U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Hearing Bench-04A Smt. Kalpana Mishra, Member Complaint No. | Name | Sr. No. NCR444 / 08 / 4836 / 2049 | Priyambada and Dhananjay Kumar | Dhananjay Kumar [Sangeeta K... ?] | [?] | [?] Sr. 4 | [?] | [?] Sr. 2 | NCR444 / 08 / 4807 / 2049 | [?] Sr. 3 | NCR444 / 07 / 0675 / 2049 | Abhiraj Singh Rathore Versus Along with complainants Priyambada and Dhananjay Kumar, 02 other complainants have filed a case against the opposite party. The facts of all these complaints are the same and the evidence is common. All these complaints relate to Blossom County, Phase-4. Therefore, they are being disposed of by a single order. Complaint No. NCR444 / 08 / 4836 / 209, Priyambada and Dhananjay Kumar, will be the lead case. The complainants have instituted this complaint against the opposite party seeking refund of the deposited amount with interest.

In brief, the complainant states that the complainant booked flat No. 806 in Tower-[?] of the opposite party's project Blossom County, Phase-4, against which the complainant paid Rs. 26,64,244/- from time to time in instalments. The opposite party was to complete the flat and hand over possession by t9.:0.20i4, but the opposite party has not yet handed over possession. The complainant also states that all instalments have been paid by them from 02.02.20I0 to 44.09.2043. The project's completion date under RERA has also expired. Therefore, the complainant has requested refund of the deposited amount with interest from the opposite party. In support of the statement, the complainant has filed photocopies of emails, account details, the flat buyer agreement, receipts of the amounts deposited, etc. The opposite party, filing its written reply, stated that the complainant has filed this case by misusing the law. Work on the project's towers is proceeding at a rapid pace, and possession will be given by June 2020. The complainant booked unit No. 806 in Tower-[?] of its project on 48.03.2040. The flat buyer agreement was executed on 05.04.2040. Possession of the project will be given by June 2020. Construction was delayed due to force majeure events. Heard both parties and perused the case file. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 4. Do agreements made before RERA came into force not fall within the ambit of RERA?

2. Whether the opposite party's project was delayed due to force majeure events; if yes, what is the effect? 3. Whether the deposited amount of the complainants can be refunded? 4. Whether the complainants should be given possession and interest for the delayed period? If yes, what should the rate of interest be? Determination of Point No. 4 Point No. 4 is framed on whether agreements made before RERA came into force do not fall within the ambit of RERA. In this regard, the observation given by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2737,/2047, Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India, is important, in which it has been clearly stated that: "The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section 4(2)(I)(C) enables the promoter to give fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered into between him and the allottees so that he is not visited with penal consequences laid down under RERA. In other words, by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh time line under Section 4(2)0)(0) he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale."

From the above legal position, it is clear that under the RERA provisions, the clause in the agreement regarding completion and handing over of possession cannot be rewritten. Under Section 4(2)0)(C), the promoter may give a new time line, which will not depend on the agreement, and as a consequence of the RERA provision, the promoter can be saved only from penalty. Therefore, it is determined that the promoter is liable for the date of possession given in the agreement. It is also clear in the RERA Act that "ongoing" projects definitely fall within the ambit of the RERA Act. Accordingly, Point No. 4 is decided. Determination of Point No. 2 Point No. 2 has been framed to decide whether the opposite party's project was delayed due to force majeure events; if yes, what is the effect. This issue has also been framed on the basis of the opposite party's allegations, and the burden of proving it lies on the opposite party. The opposite party has stated that the project was delayed due to certain unforeseen events (force majeure events). However, the opposite party has neither stated which specific force majeure events caused the project to be delayed, nor has any evidence regarding force majeure been filed on the record. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 940 / 2047, Vikram Chatterjee and others v. Union of India and others, has held:

"4. On behalf of Amrapali group, learned senior counsel submitted that there were force majeure conditions in completing the projects. There were legal impediments in the completion of projects within the period given in the flat-buyers agreement during the period from 04-5. The submission is baseless. It is apparent that the Full Bench of the High Court though held that the land acquisition was vitiated but still it was upheld. The High Court did not quash it for the reason that development has taken place. Higher compensation was ordered to be paid. That order was affirmed by this Court in 20i5 in Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. (20I5) 7 SCC 2l. There was no interim stay granted by the High Court on construction work, is made clear by the Noida and Greater Noida authorities. There was no room to entertain any doubt as to the fact whether for a particular village the acquisition had been quashed. There was no quashing of land acquisition and moreover, there was no stay. Only higher compensation was ordered to be paid. There was no force majeure condition or any legal impediment as such the period from 20II to 20I5 cannot be treated as a moratorium period vis-a-vis the dues of Noida and Greater Noida authorities. The submission made as to the farmers' agitation etc. is too vague and 30% of the projects have come up; whereas 70% have not yet come up, out of the projects in Noida and Greater Noida alone."

From the above observation it is clear that between [af?] 2044 and 20i5 there were no [wre?] stay orders on construction work, as shown by the Noida and Greater Noida Development Authorities. This order also makes clear that between 204 and 2045 there was no force majeure cause or legal bar. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also made clear that between 2044 and 20:5 there was no force majeure [see?] event, in such a situation the opposite party is not entitled to the benefit of this argument. Accordingly, Point No. 2 is decided. Determination of Point No. 3 Point No. 3 has been framed to decide whether the deposited amount of the complainants can be refunded. This issue has also been framed on the basis of the complainants' allegations, and the burden of proving it lies on the complainants. The complainant states that the opposite party has not handed over possession within the contracted period, due to which the complainant does not wish to remain with the project, and the deposited amount with interest should be refunded. On this, the opposite party stated that the project will be completed and possession given by June 2020. It is undisputed that the complainants booked a flat in the opposite party's project. There is also no dispute that the opposite party was unable to give possession within the contracted period.

It is seen from the case file that the flat buyer agreement was executed on 05.04.2040. As per clause 6. of the said agreement, possession was to be given within 48 months, with a grace period of 6 months, that is, by 05.04.20I2. In its written reply, the opposite party stated that it would complete the project and give possession by June 2020. As regards the buyer's request for refund, the provisions of the RERA Act must be read as a whole so that a balanced decision can be taken, keeping in view the views of all parties. Section 48 () of the RERA Act provides that: "Section 78 (0) "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 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." [?] allottees have the right that, if they do not get possession according to the agreement, they may claim back their deposited amount with interest, or remain in the project and receive interest at a monthly rate. Section 34 of the RERA Act, along with other "functions" of RERA, also mentions: "to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder". Similarly, Section 32 includes the following among the Authority's responsibilities for the development of the real estate sector: "32. The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a) protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent,....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector." From these provisions it is clear that it is the responsibility of this Authority to take appropriate decisions, viewing the interests of all stakeholders as a whole, so as to ensure the healthy development of the real estate sector.

In this context, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, in which a decision was given on the constitutional validity of the RERA Act, at paragraph ]24 observed as follows: "]24, The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth. Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section 72 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 72, 74, 76 [?] /9. A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work."

From the above it is clear that, after hearing all parties, although an allottee has the right to claim back its amount with interest where a unit is not received on time, nevertheless, in view of the above-quoted observation, the Authority may pass orders on the basis of all the facts of the case, by "moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth", and orders can be passed accordingly. In the context of refund of amounts to allottees and the interests of allottees who remain in the project, in the judgment in "Chitra Sharma v. Union of India" (744/207), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 40 of its judgment, made the following observation:

"40. As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is lying in deposit before this Court pursuant to the interim directions, on which interest has accrued. The home buyers have earnestly sought the issuance of interim directions to facilitate a pro-rata disbursement of this amount to those of the home buyers who seek a refund. "We are keenly conscious of the fact that the claim of the home buyers who seek a refund of monies deserves to be considered with empathy. Yet, having given our anxious consideration to the plea and on the balance, we are not inclined to accede to it for more than one reason. Firstly [?]... Secondly, the figures which have been made available presently, following the opening of the Web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be unmindful of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund."

