U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar Order under Section 34, Bench-2 Present: Smt. Kalpana Mishra, Member Sr. No. | Complaint No. | Complainant(s) 1. | NCR45/02/9069/2022 | Akin Chugh 2. | NCR45/03/88622/2022 | [?] Tilara 3. | [?]452/8682/202] | Jai Singh Thakur Versus Rise Projects Pvt. Ltd. Along with complainant Akin Chugh, 02 other complainants have filed a suit against the opposite party. The facts and evidence of all these complaints are the same. All these complaints relate to the opposite party's project Rise Organic Homes Phase-I. Therefore, they are being disposed of by a single decision. Complaint No. NCR45/02/9069/2022, Akin Chugh, shall remain the lead case. The present complaint application has been filed by the complainants against the opposite party seeking possession and delay interest. Briefly, the lead complainant's statement is that they booked Unit WO-T7-90 in the opposite party's project Rise Organic Homes Phase-I, the total price of which was Rs.28,09,620/-, and against which they paid Rs.28,09,620/- in instalments over time. The complainant states that the opposite party's project is delayed, that the construction work of the project has not yet been completed by the opposite party, and that no completion certificate or other certificates in respect of the project have been obtained from the competent authority. Therefore, the complainant has requested that possession and delay interest be awarded.

In support of their statement, the complainants have filed photocopies of the welcome letter dated 25.05.2045, the allotment / agreement letter dated 22.42.205, account statement, letter for sanction of loan, tripartite agreement, etc. The opposite party filed a reply in support of its statement, stating that the project in question is registered with RERA and that construction began in the year 20:5. The complainant applied for an apartment in the opposite party's project Rise Organic Homes Phase-I, and in the course of that application an agreement was executed between the parties on 22.2.205. As per the possession clause of the agreement, the opposite party was to give possession of the unit in accordance with the grace period of 42 and 6 months. The construction of the project was delayed due to force majeure events, which were beyond its control. Keeping in view the rising pollution in Delhi NCR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the N.G.T. stayed construction work from October 2049 to January 2020. Construction work was affected due to COVID-49 and from time to time due to bans on construction work imposed by the National Green Tribunal. The opposite party has stated that possession of the unit will be given to the complainant by December 2022, and that it agrees to pay the delay-period amount in accordance with the provision contained in the agreement. On the basis of the above facts, the opposite party has requested that the complainant's complaint be dismissed.

Having heard the arguments of both parties and perused the file, the following points have been considered: 4. Do the agreements made before RERA not fall within the scope of RERA, and would the provisions of RERA not apply where the parties executed the agreement before RERA became applicable? 2. Was the opposite party's project delayed due to force majeure events? If yes, what is the effect? 3. Is the complainant entitled to possession and delay interest? Disposal of Issue No. [?] This point has been framed on whether agreements made before RERA do not fall within the scope of RERA, and whether the provisions of RERA would not apply where the parties executed the agreement before RERA became applicable. In this regard, the observation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6745-6749 / 202[?], "Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs State and others", is important, in which it has been clearly stated that: "54. From the scheme of the Act 2016, its application is retroactive in character and it can safely be observed that the projects already completed or to which the completion certificate has been granted are not under its fold and therefore, vested or accrued rights, if any, in no manner are affected. At the same time, it will apply after getting the on-going projects and future projects registered under Section 3 to prospectively follow the mandate of the Act 2016."

From the above legal position it is clear that all agreements signed before the RERA Act came into force, and projects existing before the Act in respect of which the promoter has not obtained a completion certificate, will be subject to the retrospective operation of the Act. It is also clear under the RERA Act that "on-going" projects certainly fall within the scope of the RERA Act. From the above observation of the Hon'ble High Court it is also clear that, although agreements were executed between the promoter and the allottee before RERA registration, if the project is registered under RERA, then all the provisions of RERA shall apply. The opposite party has got the project in question registered under RERA. Therefore, on the basis of the facts stated above, it is clear that the opposite party's project is at present in the category of an "on-going project". In such a case, all the provisions of RERA shall apply. Accordingly, the point is disposed of. Disposal of Issue No. 2 Issue No. 2 has been framed to examine whether the opposite party's project was delayed due to force majeure events, and if so, with what effect. This issue is framed on the opposite party's allegations, and the burden of proving it lies on the opposite party.

The opposite party has stated that the project was delayed due to force majeure events, which were beyond its control. The construction of the project was adversely affected by the bans imposed by the N.G.T. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and by the COVID-49 pandemic. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its order dated 04.4.209, passed in Civil Appeal No. 43029 / 985, "M.C. Mehta vs Union of India", has given the following directions: "With respect to demolition and construction activities we direct that no demolition and construction activities take place in Delhi and NCR region. In case it is found that such activity is done, the local administration as well as the municipal authorities including the Zonal Commissioners, Deputy Zonal Commissioners shall be personally held responsible for all such activities. They have to act in furtherance of the Court's order and to ensure that no such activity takes place. We direct that construction, demolition and activities be stopped forthwith as well as garbage burning. In case, any person is found in construction and demolition activity and garbage burning in Delhi and NCR region, he/she shall be penalized. Any person is doing construction and demolition activity in violation of this order, shall be penalized with Rs.I Lac for such activity. For garbage burning he/she shall be penalized with Rs.5,000/- and besides liable for violation of the order passed by this Court to be dealt with in accordance with law."

Further, in the order dated 09.42.2049 passed in the above Civil Appeal, the following directions have been given: "In the affidavit dated 05.2.20I9, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has stated as under:— '2. That it is respectfully submitted that it is normally experienced that in month of December depending upon Climatic Condition the AQI category varies. As a matter of fact, last year (208) 8 days in the month of December were in severe AQI category. Presently the situation not being severe, CPCB is of considered opinion that partial ban could be in place of construction activities in as much as no construction should be permitted during night time (6.00 pm to 6.00 am). The ban imposed could be partially lifted by permitting activities during day time (6.00 am to 6.00 pm), subject to the criteria stipulated in GRAP, wherein strict enforcement of rules for dust control in construction activities and closure of non-compliant sites is mandated in moderate to poor AQI category and further a ban on construction activities may be imposed by EPCA if Ambient AIR quality levels persist in severe+/emergency category for 48 hours or more.' Hence, the ban is relaxed in terms of the recommendations made by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), as quoted above. However, conditions for raising construction be scrupulously followed."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court imposed a ban on construction for the period (from 04.4.2049 to 44.02.2020). By its order dated o9.i2.20i9, the Supreme Court removed the complete ban and imposed a partial ban. Accordingly, the Supreme Court imposed a ban on construction work for 35 days (from 04.4.2049 to 09.42.2049) and for 33 days (6652) (from 40.42.2049 to 44.02.2020, from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.). The opposite party is therefore entitled to the benefit of 35+33 = 68 days, during which construction work remained affected. Having considered all relevant facts, the U.P. RERA Authority, by its order dated 06.06.2020, gave an additional period of 6 months from 25.03.2020, that is, up to 25.09.2020, for completing all projects in view of the effect of COVID-49 (Corona Virus Disease), and this additional period shall be treated as a period of force majeure events. Keeping this in view, no interest for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020 shall be paid by the promoter to the allottees, and no delay interest shall be taken from the complainant either. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is disposed of. Disposal of Issue No. 3

The complainant has stated that the opposite party's project is delayed, that the construction work of the project has not yet been completed by the opposite party, and that no completion certificate or other certificate has been obtained from the competent authority in respect of the project. Therefore, the complainant has requested possession and delay interest. To this, the opposite party has stated that possession of the unit will be given to the complainant by December 2022, and that it agrees to pay the delay-period amount in accordance with the provision in the agreement. On the file, the allotment / apartment buyer agreement dated 22.42.2045 filed by the lead complainant, in paragraph 6), states that the opposite party was to give possession of the unit by 22.42.2049 under force majeure, with a grace period of 42 and 6 months. However, the opposite party has not given possession within the stipulated period. Further, the opposite party is entitled to the benefit of a total period of 68 days under force majeure. (As described in Issue No. 2.) Regarding this, it is to be stated that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others vs Union of India petition, has held that:

"Section 8()(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not 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." Accordingly, in light of the above judgment, it is clear that under the provisions of RERA, delay and interest on the principal amount shall be payable in accordance with the agreement made between the promoter and the buyer, because the promoters have used the said amount. Further, the opposite party is entitled to the benefit of a total period of os days under force majeure. (As described in Issue No. 2.)

As regards up to what period interest is to be awarded, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal Nos. 6649-50 / 2048, "Supertech Limited vs Rajni Goyal", has held that: "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 of offer of possession, whichever is later. In such a case it appears just that the complainant be awarded delay interest from 22.42.209 + 68 days, that is, from 04.03.2020 until the date of OC/CC or offer of possession.

As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20i6, notified on 7.:0.20:8 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale / Lease) Rules, 2048. In the sale / lease deed format annexed to these rules, the events of default for the promoter are defined in paragraph 9, and paragraph [?] 9.20) 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 +% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:" The same rate is fixed under paragraph 9.30) for default by allottees. Having regard to this provision, it appears just that the allottee be awarded delay interest at the rate of MCLR+[?] percent. Further, by the notification dated 7.0.20i8 of the Government of U.P., Housing and Urban Planning Section-3, No. 4740 / 8--3-48-65 Miscellaneous / 46, the following has been stated regarding force majeure in paragraph 7 of the Model Agreement: "7. POSSESSION OF THE APARTMENT/PLOT:

7.] Schedule for possession of the said [Apartment/Plot] — The Promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot] to the Allottee and the Common Areas to the association of Allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, is the essence of the Agreement. The Promoter assures to hand over possession of the [Apartment/Plot] along with ready and complete Common Areas with all specifications, amenities and facilities of the Project in place on , unless there is delay or failure due to war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project ("Force Majeure"). If, however, the completion of the Project is delayed due to the Force Majeure conditions then the Allottee agrees that the Promoter shall be entitled to the extension of time for delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot]:"

In the same sequence, after considering all relevant facts and circumstances, the U.P. RERA Authority, by its order dated 20.05.2020, gave a period of 6 months from 25.03.2020, that is, up to 25.09.2020, for completing all projects in view of the effect of COVID-49 (Corona Virus Disease), and this period shall be treated as a force majeure period. Keeping this in view, the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020 shall not be assessed, and no interest for this delay shall be paid by the promoter to the allottees, nor shall any delay interest be taken from the complainant. Accordingly, Issue No. 3 is disposed of. Disposing of the above points, the following orders are passed: ORDER 1. The opposite party is directed to ensure that all facilities of the complainants' units are completed as per the allotment letter / agreement, to deliver possession with OC/CC by 34.42.2022, and, on receipt of the payable stamp duty, to get registration done as per rules.

2. The opposite party shall ensure payment to the complainant, from 07.03.2020 until the date of OC/CC or the offer of possession, of interest at the rate of MCLR+[?] percent on the amount deposited by the complainant itself. The amount of this interest shall be adjusted against the final payment amount. If the amount of interest exceeds the amount due, it shall be returned to the complainant. Having regard to the force majeure period, interest shall not be calculated for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020. Further, if the complainant has any over-dues, no interest for this period shall be payable on them. In the cases of the other complainants, calculation shall be made as above in accordance with the allotment letter / agreement. 3. The opposite party is also directed that under Section 2([?]) of the RERA Act, 20I6, if after RERA becomes applicable any interest rate is charged by the promoter for default by the allottee, the same rate shall be paid to the allottee when the promoter defaults. Accordingly, interest on delayed payment shall be payable by the complainant also at the rate of MCLR+ [?] percent. If any amount has been taken from the allottee for delay at a higher rate after RERA became applicable, then the interest amount for the delayed period shall also be calculated at that same rate.

4. 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. 5. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 206 and other relevant provisions. The order be uploaded on the portal. If the opposite party does not comply with this order, the complainants shall have the right to have their order enforced through the RERA Authority. Date: )5/ 40 / 2022 (Kalpana Mishra) Member U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

= somo भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | आदेश अन्तर्गत धारा-34, पीठ-॥ उपस्थिति:- श्रीमती कल्पना मिश्रा, सदस्य | क्रम ¥o शिकायत संख्या शिकायतकर्तागण iF NCRI45/02/9069/2022 | अकिन चुघ 2. NCRI45/03/88622/2022 ie तिलारा 0 पटरा452/8682/202] जय सिंह ठाकुर L_ बनाम राइज प्रोजेक्ट्स प्रा0 लि0 शिकायतकर्ता अकिन चुघ के साथ 02 अन्य शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध वाद योजित किया गया है। इन सभी शिकायतों के तथ्य और साक्ष्य एक समान हैं। यह सभी शिकायतें विपक्षी की परियोजना Rise Organic Homes Phase-I से सम्बंधित है। अतः: एक ही निर्णय से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत सं0- ए८२45/02/9069/2022 अकिन चुघ अग्रणी वाद रहेगा। प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में अग्रणी शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना Rise Organic Homes Phase-l में यूनिट WO-T7-90 बुक की गई थी जिसकी कुल कीमत 28,09,620/- रुपये थी, जिसके सापेक्ष उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 28,09,620/— रूपये. का भुगतान किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना विलम्बित है और अभी तक विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण नहीं किया गया है और न ही प्रश्नगत परियोजना के संबंध में कोई पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र एवं अन्य प्रमाण पत्र सक्षम प्राधिकरण से प्राप्त नहीं किया गया है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। we ee Page १

शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में स्वागत पत्र दिनांकित 25.05. 2045, आंवटन /अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांकित 22.42.205, खाता विवरण, ऋण स्वीकृति हेतु पत्र, त्रिपक्षी अनुबन्ध-पत्र आदि की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं। विपक्षी द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन मे जवाब दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि प्रश्नगत परियोजना रेरा मे पंजीकृत है और वर्ष 20:5 F प्रारम्भ की गई थी। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी प्रश्नगत परियोजना Rise Organic Homes Phase-t में आवेदन किया गया था, जिसके अनुक्रम में उभयपक्षों के मध्य अनुबंध-पत्र दिनांक 22.2.205 को निष्पादित किया गया। अनुबन्ध के कब्जा सम्बन्धी प्रस्तर के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा यूनिट का कब्जा 42 एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के अनुसार प्रदान किया जाना था। परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण विलम्बित हुआ, जो कि उनके नियंत्रण में नहीं था। दिल्ली NCR में बढ़ते हुए प्रदूषण को ध्यान में रखते हुए माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय एवं एन.जी.टी. द्वारा अक्टूबर 2049 से जनवरी 2020 तक निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगा दी गयी थी। कोविड-49 के कारण एवं समय-समय पर राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण द्वारा निर्माण कार्य पर प्रतिबन्ध लगाये जाने पर निर्माण कार्य प्रभावी रहा। विपक्षी द्वारा अंकित किया गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा दिसम्बर 2022 तक प्रदान कर दिया जाएगा और वे अनुबंध पत्र मे उल्लेखित प्राविधान के अनुसार विलम्बित अवधि की धनराशि का भगतन करने हेतु सहमत है। उपरोक्त तथ्यों के आधार पर शिकायतकर्ता की शिकायत खारिज किये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। उभयपक्ष के तर्कों को सुना गया व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया, जिसके आधार पर निम्न बिन्दु विचरित किये गये हैं :-

4... क्या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेरा के दायरे में नहीं आते हैं ? व क्‍या पक्षकारों के मध्य रेरा लागू होने से पूर्व अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किये जाने पर रेरा के प्राविधान लागू नहीं होगें ? 2. क्या force majeure events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हाँ तो प्रभाव? 3. क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है ? निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-॥ बिन्दु der इस तथ्य पर विचरित है कि क्या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेरा के दायरे में नहीं आते है तथा क्‍या पक्षकारों के मध्य रेरा लागू होने से पूर्व अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किये जाने पर रेरा के प्राविधान लागू नहीं होगें ? इस सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-6745-6749 /202 “tad न्यूटेक प्रोमोटर्स एंड डेवलपर्स wo feo बनाम Page 2 somo राज्य व अन्य“ में दिया गया आब्जर्वेशन महत्वपूर्ण है, जिसमें स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लिखित किया गया है कि — "54. From the scheme of the Act 20l6, its application is retroactive in character and it can safely be observed that the projects already completed or to which the completion certificate has been granted are not under its fold and therefore, vested or accrued rights, if any, in no manner are affected. At the same time, it will apply after getting the on-going projects and future projects registered under Section 3 to prospectively follow the mandate of the Act 206." उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था से यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा अधिनियम लागू होने से पूर्व

जो भी अनुबन्ध हस्ताक्षरित हुए या अधिनियम लागू होने से पूर्व की परियोजनाओं, जहाँ पर पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र wade द्वारा प्राप्त नहीं किया गया है, वहाँ पर अधिनियम का प्रवर्तन पूर्वव्यापी प्रभाव रहेगा। यह भी रेरा अधिनियम में स्पष्ट है कि “ऑन गोईंग” परियोजनायें निश्चित रूप से रेर अधिनियम की परिधि में आते हैं उपरोक्त माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आर्ब्जवैशन से यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यद्यपि रेरा पंजीकरण से पूर्व प्रोमोटर एवं आवंटी के मध्य अनुबन्ध निष्पादित हुए हैं, परन्तु यदि परियोजना को रेरा में पंजीकरण कराया जाता है, तो रेरा के सभी प्राविधान लागू ay) विपक्षी द्वारा प्रश्ननत परियोजना को रेरा में पंजीकृत कराया गया है। अतः वर्णित तथ्यों के आधार पर यह स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना वर्तमान में “ऑनगोईग प्रोजेक्ट” की श्रेणी में आती है। ऐसी दशा में रेरा के सभी प्राविधान लागू होगें। तद्‌नुसार बिन्दु संख्या- निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 बिन्दु संख्या-2 इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या force majeure events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हाँ तो प्रभाव? यह वाद 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 फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण विलम्बित हुई, जो कि उनके नियंत्रण में नहीं था। माननीय एन.जी.टी. एवं माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा लगाये गये प्रतिबन्ध एवं oifas—t9 महामारी फैलने के कारण परियोजना के निर्माण कार्य पर विपरीत प्रभाव पड़ा है।

माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-43029 / 985 “एम. सी. मेहता बनाम भारत सरकार” में पारित आदेश दिनांक 04.4.209 में निम्नलिखित निर्देश दिये है 5+- With respect to demolition and construction activities wedirect that no demolition and construction activities take veal ०७.०५ . थभार नामक नमक Page 3 place inDelhi and NCR region. In case it is found that such activity isdone, the local administration as well as the municipalauthoritiesincluding the Zonal Commissioners, Deputy Zonal Commissionersshallbe personally _ held responsible for all such activities. They haveto act in furtherance of the Court’s order and to ensure that nosuch activity takes place. We direct that construction, demolition and activities bestopped forthwith as well as garbage burning. In case, any personis found in construction and demolition activity and garbageburning in Delhi and NCR region, he/she shall be penalized. Anyperson is doing construction and demolition activity in violationof this order, shall be penalized with Rs.I Lac for such activity.For garbage burning he/she shall be penalized with Rs.5,000/- andbesides liable for violation of theorder passed by this Court tobe dealt with in accordance with law. इसके अतिरिक्त उपरोक्त सिविल अपील dem-i3029/i985 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 09.42.2049 में निम्नलिखित निर्देश दिये है :- In the affidavit dated 05.2.20I9, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has stated as under:-

"2, That it is respectfully submitted that it is normally experienced that in month of December depending upon Climatic Condition the AQI category varies. As a matter of fact, last year (208) 8 days in the month of December were in severe AQI category. Presently the situation not being severe, CPCB is of considered opinion that partial ban could be in place of construction activities in as much as no construction should be permitted during night time (6.00 pm to 6.00 am). The ban imposed could be partially lifted by permitting activities during day time (6.00 am to 6.00 pm), subject to the criteria stipulated in GRAP, wherein strict emforcement of rules for dust control in construction activities and closure of non-compliant sites is mandated in moderate to poor AQI category and further a bank on construction activities may be imposed by EPCA if Ambient AIR quality levels persist in severe+/emergency category for 48 hours or more." Hence, the ban is relaxed in terms of the recommendations made by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), as quoted above. However, conditions for raising construction be scrupulously followed. Yer Page 4

माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा (दिनांक 04.4.2049 से दिनांक 44.02.2020) की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगायी गयी है, जिसमें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक o9.i2.20i9 4 पूर्ण प्रतिबन्ध को हटाते हुए आंशिक प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया। ऐसे में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा 35 दिन (दिनांक 04.4.2049 से दिनांक 09.42.2049) एवं 33 दिन (6652) (दिनांक 40.42. 2049 से दिनांक 44.02.2020 तक साँय 6 बजे से सुबह 6 बजे तक) की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया। विपक्षी ऐसी दशा में कुल 35+33 = 68 दिन निर्माण कार्य प्रभावित रहने के कारण लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है। समस्त सुसंगत तथ्यों पर विचारोपरान्त उ0प्र0 रेरा अथॉरिटी द्वारा दिनांक 06.06.2020 को alfas—s9 (Corona Virus Disease) के प्रभाव के कारण सभी परियोजनाओं को पूर्ण करने हेतु दिनाक 25.03.2020 से 6 माह की अतिरिक्त अवधि अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक की अवधि दे दी गयी है और यह अतिरिक्त अवधि फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण मानी जायेगी। इसको दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03.2020 से दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु कोई ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा आवंटियों को नहीं दिया जाएगा और न ही शिकायतकर्ता से कोई विलम्ब ब्याज लिया जायेगा। तदनुसार बिन्दु संख्या-2 Peake किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-3

शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना विलम्बित है और अभी तक विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण नहीं किया गया है और न ही प्रश्नगत परियोजना के संबंध मे कोई पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र एवं अन्य प्रमाण पत्र सक्षम प्राधिकरण से प्राप्त नहीं किया गया है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है, जिस पर विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा दिसम्बर 2022 तक प्रदान कर दिया जाएगा और वे अनुबंध पत्र मे उल्लेखित प्राविधान के अनुसार विलम्बित अवधि की धनराशि का भगतन करने हेतु सहमत है। पत्रावली पर अग्रणी शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा दाखिल आवंटन /अनुबच्ध पत्र दिनाकित 22.42.2045 के प्रस्तर-6) में veers किया गया है कि विपक्षी द्वारा फोर्स मैज्योर के अधीन 42 एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 22.42.2049 तक यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान किया जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा निर्धारित अवधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। इसके अतिरिक्त फोर्स मैज्योर के मद में विपक्षी कुल 68 दिन की अवधि के लिए लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है। (जैसा कि निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 में वर्णित है|) we Page 5 इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय के नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन wife. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया की याचिका में माननीय बॉम्बे 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." अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि Ww के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व केता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि wed द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। इसके अतिरिक्त फोर्स मैज्योर के मद में विपक्षी कुल os दिन की अवधि के लिए लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है। (जैसा कि निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 में वर्णित है|) जहाँ तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बन्ध

में सिविल अपील wo 6649-50 / 2048 "सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल" में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है किः- "the period of Interest should close on April 20l6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant — Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 206. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 206 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent — Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession. " उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार ओ.सी.,/सी.सी. अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। ye 9. १६ Page 6 ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 22.42.209 + 68 दिन अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 04.03.2020 से ओ.सी./ सी.सी. अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि तक विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है।

जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 20i6 के अधीन दिनांक 7.:0.20:8 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विक्रय /पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 2048 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विक्रय /“ पट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें WAR 9.20) में प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है किः- “The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:“ यही दर आवंटियों के द्वारा डिफॉल्ट की स्थिति में भी प्रस्तर 9.30) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को ॥४८7२+ प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। इसके अतिरिक्त दिनांक 7.0.20i8 को उ0प्र0 शासन आवास एवं शहरी नियोजन अनुभाग-3 की अधिसूचना संख्या-4740 / 8--3-48-65 विविध /46 के द्वारा मॉडल wire के प्रस्तर-7 में फोर्स मैज्योर के सम्बन्ध में निम्न उल्लेख किया गया है :- "7. POSSESSION OF THE APARTMENT/PLOT:

7.] Schedule for possession of the said [Apartment/Plot] - The Promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot] to the Allottee and the Common Areas to the association of Allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, is the essence of the Agreement. The Promoter assures to hand over possession of the [Apartment/Plot] along with ready and complete Common Areas with all specifications, amenities and facilities of the Project in place on , unless there is delay or failure due to war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project ("Force Majeure"). If, however, the completion of the Project is delayed due to the Force Majeure conditions then the Allottee agrees that the Promoter shall be entitled to the extension of time for delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot]:" wo Page 7 इसी कम में समस्त सुसंगत तथ्यों के बाद उ0प्र0 रेरा अथॉरिटी द्वारा दिनांक

20.05.2020 को कोविड-49 (Corona Virus Disease) के प्रभाव के कारण सभी परियोजनाओं को पूर्ण करने हेतु दिनाक 25.03.2020 से 6 माह की अवधि अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक की अवधि दे दी गयी है और यह अवधि फोर्स मैज्योर की अवधि मानी जायेगी। इसको दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03.2020 से दिनांक 25. 09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब का आंकलन नहीं किया जाएगा तथा इस हेतु कोई ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा आवंटियों को नहीं दिया जाएगा और न ही शिकायतकर्ता से कोई विलम्ब ब्याज लिया जायेगा। तदूनुसार बिन्दु संख्या-3 Peake किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते हैं। आदेश L. विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह शिकायतकर्तागण की यूनिद्स समस्त सुविधाओं को आवंटन-पत्र/अनुबन्ध के अनुसार पूर्ण कराकर दिनांक 34.42.2022 तक ओ.सी./सी.सी. सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें। . विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 07.03.2020 से ओ.सी /सी.सी अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि तक शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा स्वयं जमा धनराशि पर ४07२+] प्रतिशत ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की धनराशि में समायोजित की जायेगी। ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक होने पर शिकायतकर्ता को वापस की जायेगी। फोर्स मैज्योर पीरियड को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03.2020 से दिनांक 25.09. 2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु ब्याज की गणना नहीं की जायेगी। साथ ही यदि शिकायतकर्ता का कोई अतिदेय (Over Dues) है, तो उस पर भी इस अवधि का ब्याज देय न होगा। अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण के प्रकरणों में आवंटन पत्र/अनुबन्ध के अनुरूप उपरोक्तानुसार गणना की जायेगी।

. विपक्षी को यह भी निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम, 20I6 की धारा 2(«४)0) के अनुसार यदि रेरा लागू होने के बाद 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। अतः विलम्बित भुगतान पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भी MCLR+ प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर से ब्याज देय होगा। यदि इससे अधिक दर से कोई धनराशि रेरा लागू होने के बाद आवंटी से विलम्ब हेतु ली गयी है, तो विलम्बित अवधि हेतु ब्याज की धनराशि की भी उसी दर से गणना की जायेगी। Qe Page 8 4. इस आदेश की एक-एक प्रति सम्बन्धित पत्रावलियों पर रखी जाये एवं इस आदेश में प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्त के अनुरूप धनराशि व ब्याज की प्रत्येक मामले में गणना की जायेगी। 5. इस आदेश का उल्लघंन भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 206 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। यदि विपक्षी द्वारा इस आदेश का अनुपालन नहीं किया जाता है, तो शिकायतकर्तागण को यह अधिकार होगा कि रेरा प्राधिकरण के माध्यम से अपने आदेश का कियान्वयन करा सकेगें। दिनांक :-)५/ 40 / 2022 Karr a (कल्पना मिश्रा) जणे (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण