U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddha Nagar. Hearing Bench-04A Shri Rajive Kumar, Chairman Complaint No.-NCR444 / 40 // 0300 // 2049 Amarpal Yadav v. M/s Nexgen Infracon Pvt. Ltd. (Mahagun Group) The present complaint application has been instituted by the complainant against the respondent for possession, correction of demands, and grant of interest for the delayed period. Later, in the written complaint filed by them, request was made for refund of amount along with interest, etc. In brief, the statement of the complainant is that flat no.-246 was booked by the complainant in the respondent's project Mahagun Mezzaria, for which payment of Rs. 87,47,296/- was made by the complainant from time to time on an installment basis. Possession was to be delivered to the complainant after completing the complainant's unit by date 45.06.2046, but the respondent was unable to deliver possession to the complainant within the period stipulated in the agreement. The complainant also states that there is a delay of more than 40 months in the project. Unreasonable demands are being made by the respondent. Hence, request has been made by the complainant against the respondent for possession, correction of demands, and grant of interest for the delayed period. In support of their statement, copies of allotment letter, account statement, etc., were filed by the complainant.

Filing written statement on behalf of the respondent, it was stated that flat number 246 was purchased by the complainant in resale from original allottee Shiva Yadav in June 2044. Agreement was executed on date 09.06.2074. According to paragraph-40.4 of page number-46 of the agreement, possession was to be delivered by date 30.06. 20:7. Offer for possession was sent by them on date 34.05.209. Payment of their due amount is not being made by the complainant. OC was obtained from Noida Development Authority on date 34.05.2049. The project was delayed due to force majeure. After completing the project, OC has been obtained from Noida Authority. In support of its statement, copies of OC dated 37.05.2079 and offer of possession dated 34.05.2049 were filed by the respondent. Heard both parties and perused the record. It is undisputed that unit was booked by the complainant in the respondent's project and the respondent was unable to deliver possession of the unit to them within the agreed period. In view of the complainant's complaint, the following points are for determination :- 1. Whether agreements entered into prior to coming into force of RERA do not fall within the ambit of RERA? 2. Whether the respondent's project was delayed due to force majeure events? If yes, its effect? 3. Whether the complainant should be granted possession and delayed period interest or refund of amount? Determination of Point No. 1

Point number 1 is framed on the fact whether calculation of delay of the project shall be done solely on the basis of dates given at the time of registration in RERA? In this regard, the observation given by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.- 2737 /20:7 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 aforesaid legal position, it is clear that according to the provisions of RERA, the clause regarding completion and handing over possession given in the agreement cannot be rewritten. Under Section 4(2)(l)(c), the promoter may provide a fresh timeline, which shall not depend on the agreement, but the said timeline can save him from "penal consequences" provided under RERA, though it shall not absolve him of the liabilities provided in the agreement. From this, it can be determined that the promoter is liable for the date of possession given in the agreement and calculation of delay shall be done according to the date of the agreement. It is also clear in the RERA Act that "Ongoing" projects definitely come within the ambit of the RERA Act. Accordingly, Point number 1 is disposed of. Determination of Point No. 2 Point no. 2 has been framed to the effect whether the respondent's project was delayed due to force majeure? If yes, its effect? This issue has also been framed on the basis of pleadings of the respondent, burden of proving which lies on the respondent.

On behalf of the respondent, it was stated that due to certain unexpected events (force majeure events) (such as riot, agitation, strike, industrial dispute, disruption of services and supplies on the project, government policy change, disruption of work by judicial stay order, judgment and orders, delay occurring in licenses and approvals, etc.), the project was delayed; neither was it stated on behalf of the respondent in respect of which force majeure its project was delayed, nor has any evidence regarding force majeure been filed on the record. In the same sequence, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.-940 /2047 Bikram Chatterjee and others v. Union of India and others:—