Keeping in view the above observations quoted by the High Court and the Supreme Court, and the overall scheme of the RERA Act, it is also clear that if the decision in every case of delay were to be to return the money, it would certainly not be in conformity with the objective and scheme of the Act. While taking a decision, it is in the interest of justice to consider the uniqueness of each case and all its facts, such as the status of construction, the completion timeline, the commitment of the promoter in offering possession, other deed-related matters, particularly the effect on allottees who remain with the project, the proposed date of [?], and so on. Now that the project is nearing completion and other allottees in the project are still awaiting possession of their flats, after considering all aspects it would be just to direct the builder to give the complainants possession with OC in a time-bound manner before June 2020, or to provide the complainants an alternative unit in another project of the opposite party with their consent. Certainly, if allottees remain in the project, interest for the delay shall be payable by the promoters as per the rules. Accordingly, Point No. 3 is decided. Determination of Point No. 4

It is also clear that under the agreement the opposite party was to hand over possession to the complainant within 8+6 months (grace period) from the execution of the agreement. The flat buyer agreement was executed on 05.04.20:0, and as per clause 6. of the agreement the opposite party was to give possession by 05.04.2042, but the opposite party has not given possession till date. The opposite party says that it will complete the project and give possession by June 2020. It is also to be considered that in RERA the project commencement date is given as 42.03.2040 and the completion date as 34.08.209, which has passed. However, the opposite party has applied for extension of the project, a copy of which is available on the case file. In such a case, it appears just to award interest for the delayed period to the complainant, from 06.04.2042 up to the date of offer of possession with OC/CC, or electrical certificate, fire safety certificate, structural certificate, or lift installation certificate, whichever is later. In this regard, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the petition of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India, held that:

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

It is also noteworthy that an agreement has been executed between the parties, which is signed by both sides, from which it can be determined that both parties have accepted the terms of the said agreement. As per clause 6.6 of the agreement, there is a provision for an amount of Rs. 5 per square foot per month for the period of project delay, under which the complainant is entitled to receive the amount. Under the RERA provisions, the amount is to be paid at the same rate at which the opposite party has received the amount. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the above legal position, also held that: "For the reasons already indicated, aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. I have already indicated that the provisions of RERA are prospective in nature. The penalty under Sections 76, 38, 59, 60, 67, 63 and 64 is to be levied on account of contravention of provisions of RERA, prospectively and not retrospectively."

In light of the above judgment, it is clear that the penalties provided under the U.P. RERA provisions are not retrospective but must be prospective. In such a case, the amount should be paid as per the agreement for the period before RERA came into effect (dated 4.5.2046). After RERA came into force, from 4.5.2046, the complainant is entitled to interest on the amount deposited for the delayed period as per the RERA provisions. In a case where no agreement has been executed between the parties, the complainant shall be entitled to interest on the deposited amount as per the RERA provisions. As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046, notified on 7.0.20i8 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2048. In the format of the sale/lease deed given as an annexure, the Events of Default of promoters are defined in paragraph 9, in which paragraph 92 (ii) FY provides for the allottee in case the promoter defaults: "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 also fixed under paragraph 9.30) for default by allottees. Keeping in view the above provision, it appears just that the amount be returned to the allottee for the delay, with interest at MCLRH per cent. It is also clarified that if there is a delay in the complainant's amount due, the opposite party may also receive interest only at the rate of McCLRH per cent. As regards up to what period interest should be awarded: In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50 /20I8, Supertech Limited v. Rajni Goel, held that: "The period of interest should close on April 20l6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent - Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant - Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 206. 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." Under the above legal position, the complainant shall be entitled to interest for the delay for the period until the later of obtaining OC or the offer of possession. In such a case, the complainant shall be entitled to interest for the delayed period up to the later of obtaining OC or the offer of possession. Accordingly, Point No. 4 is decided.

While disposing of the above points, the following orders are passed. ORDER 4. The opposite party is directed that, with the consent of the complainants, at rates fixed earlier, it shall give possession of an equivalent unit as an alternative unit in any of its other projects by 34.42.2049; otherwise, it shall give possession of the previously allotted unit by 30.06.2020, and, on receiving the stamp duty payable [tera?], get the registry done as per rules. 2. The opposite party shall ensure payment of interest at MCLR+ per cent for the period from 06.04.2042 to 30.4.20:6 at Rs. 5/- per square foot per month, and from 04.05.2006 up to the date of offer of possession with OC/CC, or electrical certificate, fire safety certificate, structural certificate, or lift installation certificate, whichever is later. This interest amount shall be adjusted against the final payment amount. If the interest amount exceeds the amount due, it shall be refunded as per rules. In the cases of other complainants, calculation shall be made as above, as per the agreement. 3. It is also clarified that under Section 2 (zai) of the RERA Act, 2046, it is defined that after RERA takes effect, if the promoter charges any interest rate for the allottee's default, the same rate shall be given to the allottee when the promoter defaults. The rate of interest should be [cure?] per cent.

4... If the opposite party fails to give possession to the complainants by 30.06.2020, then within 30 days after 30.06.2020, payment of the amount deposited by the complainants, with interest at MCLR+ per cent per annum, shall be ensured. 5. A copy of this order shall be placed on each of the related case files, and the amount and interest in each case shall be calculated in accordance with the principles laid down in this order. 6. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section-63 of the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20i6, and other relevant provisions. The order shall be uploaded on the portal. Date: [?] / [?] / 2049 (Kalpana Mishra) (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | सुनवाई पीठ-04ए श्रीमती कल्पना मिश्रा, सदस्य शिकायत do | काका | कम Wo एन.सी.आर444 / 08 / 4836 / 2049 | प्रियाम्बदा व धन्‍नजय कुमार | व धन्‍नजय कुमार [संगीता कमी... | | 4 | | 2 | । एन.सी.आर444 / 08 / 4807 / 2049 3 एन.सी.आर444 / 07 / 0675 / 2049 अभिराज सिंह राठौर बनाम शिकायतकर्ता प्रियाम्बदा व धन्‍नजय कुमार के साथ 02 अन्य शिकायकतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध वाद योजित किया गया है। इन सभी शिकायतों के तथ्य समान है और एक समान साक्ष्य हैं। यह सभी शिकायतें Blossom County, Phase-4 से सम्बंधित है। अतः एक ही निर्णय से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत Ho एन.सी. आर444 / 08 / 4836 / 209 प्रियाम्बदा व धनन्‍नजय कुमार अग्रणी वाद रहेगा। प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्द जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना Blossom County, Phase-4 के टॉवर-, में फ्लैट नं०-806 बुक किया गया, जिसके लिए शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 26,64,244 /- रूपये का भुगतान किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा दिनांक t9.:0.20i4 तक पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, किन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया। शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है कि उनके द्वारा दिनांक 02.02.20I0 से दिनांक 44.09. —

2043 तक सभी किश्तों का भुगतान किया जा चुका है। रेरा में परियोजना की पूर्णता तिथि भी समाप्त हो चुकी है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्द जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता की ओर से अपने कथन के समर्थन में ई-मेल, खाता विवरण, फ्लैट केता अनुबन्ध, जमा धनराशि की रसीदें आदि की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी है। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवादपत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विधि का दुरूपयोग करते हुए वाद योजित किया गया है। परियोजना के टॉवरन, में तीव्र गति से कार्य चल रहा है और जून 2020 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी परियोजना के टॉवर-ा, में यूनिट संख्या-806 दिनांक 48.03.2040 को बुक करायी गयी थी। फ्लैट केता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 05.04.2040 को निष्पादित कराया गया। परियोजना को जून 2020 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। निर्माण कार्य में विलम्ब फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण हुआ। उभयपक्ष को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। पक्षकारों के अभिवचनों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचरित किये गये :- 4... क्या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेरा के दायरे में नहीं आते है ? 2 क्‍या force majeure events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई यदि हां तो प्रभाव? 3. an शिकायतकर्तागण की जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जा सकती है ? 4. क्या शिकायतकर्तागण को कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाये? यदि हाँ तो ब्याज का दर क्‍या होगा ? निस्तारण बिन्दु do 4

बिन्दु संख्या 4 इस तथ्य पर विचरित है क्या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध Ww के दायरे में नहीं आते है? इस सम्बंध में मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 2737,/2047 नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबशर्बन प्राणलि0 एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया में दिया गया आब्जर्वेशन महत्वपूर्ण है जिसमें स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लिखित किया गया है कि-: The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section 4(2)(I)(C) enables the promoter to give fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered into between him and the allottees JS so that he is not visited with penal consequences laid down under RERA. In other words, by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh time line under Section 4(2)0)(0) he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale. उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था से यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा के प्राविधान के अनुसार अनुबन्ध में दिये गये पूर्णता एवं कब्जे देने के प्रस्तर का पुनर्लखन नहीं किया जा सकता। धारा 4(2)0)(सी) के अन्तर्गत प्रोमोटर एक नई समय सीमा दे सकता है, जो कि अनुबन्ध पर निर्भर नहीं होगा और उक्त धारा रेरा में दिये गये प्राविधान के परिणाम स्वरूप केवल अर्थदंड से बचाया जा सकता है। अतः इससे अवधारित किया जाता है कि प्रोमोटर अनुबन्ध में दिये गये कब्जे की तिथि के लिए उत्तरदायी है। यह भी RT अधिनियम में स्पष्ट है कि “ऑन गोईग” परियोजनायें निश्चित रूप से रेरा अधिनियम की परिधि में आते है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या 4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु to 2

बिन्दु vo 2 इस आशय का विरचित किया गया है कि क्‍या force majeure होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुईं? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? यह वाद बिन्दु भी विपक्षी के अभिकथनों के आधार पर विरचित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार विपक्षी पर है। विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि कुछ अप्रत्याशित घटनाओं (force majeure events) के कारण परियोजना विलंबित हुई, विपक्षी की ओर से न तो यह कथन किया गया कि किन फोर्स मैज्योर की बाबत उसकी परियोजना विलंबित हुई और न ही फोर्स मैज्योर की बाबत कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर दाखिल किया गया है। इसके अतिरिक्त माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 / 2047 विकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया हैः- 4. On behalf of Amrapali group, learned senior counsel submitted that there were force majeure conditions in completing the projects. There were legal impediments in the completion of projects within the period given in the flat-buyers agreement during the period from 04-5. The submission is baseless. It is apparent that the Full Bench of the High Court though held that the land acquisition was vitiated but still it was upheld. The High Court did not quash it for the reason that development has taken place. Higher compensation was ordered to be paid. That order was affirmed by this Court in 20i5 in Savitri ०7६६

Devi v. State of U.P. (20I5) 7 SCC 2l. There was no interim stay granted by the High Court on construction work, is made clear by the Noida and Greater Noida authorities. There was no room to entertain any doubt as to the fact whether for a particular village the acquisition had been quashed. There was no quashing of land acquisition and moreover, there was no stay. Only higher compensation was ordered to be paid. There was no force majeure condition or any legal impediment as such the period from 20II to 20I5 cannot be treated as a moratorium period vis-a-vis the dues of Noida and Greater Noida authorities. The submission made as to the farmers' agitation etc. is too vague and 30% of the projects have come up; whereas 70% have not yet come up, out of the projects in Noida and Greater Noida alone. उपरोक्त अबज़रवेशन से यह स्पष्ट है कि af 2044 से वर्ष 20i5 के मध्य निर्माण कार्य पर कोई wre आदेश नहीं थे, जो कि नोएडा एवं ग्रेटर नोएडा विकास प्राधिकरण द्वारा दर्शित किया गया और इस आदेश में यह भी स्पष्ट किया गया है कि वर्ष 204 से वर्ष 2045 के बीच कोई फोर्स मैज्योर कारण या विधिक रूप से रोक नहीं था। चूंकि माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा भी यह स्पष्ट किया जा चुका है कि वर्ष 2044 से वर्ष 20:5 के बीच कोई फोर्स मैज्योर see नहीं था, ऐसी दशा में वह इस तर्क का लाभ पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु Wo 2 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु to 3 बिन्दु संख्या-3 इस आशय से विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या शिकायतकर्तागण की

जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जा सकती है? यह वाद बिन्दु भी शिकायतकर्तागण के अभिकथनों के आधार पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार शिकायतकर्तागण पर है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कथन किया गया है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अनुबंधित अवधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है, जिस कारण de परियोजना के साथ नही रहन। चाहत। हे और उसकी जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलायी जाये, जिस पर विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया कि परियोजना को जून 2020 तक पूर्ण कर कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। यह निर्विवादित है कि शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना में फ्लैट बुक कराया था। इस तथ्य पर भी कोई विवाद नहीं है कि विपक्षी अनुबंधित अवधि में कब्जा प्रदान करने में असमर्थ रहा है। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से विदित है कि दिनांक 05.04.2040 को फ्लैट Sat अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किया गया उक्त अनुबन्ध के प्रस्तर 6. के अनुसार कब्जा 48 माह एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के साथ दिनांक 05.04.20I2 तक दिया जाना था। विपक्षी द्वारा अपने प्रतिवाद पत्र में कहा गया कि परियोजना को जून 2020 तक पूर्ण कर कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। जहाँ तक केता द्वारा रिफण्ड के अनुरोध का प्रश्न है, इस विषय में रेरा अधिनियम के प्राविधानों को समग्र रूप से पढा जाना आवश्यक है ताकि सभी पक्षों के मत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए एक संतुलित निर्णय लिया जा सकें। रेरा एक्ट की धारा 48 () में प्राविधान है कि :- Section 78 (0) “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 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. इरा YON Sot को यह अधिकार है कि यदि उन्हें एग्रीमेंट के अनुरूप कब्जा नहीं मिलता तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि को ब्याज सहित वापिस माँग सकते हैं अथवा मासिक दर से ब्याज प्राप्त करते हुए परियोजना में बने रहें। रेरा अधिनियम की धारा 34 में रेरा के अन्य “फंग्शन्स” के साथ-साथ " to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder " का भी उल्लेख है। eT इसी प्रकार धारा 32 में रियल see सेक्टर के विकास हेतु अथॉरिटी के उत्तरदायित्यों में निम्न भी सम्मिलित हैं :-

“32. The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a)protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent,....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” उक्त प्राविधानों से यह स्पष्ट है कि “रियल एस्टेट सेक्टर” के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके wh Ke होल्डर्स के हितों को समग्र रूप से देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेने का उत्तरदायित्व इस ऑथरिटी का है। इस कम में मा. मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअरबन प्रा.लि. बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया, जिसमें रेरा अधिनियम की वैद्यानिकता के सम्बंध में निर्णय दिया गया था, के प्रस्तर 424 में मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निम्न संवीक्षण किया :-

“]24, The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth. Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section 72 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 72, 74, 76 ब्र्व /9, A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work.” उक्त से स्पष्ट है कि सभी पक्षों को सुनने के बाद, यद्यपि समय से इकाई न मिलने की दशा में आवंटी का अपनी धनराशि ब्याज सहित मांगने का अधिकार है, तथापि उक्त वर्णित संवीक्षा को देखते हुए अथॉरिटी, प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों, के आधार पर ‘by d

moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth ss अनुरूप आदेया पारित किए जा सकते हैं। एलोटीज द्वारा धनराशि वापस किए जाने व परियोजना में बने रहने वाले एलोटीज के हितों में agers के प्रसंग में “चित्रा शर्मा बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया” (744/207) के निर्णय में मा. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने निर्णय के प्रस्तर 40 में निम्न ऑबजरवेशन किया है

40. As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is lying in deposit before this Court pursuant to the interim directions, on which interest has accrued. The home buyers have earnestly sought the issuance of interim directions to facilitate a pro-rata disbursement of this amount to those of the home buyers who seek a refund. "We are keenly conscious of the fact that the claim of the home buyers who seek a refund of monies deserves to be considered with empathy. Yet, having given our anxious consideration to the plea and on the balance, we are not inclined to accede to it for more than one reason. Firstly «0... Secondly, the figures which have been made available presently, following the opening of the Web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be unmindful of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund."

मा. उच्च न्यायालय एवं सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा उक्त प्रस्तरों में उद्धरत “ऑबजरवेशनस्‌” एवं रेरा एक्ट की समग्र व्यवस्था को देखते हुए यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यदि विलम्ब के प्रत्येक मामले में धनराशि लौटाने का ही निर्णय लिया जाये तो निश्चय ही यह अधिनियम के “ऑबजेक्टिव” तथा “स्कीम” के अनुरूप न होगा। Roos का निर्णय लेते रागय प्रत्येक मामले की “यूनीकनेस” प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों यथा “कन्सद्रक्शन” की स्थिति, कम्पलीशन की “ada लाईन”, प्रोमोटर्स के द्वारा ऑफर ऑफ पजेशन के “कमिटमेन्ट” की स्थिति, अन्य “Re deed”, विशेष रूप से परियोजना के साथ बने रहने वाले “एलॉटीज” पर प्रभाव, “प्रस्तावित wee डेट” के विषय में “orang” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। वर्तमान में जब कि परियोजना पूर्णता की ओर है तथा अभी परियोजना में अन्य आवंटी अपने फ्लैटस्‌ पूर्ण होने हेतु कब्जे की प्रतीक्षा में है, सभी पहलुओं पर विचार कर यह न्यायोचित होगा कि शिकायतकर्ताओं को जून 2020 से पूर्व ओ.सी. सहित कब्जा दिलाये जाने के समयबद्ध बिल्डर को निर्देश दिये जाये अथवा शिकायतकर्तागण को विपक्षी किसी अन्य परियोजना में उनकी सहमति से वैकल्पिक यूनिट we दी जाये। निश्चय ही परियोजना में बने रहने की दशा में एलॉटीज़ को विलम्ब हेतु नियमानुसार ब्याज प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा देय होगा। निस्तारण बिन्दु सं?-3 Prema किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु सं० 4

यह भी स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अनुबन्ध में शिकायतकर्ता को अनुबन्ध निष्पादित करने से 8+6 माह (ग्रेस पीरियड) में कब्जा दिया जाना था। फ्लैट बायर एग्रीमेन्ट दिनांक 05.04.20:0 को निष्पादित किया गया एवं अनुबन्ध के प्रस्तर 6. के अनुसार विपक्षी को 05.04.2042 कब्जा देना था, किन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा आज तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। विपक्षी का कहना है कि परियोजना को पूर्ण कर जून 2020 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। यह भी विचारणीय है कि रेरा में परियोजना शुरू होने की तिथि 42.03.2040 दी गयी है तथा पूर्णता की तिथि 34.08.209 दी गयी है, जो कि बीत चुकी है, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना विस्तारण हेतु आवेदन किया गया है, जिसकी प्रति पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध है। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 06.04.2042 से ओ.सी /सी.सी अथवा इलैक्ट्रिकल सर्टिफिकेट, फायर सेफ्टी सर्टिफिकेट, स्ट्रक्चरल सर्टिफिकेट, लिफ्ट इन्स्टालेशन सर्टिफिकेट सहित कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो तक की अवधि पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि महाराष्ट्र उच्च न्यायालय के नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया की याचिका में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

Section 8()(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw 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. df अतः: उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व केता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है।

यह भी उल्लेखनीय है कि पक्षकारों के मध्य एक अनुबन्ध निष्पादित है, जो कि उभयपक्ष द्वारा हस्ताक्षरित है, जिससे यह अवधारित किया जा सकता है कि उभयपक्ष को उक्त अनुबन्ध की शर्ते स्वीकार हैं। अनुबन्ध के प्रस्तर 6.6 के अनुसार परियोजना के विलंब की अवधि में 5 रूपये प्रतिवर्ग फुट प्रतिमाह की दर से धनराशि का प्राविधान है, जिसके अनुसार शिकायतकर्ता धनराशि पाने का अधिकारी है, रेरा के प्राविधानों के अनुसार जिस दर से विपक्षी द्वारा धनराशि प्राप्त की गयी है उसी दर से धनराशि देने का प्राविधान है। इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि माननीय उच्च न्यायालय मुम्बई द्वारा उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था में यह भी अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- For the reasons already indicated, aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. I have already indicated that the provisions of RERA are prospective in nature. The penalty under Sections 76, 38, 59, 60, 67, 63 and 64 is to be levied on account of contravention of provisions of RERA, prospectively and not retrospectively. अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्राविधानित दंड पूर्वव्यापी नही, बल्कि भविष्यलक्षी होना चाहिये। ऐसी दशा में रेरा के प्रभाव में (दिनाक 4.5.2046) से पूर्व अनुबन्ध के अनुसार धनराशि भुगतान किया जाना चाहिये और रेरा के आने के बाद दिनांक 4.5.2046 से रेरा के प्राविधानो के अनुसार विलंबित अवधि में जमा धनराशि पर ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है, जिस वाद में पक्षकारों के मध्य कोई अनुबन्ध निष्पादित नही है, वहां शिकायतकर्ता रेरा के प्राविधानों के अनुरूप जमा धनराशि पर ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा।

जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, तो राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 7.0.20i8 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विकय /पटटा के लिए करार) नियमावली १30 2048 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विकय ,/पटटा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 92 (ii) FY प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है किः- The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice: यही दर आवंटियों के द्वारा डिफॉल्ट की स्थिति में भी प्रस्तर 9.30) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को MCLRH प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर ब्याज सहित विलम्ब के लिए धनराशि वापस किया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि यदि शिकायतकर्ता की कोई देय धनराशि में विलम्ब है, तो विपक्षी भी McCLRH प्रतिशत की दर से ही ब्याज प्राप्त सकता है। जहां तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बंध में सिविल अपील wo 6649-50 /20I8 सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

" the period of Interest should close on April 20l6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant — Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 206. 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 के अनुसार ओ.सी. मिलने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर होने, जो भी बाद में हो तक की अवधि पर शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता ओ-सी. मिलने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो J i2 भी बाद में हो तक की अवधि पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज पाने के अधिकारी होगें। तद्नुसार बिन्दु सं०-4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते है। आदेश 4. विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह शिकायतकर्तागण की सहमति से पूर्व में तय दरों पर समकक्ष इकाई का अपने किसी अन्य परियाजना में वैकल्पिक यूनिट का कब्जा दिनांक 34.42.2049 तक दें अन्यथा पूर्व में आवंटित यूनिट का कब्जा दिनांक 30.06.2020 कब्जा दें और देय tera शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री कराये।

2. विपक्षी दिनांक 06.04.2042 से दिनांक 30.4.20:6 तक 5/- रुपये प्रति वर्गफुट प्रतिमाह की दर से व दिनांक 04.05.2006 से ओ.सी /सी.सी अथवा इलैक्ट्रिकल सर्टिफिकेट, फायर सेफ्टी सर्टिफिकेट, स्ट्रक्चरल सर्टिफिकेट, लिफ्ट इन्स्टालेशन सर्टिफिकेट सहित कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो तक की अवधि 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 निमयानुसार वापस की जायेगी। अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण के मामलों में अनुबन्ध के अनुरूप उपरोक्तानुसार गणना की जायेगी। 3. यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम 2046 के धारा 2 (zai) के अन्तर्गत परिभाषित किया गया है कि रेरा लागू होने के बाद यदि 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। ब्याज की दर cure प्रतिशत होनी चाहिए। 4... विपक्षी दिनांक 30.06.2020 तक शिकायतकर्तागण को कब्जा देने में असफल रहता है, तो दिनांक 30.06.2020 के पश्चात्‌ 30 दिनों के अन्दर शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा जमा धनराशि MCLR+ प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज दर सहित अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। ee 2 5. इस आदेश की एक-एक प्रति सम्बंधित पत्रावलियों पर रखी जाये एवं इस ओदश में प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्त के अनुरूप धनराशि व ब्याज की प्रत्येक मामले में गणना की जायेगी। 6. इस आदेश का उल्लघंन उ0प्र0भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 20i6 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। दिनांक / /2049 ee Sit (कल्पना मिश्रा) (सदस्य)

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण

U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Hearing Bench-04A Smt. Kalpana Mishra, Member Complaint No. | Name | Sr. No. NCR444 / 08 / 4836 / 2049 | Priyambada and Dhananjay Kumar | Dhananjay Kumar [Sangeeta K... ?] | [?] | [?] Sr. 4 | [?] | [?] Sr. 2 | NCR444 / 08 / 4807 / 2049 | [?] Sr. 3 | NCR444 / 07 / 0675 / 2049 | Abhiraj Singh Rathore Versus Along with complainants Priyambada and Dhananjay Kumar, 02 other complainants have filed a case against the opposite party. The facts of all these complaints are the same and the evidence is common. All these complaints relate to Blossom County, Phase-4. Therefore, they are being disposed of by a single order. Complaint No. NCR444 / 08 / 4836 / 209, Priyambada and Dhananjay Kumar, will be the lead case. The complainants have instituted this complaint against the opposite party seeking refund of the deposited amount with interest.

In brief, the complainant states that the complainant booked flat No. 806 in Tower-[?] of the opposite party's project Blossom County, Phase-4, against which the complainant paid Rs. 26,64,244/- from time to time in instalments. The opposite party was to complete the flat and hand over possession by t9.:0.20i4, but the opposite party has not yet handed over possession. The complainant also states that all instalments have been paid by them from 02.02.20I0 to 44.09.2043. The project's completion date under RERA has also expired. Therefore, the complainant has requested refund of the deposited amount with interest from the opposite party. In support of the statement, the complainant has filed photocopies of emails, account details, the flat buyer agreement, receipts of the amounts deposited, etc. The opposite party, filing its written reply, stated that the complainant has filed this case by misusing the law. Work on the project's towers is proceeding at a rapid pace, and possession will be given by June 2020. The complainant booked unit No. 806 in Tower-[?] of its project on 48.03.2040. The flat buyer agreement was executed on 05.04.2040. Possession of the project will be given by June 2020. Construction was delayed due to force majeure events. Heard both parties and perused the case file. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 4. Do agreements made before RERA came into force not fall within the ambit of RERA?

2. Whether the opposite party's project was delayed due to force majeure events; if yes, what is the effect? 3. Whether the deposited amount of the complainants can be refunded? 4. Whether the complainants should be given possession and interest for the delayed period? If yes, what should the rate of interest be? Determination of Point No. 4 Point No. 4 is framed on whether agreements made before RERA came into force do not fall within the ambit of RERA. In this regard, the observation given by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2737,/2047, Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India, is important, in which it has been clearly stated that: "The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section 4(2)(I)(C) enables the promoter to give fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered into between him and the allottees so that he is not visited with penal consequences laid down under RERA. In other words, by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh time line under Section 4(2)0)(0) he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale."

From the above legal position, it is clear that under the RERA provisions, the clause in the agreement regarding completion and handing over of possession cannot be rewritten. Under Section 4(2)0)(C), the promoter may give a new time line, which will not depend on the agreement, and as a consequence of the RERA provision, the promoter can be saved only from penalty. Therefore, it is determined that the promoter is liable for the date of possession given in the agreement. It is also clear in the RERA Act that "ongoing" projects definitely fall within the ambit of the RERA Act. Accordingly, Point No. 4 is decided. Determination of Point No. 2 Point No. 2 has been framed to decide whether the opposite party's project was delayed due to force majeure events; if yes, what is the effect. This issue has also been framed on the basis of the opposite party's allegations, and the burden of proving it lies on the opposite party. The opposite party has stated that the project was delayed due to certain unforeseen events (force majeure events). However, the opposite party has neither stated which specific force majeure events caused the project to be delayed, nor has any evidence regarding force majeure been filed on the record. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 940 / 2047, Vikram Chatterjee and others v. Union of India and others, has held:

"4. On behalf of Amrapali group, learned senior counsel submitted that there were force majeure conditions in completing the projects. There were legal impediments in the completion of projects within the period given in the flat-buyers agreement during the period from 04-5. The submission is baseless. It is apparent that the Full Bench of the High Court though held that the land acquisition was vitiated but still it was upheld. The High Court did not quash it for the reason that development has taken place. Higher compensation was ordered to be paid. That order was affirmed by this Court in 20i5 in Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. (20I5) 7 SCC 2l. There was no interim stay granted by the High Court on construction work, is made clear by the Noida and Greater Noida authorities. There was no room to entertain any doubt as to the fact whether for a particular village the acquisition had been quashed. There was no quashing of land acquisition and moreover, there was no stay. Only higher compensation was ordered to be paid. There was no force majeure condition or any legal impediment as such the period from 20II to 20I5 cannot be treated as a moratorium period vis-a-vis the dues of Noida and Greater Noida authorities. The submission made as to the farmers' agitation etc. is too vague and 30% of the projects have come up; whereas 70% have not yet come up, out of the projects in Noida and Greater Noida alone."

From the above observation it is clear that between [af?] 2044 and 20i5 there were no [wre?] stay orders on construction work, as shown by the Noida and Greater Noida Development Authorities. This order also makes clear that between 204 and 2045 there was no force majeure cause or legal bar. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also made clear that between 2044 and 20:5 there was no force majeure [see?] event, in such a situation the opposite party is not entitled to the benefit of this argument. Accordingly, Point No. 2 is decided. Determination of Point No. 3 Point No. 3 has been framed to decide whether the deposited amount of the complainants can be refunded. This issue has also been framed on the basis of the complainants' allegations, and the burden of proving it lies on the complainants. The complainant states that the opposite party has not handed over possession within the contracted period, due to which the complainant does not wish to remain with the project, and the deposited amount with interest should be refunded. On this, the opposite party stated that the project will be completed and possession given by June 2020. It is undisputed that the complainants booked a flat in the opposite party's project. There is also no dispute that the opposite party was unable to give possession within the contracted period.

It is seen from the case file that the flat buyer agreement was executed on 05.04.2040. As per clause 6. of the said agreement, possession was to be given within 48 months, with a grace period of 6 months, that is, by 05.04.20I2. In its written reply, the opposite party stated that it would complete the project and give possession by June 2020. As regards the buyer's request for refund, the provisions of the RERA Act must be read as a whole so that a balanced decision can be taken, keeping in view the views of all parties. Section 48 () of the RERA Act provides that: "Section 78 (0) "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 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." [?] allottees have the right that, if they do not get possession according to the agreement, they may claim back their deposited amount with interest, or remain in the project and receive interest at a monthly rate. Section 34 of the RERA Act, along with other "functions" of RERA, also mentions: "to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder". Similarly, Section 32 includes the following among the Authority's responsibilities for the development of the real estate sector: "32. The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a) protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent,....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector." From these provisions it is clear that it is the responsibility of this Authority to take appropriate decisions, viewing the interests of all stakeholders as a whole, so as to ensure the healthy development of the real estate sector.

In this context, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, in which a decision was given on the constitutional validity of the RERA Act, at paragraph ]24 observed as follows: "]24, The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth. Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section 72 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 72, 74, 76 [?] /9. A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work."

From the above it is clear that, after hearing all parties, although an allottee has the right to claim back its amount with interest where a unit is not received on time, nevertheless, in view of the above-quoted observation, the Authority may pass orders on the basis of all the facts of the case, by "moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth", and orders can be passed accordingly. In the context of refund of amounts to allottees and the interests of allottees who remain in the project, in the judgment in "Chitra Sharma v. Union of India" (744/207), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 40 of its judgment, made the following observation:

"40. As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is lying in deposit before this Court pursuant to the interim directions, on which interest has accrued. The home buyers have earnestly sought the issuance of interim directions to facilitate a pro-rata disbursement of this amount to those of the home buyers who seek a refund. "We are keenly conscious of the fact that the claim of the home buyers who seek a refund of monies deserves to be considered with empathy. Yet, having given our anxious consideration to the plea and on the balance, we are not inclined to accede to it for more than one reason. Firstly [?]... Secondly, the figures which have been made available presently, following the opening of the Web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be unmindful of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund."

Keeping in view the above observations quoted by the High Court and the Supreme Court, and the overall scheme of the RERA Act, it is also clear that if the decision in every case of delay were to be to return the money, it would certainly not be in conformity with the objective and scheme of the Act. While taking a decision, it is in the interest of justice to consider the uniqueness of each case and all its facts, such as the status of construction, the completion timeline, the commitment of the promoter in offering possession, other deed-related matters, particularly the effect on allottees who remain with the project, the proposed date of [?], and so on. Now that the project is nearing completion and other allottees in the project are still awaiting possession of their flats, after considering all aspects it would be just to direct the builder to give the complainants possession with OC in a time-bound manner before June 2020, or to provide the complainants an alternative unit in another project of the opposite party with their consent. Certainly, if allottees remain in the project, interest for the delay shall be payable by the promoters as per the rules. Accordingly, Point No. 3 is decided. Determination of Point No. 4

It is also clear that under the agreement the opposite party was to hand over possession to the complainant within 8+6 months (grace period) from the execution of the agreement. The flat buyer agreement was executed on 05.04.20:0, and as per clause 6. of the agreement the opposite party was to give possession by 05.04.2042, but the opposite party has not given possession till date. The opposite party says that it will complete the project and give possession by June 2020. It is also to be considered that in RERA the project commencement date is given as 42.03.2040 and the completion date as 34.08.209, which has passed. However, the opposite party has applied for extension of the project, a copy of which is available on the case file. In such a case, it appears just to award interest for the delayed period to the complainant, from 06.04.2042 up to the date of offer of possession with OC/CC, or electrical certificate, fire safety certificate, structural certificate, or lift installation certificate, whichever is later. In this regard, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the petition of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India, held that:

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

It is also noteworthy that an agreement has been executed between the parties, which is signed by both sides, from which it can be determined that both parties have accepted the terms of the said agreement. As per clause 6.6 of the agreement, there is a provision for an amount of Rs. 5 per square foot per month for the period of project delay, under which the complainant is entitled to receive the amount. Under the RERA provisions, the amount is to be paid at the same rate at which the opposite party has received the amount. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the above legal position, also held that: "For the reasons already indicated, aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. I have already indicated that the provisions of RERA are prospective in nature. The penalty under Sections 76, 38, 59, 60, 67, 63 and 64 is to be levied on account of contravention of provisions of RERA, prospectively and not retrospectively."

In light of the above judgment, it is clear that the penalties provided under the U.P. RERA provisions are not retrospective but must be prospective. In such a case, the amount should be paid as per the agreement for the period before RERA came into effect (dated 4.5.2046). After RERA came into force, from 4.5.2046, the complainant is entitled to interest on the amount deposited for the delayed period as per the RERA provisions. In a case where no agreement has been executed between the parties, the complainant shall be entitled to interest on the deposited amount as per the RERA provisions. As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046, notified on 7.0.20i8 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2048. In the format of the sale/lease deed given as an annexure, the Events of Default of promoters are defined in paragraph 9, in which paragraph 92 (ii) FY provides for the allottee in case the promoter defaults: "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 also fixed under paragraph 9.30) for default by allottees. Keeping in view the above provision, it appears just that the amount be returned to the allottee for the delay, with interest at MCLRH per cent. It is also clarified that if there is a delay in the complainant's amount due, the opposite party may also receive interest only at the rate of McCLRH per cent. As regards up to what period interest should be awarded: In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50 /20I8, Supertech Limited v. Rajni Goel, held that: "The period of interest should close on April 20l6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent - Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant - Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 206. 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." Under the above legal position, the complainant shall be entitled to interest for the delay for the period until the later of obtaining OC or the offer of possession. In such a case, the complainant shall be entitled to interest for the delayed period up to the later of obtaining OC or the offer of possession. Accordingly, Point No. 4 is decided.

While disposing of the above points, the following orders are passed. ORDER 4. The opposite party is directed that, with the consent of the complainants, at rates fixed earlier, it shall give possession of an equivalent unit as an alternative unit in any of its other projects by 34.42.2049; otherwise, it shall give possession of the previously allotted unit by 30.06.2020, and, on receiving the stamp duty payable [tera?], get the registry done as per rules. 2. The opposite party shall ensure payment of interest at MCLR+ per cent for the period from 06.04.2042 to 30.4.20:6 at Rs. 5/- per square foot per month, and from 04.05.2006 up to the date of offer of possession with OC/CC, or electrical certificate, fire safety certificate, structural certificate, or lift installation certificate, whichever is later. This interest amount shall be adjusted against the final payment amount. If the interest amount exceeds the amount due, it shall be refunded as per rules. In the cases of other complainants, calculation shall be made as above, as per the agreement. 3. It is also clarified that under Section 2 (zai) of the RERA Act, 2046, it is defined that after RERA takes effect, if the promoter charges any interest rate for the allottee's default, the same rate shall be given to the allottee when the promoter defaults. The rate of interest should be [cure?] per cent.

4... If the opposite party fails to give possession to the complainants by 30.06.2020, then within 30 days after 30.06.2020, payment of the amount deposited by the complainants, with interest at MCLR+ per cent per annum, shall be ensured. 5. A copy of this order shall be placed on each of the related case files, and the amount and interest in each case shall be calculated in accordance with the principles laid down in this order. 6. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section-63 of the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20i6, and other relevant provisions. The order shall be uploaded on the portal. Date: [?] / [?] / 2049 (Kalpana Mishra) (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | सुनवाई पीठ-04ए श्रीमती कल्पना मिश्रा, सदस्य शिकायत do | काका | कम Wo एन.सी.आर444 / 08 / 4836 / 2049 | प्रियाम्बदा व धन्‍नजय कुमार | व धन्‍नजय कुमार [संगीता कमी... | | 4 | | 2 | । एन.सी.आर444 / 08 / 4807 / 2049 3 एन.सी.आर444 / 07 / 0675 / 2049 अभिराज सिंह राठौर बनाम शिकायतकर्ता प्रियाम्बदा व धन्‍नजय कुमार के साथ 02 अन्य शिकायकतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध वाद योजित किया गया है। इन सभी शिकायतों के तथ्य समान है और एक समान साक्ष्य हैं। यह सभी शिकायतें Blossom County, Phase-4 से सम्बंधित है। अतः एक ही निर्णय से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत Ho एन.सी. आर444 / 08 / 4836 / 209 प्रियाम्बदा व धनन्‍नजय कुमार अग्रणी वाद रहेगा। प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्द जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना Blossom County, Phase-4 के टॉवर-, में फ्लैट नं०-806 बुक किया गया, जिसके लिए शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 26,64,244 /- रूपये का भुगतान किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा दिनांक t9.:0.20i4 तक पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, किन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया। शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है कि उनके द्वारा दिनांक 02.02.20I0 से दिनांक 44.09. —

2043 तक सभी किश्तों का भुगतान किया जा चुका है। रेरा में परियोजना की पूर्णता तिथि भी समाप्त हो चुकी है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्द जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता की ओर से अपने कथन के समर्थन में ई-मेल, खाता विवरण, फ्लैट केता अनुबन्ध, जमा धनराशि की रसीदें आदि की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी है। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवादपत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विधि का दुरूपयोग करते हुए वाद योजित किया गया है। परियोजना के टॉवरन, में तीव्र गति से कार्य चल रहा है और जून 2020 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी परियोजना के टॉवर-ा, में यूनिट संख्या-806 दिनांक 48.03.2040 को बुक करायी गयी थी। फ्लैट केता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 05.04.2040 को निष्पादित कराया गया। परियोजना को जून 2020 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। निर्माण कार्य में विलम्ब फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण हुआ। उभयपक्ष को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। पक्षकारों के अभिवचनों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचरित किये गये :- 4... क्या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेरा के दायरे में नहीं आते है ? 2 क्‍या force majeure events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई यदि हां तो प्रभाव? 3. an शिकायतकर्तागण की जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जा सकती है ? 4. क्या शिकायतकर्तागण को कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाये? यदि हाँ तो ब्याज का दर क्‍या होगा ? निस्तारण बिन्दु do 4

बिन्दु संख्या 4 इस तथ्य पर विचरित है क्या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध Ww के दायरे में नहीं आते है? इस सम्बंध में मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 2737,/2047 नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबशर्बन प्राणलि0 एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया में दिया गया आब्जर्वेशन महत्वपूर्ण है जिसमें स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लिखित किया गया है कि-: The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section 4(2)(I)(C) enables the promoter to give fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered into between him and the allottees JS so that he is not visited with penal consequences laid down under RERA. In other words, by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh time line under Section 4(2)0)(0) he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale. उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था से यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा के प्राविधान के अनुसार अनुबन्ध में दिये गये पूर्णता एवं कब्जे देने के प्रस्तर का पुनर्लखन नहीं किया जा सकता। धारा 4(2)0)(सी) के अन्तर्गत प्रोमोटर एक नई समय सीमा दे सकता है, जो कि अनुबन्ध पर निर्भर नहीं होगा और उक्त धारा रेरा में दिये गये प्राविधान के परिणाम स्वरूप केवल अर्थदंड से बचाया जा सकता है। अतः इससे अवधारित किया जाता है कि प्रोमोटर अनुबन्ध में दिये गये कब्जे की तिथि के लिए उत्तरदायी है। यह भी RT अधिनियम में स्पष्ट है कि “ऑन गोईग” परियोजनायें निश्चित रूप से रेरा अधिनियम की परिधि में आते है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या 4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु to 2

बिन्दु vo 2 इस आशय का विरचित किया गया है कि क्‍या force majeure होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुईं? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? यह वाद बिन्दु भी विपक्षी के अभिकथनों के आधार पर विरचित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार विपक्षी पर है। विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि कुछ अप्रत्याशित घटनाओं (force majeure events) के कारण परियोजना विलंबित हुई, विपक्षी की ओर से न तो यह कथन किया गया कि किन फोर्स मैज्योर की बाबत उसकी परियोजना विलंबित हुई और न ही फोर्स मैज्योर की बाबत कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर दाखिल किया गया है। इसके अतिरिक्त माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 / 2047 विकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया हैः- 4. On behalf of Amrapali group, learned senior counsel submitted that there were force majeure conditions in completing the projects. There were legal impediments in the completion of projects within the period given in the flat-buyers agreement during the period from 04-5. The submission is baseless. It is apparent that the Full Bench of the High Court though held that the land acquisition was vitiated but still it was upheld. The High Court did not quash it for the reason that development has taken place. Higher compensation was ordered to be paid. That order was affirmed by this Court in 20i5 in Savitri ०7६६

Devi v. State of U.P. (20I5) 7 SCC 2l. There was no interim stay granted by the High Court on construction work, is made clear by the Noida and Greater Noida authorities. There was no room to entertain any doubt as to the fact whether for a particular village the acquisition had been quashed. There was no quashing of land acquisition and moreover, there was no stay. Only higher compensation was ordered to be paid. There was no force majeure condition or any legal impediment as such the period from 20II to 20I5 cannot be treated as a moratorium period vis-a-vis the dues of Noida and Greater Noida authorities. The submission made as to the farmers' agitation etc. is too vague and 30% of the projects have come up; whereas 70% have not yet come up, out of the projects in Noida and Greater Noida alone. उपरोक्त अबज़रवेशन से यह स्पष्ट है कि af 2044 से वर्ष 20i5 के मध्य निर्माण कार्य पर कोई wre आदेश नहीं थे, जो कि नोएडा एवं ग्रेटर नोएडा विकास प्राधिकरण द्वारा दर्शित किया गया और इस आदेश में यह भी स्पष्ट किया गया है कि वर्ष 204 से वर्ष 2045 के बीच कोई फोर्स मैज्योर कारण या विधिक रूप से रोक नहीं था। चूंकि माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा भी यह स्पष्ट किया जा चुका है कि वर्ष 2044 से वर्ष 20:5 के बीच कोई फोर्स मैज्योर see नहीं था, ऐसी दशा में वह इस तर्क का लाभ पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु Wo 2 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु to 3 बिन्दु संख्या-3 इस आशय से विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या शिकायतकर्तागण की

जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जा सकती है? यह वाद बिन्दु भी शिकायतकर्तागण के अभिकथनों के आधार पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार शिकायतकर्तागण पर है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कथन किया गया है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अनुबंधित अवधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है, जिस कारण de परियोजना के साथ नही रहन। चाहत। हे और उसकी जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलायी जाये, जिस पर विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया कि परियोजना को जून 2020 तक पूर्ण कर कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। यह निर्विवादित है कि शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना में फ्लैट बुक कराया था। इस तथ्य पर भी कोई विवाद नहीं है कि विपक्षी अनुबंधित अवधि में कब्जा प्रदान करने में असमर्थ रहा है। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से विदित है कि दिनांक 05.04.2040 को फ्लैट Sat अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किया गया उक्त अनुबन्ध के प्रस्तर 6. के अनुसार कब्जा 48 माह एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के साथ दिनांक 05.04.20I2 तक दिया जाना था। विपक्षी द्वारा अपने प्रतिवाद पत्र में कहा गया कि परियोजना को जून 2020 तक पूर्ण कर कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। जहाँ तक केता द्वारा रिफण्ड के अनुरोध का प्रश्न है, इस विषय में रेरा अधिनियम के प्राविधानों को समग्र रूप से पढा जाना आवश्यक है ताकि सभी पक्षों के मत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए एक संतुलित निर्णय लिया जा सकें। रेरा एक्ट की धारा 48 () में प्राविधान है कि :- Section 78 (0) “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 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. इरा YON Sot को यह अधिकार है कि यदि उन्हें एग्रीमेंट के अनुरूप कब्जा नहीं मिलता तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि को ब्याज सहित वापिस माँग सकते हैं अथवा मासिक दर से ब्याज प्राप्त करते हुए परियोजना में बने रहें। रेरा अधिनियम की धारा 34 में रेरा के अन्य “फंग्शन्स” के साथ-साथ " to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder " का भी उल्लेख है। eT इसी प्रकार धारा 32 में रियल see सेक्टर के विकास हेतु अथॉरिटी के उत्तरदायित्यों में निम्न भी सम्मिलित हैं :-

“32. The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a)protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent,....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” उक्त प्राविधानों से यह स्पष्ट है कि “रियल एस्टेट सेक्टर” के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके wh Ke होल्डर्स के हितों को समग्र रूप से देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेने का उत्तरदायित्व इस ऑथरिटी का है। इस कम में मा. मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअरबन प्रा.लि. बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया, जिसमें रेरा अधिनियम की वैद्यानिकता के सम्बंध में निर्णय दिया गया था, के प्रस्तर 424 में मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निम्न संवीक्षण किया :-

“]24, The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth. Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section 72 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 72, 74, 76 ब्र्व /9, A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work.” उक्त से स्पष्ट है कि सभी पक्षों को सुनने के बाद, यद्यपि समय से इकाई न मिलने की दशा में आवंटी का अपनी धनराशि ब्याज सहित मांगने का अधिकार है, तथापि उक्त वर्णित संवीक्षा को देखते हुए अथॉरिटी, प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों, के आधार पर ‘by d

moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth ss अनुरूप आदेया पारित किए जा सकते हैं। एलोटीज द्वारा धनराशि वापस किए जाने व परियोजना में बने रहने वाले एलोटीज के हितों में agers के प्रसंग में “चित्रा शर्मा बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया” (744/207) के निर्णय में मा. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने निर्णय के प्रस्तर 40 में निम्न ऑबजरवेशन किया है

40. As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is lying in deposit before this Court pursuant to the interim directions, on which interest has accrued. The home buyers have earnestly sought the issuance of interim directions to facilitate a pro-rata disbursement of this amount to those of the home buyers who seek a refund. "We are keenly conscious of the fact that the claim of the home buyers who seek a refund of monies deserves to be considered with empathy. Yet, having given our anxious consideration to the plea and on the balance, we are not inclined to accede to it for more than one reason. Firstly «0... Secondly, the figures which have been made available presently, following the opening of the Web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be unmindful of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund."

मा. उच्च न्यायालय एवं सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा उक्त प्रस्तरों में उद्धरत “ऑबजरवेशनस्‌” एवं रेरा एक्ट की समग्र व्यवस्था को देखते हुए यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यदि विलम्ब के प्रत्येक मामले में धनराशि लौटाने का ही निर्णय लिया जाये तो निश्चय ही यह अधिनियम के “ऑबजेक्टिव” तथा “स्कीम” के अनुरूप न होगा। Roos का निर्णय लेते रागय प्रत्येक मामले की “यूनीकनेस” प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों यथा “कन्सद्रक्शन” की स्थिति, कम्पलीशन की “ada लाईन”, प्रोमोटर्स के द्वारा ऑफर ऑफ पजेशन के “कमिटमेन्ट” की स्थिति, अन्य “Re deed”, विशेष रूप से परियोजना के साथ बने रहने वाले “एलॉटीज” पर प्रभाव, “प्रस्तावित wee डेट” के विषय में “orang” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। वर्तमान में जब कि परियोजना पूर्णता की ओर है तथा अभी परियोजना में अन्य आवंटी अपने फ्लैटस्‌ पूर्ण होने हेतु कब्जे की प्रतीक्षा में है, सभी पहलुओं पर विचार कर यह न्यायोचित होगा कि शिकायतकर्ताओं को जून 2020 से पूर्व ओ.सी. सहित कब्जा दिलाये जाने के समयबद्ध बिल्डर को निर्देश दिये जाये अथवा शिकायतकर्तागण को विपक्षी किसी अन्य परियोजना में उनकी सहमति से वैकल्पिक यूनिट we दी जाये। निश्चय ही परियोजना में बने रहने की दशा में एलॉटीज़ को विलम्ब हेतु नियमानुसार ब्याज प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा देय होगा। निस्तारण बिन्दु सं?-3 Prema किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु सं० 4

यह भी स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अनुबन्ध में शिकायतकर्ता को अनुबन्ध निष्पादित करने से 8+6 माह (ग्रेस पीरियड) में कब्जा दिया जाना था। फ्लैट बायर एग्रीमेन्ट दिनांक 05.04.20:0 को निष्पादित किया गया एवं अनुबन्ध के प्रस्तर 6. के अनुसार विपक्षी को 05.04.2042 कब्जा देना था, किन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा आज तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। विपक्षी का कहना है कि परियोजना को पूर्ण कर जून 2020 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा। यह भी विचारणीय है कि रेरा में परियोजना शुरू होने की तिथि 42.03.2040 दी गयी है तथा पूर्णता की तिथि 34.08.209 दी गयी है, जो कि बीत चुकी है, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना विस्तारण हेतु आवेदन किया गया है, जिसकी प्रति पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध है। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 06.04.2042 से ओ.सी /सी.सी अथवा इलैक्ट्रिकल सर्टिफिकेट, फायर सेफ्टी सर्टिफिकेट, स्ट्रक्चरल सर्टिफिकेट, लिफ्ट इन्स्टालेशन सर्टिफिकेट सहित कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो तक की अवधि पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि महाराष्ट्र उच्च न्यायालय के नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया की याचिका में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

Section 8()(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw 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. df अतः: उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व केता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है।

यह भी उल्लेखनीय है कि पक्षकारों के मध्य एक अनुबन्ध निष्पादित है, जो कि उभयपक्ष द्वारा हस्ताक्षरित है, जिससे यह अवधारित किया जा सकता है कि उभयपक्ष को उक्त अनुबन्ध की शर्ते स्वीकार हैं। अनुबन्ध के प्रस्तर 6.6 के अनुसार परियोजना के विलंब की अवधि में 5 रूपये प्रतिवर्ग फुट प्रतिमाह की दर से धनराशि का प्राविधान है, जिसके अनुसार शिकायतकर्ता धनराशि पाने का अधिकारी है, रेरा के प्राविधानों के अनुसार जिस दर से विपक्षी द्वारा धनराशि प्राप्त की गयी है उसी दर से धनराशि देने का प्राविधान है। इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि माननीय उच्च न्यायालय मुम्बई द्वारा उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था में यह भी अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- For the reasons already indicated, aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. I have already indicated that the provisions of RERA are prospective in nature. The penalty under Sections 76, 38, 59, 60, 67, 63 and 64 is to be levied on account of contravention of provisions of RERA, prospectively and not retrospectively. अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्राविधानित दंड पूर्वव्यापी नही, बल्कि भविष्यलक्षी होना चाहिये। ऐसी दशा में रेरा के प्रभाव में (दिनाक 4.5.2046) से पूर्व अनुबन्ध के अनुसार धनराशि भुगतान किया जाना चाहिये और रेरा के आने के बाद दिनांक 4.5.2046 से रेरा के प्राविधानो के अनुसार विलंबित अवधि में जमा धनराशि पर ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है, जिस वाद में पक्षकारों के मध्य कोई अनुबन्ध निष्पादित नही है, वहां शिकायतकर्ता रेरा के प्राविधानों के अनुरूप जमा धनराशि पर ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा।

जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, तो राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 7.0.20i8 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विकय /पटटा के लिए करार) नियमावली १30 2048 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विकय ,/पटटा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 92 (ii) FY प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है किः- The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice: यही दर आवंटियों के द्वारा डिफॉल्ट की स्थिति में भी प्रस्तर 9.30) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को MCLRH प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर ब्याज सहित विलम्ब के लिए धनराशि वापस किया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि यदि शिकायतकर्ता की कोई देय धनराशि में विलम्ब है, तो विपक्षी भी McCLRH प्रतिशत की दर से ही ब्याज प्राप्त सकता है। जहां तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बंध में सिविल अपील wo 6649-50 /20I8 सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

" the period of Interest should close on April 20l6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant — Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 206. 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 के अनुसार ओ.सी. मिलने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर होने, जो भी बाद में हो तक की अवधि पर शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता ओ-सी. मिलने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो J i2 भी बाद में हो तक की अवधि पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज पाने के अधिकारी होगें। तद्नुसार बिन्दु सं०-4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते है। आदेश 4. विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह शिकायतकर्तागण की सहमति से पूर्व में तय दरों पर समकक्ष इकाई का अपने किसी अन्य परियाजना में वैकल्पिक यूनिट का कब्जा दिनांक 34.42.2049 तक दें अन्यथा पूर्व में आवंटित यूनिट का कब्जा दिनांक 30.06.2020 कब्जा दें और देय tera शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री कराये।

2. विपक्षी दिनांक 06.04.2042 से दिनांक 30.4.20:6 तक 5/- रुपये प्रति वर्गफुट प्रतिमाह की दर से व दिनांक 04.05.2006 से ओ.सी /सी.सी अथवा इलैक्ट्रिकल सर्टिफिकेट, फायर सेफ्टी सर्टिफिकेट, स्ट्रक्चरल सर्टिफिकेट, लिफ्ट इन्स्टालेशन सर्टिफिकेट सहित कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो तक की अवधि 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 निमयानुसार वापस की जायेगी। अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण के मामलों में अनुबन्ध के अनुरूप उपरोक्तानुसार गणना की जायेगी। 3. यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम 2046 के धारा 2 (zai) के अन्तर्गत परिभाषित किया गया है कि रेरा लागू होने के बाद यदि 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। ब्याज की दर cure प्रतिशत होनी चाहिए। 4... विपक्षी दिनांक 30.06.2020 तक शिकायतकर्तागण को कब्जा देने में असफल रहता है, तो दिनांक 30.06.2020 के पश्चात्‌ 30 दिनों के अन्दर शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा जमा धनराशि MCLR+ प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज दर सहित अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। ee 2 5. इस आदेश की एक-एक प्रति सम्बंधित पत्रावलियों पर रखी जाये एवं इस ओदश में प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्त के अनुरूप धनराशि व ब्याज की प्रत्येक मामले में गणना की जायेगी। 6. इस आदेश का उल्लघंन उ0प्र0भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 20i6 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। दिनांक / /2049 ee Sit (कल्पना मिश्रा) (सदस्य)

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण