U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar Bench-2 Present: Shri Balvinder Kumar, Member Complaint No. [?] | Unit No. | Amount Sr. No. a. | NCR44/4/027/209 | Sudhir Gupta | 4-604 | 9,83,657/- NCRI44//I269/209 | Jile Singh & Brothers Pvt. Ltd. | 60,50,2,066/- Versus Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd. Along with complainant Sudhir Gupta, 4 other complainants have filed a case against the respondent. The facts of these two complaints are the same, and the evidence is the same. The complainant Jile Singh & Brothers Pvt. Ltd. is an allottee [?]. On examining the agreement, it was found that their unit is in the respondent's project WMCC-2B. The complainant Jile Singh has requested before the bench that the amount deposited be refunded with interest. As stated above, both these complaints relate to the project WMCC-2B [?]. Therefore, both are being decided by a single order. Complaint No. NCRI44//027/20I9, Sudhir Gupta, will be the lead case. The present complaint petition has been instituted by the complainant against the respondent [?] for possession, correction of demands, interest for the delayed period, or otherwise refund of the amount deposited with interest.

In brief, the complainant states that they booked unit no. &-604 in the respondent's project WMCC-2B, for which they paid Rs. 94,83,657/- in installments from time to time. The respondent was to complete the project and hand over possession to the complainant by 46.08.20i6, but possession has still not been given. The complainant therefore also says that the project has been delayed by more than 3 years. Against the respondent, the complainant has requested possession, correction of demands, interest for the delayed period, or otherwise refund of the amount deposited with interest. In support of the statement, the complainant has filed photocopies of the allottee arrangement agreement, the receipts [?] for the amount deposited, the petition and other documents.

The respondent filed a written reply stating that the complainant was allotted unit Wo 2B-A/I604 in its named project. Against the basic sale price of Rs. 4,09,65,849.03/-, Rs. 9,83,657/- has been paid to them by the complainant. An application for the project completion certificate has already been made to the competent authority, which is expected to be received within 4-5 months. The construction work of the project is fully ready. Internal finishing work is in progress, and the lifts are also operational. The delay in construction was caused by force majeure events. In an order passed by the Hon'ble N.G.T., construction within a 40 km periphery of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary was banned, due to which construction in the project was delayed and work was obstructed. Further, at the hearing before the bench on 26.05.2020, the respondent stated that it had already received the O.C. for the project. In support of its statement, the respondent has filed a photocopy of the occupancy certificate dated 26.09.2049. Both parties were heard and the file was perused. On the basis of the parties' pleadings, the following issues have been framed for determination: 1. Since there is an arbitration clause in the agreement [?], does this bench have jurisdiction to hear the case? 2. Do agreements made before RERA not fall within the scope of [?]? 3. Was the respondent's project delayed due to force majeure? If yes, what is the effect?

4. Is the complainant's demand for refund of the amount deposited justified? 5. Is the complainant entitled to possession and interest for the delayed period? Disposal of issue no. 4 The respondent has also argued that the agreement contains an arbitration clause [?], so any dispute between the complainant and the respondent can be resolved only through an arbitrator, and this bench does not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in MR MGF vs. Aftab Singh [?], has held as follows: (i) the disputes which are to be adjudicated and governed by statutory enactments, established for specific public purpose to sub-serve a particular public policy are not arbitrable; (ii) there are vast domains of the legal universe that are non-arbitrable and kept at a distance from private dispute resolution; (iii) the subject amendment was meant for a completely different purpose, leaving status quo ante unaltered and subsequently reaffirmed and restated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court;

In light of the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court, it is clear that some disputes cannot be resolved by an arbitrator even after an arbitration agreement. The jurisdiction of specially constituted authorities cannot be ousted merely by the cover of an arbitration clause. For all such disputes for which special bodies have been created by [?] law and given jurisdiction, the arbitrator is not competent to resolve them. In light of the above legal position, it is clear that Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2046 shall override the Arbitration Act. The N.C.D.R.C., applying the reasoning in A. Ayyaswamy, concluded that the same principle can apply under the Real Estate Act [?] to such matters, which provides a special mechanism for resolving disputes between homebuyers and builders. In view of the above principles, the question of the respondent referring the matter to an arbitrator stands automatically ended. Accordingly, issue to 4 is decided [?]. Disposal of issue number 2 Issue no. 2 has been framed to the effect of whether agreements made before RERA do not come within the scope of RERA. This issue has been framed on the respondent's averments, and the burden of proving it lies on the respondent. In this regard, the judgment given by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 273/20i7, Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Union of India, is important [?]. It clearly states 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 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 provisions of RERA, the clause in the agreement regarding completion and handing over possession cannot be rewritten. Under Section 4(2)0)(c), the promoter may give a fresh time line, which does not depend on the agreement. But that time line can save him from the penal consequences under RERA; it does not release him from the obligations in the agreement. It can therefore be held that the promoter is liable for the possession date given in the agreement, and delay will be calculated according to the agreement. In any case, ongoing projects fall within the ambit of RERA. Accordingly, issue number 2 is disposed of. Disposal of issue to 3 Issue to 3 has been framed to the effect of whether the project was actually delayed due to force majeure events. This issue has been framed on the respondent's averments, and the burden of proving it lies on the respondent.

The respondent has stated that the project was delayed by certain unforeseen events (force majeure events) such as riots, agitation, strikes, industrial disputes, obstruction of services and supplies to the project, change of government policy, [?] orders of courts, obstruction of work due to decisions and decrees, and delay in licences and approvals. It was also stated that the project was affected by orders of the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal and the courts. The respondent has neither stated which force majeure events caused the construction of its project to be delayed, nor has it filed [?] 2 on record from which it would be evident that work on the project land was obstructed. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 940 ,/ 2047, Bikram Chatterjee and Others vs. Union of India and Others, at page 234 and paragraph 440 of the judgment, 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 situation in which war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or another natural disaster has occurred. In the present case no such circumstance arose, and in that case the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of this argument. Keeping the present situation in view, it would be appropriate to treat COVID-49 as a force majeure event. Accordingly, issue to 3 is decided.

Disposal of issue no. 4 The complainant has stated that the respondent was to complete the project and hand over possession by 46.08.206, but possession has still not been given, and therefore has requested refund of the amount deposited with interest. On the other hand, the respondent says it has already received the O.C. for the project. As regards the refund request [?], it is necessary to read the provisions of the RERA Act 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 768 (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 Th 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." Thus the buyer has the right that, if possession is not received in accordance with the agreement, he may demand return of the 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, looking at the interests of all stakeholders as a whole, to ensure the healthy development of the real estate sector. In this connection, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, in which a decision was given on the constitutional validity of the [?] Act, observed at paragraph 424 as follows:

"[?] 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 he 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, 78 and 79, 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 his money back with interest where the unit is not received in time, nevertheless, in view of the above examination, the Authority can pass orders on the basis of all the facts of the case, in line with "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 balancing the interests of allottees seeking return of money and allottees who wish to remain in the project, in the judgment in "Chitra Sharma vs. Union of India" (744/2047), the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observation at paragraph 40:

"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 sought a refund of [?] 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 above paragraphs by the High Court and the Supreme Court, and the overall scheme of the RERA Act, it is also clear that if a decision to return money were taken in every case of delay, it would certainly not be in accordance with the "objective" and "scheme" of the Act. While deciding a refund, it will be in the interest of justice to consider the "uniqueness" of each case, all the facts of the matter, such as the state of "construction", the "time line" of completion, the promoters' "commitment" regarding the offer of possession, other "stakeholders", especially the effect on "allottees" who remain with the project, and "consensus" on the "proposed possession date", and so on. Considering the basic purpose of constituting [?] and all the circumstances, it will be in the interest of justice to take an appropriate decision and pass an order. With regard to the constitution of RERA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 940,/ 2047, Bikram Chatterjee and Others vs. Union of India and Others, in its order dated 23.07.2049, at paragraph 420 of page [?], stated as follows:

"20 It is apparent that RERA intends protection of home-buyers and aims at completion of the buildings. The buildings have to be completed, for that, we are required to pass orders. We have already assigned the task to NBCC for completion of buildings 88 the promoters/builders have failed to complete the building within the time fixed and the time which could have been extended. Now, more than l0 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the promoter/builder. The maximum time fixed in RERA has also [?] and extension could not have been beyond [?] year." As stated above, it has been made clear that RERA is meant to protect the interests of allottees, and its aim is that promoters complete all development work of the building so that homebuyers get their homes/flats. Accordingly, at page 255 and paragraph 437 of the order, the following is stated: "The provisions of RERA are beneficial to the home buyers and are intended to insulate them from fraudulent action, ensures completion of the building and it is the duty of the court to protect and ensure the home buyers' interest and at the same time to hold them responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under the said statute. We are not absolving the home buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At the same time, they have the right of enforcement of their right for compensation due to undue delay in completion of the project."

The observation also makes clear that RERA's provisions are beneficial to homebuyers and are intended to protect allottees' interests against any kind of betrayal; supervising the completion of the building is RERA's task, and the duties and responsibilities of the parties are fixed in the Act. It has also been held that where a project is delayed, homebuyers shall have the right to receive interest as per rules for the delay until the project is complete. Following this, again in relation to RERA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 43,/ 2049, Pioneer [?] Land and Infrastructure Limited and Others vs. Union of India and Others, in its order dated 09.08.2049, at paragraph 29 of page 86, stated as follows: [?] "The object of RERA is to see that real estate projects come to fruition within the stated period and to see that allottees of such projects are not left in the lurch and are finally able to realise their dream of a home, or be paid compensation if such dream _ is shattered, or at least get back monies that they had advanced towards the project with interest. At the same time, recalcitrant allottees are not to be tolerated, as they must also perform their part of the bargain, namely, to pay instalments as and when they become due and payable."

An important observation in the said order is that RERA's aim is, under its supervision and oversight, to have promoters complete real estate projects within a stipulated period, so that allottees are not deprived of their flats and are able to get the home of their dreams; and that recalcitrant allottees are also held responsible for not cooperating in completion of the project. It has also been said that allottees should properly perform their duties, mainly by ensuring timely payment of instalments, so that the project can be completed. In accordance with the legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the main objective of RERA is to have the project completed by the promoters and to ensure that allottees pay their instalments properly, so that the project can be completed within the stipulated period. To protect the interests of allottees, interest for delay in the project shall also be payable to allottees; but before that, it is also the complainant's responsibility to pay instalments on time.

Since the respondent has the O.C. for the project, which shows that the project is complete, and other allottees of the project are waiting for possession, it would be appropriate, in view of all the circumstances, that the complainant take possession of their unit by 30.09.2020. After that, they may decide for themselves on the future use of the unit. In any case, the amount was invested in the project for possession, and it has been used by the respondent for construction of the project. Certainly, if allottees remain in the project, the promoters are liable to pay interest for the delay as per rules. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to return the amount at the stage of project completion. Accordingly, disposal of issue no. 4 is decided. Disposal of issue to 5 The complainant says possession was to be given by the respondent by 6.08.20i6, but possession has still not been given. On the other hand, the respondent says that it has received the O.C. for the project. A copy of the allottee arrangement agreement dated 47.08.2042 is on file. On a perusal of paragraph 5.4 at page 44 of that agreement, it is seen that the respondent was to hand over possession within 48 months from the [?] date of this agreement, with a grace period of 6 months. This agreement was executed on 47.08.2042. In such case, as stated above, the possession date is 47.02.2047.

It is clear that the project is delayed, and therefore the complainant is entitled to interest for the delayed period from 8.02.2047 up to the date of O.C./C.C. or offer of possession, whichever is later. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Maharashtra High Court, in the petition Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Union of India, has held as follows: Section 8(l)(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 [?] of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable.

Therefore, in light of the above decision, it is clear that under the provisions of U.P. RERA, interest on the delay and on the principal amount shall be payable in accordance with the agreement between the promoter and the buyer, because the promoters have used the said amount. As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2046, notified on 47.40.2048 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules 208. In it, under paragraph 9 of the format of the sale/lease deed given as an annexure, the promoters' default events (Events of default) are defined, in which paragraph 9.2 (ii) F provides for the allottee in the event the promoter defaults, 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 also prescribed in [?] 9.30) for default by the allottees. Keeping this provision in view, it appears justified to award the allottee interest for the delayed period at the rate of MCLRH [?] percent.

As regards the period up to which interest is to be awarded, in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50/20:8, Supertech Limited vs. Rajni Goyal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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 20I6. The Respondent ~ Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 20l6 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 position, the complainant is entitled to delay interest up to the date of receipt of O.C./C.C. or the date of offer of possession, whichever is later [?]. In that case, the complainant will be entitled to receive interest for the delay up to the date of receipt of O.C./C.C. or the date of offer of possession, whichever is later. Accordingly, issue number 5 is [?] decided.