"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 20-5. 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 2. 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 204 to 205 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 aforesaid legal position, it is clear that there were no stay orders on construction work between year 2004 and year 20:5, which was demonstrated by Noida and Greater Noida Development Authority, and in this order it was also clarified that between year 2004 and year 205 there was no force majeure reason or legal restraint. Since it has already been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that between year 2044 and year 20i5 no force majeure was applicable, in such circumstances, it is not entitled to get the benefit of this argument. In addition, in the same order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Civil Appeal No.-940 / 2047 Bikram Chatterjee and others v. Union of India and others at page number-234 and paragraph no. 4 defined force majeure as follows:— "Force majeure shall mean a case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature." From the above definition of force majeure, it is clear that force majeure is a condition where war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or other natural calamity has occurred. In the present matter, no such situation arose and in such circumstances the respondent is not entitled to get the benefit of this argument. Accordingly, Point No. 2 is disposed of. Determination of Point No. 3 The complainant states that possession has not been delivered by the respondent till now. Hence, request has been made for delivery of possession and interest for the delayed period.

In paragraph-40.4 relating to possession at page no.-i6 of the allotment letter filed on record, there is mention of delivery of possession by date 30.06.2047, according to which the date of possession comes to 30.06.20:7. In such circumstances, it is just to grant interest to the complainant for the period from date 04.07.2047 till obtaining of OC / CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. As far as the question of the buyer's request for refund is concerned, in this regard the provisions of the RERA Act need to be read holistically so that taking into account views of all parties, a balanced decision may be taken. In Section 48 (1) of the RERA Act, it is provided that:— Section 76 (7) "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." In this manner, the buyer has the right that if they do not receive possession in accordance with the agreement, they may seek refund of their deposited amount along with interest or remain in the project while receiving interest at a monthly rate. In Section 34 of the RERA Act, along with other functions of RERA, "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" is also mentioned. Similarly, in Section 32, among the responsibilities of the Authority for development of real estate sector, the following is also included:— "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,....... (Dany other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector."

From this, it is clear that to ensure healthy growth of the real estate sector, the responsibility lies on this Authority to take appropriate decisions keeping in view the interests of all stakeholders holistically. In this sequence, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, in which decision was rendered regarding the validity of the RERA Act, in paragraph 424 made the following observation:—

"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 77 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 72, /4, /6 and /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 in case of not receiving the unit on time the allottee has the right to demand their amount with interest, nevertheless in view of the aforesaid observation, the Authority, on the basis of all facts of the case, can pass orders conforming to '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'. In the context of balance between refund of amount to allottees and interests of allottees remaining in the project, in the decision in "Chitra Sharma v. Union of India" (744 / 2047), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 40 of the 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 ..........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.""

In view of the observations quoted in the aforesaid decisions by the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court and the overall scheme of the RERA Act, it is also clear that if in every case of delay only refund of money is decided, then certainly it will not be in accordance with the objective and scheme of the Act. At the time of deciding refund, it will be in the interest of justice to consider the uniqueness of each case, all facts of the case such as construction status, completion timeline, commitment status of offer of possession by promoters, impact on other stakeholders, especially allottees remaining with the project, consensus regarding proposed possession date, etc. This complaint was filed by the complainant after possession was offered to them by the respondent. Viewing all circumstances, when the project is complete and OC of the project has also been obtained, at this stage refund of money would not be proper. It is clear that according to the agreement, the project is delayed close to one and a half years, so the project cannot be called in the category of excessive delay. In the circumstances, it would be proper that the complainant take possession along with OC/CC. Moreover, investment in the project was made by the complainant for possession of the flat. Certainly, in the event of remaining in the project, interest for delay shall be payable by the promoter to allottees as per rules.

In this regard, it is noteworthy that in the petition of Maharashtra High Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that:— "Section 48()(0) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." Therefore, in light of the aforesaid decision, it is clear that under the provisions of U.P. RERA, in accordance with the contract executed between promoter and buyer, interest shall be payable on delay and principal amount, because the said amount has been utilized by the promoter.

As far as the question of rate of interest payable is concerned, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2046, the State Government on date 47.40.2048 notified the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale / Lease) Rules 20i8. In paragraph 9 of the draft of sale / lease deed given as model therein, promoter's default events (Events of default) are defined, in which in paragraph 9.2(ii), in the event of default by promoter, it is provided for the allottee that:— "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +l% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:" The same rate is prescribed in paragraph 9.30) in case of default by allottees. In view of the said provision, it appears just to grant interest for the delayed period to the allottee at the interest rate of MCLR+1 percent. It is also clarified that if any due amount of the complainant is delayed, then the respondent shall also be entitled to receive interest only at the rate of MCLR+1 percent.

As far as the question up to which period interest is to be granted is concerned, in this regard in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50 /2048 Supertech Limited v. Rajni Goyal, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:— " the period of Interest should close on April 20!6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant —Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 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. " According to the above legal dictum, the complainant shall be entitled to receive delayed interest up to the date of obtaining OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. Accordingly, Point no. 3 is disposed of. Disposing of the above points, the following orders are passed. Order

1. The respondent is directed to ensure completing all amenities according to allotment letter / agreement of the complainant's flat by date 34.04.2020, delivering possession, and executing registry as per rules upon receiving due stamp duty. 2. The respondent is also directed to ensure paying interest at MCLR+1 percent to the complainant on the amount deposited by the complainant for the period from date 04.07.2047 till the date of OC / CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. This interest amount shall be adjusted in the final payment amount. If interest amount exceeds due amount, it shall be refunded as per rules. 3. The respondent shall ensure issuing revised demand letter as aforesaid. 4. It is also clarified that under Section 2(za)(i) of the RERA Act 2046, interest has been defined that after coming into force of RERA, if any interest rate is charged by the promoter upon allottee's default, interest shall be paid to the allottee at the same rate upon default by the promoter. The interest rate should be MCLR+1 percent. 5. Contravention of this order shall be punishable under Section-63 and other relevant provisions of the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046. Order be uploaded on portal. Date: 14 // 2, 2049 (Rajive Kumar) (Chairman) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर। सुनवाई पीठ-04ए श्री राजीव कुमार, अध्यक्ष शिकायत सं0-एन.सी.आर444 / 40 // 0300 // 2049 अमरपाल यादव बनाम मैसर्स नेक्‍्सजेन इन्फाकॉन प्राएलि0 (महागुन ग्रुप) प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थनापत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध कब्जा, मांगों को सही किये जाने एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। बाद में दायर लिखित शिकायत में उनके द्वारा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस लौटाने आदि का अनुरोध किया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना Mahagun Mezzaria में फ्लैट सं)-246 बुक किया गया, जिसके लिए शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 87,47,296/-— रूपये का भुगतान किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता की यूनिट को दिनांक 45.06.2046 तक पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, किन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अनुबन्ध में निर्धारित अवधि में शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहा। शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है कि परियोजना में 40 माह से अधिक का विलम्ब है। विपक्षी द्वारा अनुचित मांगे की जा रही हैं। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध कब्जा, मांगों को सही किये जाने एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने हेतु अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटन पत्र, खाता विवरण आदि की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयीं।

विपक्षी की ओर से प्रतिवादपत्र दाखिल करते हुए कथन किया गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा फ्लैट संख्या-246 को पुर्नविकय में मूल आवंटी शिवा यादव से जून 2044 में wa किया गया था। अनुबन्ध दिनांक 09.06.2074 को निष्पादित कराया गया। अनुबन्ध के पृष्ठ संख्या-46 के प्रस्तर-40.4 के अनुसार कब्जा दिनांक 30.06. x 20:7 तक दिया जाना था। उनके द्वारा कब्जे हेतु ऑफर दिनांक 34.05.209 को भेजा चुका है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपनी देय धनराशि का भुगतान नहीं किया जा रहा है। ओ.सी नोएडा विकास प्राधिकरण से दिनांक 34.05.2049 को प्राप्त किया जा चुका है। परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर के कारण विलम्बित हुई। Hot को पूर्ण करने के उपरान्त नोएडा प्राधिकरण से ओ.सी प्राप्त कर लिया गया है। विपक्षी द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में ओ.सी. दिनांक 37.05.2079, ऑफर ऑफ पोजेशन दिनांक 34.05.2049 की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी है। उभयपक्ष को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। यह निर्विवादित है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना में यूनिट बुक करायी गयी और विपक्षी उसे अनुबंधित अवधि में यूनिट का कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहा है। शिकायतकर्ता की शिकायत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए निम्न बिन्दु विचारणीय है :- 4... क्या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेरा के दायरे में नहीं आते है ? 2... क्या force majeure Events 2 के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? 3. क्या शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाये अथवा धनराशि वापिस दिलायी जाये ? निस्तारण बिन्दु to 4

बिन्दु संख्या ga तथ्य पर विचरित है क्या रेरा में रजिस्ट्रेशन के समय दी गयी तिथियों के आधार पर ही परियोजना के विलम्ब की गणना होगी ? इस सम्बंध में मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 2737 /20:7 नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन 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 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. a "Y

उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था से यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा के प्राविधान के अनुसार अनुबन्ध में दिये गये पूर्णता एवं कब्जे देने के प्रस्तर का पुनर्लेखन नहीं किया जा सकता। धारा 4(2)0)(सी) के अन्तर्गत प्रोमोटर एक नई समय सीमा दे सकता है, जो कि अनुबन्ध पर निर्भर नहीं होगा किन्तु उक्त समय सीमा रेरा में दिये गये “पीनल कन्सीक्वेसिज” से बचा सकता है किन्तु उससे वह अनुबन्ध में दिये गये उत्तरदायित्वों से मुक्त नहीं होगा। इससे अवधारित किया जा सकता है कि प्रोमोटर अनुबन्ध में दिये गये कब्जे की तिथि के लिए उत्तरदायित्व है एवं विलम्ब की गणना अनुबन्ध की तिथि के अनुसार की जायेगी। यह भी रेरा अधिनियम में स्पष्ट है कि “ऑन गोईंग” परियोजनायें निश्चित रूप से रेरा अधिनियम की परिधि में आते है। Tage बिन्दु ' संख्या 4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु Ho 2 बिन्दु to 2 इस आशय का विरचित किया गया है कि क्‍या force majeure होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? 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) (जैसे दंगा, आंदोलन, हडताल, औद्योगिक विवाद, परियोजना पर सेवाओं एवं आपूर्ति का बाधित होना, सरकार का नीति परिवर्तन, न्यायिक err आदेश, निर्णय व feet से कार्य बाधित होना, अनुज्ञप्ति व संस्तुतियों में होने वाला विलंब आदि) 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।

इसी कम में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 ,/2047 विकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है:- 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 20-5. 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 2. 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 204 to 205 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 विधि व्यवस्था से यह स्पष्ट है कि वर्ष 2004 से वर्ष 20:5 के मध्य निर्माण कार्य पर कोई we 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 2004 से af 205 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 20i5 के बीच कोई फोर्स मैज्योर gre लागू नहीं था। ऐसी दशा में वह इस तर्क का लाभ पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है।

इसके अतिरिक्त इसी आदेश में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 / 2047 विकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य के निर्णय के पृष्ठ संख्या-234 एवं प्रस्तर tt0 4 फोर्स मैज्योर को निम्नवत्‌ परिभाषित किया है:- Force majeure shall mean a case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature. उपरोक्त फोर्स मैज्योर के परिभाषा से यह स्पष्ट है कि फोर्स मैज्योर वह स्थिति है, जिसमें की युद्ध, बाढ़, सूखा, आग, तूफान, भूकम्प या अन्य प्रकृतिक आपदा आई हो, प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में ऐसी कोई परिस्थिति उत्पन्न नहीं हुई और विपक्षी ऐसी दशा में वह इस तर्क का लाभ पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है। Tagan बिन्दु सं० 2 frente किया जाता है। 5 निस्तारण बिन्दु Ho 3 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा कब्जा अभी तक नहीं दिया गया है। अतः कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। पत्रावली पर दाखिल आवंटन पत्र के पृष्ठ We-i6 के कब्जे वाले प्रस्तर-40.4 में दिनांक 30.06.2047 तक कब्जा दिये जाने का उल्लेख है, जिसके अनुसार कब्जे की तिथि 30.06.20:7 ही होती है। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 04.07.2047 से ओ.सी. / सी.सी. अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो, तक की अवधि पर ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित है। जहाँ तक केता द्वारा रिफण्ड के अनुरोध का प्रश्न है, इस विषय में रेरा अधिनियम के प्राविधानों को समग्र रूप से पढ़ा 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 76 (7) “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. इस प्रकार केता को यह अधिकार है कि यदि उन्हें एग्रीमेंट के अनुरूप कब्जा नही मिलता तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि को ब्याज सहित वापिस माँग सकते हैं अथवा मासिक दर से ब्याज प्राप्त करते हुए प्ररियोजना 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।

इसी प्रकार धारा 32 में रियल gee सेक्टर के विकास हेतु अथॉरिटी के उत्तरदायित्यों में निम्न भी सम्मिलित हैं :- “३2, 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,....... (Dany other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” sar Wha से यह ere है कि “रियल एस्टेट सेक्टर” के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके सभी wo 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 प्राललि. 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 77 2 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 72, /4, /6 and /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 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’ के अनुरूप आदेश पारित किए जा सकते हैं। एलोटीज़ द्वारा धनराशि वापस किए जाने व परियोजना में बने रहने वाले एलोटीज के हितों में wager के प्रसंग में “चित्रा शर्मा बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया” (744 / 2047) 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 wat vent 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 9)

निश्चय ही यह अधिनियम के “ऑबजेक्टिव” तथा “स्कीम” के अनुरूप न होगा। रिफण्ड का निर्णय लेते समय प्रत्येक मामले की “यूनीकनेस” प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों यथा “कन्सट्रक्शन” की स्थिति, कम्पलीशन की “टाईम लाईन”, प्रोमोटर्स के द्वारा ऑफर ऑफ पजेशन के “कमिटमेन्ट” की स्थिति, अन्य “स्टेक होल्डर्स”, विशेष रूप से परियोजना के साथ बने रहने वाले “एलॉटीज” पर प्रभाव, “प्रस्तावित पज़ेशन डेट” के विषय में “कन्सेन्सस्‌” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। यह शिकायत शिकायतकर्ता ने विपक्षी द्वारा उन्हें कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने के बाद दायर की है। समस्त परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए जबकि परियोजना पूर्ण है और परियोजना का ओ:सी. भी प्राप्त किया जा चुका है। इस. स्तर पर धनवापस किया जाना उचित नहीं होगा। यह स्पष्ट है कि अनुबन्ध के अनुसार परियोजना डेढ़ वर्ष के समीप तक विलम्ब है, जिससे परियोजना को अत्यधिक विलम्ब की श्रेणी में नहीं कहा जा सकता। zeta में यह उचित होगा कि शिकायतकर्ता ओ.सी /सीसी सहित कब्जा लें। वैसे भी शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा परियोजना में निवेश फ्लैट के कब्जे हेतु किया गया है। निश्चय ही परियोजना में बने रहने की दशा में एलॉटीज़ को विलम्ब हेतु नियमानुसार ब्याज प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा देय होगा। 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 48()(0) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable. » अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व केता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है।

जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विकय ,/पटटा के लिए करार) नियमावली 20i8 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें dome के रूप में दिये गये विकय/पटटा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.2(ii) ¥ प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है कि:- The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +l% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice: यही दर आवंटियों के द्वारा डिफॉल्ट की स्थिति में भी प्रस्तर 9.30) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को MciR+ प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि यदि शिकायतकर्ता की कोई देय धनराशि विलंबित है, तो विपक्षी भी McLRH प्रतिशत की दर से ही ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। जहाँ तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है, तो इस सम्बंध में सिविल अपील Wo 6649-50 ,/2048 सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

" the period of Interest should close on April 20!6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of > 40 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./सी.सी. मिलने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो की तिथि तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। तदनुसार बिन्दु wo 3 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 दिनांक 34.04.2020 तक शिकायतकर्ता के फ्लैट की आवंटन पत्र/अनुबन्ध के अनुसार समस्त सुविधाओं को पूर्ण कराकर कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित और देय KT शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें। 2. विपक्षी को यह भी आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 04.07.2047 से, ओ.सी. / सी.सी. अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो, तक की अवधि के लिए शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि पर MCLR+I 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।

3. विपक्षी उपरोकतानुसार संशोधित मांग पत्र जारी करना सुनिश्चित करें। 4. यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम 2046 के धारा 2 (za)(i) के अन्तर्गत ब्याज को 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 दर MCLR+I प्रतिशत होनी चाहिए। > 42 5 इस आदेश का उल्लघंन उ0फप्र0भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। दिनांक '४ //2, 2049 anaes oa a (राजीव कुमार) (अध्यक्ष) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण