U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Order under [?]—3i Present: Smt. Kalpana Mishra, Member Sr. No. | Complaint No. | Complainants [?] | NCRI45/02/89497/2022 | Ishant Saxena 2. | NCRI45/06/95826/2022 | Mo. Nurullah Qadri Versus Rise [?] Projects Pvt Ltd Complaints in question have been filed against the opposite party by complainant Ishant Saxena along with 4 other complainants, seeking return of the deposited amounts with interest. The facts and evidence of these two complaints are the same. Therefore they are being disposed of by one common order. Complaint no. NCRI45/02/89497/2022, Ishant Saxena, shall be the lead case. In brief, the lead complainant states that unit [?]-T8-2005 was booked by the complainant in the opposite party's project "RISE ORGANIC HOMES PHASE-I", whose total price is Rs.36,87,500/-, against which the complainant has paid Rs.27,87,570/- from time to time in instalments. The complainant states that the opposite party's project is is months delayed, and for the past is months no construction work has been carried out at the project site. The complainant is presently living in a rented house and is facing financial burden on account of the rent and the bank EMI. The complainant has requested that the deposited amount be returned with interest.

In support of the statement, the complainant has filed photocopies of the application form, the allotment/agreement letter dated 06.08.206, the loan sanction letter dated 06.08.2046, and the tripartite agreement. In its reply, the opposite party stated that the complainant applied in its project RISE ORGANIC HOMES, and pursuant to that the unit no. r8-2005 was allotted in favour of the complainant. The allotment/agreement letter was executed between the parties on 06.08.2046, under which the opposite party was to give possession of the unit within 48 months from the date of execution of the agreement, including the grace period. The project was delayed due to force majeure events, which were beyond its control. In view of the growing pollution in Delhi 484, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the NGT had imposed a ban on construction work from October 2049 to January 2020. Due to alfes-i9 and the bans on construction work imposed from time to time by the National Green Tribunal, construction remained affected. The opposite party has stated that construction of the project is nearing completion and that the complainant will be given possession of the unit by June 2023. On the basis of the above facts, the opposite party has requested that the complainant's complaint be dismissed and that the complainant be directed to take possession of the unit.

Both parties were heard and the record was examined. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points for determination were framed: [?]. Whether agreements made before RERA came into force are outside the scope of RERA? And whether the provisions of RERA shall not apply where the agreements between the parties were executed before RERA became applicable? 2. Whether the opposite party's project was delayed due to force majeure events? If yes, what is the effect? 3. Whether the complainant's deposited amount can be got back? If not, what relief would be admissible? Disposal of point no. 4 Point framed on whether agreements made before RERA are outside the scope of RERA, and whether the provisions of RERA shall not apply where the agreements between the parties were executed before RERA became applicable. In this regard, the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6745-6749 /202, "M/s [?] Promoters and Developers [?] vs State of U.P. and others", is important, in which it has been clearly stated that:

"54. From the scheme of the Act 20I6, 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." From the above legal position it is clear that, for all agreements signed before the RERA Act came into force, and for projects before the Act came into force for which the completion certificate has not been obtained by the promoter, the enforcement of the Act shall have retrospective effect. It is also clear from the RERA Act that "on-going" projects shall be registered under RERA. The Hon'ble High Court's observation also makes clear that, although the agreement between the promoter and the allottee was executed before RERA came into force, if the project is registered under RERA (registration no. [?]4[?]74086 [?]), all the provisions of RERA shall apply. Therefore, from the facts stated above, it is clear that although the agreements were executed before RERA, the opposite party's project is within the scope of RERA. It is clear that the opposite party's project is an "on-going project", and in such a case all the provisions of RERA shall apply. The point is disposed of accordingly. Disposal of point no. 2

Point 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 point has been framed on the averments of the opposite party, 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 not within its control. The bans imposed by the Hon'ble NGT and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the spread of the COVID-49 pandemic, have had an adverse effect on construction work in the project. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 43029 / 4985, "M.C. Mehta vs Government of India", by its order dated 04.44.2049, 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 doing construction and demolition activity in violation of this order shall be penalized with Rs.l 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 Civil Appeal No. 43029 / 4985, the order dated 09.42.2049 gives the following directions: "In the affidavit dated 05.2.209, 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, the conditions for raising construction must be scrupulously followed.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court imposed a ban on construction work for the period (from 04.44.209 to 24.02.2020). By the order dated o9.i220i9, the complete ban was removed and a partial ban was imposed. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court imposed a ban on construction work for 35 days (from 04.44.2049 to 09.42.209) and for 33 days (66+2) (from 0.42.20:9 to 44.02.2020, from 6 pm to 6 am). In such a situation the opposite party is entitled to the benefit for 35+33 = 68 days, during which construction work was affected. After considering all relevant facts, the U.P. RERA Authority, by its order dated 06.06.2020, in view of alfas—tg (Corona Virus Disease), gave all projects an additional period of 6 months from 25.03.2020, i.e., up to 25.09.2020, and this additional period shall be treated as force majeure. In view of this, 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, nor shall any delay interest be taken from the complainant. Accordingly point no. 2 is disposed of. Disposal of point no. 3 Point no. 3 has been framed to examine whether the complainant's deposited amount can be got back and, if not, what relief would be admissible. This point has been framed on the averments of the complainant, and the burden of proving it lies on the complainant.

The complainant states that the opposite party's project is ig months delayed, and for the past ig months no construction work has been carried out at the project site. The complainant is presently living in a rented house and is facing financial burden on account of the rent and bank EMI. The complainant has therefore requested that the deposited amount be returned with interest, to which the opposite party has said that possession of the unit will be given to the complainant by June 2023. It is undisputed that the complainant booked a flat in the opposite party's project. There is also no dispute that the opposite party has been unable to give possession within the contracted period. As regards the buyer's request for refund, the provisions of the RERA Act must be read as a whole, so that a balanced decision can be taken keeping in view the views of all parties. Section 48 (4) A of the RERA Act provides that: "Section 8. Return of Amount and Compensation- (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." Thus the buyer has the right that, if possession is not given as per the agreement, the buyer may claim the deposited amount back with interest, or remain in the project receiving interest for every month of delay. Section 34 of the RERA Act, along with the other "functions" of RERA, the sub-clause (9) F "to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder" is also mentioned. Similarly, under Section 32, the Authority's responsibilities for the development of the real estate sector include the following: "The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,—

(a) protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent, ....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector." From these provisions it is clear that it is the responsibility of this Authority to take appropriate decisions, viewing the interests of all stakeholders of the real estate sector as a whole, to ensure the healthy development of the "real estate sector". In this regard, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in Petition No. 2737 /20i7 "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban [?] vs Union of India", in which a decision was given on the constitutionality of the RERA Act, has made the following scrutiny in 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 77 refer to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 72, 74, 76 and 79. A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work."

From the above it is clear that, after hearing all parties, although the allottee has the right to claim the amount back with interest where the unit is not received in time, nevertheless, in view of the above scrutiny, the Authority can, on the basis of all the facts of the case, pass 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". With regard to the return of money to allottees and the interests of allottees who remain in the project, in the judgment in "Chitra Sharma vs Union of India" (744 / 2047), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 40 of the judgment made the following observation:

"40. As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is lying in deposit before this Court pursuant to the interim directions, on which interest has accrued. The home buyers have earnestly sought the issuance of interim directions to facilitate a pro-rata disbursement of this amount to those of the home buyers who seek a refund. "We are keenly conscious of the fact that the claim of the home buyers who seek a refund of monies deserves to be considered with empathy. Yet, having given our anxious consideration to the plea and on the balance, we are not inclined to accede to it for more than one reason. Firstly......... 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."

Considering the said "observations" quoted in the above paragraphs of the High Court and the Supreme Court, and the overall scheme of the [RERA?] Act, it is also clear that if a decision to return the money were taken in every case of delay, it would certainly not be in conformity with the "objective" and the "scheme" of the Act. While deciding on refund, the "uniqueness" of each case has to be considered, in light of all the facts of the case, such as the state of "construction", the "timeline" of completion, the state of the promoters' "commitment" to offer possession, the impact on other "stakeholders", especially the "allottees" who remain with the project, and "consensus" regarding the "proposed possession date" etc. It will be in the interest of justice to consider these. With regard to the formation of RERA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 940 /20i7 "Bikam Chatterjee [?] and others vs Union of India and others", in the order passed on 23.07.20I9, at page no. 244, paragraph 420, has stated as follows:

"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 l0 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the promoter/builder. The maximum time fixed in RERA has also expired and extension could not have been beyond ] year." Thus it has been made clear that RERA is meant to protect the interests of allottees, and its objective is that the promoters complete all the development works of the building so that home buyers get their residence/flat. Accordingly, the order at page no. 255, paragraph 437, states as follows: "The provisions of RERA are beneficial to the home buyers and are intended to insulate them from fraudulent action, ensures completion of the building and it is the duty of the court to protect and ensure the home buyers' interest and at the same time to hold them responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under the said statute. We are not absolving the home buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At the same time, they have the right of enforcement of their right for compensation due to undue delay in completion of the project."

The said observation also makes clear that the provisions of RERA are beneficial to home buyers and are meant to protect the interests of allottees against any betrayal; the work of supervision for completion of the building lies with RERA, and the duties and responsibilities of the parties are fixed in the Act. It has also been given as a benefit that, where the project is delayed, home buyers have the right to receive interest as per rules for the delay until the project is completed. Thereafter, again with regard to RERA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 43/2049 "Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd and others vs Union of India and others", in its order dated 09.08.20:9 at page no. 86, paragraph 29, 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."

The important observation in this order is that the object of RERA is that, under its supervision and oversight, the real estate project is completed by the promoters within a stipulated period, so that allottees are not deprived of their flats and get the home of their dreams; and that recalcitrant allottees are also held responsible for not cooperating in completing the project. It has also been said that allottees must duly perform their duties, mainly by ensuring timely payment of instalments, so that the project can be completed. In view of the legal position 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, interest for delay in the project is also payable to allottees, but before that the complainant also has the responsibility to pay the instalments on time. From the observation of the site inspection report dated 08.06.2022 available on the file, at points [?]-is and 49, it is known that construction of all towers in the project has been completed to the extent of 82-85 per cent, and construction of the entire project has been completed to about 75-80 per cent.

The opposite party has stated that the flat allotted to the complainant in the project will be given possession in June 2023, which is a near period. Considering all the circumstances, it would be proper for the complainants to take possession once the project is completed, by 30.06.2023. After that the complainants may decide for themselves the future use of the units. In any case the complainants had invested money in the project for possession, which has been used by the opposite party in construction of the project. Certainly, if allottees remain in the project, interest for the delay shall be payable by the promoters as per rules. The lead complainant's allotment/agreement letter dated 06.08.20i6, in paragraph 6), states that the opposite party was to give possession of the unit under force majeure within 42 months and a grace period of 6 months, i.e., by 06.08.2020, but the opposite party has not given possession within the stipulated period. In addition, under the force majeure head the opposite party is entitled to the benefit for a total of 68 days (as described in the disposal of point no. 2). As regards up to what period interest for delay is to be given, in this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal [?] 6649-50 /20i8 "Supertech Ltd vs Rajni Goyal", has held that:

"the period of Interest should close on April 206 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." As per the above legal position, the complainant shall be entitled to delay interest up to the date of receipt of O.C./C.C. or the date of offer of possession, whichever is later. In such a situation, it appears just and proper that the complainant be given delay interest from 06.08.2020 + 68 days, i.e., from 4.(0.2020, up to the date of receipt of O.C./C.C. or the date of offer of possession. As regards liability for interest, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt Ltd and others vs Union of India", has held that:

"Section 8(I)(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." Accordingly, in light of that decision, it is clear that under the provisions of the U.P. RERA, interest for the delay and on the principal amount shall be payable as per the agreement between the promoter and the buyer, because the promoters have used the said amount. Section 2(za) of the RERA Act provides that — "(ca) "interest" means the rates of interest payable by the promoter or the allottee, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause—

(7) the rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default; (7) the interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the amount or any part thereof till the date the amount or part thereof and interest thereon is refunded, and the interest payable by the allottee to the promoter shall be from the date the allottee defaults in payment to the promoter till the date it is paid;" As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 20i6, on 47.40.2048, notified the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2048. In the sale/lease deed format annexed to it, paragraph 9 defines the promoters' default cases ("Events of default"), in which paragraph 9.20) provides for the allottee in case the promoter is in default, that: "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India + % unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:"

The same rate is also fixed in paragraph 9.30) for allottees' default. Keeping this provision in view, it appears just and proper to give the allottee delay interest at the rate of 48[?]+ per cent. It is also clarified that if any amount due from the complainant is overdue, the opposite party may also receive interest on it at the rate of MCLR[?] per cent only. The same definition of interest is given in Section 2(40)() of the RERA Act. Accordingly point no. 3 is disposed of. In view of the above points being disposed of, the following orders are passed: ORDER 4. The opposite party is directed to ensure that, after completing all the facilities of the complainants' units as per the allotment letter/agreement, it gives possession along with O.C./C.C. by 30.06.2023, and gets the registration done as per rules after receiving the stamp duty payable.

[?] The opposite party shall ensure payment of interest at the rate of MCLR+I per cent on the amount deposited by the complainant [?], from 44.0.2020 up to the date of receipt of O.C./C.C. or the date of offer of possession. This interest amount shall be adjusted in the final payment amount. If the interest amount is more than the amount due, it shall be refunded to the complainant. Keeping the force majeure period in view, interest shall not be calculated for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020. Also, if the complainant has any overdue amount, interest for this period shall not be payable on it. In the cases of the other complainants, calculation shall be made as above in accordance with the allotment letter/agreement. The opposite party is further directed that, under Section 2(04)0) of the RERA Act, 20:6, if after RERA came into force any interest rate is charged by the promoter from the allottee for default, the same rate of interest shall also be given to the allottee when the promoter defaults. Therefore, on delayed payment the complainants shall also be liable to pay interest at the rate of MCLR+I per cent. If any amount has been charged from the allottee for delay at a higher rate after RERA came into force, interest for the delayed period shall also be calculated at the same rate.

A copy of this order shall be placed on each of the related files, and the amount and interest in each 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 Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046, 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 get the order executed through the RERA Authority. Dated: 26/42,/ 2022 (Kalpana Mishra) (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर। आदेश अंतर्गत omi—3i, we उपस्थिति:- श्रीमती कल्पना मिश्रा, सदस्य क्रम सं0 शिकायत संख्या शिकायतकर्तागण iis NCRI45/02/89497/2022 इशांत सकते 2 NCRI45/06/95826/2022 मो. नूरुल्लाह कादरी बनाम Usa प्रोजेक्ट्स प्रा0 लि0 शिकायतकर्ता इशांत सक्सेना के साथ 4 अन्य शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध प्रश्गगत शिकायतें जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु योजित की गयी हैं। इन दोनों शिकायतों के तथ्य और साक्ष्य एक समान हैं। अतः एक ही निर्णय. से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत सं0 NCRI45/02/89497/2022 इशांत सक्सेना अग्रणी वाद रहेगा। संक्षेप में अग्रणी शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना "RISE ORGANIC HOMES PHASE i" में यूनिट Wo- T8-2005 बुक की गयी थी, जिसकी कुल कीमत 36,87,500 /- रूपये है, जिसके सापेक्ष उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 27,87,570 /- रूपये का भुगतान किया गया शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना is माह विलम्बित है और विगत is माह से परियोजना स्थल पर किसी प्रकार का कोई निर्माण कार्य नहीं किया जा रहा है। वर्तमान समय में किराये के मकान में निवास कर रहे है और किराये एवं बैंक की ई.एम.आई के कारण आर्थिक भार का सामना करना पड रहा है aa. शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्ध जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। | शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवेदन पत्र, आवंटन / अनुबंध पत्र दिनांकित 06.08.206, ऋण स्वीकृति पत्र दिनांकित 06.08.2046, त्रिपक्षीय अनुबंध पत्र की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं।

विपक्षी द्वारा जवाब दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी परियोजना RISE ORGANIC HOMES में यूनिट हेतु आवेदन किया गया था, Qe Page 4 जिसके अनुक्रम में यूनिट संख्या- r8-2005 का आवंटन शिकायतकर्ता के पक्ष में किया गया और पक्षकारों के मध्य आवंटन /अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांक 06.08.2046 को निष्पादित किया गया, जिसके अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा यूनिट का कब्जा अनुग्रह अवधि सहित अनुबंध निष्पादित किये जाने की तिथि से 48 माह में प्रदान किया जाना था। परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण विलम्बित हुई, जो कि उनके नियंत्रण में नहीं था। दिल्ली ४८४ 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। alfes-i9 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 परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य पूर्णता की ओर है और शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा जून 2023 तक प्रदान कर दिया जाएगा उपरोक्त तथ्यों के आधार पर शिकायतकर्ता की शिकायत खारिज किये जाने औरयूनिट का कब्जा प्राप्त किये जाने हेतु शिकायतकर्ता को निर्देशित किये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। उभयपक्ष को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। पक्षकारों के अभिवचनों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचारणीय किये गये हैं :- a 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 की जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जा सकती है? यदि नहीं तो क्‍या अनुतोष अनुमन्य होगा? निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 बिन्दु te 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 “मैसर्स =a प्रोमोटर्स एंड डेवलपर्स oo feo बनाम उ0प्र0 राज्य व अन्य” में दिया गया आब्जर्वेशन महत्वपूर्ण है, जिसमें स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लिखित किया गया है कि :- Page 2 "54. From the scheme of the Act 20I6, 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 we है कि रेरा अधिनियम लागू होने से पूर्व जो भी अनुबन्ध जहाँ पर हस्ताक्षरित हुए या अधिनियम लागू होने से पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र सम्प्रवर्तक पूर्व की परियोजनाओं, द्वारा प्राप्त नहीं किया गया है, वहाँ पर अधिनियम का प्रवर्तन पूर्वव्यापी प्रभाव रहेगा। यह भी रेरा अधिनियम धिनियम में स्पष्ट है कि

“ऑन गोईग” परियोजनायें उपरोक्त पंजीकरण परियोजना को रेरा में पंजीकरण होगें। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रश्नगत पंजीकरण माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आर्ब्जेवेशन से यह भी से पूर्व प्रोमोटर एवं आवंटी के मध्य अनुबन्ध निष्पादित क्रमांक संख्या-एशराग्र4णर74086 है। अतः वर्णित तथ्यों के आधार पर यह की परिधि में आते हैं स्पष्ट है कि यद्यपि रेरा fea हुए हैं, परन्तु यदि जीकरण कराया जाता है, तो रेरा के सभी प्राविधान लागू त परियोजना को रेरा में पंजीकृत कराया गया है, जिसका | निश्चित रूप से रेरा अधिनियम स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना है। ऐसी दशा में रेरा निस्तारित किया जाता है निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 रियोजना वर्तमान में “ऑनगोईंग प्रोजेक्ट” की श्रेणी में आती के सभी प्राविधान लागू ert) तद्नुसार बिन्दु weet | बिन्दु संख्या-2 इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या force : होने के majeure events होने के प्रभाव? यह वाद बिन्दु विपक्षी के अभिकथनों पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार विपक्षी पर विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि परियोजना | के कारण विलम्बित हुई, जो कि उनके नियंत्रण में नहीं था। माननीय एन.जी.टी. एवं कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हाँ तो है। फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा लगाये गये प्रतिबन्ध एवं कोविड--49 महामारी फैलने के कारण परियोजना के निर्माण कार्य पर विपरीत प्रभाव पड़ा है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-43029 / 4985 “एम. सी. मेहता बनाम भारत सरकार“ में पारित आदेश दिनांक 04.44.2049 में निम्नलिखित निर्देश दिये है :-

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 Page 3 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 forth with 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.l 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 to be dealt with in accordance with law. इसके अतिरिक्त outed सिविल अपील संख्या-43029 / 4985 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 09.42.2049 में निम्नलिखित निर्देश दिये है :- In the affidavit dated 05.2.209, 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.

माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा (दिनांक 04.44.209 से दिनांक 24.02.2020) की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगायी गयी है, जिसमें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक o9.i220i9 4 पूर्ण प्रतिबन्ध को हटाते हुए आंशिक प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया। ऐसे में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा 35 दिन (दिनांक 04.44.2049 से दिनांक 09.42.209) एवं 33 दिन (66+2) (दिनांक 0.42. 20:9 से दिनांक 44.02.2020 तक साँय 6 बजे से सुबह 6 बजे तक) की अवधि के रण Page 4 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—tg (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 grey 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। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-2 Pena किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु सं० 3

बिन्दु संख्या-3 इस आशय से विचरित किया गया है कि क्या शिकायतकर्ताकी जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जा सकती है ? यदि नहीं तो क्‍या अनुतोष अनुमन्य होगा ? यह वाद बिन्दु शिकायतकर्ता के अभिकथनों के आधार पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार शिकायतकर्ता पर है| शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना ig माह विलम्बित है और विगत ig माह से परियोजना स्थल पर किसी प्रकार का कोई निर्माण कार्य नहीं किया जा रहा है। वर्तमान समय में किराये के मकान में निवास कर रहे है और किराये एवं बैंक की ई.एम.आई के कारण आर्थिक भार का सामना करना पड रहा है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्ध जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है, जिस पर विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा जून 2023 तक प्रदान कर दिया जाएगा। यह निर्विवादित है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना में फ्लैट बुक कराया था। इस तथ्य पर भी कोई विवाद नहीं है कि विपक्षी अनुबंधित अवधि में कब्जा प्रदान करने में असमर्थ रहा है। जहाँ तक केता द्वारा रिफण्ड के अनुरोध का प्रश्न है, इस विषय में रेरा अधिनियम के प्राविधानों को समग्र रूप से पढ़ा जाना आवश्यक है ताकि सभी पक्षों के मत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए एक संतुलित निर्णय लिया जा सकें। रेरा एक्ट की धारा 48 (4) A प्राविधान है कि :- Section 8. Return of Amount and Compensation- (I) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building.- al Page 5

(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. इस प्रकार So को यह अधिकार है कि यदि उन्हें एग्रीमेंट के अनुरूप कब्जा नहीं मिलता तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि को ब्याज सहित वापिस माँग सकते हैं अथवा प्रत्येक माह के विलम्बित हेतु ब्याज प्राप्त करते हुए परियोजना में बने रहें | रेरा अधिनियम की धारा 34 में रेरा के अन्य “फंग्शन्स” के साथ-साथ सब-क्लॉज (9) F "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 S|

इसी प्रकार धारा 32 में रियल gece सेक्टर के विकास हेतु अथॉरिटी के उत्तरदायित्यों में निम्न भी सम्मिलित हैं :- “The Authority shail 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,....... (@Jany other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” उक्त प्राविधानों से यह स्पष्ट है कि “रियल wee सेक्टर” के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके सभी eo होल्डर्स के हितों को समग्र रूप से देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेने का उत्तरदायित्व इस ऑथरिटी का है। इस कम में माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 2737 /20i7 “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअरबन wife. बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया”, जिसमें रेरा अधिनियम की वैद्यानिकता के सम्बंध में निर्णय दिया गया था, के प्रस्तर 24 में मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निम्न संवीक्षण किया :- हि Page 6

24. “The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth. Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section 77 refer to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 72, 74, 76 and 79. A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work.” उक्त से स्पष्ट है कि सभी पक्षों को सुनने के बाद, यद्यपि समय से इकाई न मिलने की दशा में आवंटी का अपनी धनराशि ब्याज सहित मांगने का अधिकार है, तथापि उक्त वर्णित संवीक्षा को देखते हुए अथॉरिटी, प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों, के आधार पर ‘by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and

issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit_ accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth’ के अनुरूप आदेश पारित किए जा सकते हैं। एलोटीज़ द्वारा धनराशि वापस किए जाने व परियोजना में बने रहने वाले एलोटीज के हितों में ager (744 / 2047) के निर्णय ऑबजरवेशन किया है :- लन के प्रसंग में “चित्रा शर्मा बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया” में मा. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने निर्णय के wax 40 में निम्न 40. As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is ying 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 he 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 Ye Page 7

= 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 RI एक्ट की समग्र व्यवस्था को देखते हुए यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यदि विलम्ब के प्रत्येक मामले में धनराशि लौटाने का ही निर्णय लिया जाये तो निश्चय ही यह अधिनियम के “ऑबजेक्टिव” तथा “स्कीम” के अनुरूप न होगा रिफण्ड का निर्णय लेते समय प्रत्येक मामले की “यूनीकनेस” प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों यथा “कन्सट्रक्शन” की स्थिति, कम्पलीशन की “टाईम लाईन“, प्रोमोटर्स के द्वारा ऑफर ऑफ पजेशन के “कमिटमेन्ट” की स्थिति, अन्य “स्टेक Best”, विशेष रूप से परियोजना के साथ बने रहने वाले “एलॉटीज” पर प्रभाव, “प्रस्तावित पज़ेशन डेट” के विषय में “कन्सेन्सस्‌” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। रेरा के गठन के सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 /20i7 “बिकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य” में दिनांक 23.07.20I9 को परित आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-244 के प्रस्तर-420 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है:-

"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 l0 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the promoter/builder. The maximum time fixed in RERA has also expired and extension could not have been beyond ] year." SRR यह स्पष्ट किया गया है कि रेरा आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए है और उसका लक्ष्य यह है कि प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा बिल्डिंग के समस्त विकास कार्यों को पूर्ण कराते हुए गृहकेताओं को उनका आवास ,/ फ्लैट मिल सके | तत्कमानुसार 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 aie @ Page 8 the same time to hold them responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under the said statute. We are not absolving the home buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At the same time, they have the right of enforcement of their right for compensation due to undue delay in completion of the project."

उक्त आब्जर्वेशन में यह भी स्पष्ट किया गया है कि रेरा के प्राविधान गृहकेताओं के लिए लाभकारी हैं और किसी प्रकार के विश्वासघात होने से आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए हैं एवं बिल्डिंग को पूर्ण कराने हेतु निगरानी का कार्य रेरा का है और पक्षकारों के कर्तव्यों एवं उत्तरदायित्व अधिनियम में तय किये गये हैं। यह भी लाभ दिया गया है कि परियोजना विलम्ब होने पर गृहकेताओं का यह अधिकार होगा कि वह विलम्ब के लिए परियोजना पूर्ण होने तक नियमानुसार ब्याज पा सके | इसी के पश्चात्‌ पुनः रेरा के सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-43 /2049 “पायनियर अर्बन लैन्ड एंड इन्फास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य” में दिनांक 09.08.20:9 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 प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा भू-सम्पदा परियोजना को एक निर्धारित अवधि में फलस्वरूप पूर्ण करा ली जाये, जिससे कि आवंटी अपने फ्लैटस्‌ पाने से वंचित न हो जाये और उन्हें अपने सपनों का घर मिल सके, साथ ही साथ Jak (Recalcitrant) आवंटियों को भी परियोजना पूर्ण कराने का सहयोग न करने में उत्तरदायित्व माना है। यह भी कहा गया है कि आवंटी अपने कर्तव्यों को सम्यक रूप से पूर्ण करें, मुख्य रूप से जैसे कि किश्तों का समय से भुगतान करना सुनिश्चित कर लें, जिससे कि परियोजना को पूर्ण किया जा सके। ऐसे में उपरोक्त माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्धारित की गयी विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा का मुख्य उद्देश्य, परियोजना को फलस्वरूप प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा पूर्ण कराना और आवंटियों द्वारा सम्यक रूप से अपनी oa Page 9 किश्तों का भुगतान सुनिश्चित कर लिया जाना, जिससे कि परियोजना को निर्धारित अवधि में पूर्ण कराया जा सके। आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए परियोजना विलम्ब होने पर ब्याज का लाभ भी आवंटियों को देय होगा, परन्तु इससे पूर्व शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी उत्तरदायित्व होगा कि वह अपनी किश्तों का समय से भुगतान करें। पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध स्थलीय निरीक्षण आख्या दिनांकित 08.06. 2022 के बिन्दु Wer-is एवं 49 के अवलोकन से विदित है कि परियोजना में सभी टॉवरों का निर्माण कार्य 82-85 प्रतिशत पूर्ण किया जा चुका है और सम्पूर्ण परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य लगभग 75-80 प्रतिशत पूर्ण किया जा चुका है।

“विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना में शिकायतकर्ता को आवंटित फ्लैट का जून 2023 में कब्जा दिये जाने की बात कही गयी है, जो कि निकट की अवधि है। समस्त परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए यह उचित होगा कि शिकायतकर्तागण दिनांक 30.06.2023 तक परियोजना पूर्ण होने पर कब्जा लें। उसके बाद वे स्वयं यूनिट्स के भविष्य हेतु उपयोग के सम्बन्ध में निर्णय ले सकते हैं। वैसे भी शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा परियोजना में धनराशि का 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 विलम्ब हेतु नियमानुसार ब्याज प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा देय होगा पत्रावली पर अग्रणी शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा दाखिल अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांक 06.08. 20i6 के प्रस्तर-6) में उल्लेख किया गया है कि विपक्षी द्वारा फोर्स मैज्योर के अधीन 42 एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 06.08.2020 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 |) जहाँ तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बन्ध में सिविल अपील Wo 6649-50 /20i8 "सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल" में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है किः-

"the period of Interest should close on April 206 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 af Page 0 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। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 06.08.2020 + 68 दिन अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 4.(0.2020 से ओ.सी. /सी.सी. अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि तक विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। जहाँ तक ब्याज देयता का प्रश्न है। माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया” के वाद में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि —

"Section 8(I)(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 oat निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व केता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। रेरा एक्ट की धारा 2(za) में प्राविधान है कि — (ca) "interest" means the rates of interest payable by the promoter or the allottee, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause—

(7) the rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default; oe | Page i (7) the interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the amount or any part thereof till the date the amount or part thereof and interest thereon is refunded, and the interest payable by the allottee to the promoter shall be from the date the allottee defaults in payment to the promoter till the date it is paid; जहाँ तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, तो राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 20i6 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विकय,/पटटा के लिए करार) नियमावली 2048 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विकय ,/पटटा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 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 ४८टा.ए+ प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि यदि शिकायतकर्ता की कोई धनराशि अतिदेय है, तो उस पर विपक्षी भी MCLRH प्रतिशत की दर से ही ब्याज प्राप्त कर सकता है। रेरा की धारा-2(४०)() में भी यही ब्याज की परिभाषा दी गयी है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-3 निस्तारित किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते है। आदेश 4. विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह शिकायतकर्तागण की यूनिट्स समस्त सुविधाओं को आवंटन-पत्र / अनुबन्ध के अनुसार पूर्ण कराकर दिनांक 30.06.2023 तक ओ.सी. /सी.सी. सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें। Ds विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 44.0.2020 से ओ.सी /सी.सी अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि तक शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा स्वयं कक a पर Page 2 MCLR+I प्रतिशत ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की धनराशि में समायोजित की जायेगी। ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक होने पर 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, 20:6 की धारा 2(०४)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 शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा भी MCLR+I 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 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। इस आदेश का उल्लघंन भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 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:- 26 /42,/ 2022 Kano (कल्पना मिश्रा) (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण Page 3

U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Order under [?]—3i Present: Smt. Kalpana Mishra, Member Sr. No. | Complaint No. | Complainants [?] | NCRI45/02/89497/2022 | Ishant Saxena 2. | NCRI45/06/95826/2022 | Mo. Nurullah Qadri Versus Rise [?] Projects Pvt Ltd Complaints in question have been filed against the opposite party by complainant Ishant Saxena along with 4 other complainants, seeking return of the deposited amounts with interest. The facts and evidence of these two complaints are the same. Therefore they are being disposed of by one common order. Complaint no. NCRI45/02/89497/2022, Ishant Saxena, shall be the lead case. In brief, the lead complainant states that unit [?]-T8-2005 was booked by the complainant in the opposite party's project "RISE ORGANIC HOMES PHASE-I", whose total price is Rs.36,87,500/-, against which the complainant has paid Rs.27,87,570/- from time to time in instalments. The complainant states that the opposite party's project is is months delayed, and for the past is months no construction work has been carried out at the project site. The complainant is presently living in a rented house and is facing financial burden on account of the rent and the bank EMI. The complainant has requested that the deposited amount be returned with interest.

In support of the statement, the complainant has filed photocopies of the application form, the allotment/agreement letter dated 06.08.206, the loan sanction letter dated 06.08.2046, and the tripartite agreement. In its reply, the opposite party stated that the complainant applied in its project RISE ORGANIC HOMES, and pursuant to that the unit no. r8-2005 was allotted in favour of the complainant. The allotment/agreement letter was executed between the parties on 06.08.2046, under which the opposite party was to give possession of the unit within 48 months from the date of execution of the agreement, including the grace period. The project was delayed due to force majeure events, which were beyond its control. In view of the growing pollution in Delhi 484, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the NGT had imposed a ban on construction work from October 2049 to January 2020. Due to alfes-i9 and the bans on construction work imposed from time to time by the National Green Tribunal, construction remained affected. The opposite party has stated that construction of the project is nearing completion and that the complainant will be given possession of the unit by June 2023. On the basis of the above facts, the opposite party has requested that the complainant's complaint be dismissed and that the complainant be directed to take possession of the unit.

Both parties were heard and the record was examined. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points for determination were framed: [?]. Whether agreements made before RERA came into force are outside the scope of RERA? And whether the provisions of RERA shall not apply where the agreements between the parties were executed before RERA became applicable? 2. Whether the opposite party's project was delayed due to force majeure events? If yes, what is the effect? 3. Whether the complainant's deposited amount can be got back? If not, what relief would be admissible? Disposal of point no. 4 Point framed on whether agreements made before RERA are outside the scope of RERA, and whether the provisions of RERA shall not apply where the agreements between the parties were executed before RERA became applicable. In this regard, the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6745-6749 /202, "M/s [?] Promoters and Developers [?] vs State of U.P. and others", is important, in which it has been clearly stated that:

"54. From the scheme of the Act 20I6, 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." From the above legal position it is clear that, for all agreements signed before the RERA Act came into force, and for projects before the Act came into force for which the completion certificate has not been obtained by the promoter, the enforcement of the Act shall have retrospective effect. It is also clear from the RERA Act that "on-going" projects shall be registered under RERA. The Hon'ble High Court's observation also makes clear that, although the agreement between the promoter and the allottee was executed before RERA came into force, if the project is registered under RERA (registration no. [?]4[?]74086 [?]), all the provisions of RERA shall apply. Therefore, from the facts stated above, it is clear that although the agreements were executed before RERA, the opposite party's project is within the scope of RERA. It is clear that the opposite party's project is an "on-going project", and in such a case all the provisions of RERA shall apply. The point is disposed of accordingly. Disposal of point no. 2

Point 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 point has been framed on the averments of the opposite party, 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 not within its control. The bans imposed by the Hon'ble NGT and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the spread of the COVID-49 pandemic, have had an adverse effect on construction work in the project. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 43029 / 4985, "M.C. Mehta vs Government of India", by its order dated 04.44.2049, 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 doing construction and demolition activity in violation of this order shall be penalized with Rs.l 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 Civil Appeal No. 43029 / 4985, the order dated 09.42.2049 gives the following directions: "In the affidavit dated 05.2.209, 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, the conditions for raising construction must be scrupulously followed.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court imposed a ban on construction work for the period (from 04.44.209 to 24.02.2020). By the order dated o9.i220i9, the complete ban was removed and a partial ban was imposed. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court imposed a ban on construction work for 35 days (from 04.44.2049 to 09.42.209) and for 33 days (66+2) (from 0.42.20:9 to 44.02.2020, from 6 pm to 6 am). In such a situation the opposite party is entitled to the benefit for 35+33 = 68 days, during which construction work was affected. After considering all relevant facts, the U.P. RERA Authority, by its order dated 06.06.2020, in view of alfas—tg (Corona Virus Disease), gave all projects an additional period of 6 months from 25.03.2020, i.e., up to 25.09.2020, and this additional period shall be treated as force majeure. In view of this, 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, nor shall any delay interest be taken from the complainant. Accordingly point no. 2 is disposed of. Disposal of point no. 3 Point no. 3 has been framed to examine whether the complainant's deposited amount can be got back and, if not, what relief would be admissible. This point has been framed on the averments of the complainant, and the burden of proving it lies on the complainant.

The complainant states that the opposite party's project is ig months delayed, and for the past ig months no construction work has been carried out at the project site. The complainant is presently living in a rented house and is facing financial burden on account of the rent and bank EMI. The complainant has therefore requested that the deposited amount be returned with interest, to which the opposite party has said that possession of the unit will be given to the complainant by June 2023. It is undisputed that the complainant booked a flat in the opposite party's project. There is also no dispute that the opposite party has been unable to give possession within the contracted period. As regards the buyer's request for refund, the provisions of the RERA Act must be read as a whole, so that a balanced decision can be taken keeping in view the views of all parties. Section 48 (4) A of the RERA Act provides that: "Section 8. Return of Amount and Compensation- (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." Thus the buyer has the right that, if possession is not given as per the agreement, the buyer may claim the deposited amount back with interest, or remain in the project receiving interest for every month of delay. Section 34 of the RERA Act, along with the other "functions" of RERA, the sub-clause (9) F "to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder" is also mentioned. Similarly, under Section 32, the Authority's responsibilities for the development of the real estate sector include the following: "The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,—

(a) protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent, ....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector." From these provisions it is clear that it is the responsibility of this Authority to take appropriate decisions, viewing the interests of all stakeholders of the real estate sector as a whole, to ensure the healthy development of the "real estate sector". In this regard, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in Petition No. 2737 /20i7 "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban [?] vs Union of India", in which a decision was given on the constitutionality of the RERA Act, has made the following scrutiny in 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 77 refer to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 72, 74, 76 and 79. A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work."

From the above it is clear that, after hearing all parties, although the allottee has the right to claim the amount back with interest where the unit is not received in time, nevertheless, in view of the above scrutiny, the Authority can, on the basis of all the facts of the case, pass 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". With regard to the return of money to allottees and the interests of allottees who remain in the project, in the judgment in "Chitra Sharma vs Union of India" (744 / 2047), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 40 of the judgment made the following observation:

"40. As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is lying in deposit before this Court pursuant to the interim directions, on which interest has accrued. The home buyers have earnestly sought the issuance of interim directions to facilitate a pro-rata disbursement of this amount to those of the home buyers who seek a refund. "We are keenly conscious of the fact that the claim of the home buyers who seek a refund of monies deserves to be considered with empathy. Yet, having given our anxious consideration to the plea and on the balance, we are not inclined to accede to it for more than one reason. Firstly......... 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."

Considering the said "observations" quoted in the above paragraphs of the High Court and the Supreme Court, and the overall scheme of the [RERA?] Act, it is also clear that if a decision to return the money were taken in every case of delay, it would certainly not be in conformity with the "objective" and the "scheme" of the Act. While deciding on refund, the "uniqueness" of each case has to be considered, in light of all the facts of the case, such as the state of "construction", the "timeline" of completion, the state of the promoters' "commitment" to offer possession, the impact on other "stakeholders", especially the "allottees" who remain with the project, and "consensus" regarding the "proposed possession date" etc. It will be in the interest of justice to consider these. With regard to the formation of RERA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 940 /20i7 "Bikam Chatterjee [?] and others vs Union of India and others", in the order passed on 23.07.20I9, at page no. 244, paragraph 420, has stated as follows:

"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 l0 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the promoter/builder. The maximum time fixed in RERA has also expired and extension could not have been beyond ] year." Thus it has been made clear that RERA is meant to protect the interests of allottees, and its objective is that the promoters complete all the development works of the building so that home buyers get their residence/flat. Accordingly, the order at page no. 255, paragraph 437, states as follows: "The provisions of RERA are beneficial to the home buyers and are intended to insulate them from fraudulent action, ensures completion of the building and it is the duty of the court to protect and ensure the home buyers' interest and at the same time to hold them responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under the said statute. We are not absolving the home buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At the same time, they have the right of enforcement of their right for compensation due to undue delay in completion of the project."

The said observation also makes clear that the provisions of RERA are beneficial to home buyers and are meant to protect the interests of allottees against any betrayal; the work of supervision for completion of the building lies with RERA, and the duties and responsibilities of the parties are fixed in the Act. It has also been given as a benefit that, where the project is delayed, home buyers have the right to receive interest as per rules for the delay until the project is completed. Thereafter, again with regard to RERA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 43/2049 "Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd and others vs Union of India and others", in its order dated 09.08.20:9 at page no. 86, paragraph 29, 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."

The important observation in this order is that the object of RERA is that, under its supervision and oversight, the real estate project is completed by the promoters within a stipulated period, so that allottees are not deprived of their flats and get the home of their dreams; and that recalcitrant allottees are also held responsible for not cooperating in completing the project. It has also been said that allottees must duly perform their duties, mainly by ensuring timely payment of instalments, so that the project can be completed. In view of the legal position 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, interest for delay in the project is also payable to allottees, but before that the complainant also has the responsibility to pay the instalments on time. From the observation of the site inspection report dated 08.06.2022 available on the file, at points [?]-is and 49, it is known that construction of all towers in the project has been completed to the extent of 82-85 per cent, and construction of the entire project has been completed to about 75-80 per cent.

The opposite party has stated that the flat allotted to the complainant in the project will be given possession in June 2023, which is a near period. Considering all the circumstances, it would be proper for the complainants to take possession once the project is completed, by 30.06.2023. After that the complainants may decide for themselves the future use of the units. In any case the complainants had invested money in the project for possession, which has been used by the opposite party in construction of the project. Certainly, if allottees remain in the project, interest for the delay shall be payable by the promoters as per rules. The lead complainant's allotment/agreement letter dated 06.08.20i6, in paragraph 6), states that the opposite party was to give possession of the unit under force majeure within 42 months and a grace period of 6 months, i.e., by 06.08.2020, but the opposite party has not given possession within the stipulated period. In addition, under the force majeure head the opposite party is entitled to the benefit for a total of 68 days (as described in the disposal of point no. 2). As regards up to what period interest for delay is to be given, in this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal [?] 6649-50 /20i8 "Supertech Ltd vs Rajni Goyal", has held that:

"the period of Interest should close on April 206 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." As per the above legal position, the complainant shall be entitled to delay interest up to the date of receipt of O.C./C.C. or the date of offer of possession, whichever is later. In such a situation, it appears just and proper that the complainant be given delay interest from 06.08.2020 + 68 days, i.e., from 4.(0.2020, up to the date of receipt of O.C./C.C. or the date of offer of possession. As regards liability for interest, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt Ltd and others vs Union of India", has held that:

"Section 8(I)(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." Accordingly, in light of that decision, it is clear that under the provisions of the U.P. RERA, interest for the delay and on the principal amount shall be payable as per the agreement between the promoter and the buyer, because the promoters have used the said amount. Section 2(za) of the RERA Act provides that — "(ca) "interest" means the rates of interest payable by the promoter or the allottee, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause—

(7) the rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default; (7) the interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the amount or any part thereof till the date the amount or part thereof and interest thereon is refunded, and the interest payable by the allottee to the promoter shall be from the date the allottee defaults in payment to the promoter till the date it is paid;" As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 20i6, on 47.40.2048, notified the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2048. In the sale/lease deed format annexed to it, paragraph 9 defines the promoters' default cases ("Events of default"), in which paragraph 9.20) provides for the allottee in case the promoter is in default, that: "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India + % unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:"

The same rate is also fixed in paragraph 9.30) for allottees' default. Keeping this provision in view, it appears just and proper to give the allottee delay interest at the rate of 48[?]+ per cent. It is also clarified that if any amount due from the complainant is overdue, the opposite party may also receive interest on it at the rate of MCLR[?] per cent only. The same definition of interest is given in Section 2(40)() of the RERA Act. Accordingly point no. 3 is disposed of. In view of the above points being disposed of, the following orders are passed: ORDER 4. The opposite party is directed to ensure that, after completing all the facilities of the complainants' units as per the allotment letter/agreement, it gives possession along with O.C./C.C. by 30.06.2023, and gets the registration done as per rules after receiving the stamp duty payable.

[?] The opposite party shall ensure payment of interest at the rate of MCLR+I per cent on the amount deposited by the complainant [?], from 44.0.2020 up to the date of receipt of O.C./C.C. or the date of offer of possession. This interest amount shall be adjusted in the final payment amount. If the interest amount is more than the amount due, it shall be refunded to the complainant. Keeping the force majeure period in view, interest shall not be calculated for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020. Also, if the complainant has any overdue amount, interest for this period shall not be payable on it. In the cases of the other complainants, calculation shall be made as above in accordance with the allotment letter/agreement. The opposite party is further directed that, under Section 2(04)0) of the RERA Act, 20:6, if after RERA came into force any interest rate is charged by the promoter from the allottee for default, the same rate of interest shall also be given to the allottee when the promoter defaults. Therefore, on delayed payment the complainants shall also be liable to pay interest at the rate of MCLR+I per cent. If any amount has been charged from the allottee for delay at a higher rate after RERA came into force, interest for the delayed period shall also be calculated at the same rate.

A copy of this order shall be placed on each of the related files, and the amount and interest in each 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 Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046, 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 get the order executed through the RERA Authority. Dated: 26/42,/ 2022 (Kalpana Mishra) (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर। आदेश अंतर्गत omi—3i, we उपस्थिति:- श्रीमती कल्पना मिश्रा, सदस्य क्रम सं0 शिकायत संख्या शिकायतकर्तागण iis NCRI45/02/89497/2022 इशांत सकते 2 NCRI45/06/95826/2022 मो. नूरुल्लाह कादरी बनाम Usa प्रोजेक्ट्स प्रा0 लि0 शिकायतकर्ता इशांत सक्सेना के साथ 4 अन्य शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध प्रश्गगत शिकायतें जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु योजित की गयी हैं। इन दोनों शिकायतों के तथ्य और साक्ष्य एक समान हैं। अतः एक ही निर्णय. से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत सं0 NCRI45/02/89497/2022 इशांत सक्सेना अग्रणी वाद रहेगा। संक्षेप में अग्रणी शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना "RISE ORGANIC HOMES PHASE i" में यूनिट Wo- T8-2005 बुक की गयी थी, जिसकी कुल कीमत 36,87,500 /- रूपये है, जिसके सापेक्ष उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 27,87,570 /- रूपये का भुगतान किया गया शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना is माह विलम्बित है और विगत is माह से परियोजना स्थल पर किसी प्रकार का कोई निर्माण कार्य नहीं किया जा रहा है। वर्तमान समय में किराये के मकान में निवास कर रहे है और किराये एवं बैंक की ई.एम.आई के कारण आर्थिक भार का सामना करना पड रहा है aa. शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्ध जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। | शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवेदन पत्र, आवंटन / अनुबंध पत्र दिनांकित 06.08.206, ऋण स्वीकृति पत्र दिनांकित 06.08.2046, त्रिपक्षीय अनुबंध पत्र की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं।

विपक्षी द्वारा जवाब दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी परियोजना RISE ORGANIC HOMES में यूनिट हेतु आवेदन किया गया था, Qe Page 4 जिसके अनुक्रम में यूनिट संख्या- r8-2005 का आवंटन शिकायतकर्ता के पक्ष में किया गया और पक्षकारों के मध्य आवंटन /अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांक 06.08.2046 को निष्पादित किया गया, जिसके अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा यूनिट का कब्जा अनुग्रह अवधि सहित अनुबंध निष्पादित किये जाने की तिथि से 48 माह में प्रदान किया जाना था। परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण विलम्बित हुई, जो कि उनके नियंत्रण में नहीं था। दिल्ली ४८४ 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। alfes-i9 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 परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य पूर्णता की ओर है और शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा जून 2023 तक प्रदान कर दिया जाएगा उपरोक्त तथ्यों के आधार पर शिकायतकर्ता की शिकायत खारिज किये जाने औरयूनिट का कब्जा प्राप्त किये जाने हेतु शिकायतकर्ता को निर्देशित किये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। उभयपक्ष को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। पक्षकारों के अभिवचनों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचारणीय किये गये हैं :- a 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 की जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जा सकती है? यदि नहीं तो क्‍या अनुतोष अनुमन्य होगा? निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 बिन्दु te 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 “मैसर्स =a प्रोमोटर्स एंड डेवलपर्स oo feo बनाम उ0प्र0 राज्य व अन्य” में दिया गया आब्जर्वेशन महत्वपूर्ण है, जिसमें स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लिखित किया गया है कि :- Page 2 "54. From the scheme of the Act 20I6, 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 we है कि रेरा अधिनियम लागू होने से पूर्व जो भी अनुबन्ध जहाँ पर हस्ताक्षरित हुए या अधिनियम लागू होने से पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र सम्प्रवर्तक पूर्व की परियोजनाओं, द्वारा प्राप्त नहीं किया गया है, वहाँ पर अधिनियम का प्रवर्तन पूर्वव्यापी प्रभाव रहेगा। यह भी रेरा अधिनियम धिनियम में स्पष्ट है कि

“ऑन गोईग” परियोजनायें उपरोक्त पंजीकरण परियोजना को रेरा में पंजीकरण होगें। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रश्नगत पंजीकरण माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आर्ब्जेवेशन से यह भी से पूर्व प्रोमोटर एवं आवंटी के मध्य अनुबन्ध निष्पादित क्रमांक संख्या-एशराग्र4णर74086 है। अतः वर्णित तथ्यों के आधार पर यह की परिधि में आते हैं स्पष्ट है कि यद्यपि रेरा fea हुए हैं, परन्तु यदि जीकरण कराया जाता है, तो रेरा के सभी प्राविधान लागू त परियोजना को रेरा में पंजीकृत कराया गया है, जिसका | निश्चित रूप से रेरा अधिनियम स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना है। ऐसी दशा में रेरा निस्तारित किया जाता है निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 रियोजना वर्तमान में “ऑनगोईंग प्रोजेक्ट” की श्रेणी में आती के सभी प्राविधान लागू ert) तद्नुसार बिन्दु weet | बिन्दु संख्या-2 इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या force : होने के majeure events होने के प्रभाव? यह वाद बिन्दु विपक्षी के अभिकथनों पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार विपक्षी पर विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि परियोजना | के कारण विलम्बित हुई, जो कि उनके नियंत्रण में नहीं था। माननीय एन.जी.टी. एवं कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हाँ तो है। फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा लगाये गये प्रतिबन्ध एवं कोविड--49 महामारी फैलने के कारण परियोजना के निर्माण कार्य पर विपरीत प्रभाव पड़ा है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-43029 / 4985 “एम. सी. मेहता बनाम भारत सरकार“ में पारित आदेश दिनांक 04.44.2049 में निम्नलिखित निर्देश दिये है :-

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 Page 3 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 forth with 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.l 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 to be dealt with in accordance with law. इसके अतिरिक्त outed सिविल अपील संख्या-43029 / 4985 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 09.42.2049 में निम्नलिखित निर्देश दिये है :- In the affidavit dated 05.2.209, 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.

माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा (दिनांक 04.44.209 से दिनांक 24.02.2020) की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगायी गयी है, जिसमें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक o9.i220i9 4 पूर्ण प्रतिबन्ध को हटाते हुए आंशिक प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया। ऐसे में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा 35 दिन (दिनांक 04.44.2049 से दिनांक 09.42.209) एवं 33 दिन (66+2) (दिनांक 0.42. 20:9 से दिनांक 44.02.2020 तक साँय 6 बजे से सुबह 6 बजे तक) की अवधि के रण Page 4 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—tg (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 grey 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। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-2 Pena किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु सं० 3

बिन्दु संख्या-3 इस आशय से विचरित किया गया है कि क्या शिकायतकर्ताकी जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जा सकती है ? यदि नहीं तो क्‍या अनुतोष अनुमन्य होगा ? यह वाद बिन्दु शिकायतकर्ता के अभिकथनों के आधार पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार शिकायतकर्ता पर है| शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना ig माह विलम्बित है और विगत ig माह से परियोजना स्थल पर किसी प्रकार का कोई निर्माण कार्य नहीं किया जा रहा है। वर्तमान समय में किराये के मकान में निवास कर रहे है और किराये एवं बैंक की ई.एम.आई के कारण आर्थिक भार का सामना करना पड रहा है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्ध जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है, जिस पर विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा जून 2023 तक प्रदान कर दिया जाएगा। यह निर्विवादित है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना में फ्लैट बुक कराया था। इस तथ्य पर भी कोई विवाद नहीं है कि विपक्षी अनुबंधित अवधि में कब्जा प्रदान करने में असमर्थ रहा है। जहाँ तक केता द्वारा रिफण्ड के अनुरोध का प्रश्न है, इस विषय में रेरा अधिनियम के प्राविधानों को समग्र रूप से पढ़ा जाना आवश्यक है ताकि सभी पक्षों के मत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए एक संतुलित निर्णय लिया जा सकें। रेरा एक्ट की धारा 48 (4) A प्राविधान है कि :- Section 8. Return of Amount and Compensation- (I) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building.- al Page 5

(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. इस प्रकार So को यह अधिकार है कि यदि उन्हें एग्रीमेंट के अनुरूप कब्जा नहीं मिलता तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि को ब्याज सहित वापिस माँग सकते हैं अथवा प्रत्येक माह के विलम्बित हेतु ब्याज प्राप्त करते हुए परियोजना में बने रहें | रेरा अधिनियम की धारा 34 में रेरा के अन्य “फंग्शन्स” के साथ-साथ सब-क्लॉज (9) F "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 S|

इसी प्रकार धारा 32 में रियल gece सेक्टर के विकास हेतु अथॉरिटी के उत्तरदायित्यों में निम्न भी सम्मिलित हैं :- “The Authority shail 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,....... (@Jany other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” उक्त प्राविधानों से यह स्पष्ट है कि “रियल wee सेक्टर” के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके सभी eo होल्डर्स के हितों को समग्र रूप से देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेने का उत्तरदायित्व इस ऑथरिटी का है। इस कम में माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 2737 /20i7 “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअरबन wife. बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया”, जिसमें रेरा अधिनियम की वैद्यानिकता के सम्बंध में निर्णय दिया गया था, के प्रस्तर 24 में मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निम्न संवीक्षण किया :- हि Page 6

24. “The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth. Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section 77 refer to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 72, 74, 76 and 79. A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work.” उक्त से स्पष्ट है कि सभी पक्षों को सुनने के बाद, यद्यपि समय से इकाई न मिलने की दशा में आवंटी का अपनी धनराशि ब्याज सहित मांगने का अधिकार है, तथापि उक्त वर्णित संवीक्षा को देखते हुए अथॉरिटी, प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों, के आधार पर ‘by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and

issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit_ accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth’ के अनुरूप आदेश पारित किए जा सकते हैं। एलोटीज़ द्वारा धनराशि वापस किए जाने व परियोजना में बने रहने वाले एलोटीज के हितों में ager (744 / 2047) के निर्णय ऑबजरवेशन किया है :- लन के प्रसंग में “चित्रा शर्मा बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया” में मा. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने निर्णय के wax 40 में निम्न 40. As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is ying 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 he 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 Ye Page 7

= 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 RI एक्ट की समग्र व्यवस्था को देखते हुए यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यदि विलम्ब के प्रत्येक मामले में धनराशि लौटाने का ही निर्णय लिया जाये तो निश्चय ही यह अधिनियम के “ऑबजेक्टिव” तथा “स्कीम” के अनुरूप न होगा रिफण्ड का निर्णय लेते समय प्रत्येक मामले की “यूनीकनेस” प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों यथा “कन्सट्रक्शन” की स्थिति, कम्पलीशन की “टाईम लाईन“, प्रोमोटर्स के द्वारा ऑफर ऑफ पजेशन के “कमिटमेन्ट” की स्थिति, अन्य “स्टेक Best”, विशेष रूप से परियोजना के साथ बने रहने वाले “एलॉटीज” पर प्रभाव, “प्रस्तावित पज़ेशन डेट” के विषय में “कन्सेन्सस्‌” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। रेरा के गठन के सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 /20i7 “बिकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य” में दिनांक 23.07.20I9 को परित आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-244 के प्रस्तर-420 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है:-

"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 l0 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the promoter/builder. The maximum time fixed in RERA has also expired and extension could not have been beyond ] year." SRR यह स्पष्ट किया गया है कि रेरा आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए है और उसका लक्ष्य यह है कि प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा बिल्डिंग के समस्त विकास कार्यों को पूर्ण कराते हुए गृहकेताओं को उनका आवास ,/ फ्लैट मिल सके | तत्कमानुसार 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 aie @ Page 8 the same time to hold them responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under the said statute. We are not absolving the home buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At the same time, they have the right of enforcement of their right for compensation due to undue delay in completion of the project."

उक्त आब्जर्वेशन में यह भी स्पष्ट किया गया है कि रेरा के प्राविधान गृहकेताओं के लिए लाभकारी हैं और किसी प्रकार के विश्वासघात होने से आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए हैं एवं बिल्डिंग को पूर्ण कराने हेतु निगरानी का कार्य रेरा का है और पक्षकारों के कर्तव्यों एवं उत्तरदायित्व अधिनियम में तय किये गये हैं। यह भी लाभ दिया गया है कि परियोजना विलम्ब होने पर गृहकेताओं का यह अधिकार होगा कि वह विलम्ब के लिए परियोजना पूर्ण होने तक नियमानुसार ब्याज पा सके | इसी के पश्चात्‌ पुनः रेरा के सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-43 /2049 “पायनियर अर्बन लैन्ड एंड इन्फास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य” में दिनांक 09.08.20:9 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 प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा भू-सम्पदा परियोजना को एक निर्धारित अवधि में फलस्वरूप पूर्ण करा ली जाये, जिससे कि आवंटी अपने फ्लैटस्‌ पाने से वंचित न हो जाये और उन्हें अपने सपनों का घर मिल सके, साथ ही साथ Jak (Recalcitrant) आवंटियों को भी परियोजना पूर्ण कराने का सहयोग न करने में उत्तरदायित्व माना है। यह भी कहा गया है कि आवंटी अपने कर्तव्यों को सम्यक रूप से पूर्ण करें, मुख्य रूप से जैसे कि किश्तों का समय से भुगतान करना सुनिश्चित कर लें, जिससे कि परियोजना को पूर्ण किया जा सके। ऐसे में उपरोक्त माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्धारित की गयी विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा का मुख्य उद्देश्य, परियोजना को फलस्वरूप प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा पूर्ण कराना और आवंटियों द्वारा सम्यक रूप से अपनी oa Page 9 किश्तों का भुगतान सुनिश्चित कर लिया जाना, जिससे कि परियोजना को निर्धारित अवधि में पूर्ण कराया जा सके। आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए परियोजना विलम्ब होने पर ब्याज का लाभ भी आवंटियों को देय होगा, परन्तु इससे पूर्व शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी उत्तरदायित्व होगा कि वह अपनी किश्तों का समय से भुगतान करें। पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध स्थलीय निरीक्षण आख्या दिनांकित 08.06. 2022 के बिन्दु Wer-is एवं 49 के अवलोकन से विदित है कि परियोजना में सभी टॉवरों का निर्माण कार्य 82-85 प्रतिशत पूर्ण किया जा चुका है और सम्पूर्ण परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य लगभग 75-80 प्रतिशत पूर्ण किया जा चुका है।

“विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना में शिकायतकर्ता को आवंटित फ्लैट का जून 2023 में कब्जा दिये जाने की बात कही गयी है, जो कि निकट की अवधि है। समस्त परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए यह उचित होगा कि शिकायतकर्तागण दिनांक 30.06.2023 तक परियोजना पूर्ण होने पर कब्जा लें। उसके बाद वे स्वयं यूनिट्स के भविष्य हेतु उपयोग के सम्बन्ध में निर्णय ले सकते हैं। वैसे भी शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा परियोजना में धनराशि का 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 विलम्ब हेतु नियमानुसार ब्याज प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा देय होगा पत्रावली पर अग्रणी शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा दाखिल अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांक 06.08. 20i6 के प्रस्तर-6) में उल्लेख किया गया है कि विपक्षी द्वारा फोर्स मैज्योर के अधीन 42 एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 06.08.2020 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 |) जहाँ तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बन्ध में सिविल अपील Wo 6649-50 /20i8 "सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल" में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है किः-

"the period of Interest should close on April 206 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 af Page 0 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। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 06.08.2020 + 68 दिन अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 4.(0.2020 से ओ.सी. /सी.सी. अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि तक विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। जहाँ तक ब्याज देयता का प्रश्न है। माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया” के वाद में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि —

"Section 8(I)(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 oat निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व केता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। रेरा एक्ट की धारा 2(za) में प्राविधान है कि — (ca) "interest" means the rates of interest payable by the promoter or the allottee, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause—

(7) the rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default; oe | Page i (7) the interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the amount or any part thereof till the date the amount or part thereof and interest thereon is refunded, and the interest payable by the allottee to the promoter shall be from the date the allottee defaults in payment to the promoter till the date it is paid; जहाँ तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, तो राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 20i6 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विकय,/पटटा के लिए करार) नियमावली 2048 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विकय ,/पटटा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 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 ४८टा.ए+ प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि यदि शिकायतकर्ता की कोई धनराशि अतिदेय है, तो उस पर विपक्षी भी MCLRH प्रतिशत की दर से ही ब्याज प्राप्त कर सकता है। रेरा की धारा-2(४०)() में भी यही ब्याज की परिभाषा दी गयी है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-3 निस्तारित किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते है। आदेश 4. विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह शिकायतकर्तागण की यूनिट्स समस्त सुविधाओं को आवंटन-पत्र / अनुबन्ध के अनुसार पूर्ण कराकर दिनांक 30.06.2023 तक ओ.सी. /सी.सी. सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें। Ds विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 44.0.2020 से ओ.सी /सी.सी अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि तक शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा स्वयं कक a पर Page 2 MCLR+I प्रतिशत ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की धनराशि में समायोजित की जायेगी। ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक होने पर 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, 20:6 की धारा 2(०४)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 शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा भी MCLR+I 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 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। इस आदेश का उल्लघंन भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 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:- 26 /42,/ 2022 Kano (कल्पना मिश्रा) (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण Page 3