्त Section 3) कक ह ः ह ह Page 2 किया जाए। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा लगाये गये आरोप का निस्तारण करने का क्षेत्राधिकार प्राधिकरण को नहीं है, जिसके समर्थन में हरियाणा अपीलीय न्यायालय, चण्डीगढ़ द्वारा अपील संख्या 6 /20:8 समीर महावर बनाम एमजी हाउसिंग प्रा.लि. में पारित निर्णय का संदर्भ अंकित किया है। फोर्स मैज्योर व कोविड-49 महामारी के कारण परियेजना में निर्माण कार्य बाधित हुआ है। विपक्षी शिकायतकर्ता को समय अवधि के अन्दर यूनिट का कब्जा दिये जाने के लिए वचनबद्ध था परन्तु कोविड-49 महामारी के कारण परियोजना विलम्बित हुआ। शिकायतकर्ता जब तक अपना अवशेष धनराशि भुगतान नहीं करता है तब तक वह यूनिट का कब्जा लिये जाने का अधिकारी नहीं है। a उभयपक्ष के तर्कों को सुना गया व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया, जिसके आधार पर निम्न बिन्दु विचारणीय है :- t. क्या force majeure events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? 2. an शिकायतकर्तागण को कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाये? यदि हाँ तो ब्याज की क्‍या दर होगी ? निस्तारण बिन्दु Hee बिन्दु vee 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 फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण विलम्बित हुई, जो कि उनके नियंत्रण में नहीं था। कोविड-49 महामारी फैलने के कारण परियोजना विलम्बित हुआ। माननीय एन.जी.टी. द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक i0::20 के पृष्ठ संख्या-47 पर निम्नलिखित उल्लेखित है :- ps Section-3 Page 3 "6. All the construction, demolition activities and transportation of construction material shall be stopped temporarily till the ambient air quality standards are brought down below ‘the severe pollution standards afore- stated." List the matter for further d irections on 9th January, 207. साक्ष्य द्वारा यह स्पष्ट नहीं किया गया है कि उक्त अस्थाई आदेश कब तक लागू रहा एवं दिनांक 09.04.2047 को क्या आदेश पारित हुए। माननीय एन.जी.टी. द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 094 .20I7 के पृष्ठ संख्या-6 पर निम्नलिखित उललेखित है :- !. All the construction (structural) activity of any kind in the entire NCR is hereby prohibited and will not be carried on by any person, private or Government Authority in the entire NCR till the next date of hearing. However, the internal finishing and interior work (causing no dust whatsoever) where no construction material is used can be carried on. List these matters on Tuesday that is |4th November, 20I7 when we will consider whether these directions should be vacated or continued for any longer time. माननीय एन.जी.टी. द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 47.44.2047 के पृष्ठ संख्या-5 पर निम्नलिखित उल्लेखित है :-

The Eastern and Western Express highway have already been permitted and are hereby permitted to continue their construction work but all construction activity should take all preventive and precautionary steps to ensure that they do not generate pollution by dust which is beyond the prescribed limits. 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 कि direct that no demolition and reconstruction activities take activities take Section-3. 7 इसके अतिरिक्त उपरोक्त सिविल अपील 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. 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 Contro! Board (CPCB), as quoted above. However, conditions for raising construction be scrupulously followed. J पील संख्या-43029 / 4985 में पारित $८घंगा-34..._ Page 5 माननीय एन.जी.टी./87« के आदेश दिनांक 09.4.20i7 एवं दिनांक 47.4.2077 में 9 दिन (दिनांक 09.44.2047 से दिनांक 7.94.207), पर्यावरण प्रदूषण प्राधिकरण द्वारा जारी किये गये प्रेस नोट में to दिन (दिनांक 04.44.2048 से दिनांक 70.47.2078), पर्यावरण प्रदूषण प्राधिकरण द्वारा जारी किये गये निर्देश दिनांक

ss of 4) 25.0.209 में 25 दिन (दिनांक 26.40.20:9 से दिनांक 30.0.20i9 तक Wa 6 बजे से सुबह 6 बजे तक), दिनांक 04.4.2049 में 5 दिन (दिनांक 04.44.2049 से दिनांक 08.47.20I9 तक) एवं माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा (दिनांक 04.44.2049 से दिनांक 44.02.2020) की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगायी गयी है, जिसमें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 09.2.209 में पूर्ण wit को sent हुए आंशिक प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया | ऐसे में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा 35 दिन (दिनांक 04.44.2049 से दिनांक 09.42.2049) एवं 33 दिन (66+2) (दिनांक 40.42.2049 से दिनांक 44.02.2020 तक Wee बजे से सुबह 6 बजे तक) की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया। विपक्षी ऐसी दशा में कुल 9+0+2.5+35+33 = 89.5 (90 in round figures) दिन निर्माण कार्य प्रभावित रहने के कारण लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है।

कोविड-.49 (Corona Virus Disease) की प्रथम Ja के प्रभाव के कारण परियोजनाओं के निर्माण कार्य पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पड़ा, जिसके क्रम में केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा जारी निर्देशानुसार Bowo भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण द्वारा सुसंगत तथ्यों पर विचारोपरान्त दिनांक 06.06.2020 को आदेश पारित करते हुए arfts—ig (Corona Virus Disease) के प्रभाव के कारण परियोजनाओं को पूर्ण करने हेतु दिनाक 25.03.2020 से 25.09.2020 तक अर्थात 6 माह की अतिरिक्त अवधि प्रदान की गयी, जिसके उपरान्त कोविड--49 (Corona Virus Disease) की द्वितीय aa अप्रैल 202 से जून 2024 तक अर्थात 3 माह प्रभावी होने के कारण भी परियोजनाओं के निर्माण कार्य पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पड़ा। इस प्रकार कुल 09 माह कोविड--49 के कारण निर्माण कार्य प्रभावित होने के कारण विपक्षी लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है, जो कि फोर्स मैज्योर की परिस्थितियों की परिभाषा में आती है| Tea बिन्दु संख्या-4 निस्तारित किया हि ( जाता है। oO \ a निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 बिन्दु Were इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि gar शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाये? यदि हाँ तो ब्याज की क्‍या दर होगी? पत्रावली के अवलोकन से विदित है कि शिकायतकर्ता व विपक्षी के मध्य दिनांक 07.02.204 को आवंटन पत्र निष्पादित हुआ जिसके प्रस्तर संख्या 7.2 के अनुसार 42 माह तथा 3 माह अर्थात नवम्बर 2047 तक यूनिट का कब्जा शिकायतकर्ता को प्राप्त होना था परन्तु अभी तक शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा प्राप्त नहीं हुआ है। विपक्षी की ओर से प्रतिवादपत्र में यह तर्क प्रस्तुत किया गया कि शिकायतकर्ता अवशेष धनराशि भुगतान करके यूनिट का कब्जा प्राप्त कर सकता है।

पत्रावली के अवलोकन से यह भी विदित है कि विपक्षी को दिनांक 30.03. 2022 को अधिभोग पत्र प्राप्त हो चुका है जो पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध है। जहाँ तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बन्ध में सिविल अपील सं० 6649-50 /20i8 "सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम॑ रजनी Wary माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है किः- "the period of Interest should close on April 20]6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant —Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 20l6. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 206 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent — Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession. " उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार ओ.सी./सी.सी. अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा 2५ 56९7णा-3] ः हे है Page 7 जहाँ तक ब्याज देयता का प्रश्न है, माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्राललि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ gard वाद में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

"Section 8(I)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to -give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of Suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason. he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not 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. " अत: उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व Sar के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्योंकि प्रमोटर्स GNI Sat धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है।

जहाँ तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, तो राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 7.40.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियनन और विकास) (विकय »पटटा के लिए करार) नियमावली 2078 घिसूचित की गयी हैं| इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विकय /ucer विलेख के प्रारूप BRA 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, ८2 जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.2()) में प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है कि:-- "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head By whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along ms Section-32 Page 8 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+IUfaee की चित प्रतीत होता है ब्याज दर पर विलग्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना =e यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि यदि शिकायतकर्ता की कोई धनराशि अतिदेय है, तो प्राप्त उस पर विपक्षी भी ७८।,२०। प्रतिशत की दर से ही ब्याज प्राप्त कर सकता है। रेरा की धारा-2(०४)0)में भी यही ब्याज की परिभांषा दी गयी है माननीय. उच्च. न्यायालय इलाहाबाद द्वारा रिट याचिका संख्या-सी-3289 / 2020 “wal flesda कस्ट्रक्शन्स wife. 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+l) is excessive, is also without any merit. It is an admitted fact to the petitioner that respondent no. had booked a flat and till the filing of the writ petition, the possession of the Mat 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, 20!8. 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, 20I8 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, 20]6, provid ing otherwise.

तत्पश्चात्‌ू Re याचिका संख्या-सी-9१20 /2020 “हैबीटेक surge लिमिटेड बनाम उ0प्र0 राज्य सरकार एवं अन्य” में दिनांक 06.07.2020 को महत्वपूर्ण ऑब्जर्वेशन देते हुए यह उललेखित किया है Ar On 2.09.20!9 the respondent authority directed the petitioner to refund the entire amount alongwith interest @ MCLR + % 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 ]8 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 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 FT MCLR + % की वार्षिक ब्याज दर से दिये गये आदेश को उचित एवं सही माना है। @ अतः: उपरोक्तानुसार 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 AMCLR+! 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, 2048 के अन्तर्गत निर्धारित हवाओं की गयी वार्षिक ब्याज excesses, जो कि स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया की अधिकतम ब्याज दर से । प्रतिशत ज्यादा है, उचित एवं सही है। तदनुसार बिन्दु संख्या-2 निस्तारित किया जाता है। । उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते है। आदेश विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि आदेश अपलोड होने की तिथि से 60 दिन में शिकायतकर्ता को आवंटित यूनिट का कब्जा अनुबन्धानुसार समस्त सुविधाओं को पूर्ण करते हुये ओ.सी /सी.सी के साथ कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें। विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 04.42.207 से ओ.सी /सी.सी प्राप्त होने की तिथि अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि जो बाद में हो तक शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा स्वयं जमा धनराशि पर MCLR+ प्रतिशत ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की धनराशि में समायोजित की जायेगी। ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक होने पर शिकायतकर्ता को वापस की जायेगी। फोर्स मैज्योर पीरियड को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03.2020 से दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक एव द्वितीय वेव अप्रैल 2024 से जून 2024 तक अर्थात दोनों da मिलाकर कुल 09 माह परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु ब्याज की गणना नहीं की जायेगी। साथ ही यदि शिकायतकर्ता का कोई अतिदेय (Over Dues) है, तो उस पर भी इस अवधि का ब्याज देय न होगा। अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण के प्रकरणों में आवंटन पत्र /अनुबन्ध के अनुरूप उपरोक्तानुसार पृथक-पृथक रूप से विलम्ब ब्याज की गणना की जायेगी।

विपक्षी को यह निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम, 20i6 की धारा ANS अनुसार यदि रेरा लागू होने के बाद कोई ब्याज दर आवंटी के डिफॉल्ट से प्रोमोटर द्वारा लिया जाता है, तो उसी दर से ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा डिफॉल्ट किये जाने पर भी आवंटी को दिया जायेगा। अतः विलम्बित भुगतान पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भी MCLR+ प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर से ब्याज देय $९८घ०१-३१ Page 4 ov 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 का उल्लघंन भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 20:6 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। आदेश की एक-एक प्रति उक्त सम्बन्धित | पत्रावली पर रखी जाए। 5. यदि विपक्षी द्वारा इस आदेश का अनुपालन नहीं किया जाता है, तो शिकायतकर्ता को यह अधिकार होगा कि रेरा प्राधिकरण के माध्यम से अपने आदेश का कियान्वयन करा wa | दिनांक Der/or 2023 eee ’ 2.५७, 72 - 2% (राजीव कुमार) अध्यक्ष उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण Section-3 Page 2