U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar Bench-2 Present: Shri Balvinder Kumar, Member Rise Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sr. No. | Complaint No. | Complainant(s) | Unit No. | Amount Rs./- 1. | NCR45/0/0880/2020 | Usha Devi | T3-202 | 47,33,929/- 2. | NCR45/0/0935/2020 | Naish Verma | T3- [2A02?] | 47,06,092/- 3. | NCR45/0/0938/2020 | Deepak [?] | T9-20l | 56,7,268/- 4. | NCR45/0/0965/2020 | Pal Prasad | T6-203 | 28,94,946/- 5. | NCR45/0/029/2020 | Arun Kumar | T6-508 | 24,29,833/- 6. | NCR45/04/030/2020 | Megha Grova | 78-507 | 24,73,,47/- 7. | NCR45/0/03/2020 | Nisha Rai | [?]-90 | 22,03,904/- 8. | NCR45/0/039/2020 | Chander Pal Singh | [?]6-706 | 28,72,654/- 9. | NCR45/0/284/2020 | Chhote Lal Prasad | [?]6-03 | 28,89,076/- Versus The complainant Usha Devi, along with 8 other complainants, has filed a suit against the opposite party. The facts of all these complaints are the same and the evidence is identical. Therefore, they are being disposed of by a single decision. Complaint No. NCR45/0/0880/209, Usha Devi, shall remain the lead case. The present complaint application has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party seeking possession with delay interest or, in the alternative, refund of the amount deposited with interest, and compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.

In brief, the complainant's statement is that they booked Unit No. T3-202 in the opposite party's project "RISE ORGANIC HOMES [?]", and paid Rs.47,33,929/- in instalments over time. The opposite party was to complete the project and hand over possession by 09.03.209. However, possession has not been given by the opposite party to date. The complainant further states that the project is delayed and construction work is halted. The builder has siphoned the money (SIPHONED THE MONEY), and for this RERA should get the project audited. The complainant therefore requests that the opposite party be directed to hand over possession with delay interest or, in the alternative, to refund the deposited amount with interest. In support of the statement, the complainant has filed photocopies of account statements, demand drafts, receipts for deposits, the allotment letter / apartment buyer agreement, and other documents. The opposite party filed a counter-statement stating that the complainant booked an apartment in its project through an application form dated 06.04.20i5. An allotment letter / apartment buyer agreement was executed on 09.09.2045, under which the complainant was allotted Unit No. 73-202 [T3-202]. The total agreed consideration was Rs.57,88,600/-. The complainant paid Rs.47,33,929/-. The complainant opted for the construction-linked plan.

As per the possession clause of the agreement, sub-clause (...) of the relevant clause, possession was to be given in September 2049, that is, 42 months from the date of execution of the agreement together with a grace period of 6 months. The delay in the project was caused by the orders of the Hon'ble N.G.T. and by the restriction on construction imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The opposite party is striving to complete the project and will hand over possession to the allottees by the completion date given on RERA. In support of its statement, the opposite party has filed photocopies of the allotment letter / apartment buyer agreement. Both parties were heard and the file was perused. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed for consideration: 4. Does this Authority have jurisdiction to hear this matter? 2. Was the opposite party's project delayed due to force majeure? If yes, what is the effect? Is it proper for the complainant to demand refund of the amount deposited? Is the complainant entitled to possession and delay interest? Disposal of Issue No. 4 Does this Authority have jurisdiction to hear this matter? As far as the Authority's legal jurisdiction to hear the matter is concerned, it is to be stated that, prima facie, the provisions for filing a complaint are contained in Section 34 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046, which reads as follows:

"3l. (1) Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any promoter, allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be. Explanation — For the purpose of this sub-section, 'person' shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force. (2) The form, manner and fees for filing complaint under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be specified by regulations." Any aggrieved person may file a complaint before the Authority or the Adjudicating Officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules or regulations made under it, against a promoter, allottee or real estate agent. It is thus clear that a complaint may be presented before both the Authority and the Adjudicating Officer, according to their respective jurisdiction and the matters (as the case may be). The jurisdiction of the Authority and of the Adjudicating Officer, and the matters each may hear, are set out in the relevant provisions of the RERA Act. Under the RERA Act, the powers to be exercised by the Authority are conferred under Sections 35, 36, 37 and 38. Of these, the principal power conferred on the Authority under Section 38, which should be read, is as follows:

"38. (1) The Authority shall have powers to impose penalty or interest, in regard to any contravention of obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents, under this Act or the rules and the regulations made thereunder. (2) The Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Authority shall have powers to regulate its own procedure. (3) Where an issue is raised relating to agreement, action, omission, practice or procedure that— (a) has an appreciable prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in connection with the development of a real estate project; or (b) has effect of market power of monopoly situation being abused for affecting interest of allottees adversely, then the Authority, may suo motu, make reference in respect of such issue to the Competition Commission of India." The sub-section of Section 38 quoted above provides that the Authority shall have the power to impose penalty and interest for any contravention of the obligations placed on promoters, allottees and real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made under it. It is thus clear that penalty and interest for any breach of obligations on promoters, allottees and real estate agents are to be imposed by the Authority under Section 36(4).

Further, the power to adjudicate is conferred under Section 74 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20:6, which reads as follows: "7i. (1) For the purpose of adjudging compensation under sections 2, 44, 8 and section 9, the Authority shall appoint, in consultation with the appropriate Government, one or more judicial officers as deemed necessary, who is or has been a District Judge, to be an adjudicating officer for holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner, after giving any person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided that any person whose complaint in respect of matters covered under sections 2, 4, 8 and section 9 is pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission, established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 986, on or before the commencement of this Act, he may, with the permission of such Forum or Commission, as the case may be, withdraw the complaint pending before it and file an application before the adjudicating officer under this Act.

(2) The application for adjudging compensation under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by the adjudicating officer as expeditiously as possible and disposed of within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application: Provided that where any such application could not be disposed of within the said period of sixty days, the adjudicating officer shall record his reasons in writing for not disposing of the application within that period. (3) While holding an inquiry the adjudicating officer shall have power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to give evidence or to produce any document which in the opinion of the adjudicating officer may be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry, and if, on such inquiry, he is satisfied that the person has failed to comply with the provisions of any of the sections specified in sub-section (1), he may direct to pay such compensation or interest, as the case may be, as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of any of those sections."

The above provision, sub-section (1), means that for adjudging compensation under Sections 2, 44, 8 and 9 of the Act, the Authority, in consultation with the Government, shall appoint one or more judicial officers, who is or has been a District Judge, as adjudicating officer, to hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person concerned. It is thus clear that where compensation is claimed, its decision is to be given by the adjudicating officer. It also appears that the power of the Authority is important for the appointment of the adjudicating officer, because the appointing authority is mainly the Authority, which will make the appointment in consultation with the Government. Accordingly, it is clear from Section 38 and Section 74 of the RERA Act that Section 38 confers on the Authority the power to impose penalty and interest in respect of any contravention of the obligations cast upon promoters, allottees and real estate agents, and the power to adjudicate compensation lies with the adjudicating officer under Section 74, which is to be exercised only under Sections 42, 74, 48 and 49 (only for Sections 2, 4, 8, 9). Section 42 of the RERA Act contains the following provision:

"42. Where any person makes an advance or a deposit on the basis of the information contained in the notice, advertisement or prospectus, or on the basis of any model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, and sustains any loss or damage by reason of any incorrect, false statement included therein, he shall be compensated by the promoter in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that if the person affected by such incorrect, false statement contained in the notice, advertisement or prospectus, or the model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, intends to withdraw from the proposed project, he shall be returned his entire investment along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and the compensation in the manner provided under this Act." The above provision means that where a person makes an advance or deposit on the basis of information in a notice, advertisement or prospectus, and suffers loss or damage because of an incorrect or false statement contained in it, the promoter shall compensate him in the manner provided under this Act. Accordingly, where a complainant seeks compensation with evidence under the provisions of Section 42, its adjudication shall be given by the adjudicating officer.

Paragraph 2 of the same section provides that if an aggrieved allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, the amount invested shall be returned, along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed, and compensation shall be paid in the manner provided under the Act. Clearly, if only the amount with interest is claimed, and the rate of interest is prescribed, then no part of such claim involves adjudication. Thus this section has two parts: the first (Para 1), where compensation is in question, is to be decided by the adjudicating officer; and the second (Para 2), where the deposited amount with interest is in question, is to be decided by the Authority. Similarly, sub-section (3) of Section [?] of the RERA Act provides as follows: "4(3) In case any structural defect or any other defect in workmanship, quality or provision of services or any other obligations of the promoter as per the agreement for sale relating to such development is brought to the notice of the promoter within a period of five years by the allottee from the date of handing over possession, it shall be the duty of the promoter to rectify such defects without further charge, within thirty days, and in the event of promoter's failure to rectify such defects within such time, the aggrieved allottees shall be entitled to receive appropriate compensation in the manner as provided under this Act."

The provision requires the promoter to follow the sanctioned plans and project specifications. In the same sequence, sub-section (3) of Section 44 provides that if, within a period of five years from the date of handing over possession, the allottee brings to the notice of the promoter any structural defect or any defect in workmanship, quality or provision of services, or any other obligation of the promoter relating to such development, it shall be the duty of the promoter to rectify such defects within 30 days without any additional charge; and if the promoter fails to rectify such defects within that time, the aggrieved allottee shall be entitled to receive appropriate compensation as provided under this Act. This also makes clear that the question of determining compensation for failure to fulfil the binding conditions under this section is to be decided by the adjudicating officer. However, the aggrieved person is free to present his case before the Authority for an order requiring the promoter to fulfil those binding conditions. Section 48 of the RERA Act provides as follows: "8. (1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building,— (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or

(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed."

The above provision means that if the promoter (a) fails to complete the apartment, plot or building duly by the date specified in the agreement for sale, or (b) fails to complete or give possession because of discontinuance of its business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of registration under the Act or for any other reason, then, if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, the allottee is entitled, on demand, to the return of the amount received in respect of that apartment, plot or building, with interest at the rate prescribed, including compensation in the manner provided under the Act. Where the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, the allottee shall be entitled to interest for every month of delay, at the rate prescribed, till the handing over of possession.

It is therefore clear that if the promoter does not complete the apartment, plot or building or does not give possession in accordance with the agreement, and the allottee wishes to come out of the project, the allottee shall be entitled to the return of the deposited amount with interest and also compensation. If the allottee wishes to remain in the project, interest is payable for each month of delay. It is also clear that under Section 38 the Authority has the power that where the question is of interest and penalty, it falls within the jurisdiction of the Authority, and where the question is of compensation, it falls within the jurisdiction of the adjudicating officer under Section 74. Read together, the language of these provisions proposes that if the promoter does not give possession in accordance with the binding terms of its agreement, the allottee shall have the right to claim that the deposited amount be returned with interest. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, Section 84, has led to the framing of the U.P. Real Estate Rules, 20i6, in which Form "M" under Rule 33(4) is prescribed for filing a complaint before the Authority, and Form "N" under Rule 34([?]) is prescribed for an application to the adjudicating officer, specially keeping in view the intention stated above. Further, under paragraph 24 of the U.P. Real Estate Authority (General) Regulations, 2049, there is a provision for filing an online complaint.

In the same sequence, the following provisions are for the benefit of allottees: Right of Allottee "9. (4) The allottee shall be entitled to claim the refund of the amount paid, along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed, and compensation in the manner as provided under this Act, from the promoter, if the promoter fails to comply with, or is unable to give possession of the apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale, or due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of his registration under the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder." According to the above, if the promoter fails to comply with the terms of the sale agreement, or, because of suspension or revocation of its registration under this Act or the rules or regulations, or because its business as a developer has been discontinued, or is unable to give possession of the apartment, plot or building as the case may be, then the amount paid by the allottee to the promoter shall be returned with interest at the prescribed rate, and the allottee shall be entitled to claim compensation in the manner provided under the Act.

It is therefore clear that if possession is not given in accordance with the terms of the sale agreement made by the promoter, the allottee shall be entitled, under the Act and the rules and regulations, to claim the deposited amount with interest, and in addition shall be entitled to compensation. In such a case it may be determined that where the allottee is entitled to claim the deposited amount with interest, that jurisdiction is deemed to lie with the Authority, whose power is given under Section 38, because the rate of interest is prescribed by the State Government and there is no question of "adjudication" involved in it. As far as the award of compensation is concerned, that jurisdiction lies with the adjudicating officer under Section 74, because compensation requires determination on the basis of evidence in the prescribed procedure. Section 72 of the RERA Act also provides for the factors to be considered by the adjudicating officer in assessing compensation, and reads as follows: "72. While adjudging the quantum of compensation or interest, as the case may be, under section 71, the adjudicating officer shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:— (a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; (b) the amount of loss caused as a result of the default; (c) the repetitive nature of the default;

(d) such other factors which the adjudicating officer considers necessary to the case in furtherance of justice." In this section, interest has also been added, because the quantum of compensation may be determined either as a lump sum or as equivalent interest. Clearly, interest given as compensation is separate from the case of refund of the allottee's deposited amount with interest. Where the amount of compensation given as interest includes the determination of the interest rate, the interest rate is pre-determined when the Authority orders the refund of the amount with interest, and there is no part of adjudication in it. In a case of refund, the interest payable is given under the rules framed by the State Government, and the adjudicator determines compensation or interest by considering the following four points: (a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; (b) the amount of loss resulting from the default; (c) the repetitive nature of the default; (d) such other factors as the adjudicating officer considers necessary in the furtherance of justice.

Thus it is clear that the disposal of a compensation case by the adjudicating officer has no connection with the refund of the deposited amount with interest. The RERA Act also gives separate provisions for compensation and for the deposited amount with interest. Compensation shall be calculated only on the four grounds given in Section 72 and in accordance with the provisions and conditions of Sections 2, 44, 8 and 19. Under the Act, the Authority has been given the power to regulate the development of the real estate sector in accordance with its various provisions, and the Authority has been given the power to appoint an adjudicating officer, who shall determine only the amount of compensation in a specific manner. As far as the difference between interest, penalty and compensation is concerned, the difference between all of them has been explained on the basis of the following evidence. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others vs Union of India and others, has held that:

"258. In paragraph-9 of Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India, (2007) 3 SCC 545, the Apex Court has held that 'There is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say l0 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest of the amount. Had A paid that amount to B l0 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B.' The object of Section 8 is to recompense an allottee for depriving him of the use of the funds paid by him. The promoter who has received money from the allottee but has failed to adhere to his contractual or statutory obligations cannot claim that he is entitled to utilize the monies without paying any interest with respect thereto to the allottee." From the above it is clear that interest is not a penalty or a punishment, but a normal accretion on the amount. The object of Section 48 is to compensate the allottee for the use of the amount deposited by him. For this reason, this relief is being given by the Authority in the exercise of the powers conferred on it within its jurisdiction. Accordingly, Issue No. 4 is disposed of. Disposal of Issue No. 2

Issue No. 2 has been framed to examine whether the project was in fact delayed due to force majeure events. This issue is framed on the allegations of the opposite party, and the burden of proving it lies on the opposite party. The opposite party has stated that the delay in the project was caused by the orders of the Hon'ble N.G.T. and by the restriction on construction imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the opposite party has neither stated which force majeure event caused the delay in the work of its project, nor has any evidence of force majeure been placed on the file, from which it would appear that work on the project land was obstructed. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal [?] "[?] Chatterjee and others vs Union of India and others", at page 234 and paragraph [?] 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 situation in which war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other natural calamity has occurred. In the present case no such circumstance arose, and the opposite party is therefore not entitled to the benefit of this plea.

The opposite party has stated that COVID-49 should be treated as force majeure. Therefore, in the present circumstances, it is appropriate to treat COVID-49 as a force majeure event. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is disposed of. Disposal of Issue No. 3 The complainant has said that the opposite party was to complete the project and hand over possession by 09.03.2049, but has not handed over possession to date, due to which a refund of the deposited amount with interest has been requested. On the other hand, the opposite party says that it is striving to complete the project and will give possession to the allottees by the completion date given in RERA. As far as the buyer's request for refund is concerned, the provisions of the RERA Act must be read as a whole, so that a balanced decision can be taken keeping in view the views of all parties.

Section 48 ([?]) of the Act provides as follows: "Section 26 (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 [?] of his business as a developer on account of suspension or [?] 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 way, the buyer has the right that, if possession is not given in accordance with the agreement, the buyer may claim the deposited amount back with interest, or may remain in the project and receive interest at a monthly rate.

Section 34 of the RERA Act also mentions, along with the Authority's other functions, "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 or the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a) protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent, ....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector." From these provisions it is clear that it is the responsibility of this Authority to take appropriate decisions, viewing the interests of all stakeholders as a whole, in order to ensure the healthy development of the real estate sector. In this regard, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India, in which the constitutional validity of the RERA Act was decided, made the following observation at paragraph 24:

"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 74 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 72, 74, 46 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 the parties, although the allottee has the right to claim his amount back with interest if the unit is not received in time, nevertheless, in view of the above observations, the Authority may pass orders in conformity with "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", based on all the facts of the case. In connection with the refund of money to allottees and the interests of allottees who remain in the project, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in "Chitra Sharma vs Union of India" (744 / 2047), observed at paragraph 40 of its judgment as follows:

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

Having regard to the observations quoted in these paragraphs by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and to the overall scheme of the RERA Act, it is also clear that if the decision in every case of delay were to be to return the money, that would certainly not be in conformity with the "objective" and "scheme" of the Act. While deciding on a refund, the "uniqueness" of each case should be considered in the light of all facts of the case, such as the state of the "project", the "timeline" of completion, the status of the "commitment" of promoters to offer possession, the effect on other "stake holders", particularly "allottees" who wish to remain with the project, and "consensus" on the "proposed possession date", etc. Regarding the constitution of the "Authority", the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 940 / 2047, "Vikram Chatterjee and others vs Union of India and others", by its order dated 23.07.2049, at page 244 and paragraph 420 of the order, has 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 as the promoters/builders have failed to complete the building within the time fixed and the time which could have been extended. Now, more than 0 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 expired and extension could not have been beyond [ year." It is thus made clear that RERA is meant to protect the interests of allottees, and its aim is that promoters complete all the development work of the building and hand over flats or homes to home-buyers. In the same sequence, the Supreme Court, at page 255 and paragraph 437 of the order, has 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."

In this observation it is also made clear that the provisions of RERA are beneficial to home-buyers and are meant to protect the interests of allottees against any breach of faith, that supervision of completion of the building is the work of RERA, and that the duties and responsibilities of the parties have been fixed in the Act. It has also been given as a benefit that, if the project is delayed, home-buyers shall have the right to receive interest for the delay, as per the rules, until the project is complete. After this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again, in relation to RERA, in Civil Appeal No. 43 / 2049, "Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited and others vs Union of India and others", in its order dated 09.08.209, at page 86 and paragraph 29 of the order, has 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."

In this order, an important observation has been made, namely that the aim of RERA is that, under its supervision and oversight, a real estate project is completed by the promoter within the stipulated period so that allottees are not deprived of their flats and get the home of their dreams. It has also been held that recalcitrant allottees are responsible for not cooperating in completing the project. It has also been said that allottees must duly perform their duties, mainly by ensuring that instalments are paid on time, so that the project can be completed. Accordingly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the main object of RERA is to get the project completed by the promoters, and to ensure that allottees duly pay their instalments, so that the project can be completed within the stipulated period. To protect the interests of allottees, if the project is delayed, interest shall also be payable to the allottees, but before that the complainant also has the responsibility to pay his instalments on time.

On an examination of the completion date of the opposite party's project on the RERA portal, it is found that a completion date of 30.09.2020 has been given on RERA for the project. Since the complainant has basically sought possession, the project is also moving towards completion, and other allottees of the project are waiting for possession, therefore, having regard to COVID-49 and to all the circumstances, it will be just and proper for the complainant to take possession on completion of the project by 30.06.202. After that, the complainant may decide for himself regarding the use of the unit in future. In any case, the investment made by the complainant in the project was made for possession, and it has been used by the opposite party in the construction of the project. Certainly, if the allottees remain in the project, interest for delay shall be payable by the promoters as per the rules. If the opposite party does not give possession to the complainant by completing the project by 30.06.2024, the complainant shall have the right to re-file his suit on the RERA portal to get back the deposited amount with interest after June 2024. Issue No. 3 is disposed of accordingly. Disposal of Issue No. 4 The complainant says that the opposite party was to hand over possession by completing the project by 09.03.20I9, but has not yet handed over possession.

On the file, the allotment letter / apartment buyer agreement dated 09.09.20i5 has been filed by the complainant in support of the statement. On a perusal of sub-clause (...) of the possession clause, it is clear that the opposite party was to hand over possession within 48 months, with a grace period of 6 months, that is, 42 months plus 6 months, from the date of the apartment buyer agreement. This apartment buyer agreement was executed by both parties on 09.09.20i5. In such a case, the date of possession according to the above is 09.09.2049. It is clear that the project is delayed, and in such a case the complainant is entitled to delay interest from 09.09.2049 until the OC/CC is received or possession is offered, whichever is later. As far as the rate of interest payable is concerned, the State Government notified the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale / Lease) Rules, 20i8, under the Act on 47.40.2048. In the form of sale / lease deed annexed to these rules, the events of default for the promoter are defined in paragraph 9, and paragraph 9.2(ii) provides for the allottee in the event of the promoter's default as follows:

"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 +1% unless provided otherwise under the Rules, within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice." The same rate is prescribed in paragraph 9.30) for the event of default by allottees. Having regard to this provision, it appears just that the allottee be awarded delay interest at the rate of MCLR+[?] percent. As to the question up to which period interest should be awarded, in this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal Nos. 6649-50 / 2048, "Supertech Limited vs Rajni Goyal", has held as follows: "The period of Interest should close on April 2016 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."

