U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar Bench-3 Order passed under Section-34 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 Present - Dr. Deepak Swaroop Saxena, Member Sl. No. | Complaint No. | Unit No. | Deposited Amount Rs. | Date of Allotment Letter | Desired Relief 1 | NCRI44/08/II896/2023 | Aina E-4006 | Rs. 75,432 /- | 2.07.204 | Request has been made for refund of deposited amount. Parveen Ansari Versus Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Limited This complaint has been instituted for refund of deposited amount on the ground of delay in the project by the respondent against the respondent. In brief, the complainant states that unit no. E-30046 [६-३००46] was booked by her in the project EWS AASRA ZONE 1 [ZONE वा (E33-E80)] operated by the respondent, in lieu of which payment of Rs. 75,432 /- has been made by the complainant to the respondent. On account of the project being delayed, request has been made by the complainant for refund of the deposited amount. In support of the complaint, copies of allotment letter and receipts have been filed by the complainant. Details of the amount paid by the complainant to the respondent are as follows: - Sl. No. | Description | Date | Amount Paid (Rs.) 1 | Cheque No. 576743 issued by respondent | 27.03.2044 | Rs. 45,000/- 2 | Receipt No. 42922 | 20.0.2044 | Rs. 46,752/- 3 | Receipt No. 39852 | 25.08.2044 | Rs. 25,430/- 4 | Receipt No. 37590 | 04.06.2044 | Rs. 48,550/- Total: Rs. 75,432 /-

Counsel for the respondent appeared in the matter on date 44.05.2025. Opportunities were granted to the respondent to file a written reply, but written reply was not filed by the respondent, on which account vide order dated 20.08.2025 the Bench closed the opportunity of the respondent to file written reply and forwarded the case file for ex-parte proceedings against the respondent, and ex-parte arguments of the complainant were heard. On account of the facts described above, ex-parte order is being passed in the present matter. As per the report dated 03.02.2006 of the Law Researcher working in Bench-3, no order has been passed by the NCLT against the respondent promoter. On the basis of documents filed by the complainant, the following questions were framed: - 1. Whether agreements entered into prior to RERA do not fall within the ambit of RERA? And whether upon execution of agreement between parties prior to implementation of RERA, provisions of RERA shall not apply? 2. Whether the complainant can be refunded the deposited amount? Determination of Question No. 1: Question No. 1 has been framed on the fact whether agreements prior to RERA do not fall within the ambit of RERA, and whether upon execution of agreement between parties prior to implementation of RERA, provisions of RERA shall not apply?

In this regard, the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6745-6749 / 2024 "M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of U.P. & Ors." is significant, wherein it has been clearly stated that: - "54. From the scheme of the Act 20] 6, its application is retroactive in character and it can safely be observed that the projects already completed or to which the completion certificate has been granted are not under its fold and therefore, vested or accrued rights, if any, in no manner are affected. At the same time, it will apply after getting the on-going projects and future projects registered under Section 3 to prospectively follow the mandate of the Act 206."

From the above legal principle, it is clear that in respect of agreements signed prior to the enforcement of the RERA Act or projects prior to the enforcement of the Act where completion certificate has not been obtained by the promoter, enforcement of the Act shall have retroactive effect. It is also clear in the RERA Act that "Ongoing" projects definitely fall within the ambit of the RERA Act. From the above observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is also clear that although agreements were executed between promoter and allottee prior to RERA registration, if the project is registered with RERA, all provisions of RERA shall apply. The project in question has been registered with RERA by the respondent, whose registration number is UPRERAPRISOG. Therefore, on the basis of described facts, it is clear that the respondent's project currently falls in the category of "Ongoing Project". In such circumstance, all provisions of RERA shall apply. Question No. 1 is disposed of accordingly. Determination of Question No. 2: Question No. 2 has been framed to the effect whether the complainant can be refunded the deposited amount? The burden of proving this lies on the complainant. It has been stated on behalf of the complainant that the respondent's project is delayed, on which account request has been made by her for refund of the deposited amount.

Perused the documents available on record, from which it is clear that allotment letter was executed between the complainant and respondent on date 42.07.2044. The time period for handing over possession of the unit is not recorded in the allotment letter executed between both parties. In such situation, in Civil Appeal No. 3533--3534 / 2047 M/s Fortune Infrastructure (now known as M/s Hicon Infrastructure) & Anr. Vs. Trevor D'lima & Ors., it has been clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that: - "Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 204. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered."

As per the above legal principle, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of a flat; where no date of possession is given in the agreement, a reasonable time period of 3 years must be determined for possession. In the present complaint, allotment letter was executed between both parties on date 42.07.2074, but the date of handing over possession is not recorded in the allotment letter. In such situation, as per the judicial precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court above, the period for delivering possession is treated as 3 years. Thus, possession of the allotted unit was required to be provided by the respondent within 3 years from the date of allotment letter 2.07.204, that is in July 2047, but till date possession of the unit has not been provided to the complainant by the respondent. Neither a written reply nor a copy of OC/CC in respect of the project has been filed by the respondent, whereas as per the allotment letter the complainant was to receive possession of the unit in July 20:7. From the above, it is clear that the respondent's project is delayed by more than 08 years. Copy of OC/CC has not been filed on behalf of the respondent. From this, it is clear that the respondent's project is not complete. Since the respondent's project is delayed, on that account the complainant does not wish to remain in the project. In such situation, Section 18(1) [Section 8 ()] of the RERA Act provides that: -

"Section 8 () “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: 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." As aforesaid, if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to hand over possession of an apartment, plot or building timely up to the period specified in accordance with the terms of the agreement, he shall be liable, without prejudice to any other available remedy, on demand of the allottee if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, to return the amount received from him in respect of that apartment, plot or building along with interest as the case may be.

In addition, in this regard it is noteworthy that in Civil Appeal No. 382 / 2049 Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Versus Devasis Rudra, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that: - "It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession.by 206, nearly seven year has elapsed from the date of agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 206. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund." In the same sequence, in Civil Appeal No. 42238 / 2048 Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited Versus Govindan Raghavan, it has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that: -

"We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.0.20I8 passed by the National Commission. The Appellant — Builder failed to fulfill his contractual obligation of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent - Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired. During this period, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser had to service a loan that he had obtained for purchasing the flat, by paying Interest to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the Respondent — Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest." In the legal principles laid down as aforesaid, a home buyer can be made to wait for a reasonable period, and in the event of an inordinate delay, even after obtaining completion certificate the complainant is entitled to receive the deposited amount because possession was not received by the complainant in accordance with the period specified in the agreement and excessive delay has occurred in the matter.

Therefore, from perusal of the facts described above, it is evident that the respondent's project is delayed by more than 08 years and copy of OC/CC in respect of completion of the project has not been filed by the respondent, on which account the complainant does not wish to remain in the project. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to receive the deposited amount along with interest. So far as the question of refunding deposited amount to the complainant is concerned, in this regard it is noteworthy that in the petition of Bombay High Court in "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Versus Union of India", it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court 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 judgment, it is clear that under the provisions of RERA, interest will be payable on delay and principal amount in accordance with the agreement entered into between the promoter and purchaser, because the said amount has been utilized by the promoters.

In addition, in Writ Petition C.W.P. 3289/2020 dated 06.02.2020 "Rudra Buildwell Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Poonam Sood & Ors.", it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that as per clause 9.2(ii) of the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2018, in the event of delay on the part of promoter, the allottee shall have the option of terminating the agreement and in this situation the promoter shall be liable to refund all deposited amount within 45 days along with annual interest rate of State Bank of India home loan rate MCLR + 1 percent. Simultaneously, the annual interest rate of MCLR + 1 percent has been held just and valid by the High Court. So far as the question of payable interest rate is concerned, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale / Lease) Rules, 2048 were notified by the State Government under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 on date 47.40.2048. In clause 9 of the draft agreement for sale / lease given therein, promoter's default cases (Events of default) are defined, wherein in clause 9.2(c) in case of promoter becoming default, it is provided for the allottee 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(a) in case of default by allottees. Keeping in view the said provision, it appears just and proper to refund the amount to the allottee at the interest rate of MCLR + 1 percent. Question No.-2 is disposed of accordingly. Disposing of the above questions, following order is passed: - ORDER 1. The respondent is directed to ensure refunding to the complainant the amount of Rs. 75,432 /- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Two) paid by the complainant, along with interest at the annual rate of MCLR + 1 percent from the date of deposit till the date of payment, within 45 days from the date of upload of the order on RERA portal. 2. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section-63 and other relevant provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046. 3. If compliance with this order is not done by the respondent within 45 days, the complainant may execute the order through the RERA Authority. 4. Order be uploaded on portal.

(Dr. Deepak Swaroop Saxena) Member U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Gautam Buddh Nagar

उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर पीठ-3 भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) अधिनियम 2046 की धारा-34 के अन्तर्गत पारित आदेश उपस्थित - Sto दीपक स्वरूप सक्सेना, सदस्य क्रम शिकायत संख्या | यूनिट न0 | जमा धनराशि रु० | आवंटन पत्र | वांछित ष सं0 की तिथि - | NCRI44/08/II896/2023 | आइना E-4006 | रु0 75,432 / 2.07.204 | जमा धनराशि प्रवीन वापस दिलाये अंसारी जाने का अंसारी अनुरोध किया गया है। जमा धनराशि वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु यह शिकायत संस्थित की गयी है। बनाम अंसल हाई-टेक टाउनशिप्स लिमिटेड शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्ध परियोजना विलम्बित होने के कारण संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कहना Sef विपक्षी द्वारा संचालित परियोजना EWS AASRA ZONE वा (E33-E80) में यूनिट een. ६-३००46 बुक कराई गई थी जिसके एवज में शिकायत्कर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी को धनराशि wo 75,432 / का भुगतान किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता*द्वारा परियोजना विलम्बित होने के कारण जमा धनराशि वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा शिकायत के समर्थन में आवंटन पत्र व रसीदों की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गई है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी को भुगतान की गई धनराशि का विवरण निम्नवत्‌ हैः- क्रम विवरण दिनांक भुगतान की गई धनराशि [संख्या (रु0) 4 विपक्षी द्वारा जारी चेक संख्या 576743 27.03.2044 %O 45,000/ रसीद संख्या 42922 20.0.2044 रु0 46,752/ रसीद संख्या 39852 25.08.2044 BO 25,430/ रसीद संख्या 37590 04.06.2044 रु0 48,550/ कूल योग : BO 75,432 / विपक्षी के अधिवक्ता दिनांक 44.05.2025 को प्रकरण में उपस्थित हुए। विपक्षी को लिखित जवाब दाखिल किये जाने के लिए अवसर प्रदान किये गये परन्तु विपक्षी —o——

द्वारा लिखित जवाब दाखिल नहीं किया गया जिस कारण पीठ द्वारा दिनांक 2008. 3 ५० jp wo 2025 को विपक्षी का लिखित जवाब दाखिल करने का अवसर समाप्त करते हुए पत्रावली विपक्षी के विरूद्ध एकपक्षीय कार्यवाही हेतु अग्रसारित करते हुए शिकायतकर्ता की एकपक्षीय बहस सुनी गयी। उपरोक्त वर्णित तथ्यों के कारण वर्तमान प्रकरण में एकपक्षीय आदेश पारित किया जा रहा है | पीठ-8 में कार्यरत्‌ लॉ-रिसर्चर की आख्या दिनांक 03.02.2006 के अनुसार विपक्षी प्रमोटर के विरूद्ध एनसीएलटी से कोई आदेश पारित नहीं हुआ है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा दाखिल प्रपत्रों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित प्रश्न विरचित किये गये :- 0 क्या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेरा के दायरे में नहीं आते हैं ? तथा क्‍या पक्षकारों के मध्य रेरा लागू होने से पूर्व अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किये जाने पर रेरा के प्राविधान लागू नहीं होगें ? 2... क्या शिकायतकर्ता को जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जा सकती है? निस्तारण प्रश्न We Ses Gey इस तथ्य..पर विरचित है कि क्या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेश*"के दायरे“में*नहीं आते है तथा क्या पक्षकारों के मध्य रेरा लागू होने से पूर्व अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किये जाने पर ke के प्राविधान लागू नहीं होगें ? इस सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-6745-6749 /“ 2024 “मैसर्स न्यूटेक प्रोमोटर्स एंड डेवलपर्स wo feo बनाम Novo राज्य व अन्य” में दिया गया आब्जर्वेशन महत्वपूर्ण है, जिसमें स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लिखित किया गया है कि :-

"54, From the scheme of the Act 20] 6, its application is retroactive in character and it can safely be observed that the projects already completed or to which the completion certificate has been granted are not under its fold and therefore, vested or accrued rights, if any, in no manner are affected. At the same time, it will apply after getting the on- going projects and future projects registered under Section 3 to prospectively follow the mandate of the Act 206." उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था से यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा अधिनियम लागू होने से पूर्व जो भी अनुबन्ध हस्ताक्षरित हुए या अधिनियम लागू होने से पूर्व की परियोजनाओं, जहाँ पर पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा प्राप्त नहीं किया गया है, वहाँ पर 2 a अधिनियम का प्रवर्तन पूर्वव्यापी प्रभाव रहेगा। यह भी रेरा अधिनियम में स्पष्ट है कि “ऑन Tet” परियोजनायें निश्चित रूप से रेरा अधिनियम की परिधि में आते हैं। उपरोक्त माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आर्ब्जेवेशन से यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यद्यपि रेरा पंजीकरण से पूर्व प्रोमोटर एवं आवंटी के मध्य अनुबन्ध निष्पादित हुए हैं, परन्तु यदि परियोजना को रेरा में पंजीकरण कराया जाता है, तो रेरा के सभी प्राविधान लागू होगें। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रश्नगत परियोजना को रेरा में पंजीकृत कराया गया है, जिसका पंजीकरण संख्या- UPRERAPRISOG है। अतः वर्णित तथ्यों के आधार पर यह स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना वर्तमान में “ऑनगोईंग प्रोजेक्ट” की श्रेणी में आती है। ऐसी दशा में रेरा के सभी प्राविधान लागू होगें। तद्नुसार प्रश्न Sea निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण प्रश्न संख्या 2-: प्रश्न संख्या 2? इस आशय का विरचित किया गया है

कि क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता को जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जा सकती है? इसे साबित करने का भार शिकायतकर्ता-पर है। शिकायतकर्ता की &ओर-से कंथन्न-कियो गया है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना विलम्बित है जिस कारण उसके aR जमा धनराशि को वापस Rad जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध प्रपत्रों का अवलोकन किया जिससे यह स्पष्ट है कि शिकायतकर्ता व विपक्षी के मध्य दिनांक 42.07.2044 को आवंटन पत्र निष्पादित हुआ। उभयपक्षों के मध्य निष्पादित आवंटन पत्र में यूनिट का कब्जा दिये जाने की समय अवधि अंकित नहीं है। ऐसी स्थिति में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय की सिविल अपील संख्या 3533--3534 / 2047 M/s. Fortune Infrastructure (now known as M/s. Hicon Infrastructure) & ANR. Vs. Trevor D'lima & Ors ¥ स्पष्ट रूप से निर्धारित किया गया है कि-: Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely _ for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, 3 =

a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 204. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to था irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered. उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार फ्लैट के कब्जे हेतु किसी व्यक्ति को अनिश्चित समय तक प्रतीक्षा नहीं करायी जा सकती है, जहाँ अनुबन्ध में कब्जे की तिथि नहीं दी गयी है वहाँ एक रीज़नेवल समयावधि 3 वर्ष कब्जे हेतु अवधारित की जानी होगी। प्रस्तुत शिकायत में उभयपक्ष के मध्य दिनांक 42.07.2074 को आवंटन पत्र निष्पादित हुए परन्तु आवंटन पत्र में कब्जा दिये जाने की तिथि अंकित नहीं है। ऐसी स्थिति में उपरोक्त माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय की न्याय नजीरों के अनुसार कब्जा देने की अवधि 3 वर्ष मानी गयी है | इस प्रकार आवंटन पत्र की तिथि 2.07.204 से 3 वर्ष अर्थात जुलाई 2047 में विपक्षी द्वारा आवंटित यूनिट का कब्जा उपलब्ध कराया जाना था परन्तु अभी तक विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा उपलब्ध नहीं कराया-गया S| विपक्षी द्वारा vera न ज्ञों लिखित और न ही परियोजना के सापेक्ष ओ.सी /सी.सी की प्रति दाखिल की ah? जबकि ,शिकायतकर्ता को आवंटन पत्र के अनुसार यूनिट का कब्जा जुलाई 20:7 F प्राप्त होना था।

उपरोक्त से स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना लगभग os वर्ष से अधिक विलम्बित है। विपक्षी की. ओर से ओ.सी»सी.सी की प्रति दाखिल नहीं किया गया है। इससे यह स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना पूर्ण नहीं है। चूंकि विपक्षी की परियोजना विलम्बित है जिस कारण शिकायतकर्ता परियोजना में बने रहना नहीं चाहते है। ऐसी स्थिति में रेर अधिनियम की atti9e(t) में यह प्राविधानित है कि :- "Section 8 () “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, 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 4 ——— 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 हैं ail possession, at such rate as may be prescribed".

उपरोक्‍तानुसार यदि प्रोमोटर करार के निबन्धों के अनुसार उसमें दिये गये अवधि तक समय से किसी अपार्टपेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन को पूरा करने में असमर्थ रहता है या कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहता है, तो वह उपलब्ध किसी अन्य उपचार पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव डाले बिना आवंटी की मांग पर यदि आवंटी परियोजना से बाहर होना चाहता है, तो प्रकरण के अनुसार, उस अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन के सम्बन्ध में उससे प्राप्त धनराशि ब्याज सहित लौटाने का दायी होगा। इसके अतिरिक्त इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि “माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील Wo 382,/ 2049 कोलकाता वेस्ट इंटरनेशनल सिटी प्राललि. बनांम देवाशीष war में अभिनिर्धारित"कियो«गया है कि :- "It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitaly for possession.by 206, nearly seven year has elapsed from the date of agreement. Even according to the deyeloper, the. completion certificate was received on 29 March 206. This was nearly seven years after the extended date’ for the handing ‘over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayet in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in

any event a prayer for refund. " इसी क्रम में “माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के सिविल अपील संख्या-42238 / 2048 पायनियर ada लैन्ड एवं इंफ्रास्ट्रक्बर लिमिटेड बनाम गोविन्द राघवन* में भी अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि-: "We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.0.20I8 passed by the National Commission. The Appellant — Builder failed to fulfill his contractual obligation of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent - Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired. During this period, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser had to service a loan that he had obtained for purchasing the flat, by paying 5 a Interest 0% to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the Respondent — Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited

by him with Interest." उपरोक्‍तानुसार दी गयी विधि व्यवस्था में गृहक्रेता को एक उचित समय तक प्रतीक्षा करायी जा सकती है व लम्बे विलम्ब की स्थिति में पूर्णता प्रमाण-पत्र प्राप्त होने के उपरान्त भी शिकायतकर्ता जमा धनराशि पाने का अधिकारी है क्योंकि अनुबन्ध में दी गयी अवधि के अनुसार शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा नहीं मिला है व प्रकरण में अत्यधिक विलम्ब हुआ है। अतः: उपरोक्त वर्णित तथ्यों के परिशीलन से यह विदित है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना लगभग 08 वर्ष से अधिक विलम्बित है और विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना पूर्ण होने के सम्बन्ध में ओ.सी,/सी.सी की प्रति दाखिल नहीं किया गया है जिस कारण शिकायतकर्ता परियोजना में बने रहना नहीं चाहते है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित पाने का अधिकारी है| जहां तक शिकायत्॒कर्ता को Hace धनराशि वापस किये जाने का प्रश्न है, तो इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय हैं कि बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय के “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन wife. आदि बनाम यूनियन...ऑफ इंडिया” की याचिका में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

"Section 8(I)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व क्रेता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। 6 —_—>

इसके अतिरिक्त Re संख्या-८.४० .3289/2020 दिनांक 06.02.2020 “रूद्रा बिल्डवेल aed wo लिए बनाम पूनम सूद एवं अन्य“ में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) नियमावली, 20:8 की प्रस्तर 9.2(ii) के आनसार प्रोमोटर की ओर से विलम्ब किये जाने की स्थिति में आवंटी के पास अनुबन्ध को समाप्त करने का विकल्प होगा एवं इस स्थिति में प्रोमोटर “भारतीय स्टेट बैंक” के होम लोन दर MCLRtH प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज दर से 45 दिनों में समस्त जमा धनराशि वापस करने के लिए उत्तरदायी होगा। साथ ही साथ उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा MCLR+H प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज दर को उचित एवं मान्य माना गया है। जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विक्रय /पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 2048 अधिसूचित की गयी..हैं। इसमें दिये*गये विक्रय ,“पट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के TER 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट- WRT, Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.2di) में प्रमोटर के'डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है कि:- "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +% 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 धनराशि वापस दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। तद्नुसार प्रश्न संख्या-2 निस्तारित किया जाता है। Or उपरोक्त प्रश्नों का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किया जाता हैं :- आदेश 4. विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह रेरा पोर्टल पर आदेश अपलोड होने की तिथि से 45 दिन के अन्दर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भुगतान की गई धनराशि BO 75,432 /»(रु0 TEAR हजार चार सौ बत्तीस) जमा किये जाने की तिथि से भुगतान किये जाने की तिथि तक मय McLRH प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज की दर से शिकायतकर्ता को वापस भुगतान करना सुनिश्चित करें | 2. इस आदेश का versa भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। 3 विपक्षी द्वारा यदि इस आदेश का अनुपालन 45 दिनों में नहीं किया जाता है तो शिकायतकर्ता रेरा प्राधिकरण के माध्यम से आदेश का क्रियान्वयन करा सकेगे। 4 आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड कियाजाए+ S (Sto दीपक स्वरूप WRIA) सदस्य उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण गौतमबुद्धनगर

U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar Bench-3 Order passed under Section-34 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 Present - Dr. Deepak Swaroop Saxena, Member Sl. No. | Complaint No. | Unit No. | Deposited Amount Rs. | Date of Allotment Letter | Desired Relief 1 | NCRI44/08/II896/2023 | Aina E-4006 | Rs. 75,432 /- | 2.07.204 | Request has been made for refund of deposited amount. Parveen Ansari Versus Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Limited This complaint has been instituted for refund of deposited amount on the ground of delay in the project by the respondent against the respondent. In brief, the complainant states that unit no. E-30046 [६-३००46] was booked by her in the project EWS AASRA ZONE 1 [ZONE वा (E33-E80)] operated by the respondent, in lieu of which payment of Rs. 75,432 /- has been made by the complainant to the respondent. On account of the project being delayed, request has been made by the complainant for refund of the deposited amount. In support of the complaint, copies of allotment letter and receipts have been filed by the complainant. Details of the amount paid by the complainant to the respondent are as follows: - Sl. No. | Description | Date | Amount Paid (Rs.) 1 | Cheque No. 576743 issued by respondent | 27.03.2044 | Rs. 45,000/- 2 | Receipt No. 42922 | 20.0.2044 | Rs. 46,752/- 3 | Receipt No. 39852 | 25.08.2044 | Rs. 25,430/- 4 | Receipt No. 37590 | 04.06.2044 | Rs. 48,550/- Total: Rs. 75,432 /-

Counsel for the respondent appeared in the matter on date 44.05.2025. Opportunities were granted to the respondent to file a written reply, but written reply was not filed by the respondent, on which account vide order dated 20.08.2025 the Bench closed the opportunity of the respondent to file written reply and forwarded the case file for ex-parte proceedings against the respondent, and ex-parte arguments of the complainant were heard. On account of the facts described above, ex-parte order is being passed in the present matter. As per the report dated 03.02.2006 of the Law Researcher working in Bench-3, no order has been passed by the NCLT against the respondent promoter. On the basis of documents filed by the complainant, the following questions were framed: - 1. Whether agreements entered into prior to RERA do not fall within the ambit of RERA? And whether upon execution of agreement between parties prior to implementation of RERA, provisions of RERA shall not apply? 2. Whether the complainant can be refunded the deposited amount? Determination of Question No. 1: Question No. 1 has been framed on the fact whether agreements prior to RERA do not fall within the ambit of RERA, and whether upon execution of agreement between parties prior to implementation of RERA, provisions of RERA shall not apply?

In this regard, the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6745-6749 / 2024 "M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of U.P. & Ors." is significant, wherein it has been clearly stated that: - "54. From the scheme of the Act 20] 6, its application is retroactive in character and it can safely be observed that the projects already completed or to which the completion certificate has been granted are not under its fold and therefore, vested or accrued rights, if any, in no manner are affected. At the same time, it will apply after getting the on-going projects and future projects registered under Section 3 to prospectively follow the mandate of the Act 206."

From the above legal principle, it is clear that in respect of agreements signed prior to the enforcement of the RERA Act or projects prior to the enforcement of the Act where completion certificate has not been obtained by the promoter, enforcement of the Act shall have retroactive effect. It is also clear in the RERA Act that "Ongoing" projects definitely fall within the ambit of the RERA Act. From the above observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is also clear that although agreements were executed between promoter and allottee prior to RERA registration, if the project is registered with RERA, all provisions of RERA shall apply. The project in question has been registered with RERA by the respondent, whose registration number is UPRERAPRISOG. Therefore, on the basis of described facts, it is clear that the respondent's project currently falls in the category of "Ongoing Project". In such circumstance, all provisions of RERA shall apply. Question No. 1 is disposed of accordingly. Determination of Question No. 2: Question No. 2 has been framed to the effect whether the complainant can be refunded the deposited amount? The burden of proving this lies on the complainant. It has been stated on behalf of the complainant that the respondent's project is delayed, on which account request has been made by her for refund of the deposited amount.

Perused the documents available on record, from which it is clear that allotment letter was executed between the complainant and respondent on date 42.07.2044. The time period for handing over possession of the unit is not recorded in the allotment letter executed between both parties. In such situation, in Civil Appeal No. 3533--3534 / 2047 M/s Fortune Infrastructure (now known as M/s Hicon Infrastructure) & Anr. Vs. Trevor D'lima & Ors., it has been clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that: - "Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 204. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered."

As per the above legal principle, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of a flat; where no date of possession is given in the agreement, a reasonable time period of 3 years must be determined for possession. In the present complaint, allotment letter was executed between both parties on date 42.07.2074, but the date of handing over possession is not recorded in the allotment letter. In such situation, as per the judicial precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court above, the period for delivering possession is treated as 3 years. Thus, possession of the allotted unit was required to be provided by the respondent within 3 years from the date of allotment letter 2.07.204, that is in July 2047, but till date possession of the unit has not been provided to the complainant by the respondent. Neither a written reply nor a copy of OC/CC in respect of the project has been filed by the respondent, whereas as per the allotment letter the complainant was to receive possession of the unit in July 20:7. From the above, it is clear that the respondent's project is delayed by more than 08 years. Copy of OC/CC has not been filed on behalf of the respondent. From this, it is clear that the respondent's project is not complete. Since the respondent's project is delayed, on that account the complainant does not wish to remain in the project. In such situation, Section 18(1) [Section 8 ()] of the RERA Act provides that: -

"Section 8 () “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: 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." As aforesaid, if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to hand over possession of an apartment, plot or building timely up to the period specified in accordance with the terms of the agreement, he shall be liable, without prejudice to any other available remedy, on demand of the allottee if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, to return the amount received from him in respect of that apartment, plot or building along with interest as the case may be.

In addition, in this regard it is noteworthy that in Civil Appeal No. 382 / 2049 Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Versus Devasis Rudra, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that: - "It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession.by 206, nearly seven year has elapsed from the date of agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 206. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund." In the same sequence, in Civil Appeal No. 42238 / 2048 Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited Versus Govindan Raghavan, it has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that: -

"We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.0.20I8 passed by the National Commission. The Appellant — Builder failed to fulfill his contractual obligation of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent - Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired. During this period, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser had to service a loan that he had obtained for purchasing the flat, by paying Interest to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the Respondent — Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest." In the legal principles laid down as aforesaid, a home buyer can be made to wait for a reasonable period, and in the event of an inordinate delay, even after obtaining completion certificate the complainant is entitled to receive the deposited amount because possession was not received by the complainant in accordance with the period specified in the agreement and excessive delay has occurred in the matter.

Therefore, from perusal of the facts described above, it is evident that the respondent's project is delayed by more than 08 years and copy of OC/CC in respect of completion of the project has not been filed by the respondent, on which account the complainant does not wish to remain in the project. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to receive the deposited amount along with interest. So far as the question of refunding deposited amount to the complainant is concerned, in this regard it is noteworthy that in the petition of Bombay High Court in "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Versus Union of India", it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court 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 judgment, it is clear that under the provisions of RERA, interest will be payable on delay and principal amount in accordance with the agreement entered into between the promoter and purchaser, because the said amount has been utilized by the promoters.

In addition, in Writ Petition C.W.P. 3289/2020 dated 06.02.2020 "Rudra Buildwell Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Poonam Sood & Ors.", it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that as per clause 9.2(ii) of the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2018, in the event of delay on the part of promoter, the allottee shall have the option of terminating the agreement and in this situation the promoter shall be liable to refund all deposited amount within 45 days along with annual interest rate of State Bank of India home loan rate MCLR + 1 percent. Simultaneously, the annual interest rate of MCLR + 1 percent has been held just and valid by the High Court. So far as the question of payable interest rate is concerned, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale / Lease) Rules, 2048 were notified by the State Government under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 on date 47.40.2048. In clause 9 of the draft agreement for sale / lease given therein, promoter's default cases (Events of default) are defined, wherein in clause 9.2(c) in case of promoter becoming default, it is provided for the allottee 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(a) in case of default by allottees. Keeping in view the said provision, it appears just and proper to refund the amount to the allottee at the interest rate of MCLR + 1 percent. Question No.-2 is disposed of accordingly. Disposing of the above questions, following order is passed: - ORDER 1. The respondent is directed to ensure refunding to the complainant the amount of Rs. 75,432 /- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Two) paid by the complainant, along with interest at the annual rate of MCLR + 1 percent from the date of deposit till the date of payment, within 45 days from the date of upload of the order on RERA portal. 2. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section-63 and other relevant provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046. 3. If compliance with this order is not done by the respondent within 45 days, the complainant may execute the order through the RERA Authority. 4. Order be uploaded on portal.

(Dr. Deepak Swaroop Saxena) Member U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Gautam Buddh Nagar

उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर पीठ-3 भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) अधिनियम 2046 की धारा-34 के अन्तर्गत पारित आदेश उपस्थित - Sto दीपक स्वरूप सक्सेना, सदस्य क्रम शिकायत संख्या | यूनिट न0 | जमा धनराशि रु० | आवंटन पत्र | वांछित ष सं0 की तिथि - | NCRI44/08/II896/2023 | आइना E-4006 | रु0 75,432 / 2.07.204 | जमा धनराशि प्रवीन वापस दिलाये अंसारी जाने का अंसारी अनुरोध किया गया है। जमा धनराशि वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु यह शिकायत संस्थित की गयी है। बनाम अंसल हाई-टेक टाउनशिप्स लिमिटेड शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्ध परियोजना विलम्बित होने के कारण संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कहना Sef विपक्षी द्वारा संचालित परियोजना EWS AASRA ZONE वा (E33-E80) में यूनिट een. ६-३००46 बुक कराई गई थी जिसके एवज में शिकायत्कर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी को धनराशि wo 75,432 / का भुगतान किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता*द्वारा परियोजना विलम्बित होने के कारण जमा धनराशि वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा शिकायत के समर्थन में आवंटन पत्र व रसीदों की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गई है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी को भुगतान की गई धनराशि का विवरण निम्नवत्‌ हैः- क्रम विवरण दिनांक भुगतान की गई धनराशि [संख्या (रु0) 4 विपक्षी द्वारा जारी चेक संख्या 576743 27.03.2044 %O 45,000/ रसीद संख्या 42922 20.0.2044 रु0 46,752/ रसीद संख्या 39852 25.08.2044 BO 25,430/ रसीद संख्या 37590 04.06.2044 रु0 48,550/ कूल योग : BO 75,432 / विपक्षी के अधिवक्ता दिनांक 44.05.2025 को प्रकरण में उपस्थित हुए। विपक्षी को लिखित जवाब दाखिल किये जाने के लिए अवसर प्रदान किये गये परन्तु विपक्षी —o——

द्वारा लिखित जवाब दाखिल नहीं किया गया जिस कारण पीठ द्वारा दिनांक 2008. 3 ५० jp wo 2025 को विपक्षी का लिखित जवाब दाखिल करने का अवसर समाप्त करते हुए पत्रावली विपक्षी के विरूद्ध एकपक्षीय कार्यवाही हेतु अग्रसारित करते हुए शिकायतकर्ता की एकपक्षीय बहस सुनी गयी। उपरोक्त वर्णित तथ्यों के कारण वर्तमान प्रकरण में एकपक्षीय आदेश पारित किया जा रहा है | पीठ-8 में कार्यरत्‌ लॉ-रिसर्चर की आख्या दिनांक 03.02.2006 के अनुसार विपक्षी प्रमोटर के विरूद्ध एनसीएलटी से कोई आदेश पारित नहीं हुआ है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा दाखिल प्रपत्रों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित प्रश्न विरचित किये गये :- 0 क्या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेरा के दायरे में नहीं आते हैं ? तथा क्‍या पक्षकारों के मध्य रेरा लागू होने से पूर्व अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किये जाने पर रेरा के प्राविधान लागू नहीं होगें ? 2... क्या शिकायतकर्ता को जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जा सकती है? निस्तारण प्रश्न We Ses Gey इस तथ्य..पर विरचित है कि क्या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेश*"के दायरे“में*नहीं आते है तथा क्या पक्षकारों के मध्य रेरा लागू होने से पूर्व अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किये जाने पर ke के प्राविधान लागू नहीं होगें ? इस सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-6745-6749 /“ 2024 “मैसर्स न्यूटेक प्रोमोटर्स एंड डेवलपर्स wo feo बनाम Novo राज्य व अन्य” में दिया गया आब्जर्वेशन महत्वपूर्ण है, जिसमें स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लिखित किया गया है कि :-

"54, From the scheme of the Act 20] 6, its application is retroactive in character and it can safely be observed that the projects already completed or to which the completion certificate has been granted are not under its fold and therefore, vested or accrued rights, if any, in no manner are affected. At the same time, it will apply after getting the on- going projects and future projects registered under Section 3 to prospectively follow the mandate of the Act 206." उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था से यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा अधिनियम लागू होने से पूर्व जो भी अनुबन्ध हस्ताक्षरित हुए या अधिनियम लागू होने से पूर्व की परियोजनाओं, जहाँ पर पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा प्राप्त नहीं किया गया है, वहाँ पर 2 a अधिनियम का प्रवर्तन पूर्वव्यापी प्रभाव रहेगा। यह भी रेरा अधिनियम में स्पष्ट है कि “ऑन Tet” परियोजनायें निश्चित रूप से रेरा अधिनियम की परिधि में आते हैं। उपरोक्त माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आर्ब्जेवेशन से यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यद्यपि रेरा पंजीकरण से पूर्व प्रोमोटर एवं आवंटी के मध्य अनुबन्ध निष्पादित हुए हैं, परन्तु यदि परियोजना को रेरा में पंजीकरण कराया जाता है, तो रेरा के सभी प्राविधान लागू होगें। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रश्नगत परियोजना को रेरा में पंजीकृत कराया गया है, जिसका पंजीकरण संख्या- UPRERAPRISOG है। अतः वर्णित तथ्यों के आधार पर यह स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना वर्तमान में “ऑनगोईंग प्रोजेक्ट” की श्रेणी में आती है। ऐसी दशा में रेरा के सभी प्राविधान लागू होगें। तद्नुसार प्रश्न Sea निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण प्रश्न संख्या 2-: प्रश्न संख्या 2? इस आशय का विरचित किया गया है

कि क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता को जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जा सकती है? इसे साबित करने का भार शिकायतकर्ता-पर है। शिकायतकर्ता की &ओर-से कंथन्न-कियो गया है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना विलम्बित है जिस कारण उसके aR जमा धनराशि को वापस Rad जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध प्रपत्रों का अवलोकन किया जिससे यह स्पष्ट है कि शिकायतकर्ता व विपक्षी के मध्य दिनांक 42.07.2044 को आवंटन पत्र निष्पादित हुआ। उभयपक्षों के मध्य निष्पादित आवंटन पत्र में यूनिट का कब्जा दिये जाने की समय अवधि अंकित नहीं है। ऐसी स्थिति में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय की सिविल अपील संख्या 3533--3534 / 2047 M/s. Fortune Infrastructure (now known as M/s. Hicon Infrastructure) & ANR. Vs. Trevor D'lima & Ors ¥ स्पष्ट रूप से निर्धारित किया गया है कि-: Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely _ for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, 3 =

a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 204. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to था irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered. उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार फ्लैट के कब्जे हेतु किसी व्यक्ति को अनिश्चित समय तक प्रतीक्षा नहीं करायी जा सकती है, जहाँ अनुबन्ध में कब्जे की तिथि नहीं दी गयी है वहाँ एक रीज़नेवल समयावधि 3 वर्ष कब्जे हेतु अवधारित की जानी होगी। प्रस्तुत शिकायत में उभयपक्ष के मध्य दिनांक 42.07.2074 को आवंटन पत्र निष्पादित हुए परन्तु आवंटन पत्र में कब्जा दिये जाने की तिथि अंकित नहीं है। ऐसी स्थिति में उपरोक्त माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय की न्याय नजीरों के अनुसार कब्जा देने की अवधि 3 वर्ष मानी गयी है | इस प्रकार आवंटन पत्र की तिथि 2.07.204 से 3 वर्ष अर्थात जुलाई 2047 में विपक्षी द्वारा आवंटित यूनिट का कब्जा उपलब्ध कराया जाना था परन्तु अभी तक विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा उपलब्ध नहीं कराया-गया S| विपक्षी द्वारा vera न ज्ञों लिखित और न ही परियोजना के सापेक्ष ओ.सी /सी.सी की प्रति दाखिल की ah? जबकि ,शिकायतकर्ता को आवंटन पत्र के अनुसार यूनिट का कब्जा जुलाई 20:7 F प्राप्त होना था।

उपरोक्त से स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना लगभग os वर्ष से अधिक विलम्बित है। विपक्षी की. ओर से ओ.सी»सी.सी की प्रति दाखिल नहीं किया गया है। इससे यह स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना पूर्ण नहीं है। चूंकि विपक्षी की परियोजना विलम्बित है जिस कारण शिकायतकर्ता परियोजना में बने रहना नहीं चाहते है। ऐसी स्थिति में रेर अधिनियम की atti9e(t) में यह प्राविधानित है कि :- "Section 8 () “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, 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 4 ——— 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 हैं ail possession, at such rate as may be prescribed".

उपरोक्‍तानुसार यदि प्रोमोटर करार के निबन्धों के अनुसार उसमें दिये गये अवधि तक समय से किसी अपार्टपेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन को पूरा करने में असमर्थ रहता है या कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहता है, तो वह उपलब्ध किसी अन्य उपचार पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव डाले बिना आवंटी की मांग पर यदि आवंटी परियोजना से बाहर होना चाहता है, तो प्रकरण के अनुसार, उस अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन के सम्बन्ध में उससे प्राप्त धनराशि ब्याज सहित लौटाने का दायी होगा। इसके अतिरिक्त इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि “माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील Wo 382,/ 2049 कोलकाता वेस्ट इंटरनेशनल सिटी प्राललि. बनांम देवाशीष war में अभिनिर्धारित"कियो«गया है कि :- "It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitaly for possession.by 206, nearly seven year has elapsed from the date of agreement. Even according to the deyeloper, the. completion certificate was received on 29 March 206. This was nearly seven years after the extended date’ for the handing ‘over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayet in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in

any event a prayer for refund. " इसी क्रम में “माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के सिविल अपील संख्या-42238 / 2048 पायनियर ada लैन्ड एवं इंफ्रास्ट्रक्बर लिमिटेड बनाम गोविन्द राघवन* में भी अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि-: "We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.0.20I8 passed by the National Commission. The Appellant — Builder failed to fulfill his contractual obligation of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent - Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired. During this period, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser had to service a loan that he had obtained for purchasing the flat, by paying 5 a Interest 0% to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the Respondent — Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited

by him with Interest." उपरोक्‍तानुसार दी गयी विधि व्यवस्था में गृहक्रेता को एक उचित समय तक प्रतीक्षा करायी जा सकती है व लम्बे विलम्ब की स्थिति में पूर्णता प्रमाण-पत्र प्राप्त होने के उपरान्त भी शिकायतकर्ता जमा धनराशि पाने का अधिकारी है क्योंकि अनुबन्ध में दी गयी अवधि के अनुसार शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा नहीं मिला है व प्रकरण में अत्यधिक विलम्ब हुआ है। अतः: उपरोक्त वर्णित तथ्यों के परिशीलन से यह विदित है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना लगभग 08 वर्ष से अधिक विलम्बित है और विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना पूर्ण होने के सम्बन्ध में ओ.सी,/सी.सी की प्रति दाखिल नहीं किया गया है जिस कारण शिकायतकर्ता परियोजना में बने रहना नहीं चाहते है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित पाने का अधिकारी है| जहां तक शिकायत्॒कर्ता को Hace धनराशि वापस किये जाने का प्रश्न है, तो इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय हैं कि बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय के “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन wife. आदि बनाम यूनियन...ऑफ इंडिया” की याचिका में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

"Section 8(I)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व क्रेता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। 6 —_—>

इसके अतिरिक्त Re संख्या-८.४० .3289/2020 दिनांक 06.02.2020 “रूद्रा बिल्डवेल aed wo लिए बनाम पूनम सूद एवं अन्य“ में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) नियमावली, 20:8 की प्रस्तर 9.2(ii) के आनसार प्रोमोटर की ओर से विलम्ब किये जाने की स्थिति में आवंटी के पास अनुबन्ध को समाप्त करने का विकल्प होगा एवं इस स्थिति में प्रोमोटर “भारतीय स्टेट बैंक” के होम लोन दर MCLRtH प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज दर से 45 दिनों में समस्त जमा धनराशि वापस करने के लिए उत्तरदायी होगा। साथ ही साथ उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा MCLR+H प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज दर को उचित एवं मान्य माना गया है। जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विक्रय /पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 2048 अधिसूचित की गयी..हैं। इसमें दिये*गये विक्रय ,“पट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के TER 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट- WRT, Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.2di) में प्रमोटर के'डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है कि:- "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +% 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 धनराशि वापस दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। तद्नुसार प्रश्न संख्या-2 निस्तारित किया जाता है। Or उपरोक्त प्रश्नों का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किया जाता हैं :- आदेश 4. विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह रेरा पोर्टल पर आदेश अपलोड होने की तिथि से 45 दिन के अन्दर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भुगतान की गई धनराशि BO 75,432 /»(रु0 TEAR हजार चार सौ बत्तीस) जमा किये जाने की तिथि से भुगतान किये जाने की तिथि तक मय McLRH प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज की दर से शिकायतकर्ता को वापस भुगतान करना सुनिश्चित करें | 2. इस आदेश का versa भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। 3 विपक्षी द्वारा यदि इस आदेश का अनुपालन 45 दिनों में नहीं किया जाता है तो शिकायतकर्ता रेरा प्राधिकरण के माध्यम से आदेश का क्रियान्वयन करा सकेगे। 4 आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड कियाजाए+ S (Sto दीपक स्वरूप WRIA) सदस्य उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण गौतमबुद्धनगर