As is known to all people, a pandemic such as the coronavirus infection has spread widely in all countries of the world. In such a situation, to prevent and control COVID-49 (Corona Virus Disease), a lockdown was announced across the whole country on 24.03.2020. During the lockdown, all work was restricted, so all sectors were affected, including the real estate sector. In the interest of justice, keeping this in view, no interest for delay in the project from 24.03.2020 to 30.09.2020 shall be paid by the promoter to the allottees. Disposing of the issues, the following orders are passed. Order 1. The respondent is directed to ensure that it hands over possession to the complainants, with all facilities as per the allotment letter/agreement completed, by 30.09.2020, with O.C./C.C., and, after receiving the payable stamp duty, to get the registration done as per rules.

2. The respondent shall ensure payment to the complainant of interest for the delayed period at MCLR+I percent on the amount deposited by the complainant, from 48.02.2047 up to the date of receipt of O.C./C.C. or the offer of possession, whichever is later. It is also clarified that this interest amount shall be adjusted in the final payment amount, and if the interest amount exceeds the amount payable, it shall be refunded to the complainant as per rules. In the case of other complainants, the calculation shall be made as per the agreement [?]. Keeping in view the lockdown in the country to prevent and control COVID-49, interest shall not be calculated for the delay in the project from 24.03.2020 to 30.09.2020. 3. The respondent is directed that interest is defined under Section 2 (zai) of the RERA Act 2046, i.e. if, after RERA came into force, any interest rate is charged by the promoter for the allottee's default, the same rate shall be paid to the allottee when the promoter defaults. The interest rate notified by the State Government is ||4812+ percent. 4. [?] The respondent shall ensure that the offer of possession letter [?] is issued along with O.C./C.C. 5. A copy of this order shall be placed on each of the relevant files, and the amount and interest shall be calculated in each case in accordance with the principles laid down in this order.

Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 of the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 and other relevant provisions. The order be uploaded on the portal. (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Date: 49 /06 / 2020

Sf ३५ उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर ( पीठ-2 उपस्थिति:- श्री बलविन्दर कुमार, सदस्य = शिकायत संख्या reread | यूनिट सं0 धनराशि सं0 a . |NCR44/4/027/209 सुधीर गुप्ता 4-604 9,83,657/- NCRI44//I269/209 | जिले सिंह एण्ड ब्रदर्स प्रा. 60 ,50,2,066/- लि0. बनाम aa मेगासिटी सेन्टर प्रा.लि. शिकायतकर्ता सुधीर गुप्ता के साथ 4 अन्य शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध वाद योजित किया गया है। इन दोनों शिकायतों के तथ्य समान हैं और एक समान साक्ष्य हैं। शिकायतकर्ता जिले सिंह एण्ड ब्रदर्स mf. के आवंटी ate अनुबन्ध की विवेचना के उपरान्त यह पाया गया कि उनकी यूनिट विपक्षी की परियोजना WMCC-2B में हैं। शिकायतकर्ता जिले सिंह द्वारा पीठ के समक्ष जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापिस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। उपरोकतानुसार यह दोनों शिकायतें wocc-28 परियोजना से सम्बंधित है। अतः एक ही निर्णय से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत सं0 NCRI44//027/20I9 सुधीर गुप्ता अग्रणी वाद रहेगा। प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के feng कब्जा, मांगों को सही किये जाने, विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज अन्यथा जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना WMCC-2B में यूनिट सं0- &-604 बुक किया “a Page 4 a

लिए उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 94,83,657/-wad का भुगतान किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 46.08.20i6 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, परन्तु अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है कि परियोजना में 3 वर्ष से अधिक का विलम्ब हुआ है। विपक्षी के विरूद्ध कब्जा, मांगों को सही किये जाने, विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने अन्यथा जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटी अरेन्जमेंट अनुबन्ध, जमा धनराशि की WAS, प्रार्थना-पत्र आदि की छायाप्रति दाखिल की गयी है। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवादपत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को उनकी नामित परियोजना में यूनिट Wo 2B-A/I604 आवंटित किया गया था। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा मूल विकय कीमत 4,09,65,849.03 /— रूपये के सापेक्ष 9,83,657/- रूपये की धनराशि उन्हें अदा की गयी है। परियोजना के पूर्णता प्रमाण- पत्र हेतु सक्षम प्राधिकरण को आवेदन किया जा चुका है, जोकि 4-5 माह में उन्हें प्राप्त हो जाय परियोजना का निमार्ण कार्य पूर्ण रूप तैयार है। अंदरूनी फिनिसिंग कार्य चल रहा है, लिफ्ट भी संचालित हैं। निर्माण कार्य में विलम्ब Force majeure Events के कारण हुआ। माननीय NG.T. द्वारा पारित आदेश में ओखला बर्ड सेंच्यूरी के 40 किलोमीटर पकिक्षेत्र में हो रहे निर्माण कार्य पर प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया, जिस कारण परियोजना के निर्माण कार्य में विलम्ब हुआ और कार्य कराये जाने में बाधा उत्पन्न हुई। इसके अतिरिक्त पीठ के समक्ष सुनवाई के दौरान दिनांक 26.05.2020 को विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया कि उन्हें परियोजना का ओ.सी प्राप्त हो चुका है |

विपक्षी द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में अधिभोग प्रमाण-पत्र दिनांक 26.09.2049 की छायाप्रति दाखिल की गयी है। उभयपक्ष को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। 8. Page 2 पक्षकारों के अभिवचनों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचारणीय किये गये हैं :- eq अनुबन्ध में आरबिट्रैशन aia होने के कारण वाद की सुनवाई का क्षेत्राधिकार इस पीठ को है ? 2. क्या रेरा से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध ww के दायरे में नहीं आते ? 3. क्‍या force majeure होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? 4. क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि वापस दिलाये जाने की मांग करना उचित है ? 5. क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है? निस्तारण बिन्दु सं0 4 विपक्षी की ओर से यह भी तर्क प्रस्तुत किया गया है कि aged में आर्बीट्रेशन का Fast है, जिस कारण शिकायतकर्ता व विपक्षी के मध्य किसी भी विवाद को केवल आर्बीट्रेटर के माध्यम से ही frenRa किया जा सकता है और इस पीठ को इस शिकायत को सुने जाने की क्षेत्राधिकारिता प्राप्त नही है। इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा एमआर एम.जी.एफ. बनाम आफताब सिंह में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- (i) the disputes which are to be adjudicated and governed by statutory enactments, established for specific public purpose to sub-serve a particular public policy are not arbitrable; (ii) there are vast domains of the legal universe that are non-arbitrable and kept at a distance from private dispute resolution;

(iii) the subject amendment was meant for a completely different purpose, leaving status quo ante unaltered and subsequently reaffirmed and restated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; | उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा पारित हू विधि व्यवस्थाओ के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि कुछ विवादों का निराकरण आर्डिट्रेटर द्वारा आर्बिट्रेशन अनुबन्ध के पश्चात्‌ भी नहीं की जा सकती है। विशेष रूप से गठित प्राधिकरणों का क्षेत्राधिकार मात्र आर्बिट्रेशन क्लॉज के आवरण से बेदखल नही किया जा सकता है। ऐसे सभी विवाद जिसके लिए fof द्वारा विशेष निकाय बनाये गये है और इसका क्षेत्राधिकार दिया गया है, इरा प्रकार विवाद को निस्तारित करने के लिए आर्बट्रेटर सक्षम नही है। उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्थाओं के प्रकाश में यह स्पष्ट है कि भू-सम्पदा विनियामक एवं विकास प्राधिकरण अधिनियम 2046 की धारा 79, आर्बिट्रेशन एक्ट पर अभिभूत होगा। एन.सी.डी.आर.सी. ने ए.अय्यास्वामी में दिए तर्क को लागू करने के लिए यह निष्कर्ष निकाला है कि एक ही सिद्धांत रियल wee अधिनियम के तहत उक्त मामलों में लागू हो सकता है, जो कि गृहकेताओं एवं बिल्डरों के बीच विवादों के समाधान के लिए एक विशेष तंत्र प्रदान करता है। उपरोक्त प्रतिपादित सिद्धांतों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए विपक्षी द्वारा आर्बिट्रेटर को संदर्भित करने का प्रश्न स्वतः समाप्त हो जाता है। तदनुसार बिन्दु to 4 frente किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 बिन्दु सं०-2 इस आशय का विरंचित किया गया है कि क्‍या रेरा से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेरा के दायरे में नहीं आते? यह बिन्दु विपक्षी के अभिकथनों पर विरचित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार विपक्षी पर है।

इस सम्बंध में मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 273 /20i7 नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्राणलि0 एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया में दिया गया sere गहत्वपूर्ण है। जिरागें 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 a aan % period stipulated in the agreements for sale | Page 4 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. 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 होगां। 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 वैसे भी ऑनगोईंग परियोजना रेरा की परिधि में आते है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या 2 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु to 3

बिन्दु to 3 इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या वास्तव में परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस होने कारण विलम्बित हुई? यह बिन्दु विपक्षी के अभिकथनों पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार विपक्षी पर है। विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि 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 wr आदेश, निर्णय व डिकी से कार्य बाधित होना, अनुज्ञप्ति व संस्तुतियों में होने वाला विलंब आदि) के कारण परियोजना विलंबित हुई, साथ ही यह भी कहा गया कि परियोजना माननीय राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण एवं न्यायालय के आदेशों के कारण कारण परियोजना प्रभावित हुई। विपक्षी की ओर से न तो यह कथन किया गया कि किन फोर्स मैज्योर की बाबत उसकी परियोजना के निमार्ण कार्य विलम्ब हुआ और न ही फोर्स मैज्योर की ye Page 5 | E Wardell पर दाखिल किया 2 है जिससे की विदित हो कि परियोजना की भूमि पर कार्य बाधित था | इस सम्बंध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 ,/ 2047 विकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में निर्णय के पृष्ठ संख्या-234 एवं प्रस्तर 440 में फोर्स AR 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। वर्तमान परिस्थिति को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए कोविड-49 को फोर्स मैच्योर की श्रेणी में माना जाना उचित होगा। तद्नुसार बिन्दु to 3 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु सं0 4 शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कहा गया है कि विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 46.08.206 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, परन्तु अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है, जिस कारण जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। दूसरी ओर विपक्षी का कहना है कि उन्हें परियोजना का ओससी प्राप्त हो चुका है। जहाँ तक Sat err 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 768 (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 Th Page 6

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 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। इसी प्रकार धारा 32 में रियल इस्टेट 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 we है कि “रियल एस्टेट सेक्टर” के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके ul eo 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 va अधिनियम की वैद्यानिकता के सम्बंध में निर्णय दिया गया था, के प्रस्तर 424 में मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निम्न संवीक्षण किया :-

: The entire = 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 he 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, 78 and 79, 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 we 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 87 #०#7कए 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 सन्तुलन 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 oc. 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 —$_$_—__- | ' 88९ 8

sought a refund of = 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। रिफण्ड का निर्णय लेते समय प्रत्येक मामले की “यूनीकनेस” प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों यथा “कन्सट्रक्शन” की स्थिति, कम्पलीशन की “टाईम लाईन”, प्रोमोटर्स के द्वार ऑफर ऑफ पजेशन के “कमिटमेन्ट” की स्थिति, अन्य “स्टेक होल्डर्स”, विशेष रूप से परियोजना के साथ बने रहने वाले “एलॉटीज” पर प्रभाव, “प्रस्तावित पजेशन डेट” के विषय में “कन्सेन्सस्‌” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। WI के गठन के मूल उद्देश्य एवं समस्त परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेकर आदेश पारित किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। रेरा के गठन के सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940,/ 2047 बिकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में दिनांक 23.07.2049 को परित आदेश के पृष्ठ We के प्रस्तर-420 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है:-

20 It is apparent that RERA intends protection of home-buyers and aims at completion of the buildings. The buildings have to be completed, for that,we are required to pass orders. We have already assigned the task to NBCC for completion of buildings 88 the promoters/builders have failed to complete the building within the time fixed and the time which could have been extended. Now, more than l0 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the promoter/builder.The maximum time fd Page 9 i in RERA has also . and extension could not have been beyond [ year, उक्तानुसार यह स्पष्ट किया गया है कि रेरा आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए है और उसका लक्ष्य यह है कि प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा बिल्डिंग के समस्त विकास कार्यों को पूर्ण कराते हुए गृहकेताओं को उनका आवास »फ्लैट मिल we | तत्कमानुसार आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-255 के प्रस्तर-437 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया a The provisions of RERA are beneficial to the home buyers and are intended to insulate them from fraudulent action, ensures completion of the building and it is the duty of the court to protect and ensure the home buyers’interest and at the same time to hold them responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under the said statute. We are not absolving the home buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At the same time, they have the right of enforcement of their right for compensation due to undue delay in completion of the project.

उक्त आब्जर्वेशन में यह भी स्पष्ट किया गया है कि रेरा के प्राविधान गृहकेताओं के लिए लाभकारी हैं और किसी प्रकार के विश्वासघात होने से आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए हैं एवं बिल्डिंग को पूर्ण कराने हेतु निगरानी का कार्य रेरा का है और पक्षकारों के कर्तव्यों एवं उत्तरदायित्व अधिनियम में तय किये गये हैं। यह भी लाभ दिया गया है कि परियोजना विलम्ब होने पर गृहकेताओं का यह अधिकार होगा कि वह विलम्ब के लिए परियोजना पूर्ण होने तक नियमानुसार ब्याज पा सके। इसी के पश्चात्‌ पुनः रेरा के सम्बंध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-43,/ 2049 पायनियर ada लैन्ड एंड इन्फास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में दिनांक 09.08.2049 को आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-86 के प्रस्तर-29 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है:- ॥/8 Page 0 The object of RERA is to see that real estate projects come to fruition within the stated period and to see that allottees of such projects are not left in the lurch and are finally able to realise their dream of a home, or be paid compensation if such dream _ is shattered, or at least get back monies that they had advanced towards the project with interest. At the same time, recalcitrant allottees are not to be tolerated, as they must also perform their part of the bargain, namely, to pay instalments as and when they become due and payable.

उक्त आदेश में महत्वपूर्ण आब्जर्वशन यह दिया गया है कि रेरा का लक्ष्य है कि वह अपनी निगरानी एवं देखरेख में प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा भू-सम्पदा परियोजना को एक निर्धारित अवधि में फलस्वरूप पूर्ण करा ली जाये, जिससे कि आवंटी अपने फ्लैटस्‌ पाने से वंचित न हो जाये और उन्हें अपने सपनों का घर मिल सके, साथ ही साथ दुर्दम्य (Recalcitrant) आवंटियों को भी परियोजना पूर्ण कराने का सहयोग न करने में उत्तरदायित्व माना है। यह भी कहा गया है कि आवंटी अपने कर्तव्यों को सम्यक रूप से पूर्ण करें, मुख्य रूप से जैसे कि किश्तों का समय से भुगतान करना सुनिश्चित कर लें, जिससे कि परियोजना को पूर्ण किया जा सके। ऐसे में उपरोक्त माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्धारित की गयी विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा का मुख्य उद्देश्य, परियोजना को फलस्वरूप प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा पूर्ण कराना और आवंटियों द्वारा सम्यक रूप से अपनी किश्तों का भुगतान सुनिश्चित कर लिया जाना, जिससे कि परियोजना को निर्धारित अवधि में पूर्ण कराया जा सके। आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए परियोजना विलम्ब होने पर ब्याज का लाभ भी आवंटियों को देय होगा, परन्तु इससे पूर्व शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी उत्तरदायित्व होगा कि वह अपनी किश्तों का समय से भुगतान करें | चूंकि विपक्षी को परियोजना का ओस्ी प्राप्त है, जिससे विदित है कि परियोजना पूर्ण है तथा परियोजना के अन्य आवंटी कब्जे हेतु प्रतिक्षारत हैं, समस्त परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए यह उचित होगा शिकायतकर्ता दिनांक 30. 09.2020 तक अपने यूनिट का कब्जा | उसके बाद वे स्वयं यूनिट के भविष्य हेतु उपयोग के सम्बन्ध में निर्णय ले सकते हैं। वैसे भी

: में धनराशि का निवेश कब्जे यु किया गया था, जिसका उपयोग विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना के निर्माण में किया गया है। निश्चय ही परियोजना में बने रहने की दशा में एलॉटीज़ को विलम्ब हेतु नियमानुसार ब्याज प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा देय arm) अतः परियोजना पूर्ण होने के स्तर पर धनराशि वापिस किया जाना उचित नहीं होगा। तदनुसार निस्तारण बिन्दु सं०-4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु to 5 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा 6.08.20i6 तक कब्जा दिया जाना था, परन्तु अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। दूसरी ओर विपक्षी का कहना है कि we परियोजना का ओसी प्राप्त है। पत्रावली पर आवंटी अरेन्जमेंट अनुबन्ध दिनांक 47.08.2042 की प्रति उपलब्ध है, जिसके पृष्ठ संख्या-44 के प्रस्तर-5.4 के अवलोकन से विदित है कि विपक्षी द्वारा इस अनुबन्ध feces की तिथि से 48 माह में एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के साथ कब्जा दिया जाना था। यह अनुबन्ध दिनांक 47.08.2042 को निस्पादित की गयी। ऐसे में उपरोक्तानुसार कब्जे की तिथि 47.02.2047 होती है। यह स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना विलम्बित है और ऐसे में शिकायतकर्ता दिनांक 8. 02.2047 से ओ.सी /सी.सी अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो तक की अवधि पर विलंबित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी 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 किः-

Section 8(l)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the 5 of the delay suffered by ; 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 vouo 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 208 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विकय /पटटा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.2 (ii) F 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 wea 9.30) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को MCLRH प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। : तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज 4 जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बंध में सिविल अपील सं0 6649-50 /20:8 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 20I6. The Respondent ~ Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 20l6 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent — Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession. " उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार ओ.सी. /सी.सी. मिलने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो की तिथि तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी erm) ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता ओ.सी./सी.सी. मिलने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो तक की अवधि तक विलम्ब के लिए पाने के अधिकारी होगें। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-5 Peake किया जाता है। जैसा कि सभी जन-मानस को ज्ञात है कि विश्व के सभी देशों में कोरोना वायरस जैसी महामारी का संक्रमण व्यापक स्तर पर फैला हुआ है। ऐसी स्थिति में कोविड-49 (Corona Virus Disease) की रोकथाम एवं नियंत्रण हेतु सम्पूर्ण देश में दिनांक 24.03.2020 को लॉकडाउन की घोषणा की गयी थी, लॉकडाउन की परिस्थिति में सभी कार्यों पर प्रतिबन्ध लगा दिया गया था, जिससे की सभी क्षेत्र प्रभावित हुए और इसमें रियल gee सेक्टर भी सम्मिलित है। न्‍्यायहित में इसी को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 24.03.2020 से दिनांक 30. 09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु कोई ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा आवंटियों को नहीं दिया जाएगा।

ः बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण रे हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते है। आदेश 4... विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह शिकायतकर्तागण की Gres के समस्त सुविधाओं को आवंटन-पत्र / अनुबन्ध के अनुसार पूर्ण कराकर दिनांक 30.09.2020 तक ओ.सी./सी.सी. सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें। 2... विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 48.02.2047 से ओ.सी./सी.सी प्राप्त होने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो, की तिथि तक शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि पर MCLR+I प्रतिशत की दर से विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करे। साथ ही यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की धनराशि में समायोजित की जायेगी और यदि ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक है, तो नियमानुसार शिकायतकर्ता को वापस की जाये। अन्य शिकायतकर्ता के प्रकरण में अनुबन्ध के अनुरूप BRITA गणना की जायेगी। कोविड--49 की रोकथाम एवं नियंत्रण हेतु देश में हुए लॉकडाउन को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 24.03.2020 से दिनांक 30.09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुएं विलम्ब हेतु ब्याज की गणना नहीं की जाएगी। 3. विपक्षी को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम 2046 के धारा 2 (zai) 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। राज्य सरकार द्वारा अधिसूचित ब्याज दर ॥४८१२+ प्रतिशत है। 4. ' Page i5 CRIA कब्जा ऑफर पत्र j /सी.सी सहित जारी करना सुनिश्चित करे। 5. इस आदेश की एक-एक प्रति सम्बंधित पत्रावलियों पर रखी जाये एवं

इस ओदश में प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्तों के अनुरूप धनराशि व ब्याज की प्रत्येक मामले में गणना की जायेगी इस आदेश का उल्लघंन उ0प्र/भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। delle (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण दिनांक:- 49 /06 / 2020 Page 6 —