In accordance with the above legal position, the complainant shall be entitled to delay interest up to the date of receipt of OC/CC or the date on which possession is offered, whichever is later. In such a case, the complainants shall be entitled to delay interest for the period up to the date of receipt of OC/CC or the offer of possession, whichever is later. As is known to all people, the epidemic of the Corona virus has spread widely across all countries of the world. In such a situation, for the prevention and control of COVID-49 (Corona Virus Disease), a nationwide lockdown was announced on 24.03.2020. In the lockdown situation, all work was restricted, so that economic activities were affected, and the real estate sector is included in this. In the interest of justice, keeping this in view, no interest for the delay in the project from 24.03.2020 to 30.09.2020 shall be given by the promoter to the allottees. Accordingly, Issue No. 4 is disposed of. As far as the grant of compensation to the complainant for litigation expenses and mental harassment is concerned, under Section 74 of the Act, the grounds of compensation are given in Sections 42, 44, 8 and 419, which do not include litigation expenses and mental harassment. Therefore, there is no justification for referring the case to the adjudicating officer for determination of compensation. Disposing of the above points, the following orders are passed: ORDER

4. The opposite party is directed to complete all facilities of the complainants' units as per the allotment letter / agreement, to deliver possession with OC/CC by 30.06.20204, and to get registration done as per rules on receipt of the payable stamp duty. 2. The opposite party shall ensure payment to the complainants of delay interest at the rate of MCLR+[?] percent on the amount deposited by the complainants, from 1009.20I9 until the date on which OC/CC is received or possession is offered, whichever is later. It is also clarified that this interest amount shall be adjusted against the final payment amount, and if the interest amount exceeds the amount due, it shall be returned to the complainants as per rules. In the cases of other complainants, calculation shall be made as above in accordance with the agreement. Having regard to the lockdown imposed across the country for the prevention and control of COVID-49, no interest shall be calculated for the delay in the project from 24.03.2020 to 30.09.2020. 3. The opposite party shall ensure that the offer-of-possession letter is issued after the OC is received, as above.

4. The opposite party is directed that, under Section 2 ([?]) of the RERA Act, 2046, interest is defined such that after RERA becomes applicable, if any interest rate is charged by a promoter for default by an allottee, the same rate shall be paid to the allottee when the promoter defaults. The interest rate notified by the State Government is MCLR+[?] percent. 5. If the opposite party does not hand over possession by completing the project to the complainants by 30.06.2024, the complainants shall have the right to re-file their complaint on the RERA portal for refund of the amounts deposited along with interest after 30.06.2024. 6. A copy of this order shall be placed on each related file, and the amount and interest in every case shall be calculated 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. Date: 22/06 / 2020 (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | पीठ-2 उपस्थिति:-- श्री बलविन्दर कुमार, सदस्य राइज प्रोजेक्ट्स प्रा0० लि0 क्रम शिकायत संख्या शिकायतकर्तागण यूनिट सं० | धनराशि रु./- | सं0 , टारा45/0/0880/2020 eS ae i T3-202 | 47,33,929/- 2. | NCR45/0/0935/2020 नैश वर्मा T3- 47,06,092/- 2A02 3. | NCRI45/0/0938/2020 दीपक ART T9-20l | 56,7,268/- (2 NCR45/0I/0965/2020 पाल प्रसाद T6-203 | 28,94,946/- a NCR45/0/029/2020 अरुण कुमार T6-508 | 24,29,833/- 6. | NCRI45/04/030/2020 मेघा ग्रोवा.. | 78-507 | -24,73,,47/- 7. टार45/0/03/2020 निशा राय पए-90 | 22,03,904/- | | इ८ारा45/0/039/2020 चन्दर पाल सिंह प6-706 | 28,72,654/- 9 | NCR45/0/284/2020 छोटे लाल प्रसाद प6-03 | 28,89,076/- बनाम शिकायतकर्ता ऊषा देवी क॑ साथ 8 अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध वाद योजित किया गया है। इन सभी शिकायतों के तथ्य समान हैं और एक समान साक्ष्य हैं। अत: एक ही निर्णय से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत सं0 NCR45/0/0880/209 ऊषा देवी अग्रणी वाद रहेगा। एबह8९4 प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज अन्यथा जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने एवं मानसिक प्रताड़ना व वाद व्यय हेतु क्षतिपूर्ति दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है।

संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना RISE ORGANIC HOMES एप्र4870- में यूनिट Wo-T3-202 बुक किया गया था, जिसके लिए उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 47,33,929/— रूपये का भुगतान किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 09.03.209 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है कि परियोजना में विलम्ब है और निर्माण कार्य स्थगित है। बिल्डर द्वारा धनराशि का दुरुपयोग (SIPHONED THE MONEY) किया गया है और इसके लिए 'रेरा' द्वारा परियोजना का ऑडिट कराया जाना चाहिए। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्ध कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज अन्यथा जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में खाता विवरण, डी.डी., जमा धनराशि की रसीदें, आवंटन पत्र/अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध आदि की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवाद पत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी परियोजना में आवेदन फॉर्म दिनांक 06.04.20i5 के माध्यम से अपार्टमेंट बुक कराया गया था। आवंटन पत्र/अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 09.09.2045 को निष्पादित कराया गया, जिसमें कि शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट सं०- 73-202 आवंटित किया गया और कुल सहमति धनराशि 57,88,600 //- रुपये थी। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा 47,33,929,//- रुपये का भुगतान पं lesa = गया। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कंस्ट्रक्शन लिंक्ड प्लान का चयन गया Page 2 था। अनुबन्ध के कब्जे वाले प्रस्तर-& के उप-प्रस्तर-() के अनुसार अनुबन्ध

निष्पादन की तिथि से 42 माह एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के अनुसार सितम्बर 2049 में कब्जा दिया जाना था। परियोजना में विलम्ब माननीय NG.T. के आदेश एवं माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्माण कार्य पर लगाए गये प्रतिबन्ध के कारण हुआ। वह परियोजना को पूर्ण करने के लिए प्रयासरत हैं और 'रेरा' में दी गयी पूर्णता तिथि तक वह आवंटियों को कब्जा दे देंगे। विपक्षी की ओर से अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटन पत्र »अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं। उभयपक्ष को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। पक्षकारों के अभिवचनों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचारणीय किये गये हैं :- 4. FO इस प्राधिकरण को यह प्रकरण सुनने का क्षेत्राधिकार है ? 2. क्या force majeure होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? क्या शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि वापस feed जाने की मांग करना उचित है ? क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है? निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 क्या इस अथॉरिटी को यह प्रकरण सुनने का क्षेत्राधिकार अधिकार है ? जहाँ तक प्राधिकरण को विधिक रूप से प्रकरण की सुनवाई करने के क्षेत्राधिकार का प्रश्न है, इस सम्बंध में स्पष्ट करना है कि प्रथम दृष्टया किसी परिवाद को दर्ज कराये जाने के लिए भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 के धारा-34 के अन्दर प्राविधान दिये गये है जो कि निम्न रूप से उललेखित है-: 3l. (!) Any aggrieved person may file a fU complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for

any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any promoter allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be. Explanation—For the purpose of this sub-section "person" shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force. | (2) The form, manner and fees for filing complaint under sub-section (l) shall be such as may be specified by regulations SRR कोई पीड़ित व्यक्ति, किसी wate, आवंटी या भू-सम्पदा अभिकर्ता के विरुद्र अधिनियम या उसके अधीन बनाये गये नियमों या विनियमों के उपबन्धों के किसी अतिकमण या उल्लंघन के लिए मामलों के अनुसार (as the case may ४७०), प्राधिकरण या न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के समक्ष शिकायत दाखिल कर सकता है। इससे स्पष्ट है कि शिकायत को प्राधिकरण और न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी दोनों के समक्ष उनके क्षेत्राधिकार एवं मामलों के अनुसार (as the case may ४७०) प्रस्तुत किये जा सकते है। प्राधिकरण और न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के क्षेत्राधिकार और उनके सुने जाने वाले मामले रेरा अधिनियम में सम्बंधित प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत उल्लेख किये गये है। रेरा अधिनियम में प्राधिकरण (Authority) get प्रयोग किये जाने वाली शक्तियों (Powers) का अधिकार धारा-35,36,37,38, के अन्तर्गत दी गयी है। इनमें से मुख्य शक्ति जो कि धारा-38 में प्राधिकरण को दी गयी है, जिसका पढ़ा जाना उचित होगा, जो कि निम्नवत है :-

38. (]) The Authority shall have powers to impose penalty or interest, inregard to any contravention of obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents, under this Act or the rules and the regulations made thereunder. (2) The Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Authority shall a powers to regulate its own procedure. = Where an issue is raised relating to agreement, action, omission, practice or procedure that— (a) has an appreciable prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in connection with the development of a real estate project; or (b) has effect of market power of monopoly situation being abused for affecting interest of allottees adversely, then the Authority, may suo motu, make reference in respect of such issue to the Competition Commission of India. उपरोक्त प्राविधान की धारा-38 की उपधारा-4 यह है कि प्राधिकरण को, सम्प्रवर्तकों, आवंटियों और भू-सम्पदा अभिकर्ताओं पर डाली गयी बाध्यताओं के किसी भी उल्लंघन के सम्बंध में, इस अधिनियम और उसके अधीन बनाये गये नियमों और विनियमों के अधीन अर्थदंड Penalty) या ब्याज (Interest) अधिरोपित करने की शक्ति होगी। इससे स्पष्ट है कि सम्प्रवर्तक, आवंटियों और भू-सम्पदा अभिकर्ताओं पर डाली गयी बाध्यताओं (Obligations) के किसी भी उल्लंघन के लिए अर्थदंड Penalty) और ब्याज (7७७७) प्राधिकरण द्वारा घारा 36(4) के अन्तर्गत अधिरोपित किया जायेगा।

इसके अतिरिक्त नन्‍्यायनिर्णयन करने की शक्ति भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) अधिनियम 20:6, की धारा-74 में दी गयी है। जो कि निम्नवत्‌ है-: 7i. (l) For the purpose of adjudging compensation under sections 2, 44, 8 and section 9, the Authority shall appoint in consultation with the appropriate Government one or more judicial officer as deemed necessary, who is or has been a District Judge to be an adjudicating officer for holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner, after giving any person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided that any person whose complaint in respect of matters covered under sections 2, 4, 8 and section 9 is pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission, established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 986, on or before the commencement of this Act, he may, with the permission of such Forum or Commission, as the case may be, withdraw the complaint pending before it and file an application before the adjudicating officer under this Act.

(2) The application for adjudging compensation under sub-section (), shall be dealt with by the adjudicating officer as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application: Provided that where any such application could not be disposed of within the said period of sixty days, the adjudicating officer shall record his reasons in writing for not disposing of the application within that period. (3) While holding an inquiry the adjudicating officer shall have power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to give evidence or to produce any document which in the opinion of the adjudicating officer, may be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry and if, on such inquiry, he is satisfied that the person has failed to comply with the provisions of any of the sections specified in sub-section (), he may direct to pay such compensation or interest, as the case any be, as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of any of those sections.

उपरोक्त प्राविधान की ani7i(i) यह है कि अधिनियम की att2, धारा-44, धारा-48 और aig के अधीन क्षतिपूर्ति (Compensation) न्यायनिर्णीत करने के लिए, प्राधिकरण समुचित सरकार के परामर्श से ऐसे एक या अधिक न्यायिक अधिकारी जैसा आवश्यक समझे, जो जिला न्यायधीश है या रहा है, arta अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करेगा, जो कि किसी संबद्ध व्यक्ति को सुनवाई का समुचित अवसर प्रदान किये जाने के पश्चात्‌, विहित रीति (Prescribed manner) में जाँच करेगा। ऐसे में यह स्पष्ट है कि जहाँ क्षतिपूर्ति (Compensation) की मांग की जायेगी, तो उसका निर्णय हल णयिक Page 6 अधिकारी द्वारा दिया जायेगा। इससे यह भी प्रतीत होता है कि प्राधिकरण की शक्ति न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के नियुकती हेतु अहम है, क्योंकि मुख्यतः नियुक्तिकर्ता प्राधिकरण है जो कि सरकार के परामर्श से करेगा। अतः रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-38 एवं धारा-74 से स्पष्ट है कि धारा-38 में प्राधिकरण की शक्तियां दी गयी है जिसमें कि सम्प्रवर्तकों, आवंटियों और भू-सम्पदाओं अभिकर्ताओं पर डाली गयी बाध्यताओं (Obligations) के किसी भी उल्लंघन (Any Contravention) के सम्बंध में, अर्थदंड (Penalty) एवं ब्याज (Interest) अधिरोपित किया जायेगा और aRi—7i A क्षतिपूर्ति (Compensation) हेतु न्‍्यायनिर्णयनन करने की शक्ति का अधिकार न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी को है जो कि केवल धारा-42, IRI-74, धारा-48 और धारा-49 (Only for Sections 2,4,8,9) के अधीन किया जायेगा। रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-42 में निम्न प्राविधान है :-

2. Where any person makes an advance or a deposit on the basis of the information contained in the notice advertisement or prospectus, or on the basis of any model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, and sustains any loss or damage by reason of any incorrect, false statement included therein, he shall be compensated by the promoter in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that if the person affected by such incorrect, false statement contained in the notice, advertisement or prospectus, or the model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, intends to withdraw from the proposed project, he shall be returned his entire investment along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and the compensation in the manner provided under this Act. उपरोक्‍तानुसार प्राविधान से यह है कि जहाँ कोई व्यक्ति सूचना, विज्ञापन प्रास्पेक्ट्स में दिये जानकारी के आधार पर कोई अग्रिम देता है या जमा करता है और उसे उसमें सम्मलित गलत, मिथ्या कथन के कारण कोई हानि या नुकसान उठाना पढ़ता है, तो उसकी सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा इस अधिनियम के अधीन यथा उपबंधित रीति में क्षतिपूर्ति की जायेगी। fv Page 7 ऐसे में जहाँ शिकायतकर्ता धारा 42 के प्राविधानों के अनुसार ससाक्ष्य क्षतिपूर्ति की माँग करेगें वहाँ उसका अभिनिर्णय न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा दिया जायेगा।

इसी धारा के प्राविधान के दूसरे अनुच्छेद (Paragraph 2) में यह कहा गया है कि पीड़ित आवंटी परियोजना से यदि अपना नाम वापस लेना चाहता है, तो उसके निवेश की गयी धनराशि, ब्याज सहित, ऐसी दर जो कि पर जो कि विहित की जाए के अनुसार लौटाया जायेगा, और अधिनियम के अधीन उपबंधित रीति के अनुरूप उसकी क्षतिपूर्ति की जायेगी। स्पष्टठतया यदि केवल ब्याज सहित धनराशि वापिस माँगी गई है व ब्याज दर विहित है तो उसमें अभिनिर्णय का कोई अंश समाविष्ट नहीं है। अत: इस धारा में 2 अंग है, पहला (Para l) जहाँ क्षतिपूर्ति का प्रश्न है वह नन्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा निर्णय किया जायेगा और दूसरा (Para 2) जहाँ जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज का प्रश्न है वह प्राधिकरण द्वारा निर्णीत किया जायेगा, इसी प्रकार रेरा अधिनियम की ari की उपधारा-3 निम्नवत प्राविधानित है-: 4(3) In case any structural defect or any other defect in workmanship, quality or provision of services or any other obligations of the promoter as per the agreement for sale relating to such development is brought to the notice of the promoter within a period of five years by the allottee from the date of handing over possession, it shall be the duty of the promoter to rectify such defects without further charge, within thirty days, and in the event of promoter's failure to rectify such defects within such time, the aggrieved allottees shall be entitled to receive appropriate compensation in the manner as provided under this Act.

oi—i4 4 सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा मंजूर रेखांको और परियोजना विनिर्देशों का पालन किये जाने का प्राविधान है। इसी कम में धारा-44 की उपधारा-3 में यह प्राविधानित है कि यदि कब्जा सौपें जाने की तारीख से 5 वर्ष की अवधि के भीतर आवंटी द्वारा, ऐसे विकास से सम्बंधित किसी संरचनात्मक त्रुटि या सेवाओं के कर्मकौशल, क्वालिटी या उपबन्ध या सम्प्रवर्तक की किन्हीं अन्य बाध्यताओं की ओर सम्प्रवर्तक का ध्यान दिलाया जाता है, तो wade का यह कर्तव्य होगा कि वह ऐसी त्रुटियों को बिना किन्‍्हीं अतिरिक्त प्रभारों के 30 hiv : a मम भर Page 8 ri दूर कराये और wade द्वारा ऐसी त्रुटियों को ऐसे अवधि के भीतर दूर करने में असफल रहने की दशा में पीड़ित आवंटी समुचित प्रतिकर पाने का हकदार होगा, जो इस अधिनियम के अधीन उपबंधित हो । इससे भी यह स्पष्ट है कि इसमें क्षतिपूर्ति के निर्धारण का प्रश्न है जो कि बाध्यकारी शर्तों को पूरा न किये जाने के लिए इस धारा के अन्तर्गत, इसका निर्णय न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी का होगा। परन्तु पीड़ित व्यक्ति को यह स्वतंत्रता होगी कि वह, सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा उन बाध्यकारी शर्तों को पूर्ण कराये जाने हेतु आदेश के लिए, प्राधिकरण के समक्ष अपना वाद प्रस्तुत कर सकते है। रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-48 के अन्तर्गत निम्नवत्‌ प्राविधान दिये गये है :- 8. () If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building,—

(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner 35 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. उपरोक्त प्राविधान यह है कि यदि सम्प्रवर्तक-: (क). विकय करार के निबन्धों के अनुसार उसमें निर्धारित तारीख तक सम्यक रूप से पूरा करने में, या IU Page 9 (ख). इस अधिनियम के अधीन अथवा किसी अन्य प्रकरण से रजिस्ट्रीकरण का निलंबन या प्रतिसंहरण के कारण विकासकर्ता के रूप में उसका कारोबार बन्द होने के कारण,

यथास्थिति, किसी अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन का पूरा करने में असफल रहता है या उसका कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहता है, तो वह उपलब्ध किसी अन्य उपचार पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव डाले बिना आवंटी की मांग पर, यदि आवंटी परियोजना से बाहर होना चाहता है, तो यथास्थिति, उस अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन के सम्बंध में उसके द्वारा प्राप्त रकम को, ऐसी दर पर ब्याज सहित, जो इस नियमित विहित की जाये एवं इस अधिनियम के अधीन यथा उपबन्धित रीति में क्षतिपूर्ति दिलाये जाने का पात्र होगा। परन्तु जहाँ किसी आवंटी का परियोजना से बाहर आने का आशय नहीं है, वहाँ सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा उसे कब्जा सौपें जाने तक विलम्ब के प्रत्येक माह के लिए उस दर पर जो विहित की जाये, ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। अतः यह स्पष्ट है कि यदि सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा अनुबन्ध के अनुसार परियोजना को अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन पूर्ण नहीं किया जाता है, या कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है और यदि आवंटी परियोजना से बाहर आना चाहता है, तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित और क्षतिपूर्ति भी पाने का अधिकारी होगा। यदि आवंटी परियोजना में बना रहना चाहता है, तो प्रतिमाह विलम्ब के लिए ब्याज देय होगा। इससे भी यह स्पष्ट है कि धारा-38 के अन्तर्गत प्राधिकरण को यह शक्ति है कि जहाँ ब्याज और अर्थदंड का प्रश्न होगा, तो यह प्राधिकरण के क्षेत्राधिकार में होगा और जहाँ क्षतिपूर्ति का प्रश्न होगा, तो वह धारा-74 के अन्तर्गत न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के क्षेत्राधिकार में होगा।

इन प्राविधानों को संयुक्त रूप से पढ़ा जाये, तो इन प्राविधानों की भाषा में यह प्रस्तावित है कि यदि प्रोमोटर द्वारा अपने बाध्यकारी अनुबन्ध के निबन्धनों के अनुसार कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है, तो आवंटी को यह दावा करने का अधिकार होगा कि अपना जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस ले सकेगें। भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) अधिनियम की धारा-84 के अन्तर्गत उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा नियमावली, 20i6 बनायी गयी। जिसमें प्राधिकरण के समक्ष शिकायत प्रस्तुत करने के लिए फार्म “एम” नियम-33(4) एवं न्यायनिर्णायक ee के समक्ष आवेदन करने के लिए फार्म “एन” fraq—34Qq) का Page 0 | उपरोक्तानुसार विशेष रूप से ais को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए | | प्राविधान है। इसके अतिरिक्त उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा प्राधिकरण (सामान्य) विनियमन, 2049 के प्रस्तर 24 के अन्तर्गत ऑनलाईन शिकायत दर्ज कराना का भी प्राविधान है। इसी कम में आवंटियों के हित के लिए निम्न प्राविधान हैं :- Right of Allottee 9. (4) The allottee shall be entitled to claim the refund of amount paid along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and compensation in the | manner as provided under this Act, from the promoter, if the promoter fails to comply or is unable to give possession of the apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of his registration under the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder.

उपरोक्तानुसार यह है कि यदि wont fier करार के निबन्धों के अनुसार या इस अधिनियम या उसके अधीन बनाये गये नियमों या विनियमों के उपबन्धों के अधीन उसके रजिस्ट्रीकरण निलम्बन या प्रतिसंहरण हो जाने के कारण, विकासकर्ता के रूप में उसका कारोबार बन्द हो जाने के कारण या विकय करार के निबन्धानुसार अनुपालन करने में असफल रहता है या, यथास्थिति, अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन का कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहता है, तो आवंटी द्वारा wade को दिये गये धनराशि ऐसी ब्याज दर पर वापस जायेगी जो कि विहित की जायेगी तथा अधिनियम के अधीन उपबंधित रीति में क्षतिपूर्ति सहित दावा करने का हकदार होगा। अतः यह स्पष्ट है कि यदि सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा किये गये विकय करार के नियम एवं शर्तों के अनुसार कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है, तो वह अधिनियम के अधीन नियम एवं नियमावली के अन्तर्गत जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित दावा करने का हकदार होगा और इसके अतिरिक्त क्षतिपूर्ति पाने का भी अधिकारी होगा। ऐसे में यह अवधारित किया जा सकता है कि जहाँ आवंटी जमा धनराशि का = ea pale सहित दावा करने का हकदार है, तो उसका क्षेत्राधिकार के अन्तर्गत मानी जायेगी, जिसकी शक्ति धारा-38 के अन्तर्गत दी गयी है, क्योंकि ब्याज दर राज्य सरकार द्वारा विहित है एवं इसमें कोई “एडज्यूडिकेशन” का प्रश्न निहित नहीं है। जहाँ तक क्षतिपूर्ति दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है, तो यह क्षेत्राधिकार धारा-74 के अनुसार न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी का होगा, क्‍योंकि इसमें निर्धारित प्रकियानुसार साक्ष्यों के आधार पर क्षतिपूर्ति का निर्धारण अपेक्षित है। रेरा अधिनियम धारा-72 में न्‍यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा क्षतिपूर्ति पर विचार किये जाने वाले कारण के बारे में भी प्राविधान दिये गये है जो कि निम्नवत्‌ है :-

72. While adjudging the quantum of compensation or interest, as the case may be, under section 7l, the adjudicating officer shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:— (a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, | wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; (b) the amount of loss caused as a result of the default; (c) the repetitive nature of the default; (d) such other factors which the adjudicating officer considers necessary to the case in furtherance of justice. इस धारा के प्राविधान में ब्याज भी जोड़ा गया है, क्‍योंकि क्षतिपूर्ति की धनराशि की मात्रा का निर्धारण एकमुश्त धनराशि अथवा समकक्ष ब्याज दोनों के रूप हो सकता है। स्पष्टतया क्षतिपूर्ति के रूप दिये जाने वाला ब्याज, आवंटी की जमा धनराशि की ब्याज सहित धनवापसी के प्रकरण से अलग है। जहाँ ब्याज के रूप में दी जाने वाली क्षतिपूर्ति की राशि में ब्याज दर का निर्धारण सम्मिलित है, प्राधिकरण द्वारा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वार्षिक करने की दशा में ब्याज दर पूर्व निर्धारित है तथा उसमें अभिनिर्णय का अंश नहीं है। धनवापस किये जाने वाले प्रकरण में भुगतान किये जाने वाले ब्याज की दर राज्य सरकार द्वारा बनाये गये नियमावली के अन्तर्गत दी जाती है और क्षतिपूर्ति निर्धारण या ब्याज की गणना अधिनिर्याणक द्वारा निम्न 4 बिन्दुओं को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिये जाते है। (क) व्यतिक्रम के परिणाम स्वरूप अनुपातिक लाभ या अनुचित फायदे की, जहाँ कहीं SAARI हो, रकम: (ख) व्यतिकम के परिणामस्वरूप हानि की रकमः (ग) व्यतिकम के पुनरावुत्तिपूर्ण प्रकृतिः

(घ) ऐसे अन्य कारक, जो न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी न्याय के अग्रसरण के मामले में आवश्यक समझें | ऐसे में यह स्पष्ट है कि क्षतिपूर्ति वाले प्रकरण के निस्तारण जो न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा किया जाएगा, उसका जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस किये जाने वाली धनराशि से कोई लेन-देना नहीं है। यह भी है कि रेरा अधिनियम में क्षतिपूर्ति एवं जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज हेतु अलग-अलग प्राविधान दिये गये है। क्षतिपूर्ति की गणना धारा-72 में दिये गये सिर्फ 4 आधारों एवं धारा 2, 44, 8 व १9 के प्राविधानों तथा शर्तों के अनुसार ही दी जायेगी। अधिनियम के अनुसार प्राधिकरण को भू-सम्पदा सेक्टर को नियमित रूप विभिन्‍न प्राविधानों के अनुसार विकास करने हेतु दिये गये है साथ प्राधिकरण को एक अधिनिर्णायक अधिकारी को नियुक्त करने का अधिकार दिया गया है जो सिर्फ विशिष्ठ रूप से कृत्य अनुसार क्षतिपूर्ति वाली धनराशि का निर्धारण करेगें | जहाँ तक ब्याज, अर्थदंड, क्षतिपूर्ति में अन्तर का प्रश्न है, तो इन सभी के अन्तर के सम्बंध में निम्नवत्‌ साक्ष्यों के आधार पर स्पष्ट किये गये है माननीय उच्च न्यायालय बाम्बे द्वारा नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्राणलि0 आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया आदि में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि- 258. In paragraph-9 of Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India, (2007) 3 SCC 545, the Apex Court has held that “There is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, sayl0 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest of the 0 eee ae amount. Had A paid that amount to

[4 0 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B.” The object of Section 8 is to recompense an allottee for depriving him of the use of the funds paid by him. The promoter who has received money from the allottee but has failed to adhere to his contractual or statutory obligations, cannot claim that he is entitled to utilize the monies without paying any interest with respect thereto to the allottee. उक्त से स्पष्ट है कि ब्याज अर्थदंड नहीं है और न ही कोई सजा है, किन्तु साधारण रूप से रकम पर हुई अभिवृद्धि है। धारा-48 का लक्ष्य आवंटी को जमा किये गये धनराशि के उपयोग का प्रतिदान करने हेतु है। इसी कारण यह अनुतोष प्राधिकरण द्वारा क्षेत्राधिकारिता के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिया जा रहा है। तदनुसार बिन्दु den निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 बिन्दु सं? 2 इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि क्या वास्तव में परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्ट्स होने कारण विलम्बित हुई? यह बिन्दु विपक्षी के अभिकथनों पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार विपक्षी पर है।

विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि परियोजना में विलम्ब माननीय N.G.T. के आदेश एवं माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्माण कार्य पर लगाए गये प्रतिबन्ध के कारण हुआ। विपक्षी की ओर से न तो यह कथन किया गया कि किन फोर्स मैज्योर की बाबत उसकी परियोजना के कार्यों में विलम्ब हुआ और न ही फोर्स मैज्योर की बाबत कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर दाखिल किया गया है, जिससे की विदित हो कि परियोजना की भूमि पर कार्य बाधित था | | इस सम्बंध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील ae faa चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ g¥ i अन्य में निर्णय के पृष्ठ संख्या-234 एवं प्रस्तर ti0 4 फोर्स मैज्योर को निम्नवत्‌ परिभाषित किया हैः- 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। विपक्षी द्वारा कोविड-49 को फोर्स मैज्योर की श्रेणी में माने जाने का कथन किया गया है। अतः वर्तमान परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए कोविड-49 को फोर्स मैज्योर की श्रेणी में माना जाना उचित होगा। तद्नुसार बिन्दु सं० 2 Prema किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-3

शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कहा गया है कि विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 09.03.2049 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, किन्तु 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 वह परियोजना को पूर्ण करने के लिए प्रयासरत हैं और 'रेरा' में दी गयी पूर्णता तिथि तक वह आवंटियों को कब्जा दे देंगे। जहाँ तक क्रेता द्वारा रिफण्ड के अनुरोध का प्रश्न है, इस विषय में रेरा अधिनियम के प्राविधानों को समग्र रूप से पढा जाना आवश्यक है, ताकि सभी पक्षों के मत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए एक संतुलित निर्णय लिया जा सकें। WI एक्ट की धारा 48 (॥) में प्राविधान है कि :- Section 26 (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 मा © of his business as a developer on account of suspension or | 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 क्रेता को यह अधिकार है कि यदि उन्हें We 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 “Wry” 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 sec सेक्टर के विकास हेतु अथॉरिटी के उत्तरदायित्यों में निम्न भी सम्मिलित हैं :- “32. The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a)protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent,....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” उक्त प्राविधानों से यह स्पष्ट है कि “रियल एस्टेट सेक्टर” के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके wit eo होल्डर्स के हितों को समग्र रूप से देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेने का उत्तरदायित्व इस ऑथरिटी का है।

इस क्रम में मा. मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअरबन प्रा.लि. बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया, जिसमें wr अधिनियम की वैद्यानिकता के सम्बंध में निर्णय दिया गया था, के प्रस्तर 424 में मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निम्न संवीक्षण किया :- dV “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 74 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 72, /4, 46 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.”

vat 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 var वर्णित संवीक्षा को देखते हुए अथॉरिटी, प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों, के आधार पर 9 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। एलोटीज द्वारा धनराशि वापस किए जाने व परियोजना में बने रहने वाले एलोटीज के हितों में wget 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 = Page 7

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. Birstlypetrecasstnd Secondly, the figures which have been made available presently, following the opening of the Web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be unmindful of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund."

मा. उच्च न्यायालय एवं सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा उक्त प्रस्तरों में उद्धरत “ऑबजरवेशनस्‌” एवं रेरा एक्ट की समग्र व्यवस्था को देखते हुए यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यदि विलम्ब के प्रत्येक मामले में धनराशि लौटाने का ही निर्णय लिया जाये तो निश्चय ही यह अधिनियम के “ऑबजेक्टिव” तथा “स्कीम” के अनुरूप न होगा। रिफण्ड का निर्णय लेते समय प्रत्येक मामले की “यूनीकनेस” प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों यथा “Saree” की स्थिति, कम्पलीशन की “टाईम लाईन“, प्रोमोटर्स के द्वाव ऑफर ऑफ पजेशन के “कमिटमेन्ट” की स्थिति, अन्य “wa होल्डर्स”, विशेष रूप से परियोजना के साथ बने रहने वाले “एलॉटीज” पर प्रभाव, “प्रस्तावित sae डेट” के विषय में “कन्सेन्सस्‌” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। ww के गठन के सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940,/ 2047 बिक्रम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में दिनांक 23.07.2049 को परित आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-244 के प्रस्तर-420 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है:- tv Page 8

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 as the promoters/builders have failed to complete the building within the time fixed and the time which could have been extended. Now, more than 0 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 expired 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 गृहक्रेताओं को उनका आवास / yee मिल wa | तत्क्रमानुसार आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-255 के प्रस्तर-437 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है:- 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 he ee को संरक्षित करने के लिए हैं एवं बिल्डिंग को पूर्ण कराने हेतु 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 गृहक्रेताओं 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 aes एंड इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में दिनांक 09.08.209 को आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-86 के प्रस्तर-29 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है:- 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 आब्जर्वेशन यह दिया गया है कि रेरा का लक्ष्य है कि वह अपनी निगरानी एवं देखरेख में प्रोमोटर 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 ae | 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 p>) eee marmite Ss का भुगतान सुनिश्चित कर लिया जाना, जिससे कि wd 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।

'रेरा' पोर्टल पर विपक्षी की परियोजना की पूर्णता तिथि के सम्बन्ध में जांच के उपरांत यह पाया गया कि 'रेरा' में परियोजना की पूर्णता तिथि 30.09. 2020 दी गयी है। चूंकि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा मूल रूप से कब्जे का भी अनुतोष चाहा गया है और परियोजना भी पूर्णता की ओर है तथा परियोजना के अन्य आवंटी कब्जे हेतु प्रतिक्षारत हैं। कोविड-49 को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए एवं समस्त परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए न्‍्यायहित में यह उचित होगा शिकायतकर्ता दिनांक 30.06.202 तक परियोजना पूर्ण होने पर कब्जा लें। उसके बाद वे स्वयं यूनिट के भविष्य हेतु उपयोग के सम्बन्ध में निर्णय ले सकते हैं। वैसे भी शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा परियोजना में निवेश कब्जे हेतु 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 fara हेतु नियमानुसार ब्याज प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा देय होगा। यदि विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 30.06.2024 तक शिकायतकर्ता को परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है तो शिकायतकर्ता का यह अधिकार होगा कि वह जून 2024 के पश्चात्‌ अपनी जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस पाने के सम्बन्ध में 'रेरा' पोर्टल पर अपना वाद पुनः दर्ज करा सकेंगे। निस्तारण बिन्दु सं०-3 तदनुसार निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्द्‌ सं0 4 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 09.03.20I9 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है।

शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटन पत्र अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 09.09.2045 की प्रति दाखिल की गयी है, जिसके कब्जे वाले प्रस्तर-(७) के उप-प्रस्तर-() के अवलोकन से विदित है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध निष्पादन की तिथि से 42 माह एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के साथ 48 माह में कब्जा दिया जाना था। उक्त अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 09.09.20i5 को उभयपक्षों द्वारा निष्पादित किया गया था। ऐसे में उपरोक्‍तानुसार कब्जे की तिथि 09.09.2049 होती है। fu Page 22 यह स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना विलम्बित है और ऐसे में शिकायतकर्ता दिनांक 40.09.2049 से ओ.सी./ MA. 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 Raced सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया की याचिका में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है किः-

Section 8()(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due _ to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable. ad: उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व क्रेता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग | किया गया है। जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विक्रय /पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 20i8 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये Page 22

= विलेख के प्रारूप के we 9 में uated 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 किः- The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +i% 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 ,४८ा,२+ प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। जहां तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बंध में सिविल अपील सं0 6649-50 /20i8 सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

" the period of Interest should close on April 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. " 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 होगा। 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 ब्याज पाने के अधिकारी होंगे। 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 eet aa प्रभावित हुए और इसमें रियल एस्टेट 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। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-4 निस्तारित किया जाता है।

जहाँ तक शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा वाद व्यय एवं मानसिक प्रताड़ना हेतु क्षतिपूर्ति दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है, तो a अधिनियम की धारा-74 के अनुसार धारा-42,44,8 व 4१9 में क्षतिपूर्ति के आधार दिये गये है, जिनमें वाद व्यय एवं मानसिक प्रताड़ना सम्मिलित नहीं है। अतः क्षतिपूर्ति निर्धारण हेतु प्रकरण को एडज्यूडिकेटिंग ऑफिसर को सन्दर्भित करने का कोई औचित्य नहीं है। उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते हैं। आदेश 4. विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह शिकायतकर्तागण की यूनिट्स की समस्त सुविधाओं को आवंटन-पत्र/ अनुबन्ध के अनुसार पूर्ण कराकर दिनांक 30.06.20204 तक ओ.सी. /सी.सी. सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें। 2... विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक i009.20I9 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+ प्रतिशत की दर से विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। साथ ही यह भी लिप लीन. किया जाता है कि ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम ce की Page 24 E में समायोजित की जायेगी और यदि ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक है, तो नियमानुसार शिकायतकर्ता को वापस की जाए। अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण के प्रकरण में अनुबन्ध के अनुरूप उपरोकतानुसार गणना की जाएगी। 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 हुए विलम्ब हेतु ब्याज की गणना नहीं की जाएगी। विपक्षी, उपरोक्तानुसार कब्जा ऑफर पत्र ओ.सी. मिलने के उपरान्त जारी करना सुनिश्चित करें |

विपक्षी को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम 2046 के धारा 2 (ai) 6 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 MCLR+ प्रतिशत है। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्तागण को दिनांक 30.06.2024 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है, तो शिकायतकर्तागण को यह अधिकार होगा कि वह दिनांक 30.06.2024 के पश्चात्‌ जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस पाने के सम्बन्ध में अपनी शिकायत पुनः 'रेरा' पोर्टल पर दर्ज करा सकेंगे। इस आदेश की एक-एक प्रति सम्बंधित पत्रावलियों पर रखी जाये एवं इस आदेश में प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्तों के अनुरूप धनराशि व ब्याज की प्रत्येक मामले में गणना की जायेगी। इस आदेश का उल्लघंन उ0प्र0भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। दिनांक:- 22/06 / 2020 (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण Page 25