U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddha Nagar. Bench-2 Attendance:— Shri Balwinder Kumar, Member | S.No. | Complaint No. | Complainant | Unit No. | Deposited Amount Rs./- | |---|---|---|---|---| | 1. | NCRI45/02/7027/202 | Pankaj Bhatt & Niranjan Bhatt | ॥2/509 | 9,96,37/- | | 2. | NCRI45/04/73304/202 | Poushali Basu Guha & Indraneel Guha | T6-502 | 27,94,89/- | Versus Rise Projects Pvt. Ltd. The complaint has been instituted against the respondent by the complainant Pankaj Bhatt and Niranjan Bhatt along with other complainant. The facts of these two complaints are identical and the evidence is similar. Therefore, they are being disposed of by a single decision. Complaint No. NCRI45/02/77027/202 Pankaj Bhatt and Niranjan Bhatt is treated as the leading case. The present complaint application has been instituted by the complainant against the respondent for getting refund of the deposited amount along with interest.

In brief, the complainant's statement is that they had booked Unit No. T2/509 in the respondent's project RISE ORGANIC GHAR, for which payment of Rs. 9,96,37/- was made by them from time to time on an installment basis. Possession has not yet been delivered by the respondent. The complainant also states that construction work has been stopped in the project for 4 years, the project is not yet complete and a delay of more than t6 months has occurred. Therefore, the complainant has requested refund of the deposited amount along with interest. In support of their statements, copies of allotment / apartment buyer agreement dated 74.04.20:6, vakalatnama, statement of deposited amount, etc. have been filed by the complainant.

Filing its reply, it has been stated by the respondent that Unit No. T2/509 was booked by the complainant in their project. The allotment / apartment buyer agreement was signed between both parties on date 44.04. 2046. Through its reply, it has also been informed that the project was launched in September 20i5, and as per RERA registration the completion date of the project was 30.06.2024. The approved map of the project was revised by the respondent on date 27.07.2020. They are making efforts to complete the project and will deliver possession to the complainant by August 2022. The respondent referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 04-.209 in Writ Petition (Civil) no.l3029 of 985 - M.C. Mehta Versus Union of India & Ors., wherein construction work was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and order dated 09.:2.20:9 wherein exemption was granted to carry out construction work from 6 am to 6 pm. Arguments of both parties were heard and the file was perused. Keeping in view the complaint of the complainant, the following points are for determination:— 1. Whether this Authority has the jurisdiction to hear this matter? 2. Whether the respondent's project was delayed due to force majeure events? If yes, its effect? 3. Whether the project in question is registered with RERA and falls under the category of "ongoing"? 4. Whether the deposited amount of the complainant should be refunded? Determination of Points:

Point No. 1: Whether this Authority has the jurisdiction to hear this matter? So far as the question of the Authority having legal jurisdiction to hear the matter is concerned, it is clarified in this regard that prima facie provisions for filing a complaint are provided under Section-31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046, which are stated as follows:— "31. (1) Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any promoter allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section 'person' shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force. (2) The form, manner and fees for filing complaint under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be specified by regulations."

As stated above, any aggrieved person may file a complaint before the Authority or the Adjudicating Officer, as the case may be, against any promoter, allottee or real estate agent for any violation or contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules or regulations made thereunder. From this it is clear that complaints can be presented before both the Authority and the Adjudicating Officer as per their jurisdiction and as the case may be. The jurisdictions of the Authority and the Adjudicating Officer and the matters to be heard by them are mentioned under relevant provisions of the RERA Act. The powers to be exercised by the Authority under the RERA Act are conferred under Sections 35, 36, 37, 38. Among these, the principal power conferred on the Authority under Section 38 is as follows:— Page 3 / 17

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

In addition, the power of adjudicating compensation is provided under Section 71 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 206, which is as follows:— Page 4 / 17

"71. (1) For the purpose of adjudging compensation under sections 2, 4, 8 and section 9, the Authority shall appoint in consultation with the appropriate Government one or more judicial officer as deemed necessary, who is or has been a District Judge to be an adjudicating officer for holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner, after giving any person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided that any person whose complaint in respect of matters covered under sections 2, 4, l8 and section 9 is pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission, established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 986, on or before the commencement of this Act, he may, with the permission of such Forum or Commission, as the case may be, withdraw the complaint pending before it and file an application before the adjudicating officer under this Act. (2) The application for adjudging compensation, under sub-section (1), shall be dealt with by the adjudicating officer as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application: Provided that where any such application cannot be disposed of within the said period of sixty days, the adjudicating officer shall record his reasons in writing for not disposing of the application within that period. (3) While holding an inquiry under sub-section (2), the adjudicating officer shall have power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to give evidence or to produce any document which in the opinion of the adjudicating officer, may be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry, and if, on such inquiry, he is satisfied that the person had failed to comply with the provisions of any of the sections specified in sub-section (1), he may direct to pay such compensation or interest, as the case may be, as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of any of those sections."

Page 5 / 17 The interpretation of the aforesaid provision under Section 71(1) is that for the purpose of adjudging compensation under Section 2, Section 44, Section 18 and Section 19, the Authority shall appoint in consultation with the appropriate Government one or more judicial officers as deemed necessary, who is or has been a District Judge, as Adjudicating Officer, who after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to any concerned person shall hold inquiry in the prescribed manner. In such a situation, it is clear that where compensation is claimed, the decision thereon shall be given by the Adjudicating Officer. Therefore, from Section 38 and Section 71 of the RERA Act, it is clear that under Section 38 the powers of the Authority are provided wherein penalty and interest shall be imposed for any contravention of obligations cast upon promoters, allottees and real estate agents, and under Section 71 the power of adjudicating compensation vests in the Adjudicating Officer, which shall be done only under Section 12, Section 14, Section 18 and Section 19 (Only for Sections 2,4,8,9). The provisions under Section 12 of the RERA Act are as follows:—

"12. Where any person makes an advance or a deposit on the basis of the information contained in the notice advertisement or prospectus, or on the basis of any model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, and sustains any loss or damage by reason of any incorrect, false statement included therein, he shall be compensated by the promoter in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that if the person affected by such incorrect, false statement contained in the notice, advertisement or prospectus, or the model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, intends to withdraw from the proposed project, he shall be returned his entire investment along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and the compensation in the manner provided under this Act." Page 6 / 17 Where an aggrieved allottee intends to withdraw from the proposed project, their entire invested amount shall be refunded along with interest at such prescribed rate and compensation in the manner provided under the Act. Clearly, if only refund of the deposited amount along with interest is claimed and the interest rate is prescribed, no element of adjudication is involved therein. Therefore, this section has two limbs: the first where the question of compensation arises, which shall be decided by the Adjudicating Officer; and the second where the question of refund of deposited amount along with interest arises, which shall be decided by the Authority.

Similarly, Section 14(3) of the RERA Act provides:— "14. (3) In case any structural defect or any other defect in workmanship, quality or provision of services or any other obligations of the promoter as per the agreement for sale relating to such development is brought to the notice of the promoter within a period of five years by the allottee from the date of handing over possession, it shall be the duty of the promoter to rectify such defects without further charge, within thirty days, and in the event of promoter's failure to rectify such defects within such time, the aggrieved allottees shall be entitled to receive appropriate compensation in the manner as provided under this Act." Page 7 / 17 Where the allottee claims compensation for defect liability within 5 years, it shall be determined by the Adjudicating Officer. Further, Section 18(1) of the Act provides:—

"18. (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." Page 8 / 17

If possession is not delivered by the promoter within the specified time, and if the allottee wishes to exit the project, they shall be entitled to receive their deposited amount along with interest and compensation. If the allottee wishes to remain in the project, interest shall be payable for every month of delay. From this also, it is clear that under Section 38 the Authority has the power where the question of interest and penalty arises, falling within the jurisdiction of the Authority; and where the question of compensation arises, it falls within the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71. Reading these provisions together, if possession is not delivered by the promoter in accordance with the terms of their binding agreement, the allottee shall have the right to claim refund of their deposited amount along with interest. Keeping in view the aforesaid, particularly Section 84, the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 20i6 were framed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, wherein Form "M" Rule-33(4) is provided for presenting complaints before the Authority, and Form "N" Rule-34(0) is provided for filing applications before the Adjudicating Officer. In addition, filing complaints online is provided under Regulation 24 of the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2049. In the same sequence, the rights of the allottee are provided under Section 19(4):—

"19. (4) The allottee shall be entitled to claim the refund of amount paid along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and compensation in the manner as provided under this Act, from the promoter, if the promoter fails to comply or is unable to give possession of the apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of his registration under the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder." From the above, it is clear that if possession is not delivered in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale entered into by the promoter, the allottee is entitled to claim refund of the deposited amount along with interest, and in addition is also entitled to receive compensation. It can be held that where the allottee claims refund of the deposited amount along with interest, its jurisdiction lies with the Authority, whose power is conferred under Section 38, because the interest rate is prescribed by the State Government and no adjudication is involved therein. Where compensation is claimed, the jurisdiction shall be of the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71. Section 72 of the RERA Act provides factors to be considered by the Adjudicating Officer while adjudging compensation:—

"72. While adjudging the quantum of compensation or interest, as the case may be, under section 71, the adjudicating officer shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:— (a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; (b) the amount of loss caused as a result of the default; (c) the repetitive nature of the default; (d) such other factors which the adjudicating officer considers necessary to the effect in furtherance of justice." The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. held:—

"258. In paragraph-9 of Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India, (2007) 3 SCC 545, the Apex Court has held that 'There is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 0 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest of the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 0 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B.' The object of Section 18 is to recompense an allottee for depriving him of the use of the funds paid by him. The promoter who has received money from the allottee but has failed to adhere to his contractual or statutory obligations, cannot claim that he is entitled to utilize the monies without paying any interest with respect thereto to the allottee." It is clear from the above that interest is neither penalty nor punishment, but normal accretion on capital. The objective of Section i8 is to recompense the allottee for the use of funds paid by him. For this reason, this relief is being granted by the Authority exercising powers conferred within its jurisdiction. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is disposed of. Point No. 2: Whether the project was delayed due to force majeure events?

This point was framed upon the respondent's contentions, the burden of proving which lies on the respondent. The respondent contended that delay in the project occurred due to the restriction placed on construction work by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. No evidence regarding force majeure was filed on record by the respondent showing that work was obstructed on the project land. In Civil Appeal No. 940 /20i7 Bikram Chatterjee & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court defined force majeure at page 234 and paragraph 440 as follows:— "force majeure shall mean a case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature." From the above definition, it is clear that force majeure means war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or other calamity caused by nature. In the matter in question, no such circumstances arose, and in such situation the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of this argument. Accordingly, Point No. 2 is disposed of. Point No. 3: Whether the project in question is registered with RERA and falls within the category of ongoing? Upon examination on the portal, it was found that the respondent's project RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE ॥ is registered with RERA, whose registration number is UPRERAPRJ4403, making it clear that the project falls under the category of ongoing projects and is within RERA's jurisdiction.

In Writ Petition No. 2737 / 2047 Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Union of India, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed:— "The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section 4(2)(l)(C) enables the promoter to give fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered into between him and the allottees so that he is not visited with penal consequences laid down under RERA. In other words, by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh time line under Section 4(2)(l)(C) he is not absolved of his liability under the agreement for sale." The promoter is not absolved of their liability under the agreement for sale by giving a revised timeline under Section 4(2)(l)(C). Accordingly, Point No. 3 is disposed of. Point No. 4: Whether the deposited amount of the complainant should be refunded? The complainant is entitled to get refund of the deposited amount because possession was not delivered to the complainant within the period stipulated in the agreement and excessive delay has occurred in the matter. Since the project was not completed on time, in such circumstances the complainant is entitled to get refund of their deposited amount along with interest. Determination of Point No.-4

The complainant states that possession was not delivered by the respondent within the stipulated period, due to which they wish to withdraw from the project. On the other hand, the respondent states that they will deliver possession of the original unit to the complainant by August 2022 or provide an alternative unit. Consent has not been given by the complainant for an alternative unit. In support of their statement, a copy of allotment letter / apartment buyer agreement dated 44.04.20:6 has been filed by the complainant, as per possession clause whereof possession was to be delivered within 42 months and a grace period of 6 months, totaling 48 months, from the date of execution of the buyer agreement. The said apartment buyer agreement was executed between both parties on date 4404.20I6. Accordingly, the due date of possession comes to 4.04.2020. It is also clear that the project falls under the delayed category. In such circumstances, directing refund of the complainant's deposited amount along with interest appears justifiable. The respondent has failed to deliver possession to the complainant by the said possession period. In this regard, it is clearly mentioned in Section 18(1) of the RERA Act that:—

"18. (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 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." If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of any apartment, plot or building within the period specified in the agreement in accordance with terms thereof, they shall, without prejudice to any other remedy available, on demand of the allottee if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, be liable to return the amount received by them in respect of that apartment, plot or building with interest.

It is also clear that the respondent was to deliver possession of the unit to the complainant by date 44.04.2020, which was the liability of the respondent to fulfill. It has been stated by the complainant that the deposited amount be refunded along with interest. It is clear that possession was not delivered to the complainant within the stipulated period, nor has the respondent obtained OC/CC of this project. Therefore, under Section 48(4)(ए) of the RERA Act, the complainant is entitled to withdraw from the project. In addition, in this regard, in Civil Appeal No.-3482 /20i9 Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. vs Devasis Rudra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that:—

"It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By 20l6, nearly seven years had elapsed from the date of the agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 206. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the orders passed by the SCDRC and by the NCDRC for refund of moneys were justified." Likewise, in this sequence, in Civil Appeal No.-42238 /20i8 Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited vs Govindan Raghavan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that:—

"We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.0.208 passed by the National Commission. The Appellant — Builder failed to fulfill his contractual obligation of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent — Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired. During this period, the Respondent — Flat Purchaser had to service a loan that he had obtained for purchasing the flat, by paying Interest @l0% to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent — Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the Respondent — Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest." Under the legal principles laid down as above, a homebuyer can be made to wait for a reasonable period. Even after obtaining completion certificate, the complainant is entitled to receive the deposited amount because the complainant has not received possession as per the period provided in the agreement and there has been inordinate delay in the matter. Since the project has not been completed on time, in such circumstances the complainant is entitled to get refund of their deposited amount along with interest.

In Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held:— "Section 18(1)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the 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." In light of the aforesaid judgment, interest is payable on the delay and principal amount as per the agreement entered into between promoter and buyer, because the said funds were utilized by the promoters.

As regards the rate of interest payable, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 20i8 were notified by the State Government under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 on date 47.40.208. In paragraph 9 of the draft agreement for sale/lease annexed therein, events of default of promoters are defined, wherein in paragraph 9.2(॥), in the event of default of promoter, it is provided for the allottee:— "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India + i% unless provided otherwise under the Rules, within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice." The same rate is prescribed in paragraph 9.3(i) in the event of default by allottees. Keeping the said provision in view, refunding the amount to the allottee at the interest rate of MCLR+1% appears justifiable. Accordingly, Point No. 4 is disposed of. Disposing of the aforesaid points, the following orders are passed: Order

1. The respondent is directed to ensure refunding the amount deposited by the complainants along with annual interest at the rate of MCLR+1 percent in 4 monthly installments starting from the first week of November 202. If default is committed by the respondent in paying even a single installment, the entire amount deposited by the complainants along with annual interest at MCLR+1 percent shall be paid by the respondent in lump sum. 2. It shall be the responsibility of the complainants to repay to the bank the amount of bank loan availed against their unit. 3. One copy each of this order be placed on the respective files, and computation of amount and interest in each case shall be made in accordance with the findings recorded in this order. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section-63 and other relevant provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20I6. The order be uploaded on the portal. Date:— 42,//40 / 2024 (Balwinder Kumar) (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | पीठ-2 उपस्थिति:- श्री बलविन्दर कुमार, सदस्य है ao शिकायत संख्या | यूनिट सं० | धनराशि रु./- l. | NCRI45/02/7027/202 | पंकज भदृ्‌ट एण्ड निरंजन | ॥2/509 9,96,37/- Wee 2. | NCRI45/04/73304/202 पौशाली बशु गुहा "|" T6-502 27,94,89/- इंद्रनील गहु बनाम हु 7 राइज़ प्रोजेक्ट्स wo feo शिकायतकर्ता पंकज yee we निरंजन yee के साथ ay शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध वाद योजित किया गया है। इन दोनों शिकायतों के तथ्य समान हैं और एक समान साक्ष्य हैं। अतः एक ही निर्णय से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत सं०0-र८टारा45/02/77027/202 पंकज भट्ट एण्ड निरंजन भट्ट अग्रणी वाद Yet प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना RISE ORGANIC GHAR एप्45४- में यूनिट सं०- T2/509 बुक किया गया था, जिसके लिए उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 9,96,37/- रुपये का भुगतान किया war) विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है कि 4 वर्षो से परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य बन्द है, अभी तक परियोजना भी पूर्ण नहीं है एवं t6 माह से अधिक का विलग्ब हो चुका है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। fL Pa ge i —_—_ 77 ae द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटन अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 74.04.20:6, वकालतनामा, जमा धनराशि का विवरण आदि की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं।

विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवाद पत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी परियोजना में यूनिट Weat-7T2/509 बुक किया गया था। उभयपक्ष के मध्य आवंटन /अपार्टमेंट क्रेता agar दिनांक 44.04. 2046 को हस्ताक्षरित किया गया था। अपने जवाब से यह भी अवगत कराया गया है कि परियोजना सितम्बर 20i5 में लांच की गयी थी, रेरा के रजिस्ट्रेशन के अनुसार प्रोजेक्ट की पूर्णता तिथि 30.06.2024 थी। विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना का स्वीकृत मानचित्र दिनांक 27.07.2020 को संशोधित किया गया। वह परियोजना को पूर्ण करने के लिए प्रयासरत हैं और 'अगस्त 2022 तक शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा दे देंगे। विपक्षी द्वारा मा. सवोच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक 04-.209, Writ Petition (civil) no.l3029 of 985 - M.C. Mehta Versus Union of India & Ors. जिसमें मा. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगा दी थी एवं आदेश दिनांक 09.:2.20:9 को निर्माण कार्य सुबह 6 बजे शाम 6 बजे तक करने की छूट दी गयी उभयपक्ष के तर्कों को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। शिकायतकर्ता की शिकायत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए निम्न बिन्दु विचारणीय हैं:- 4... क्‍या इस प्राधिकरण को यह प्रकरण सुनने का क्षेत्राधिकार है ? 2... क्या force majeure होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? 3. क्या प्रश्नगत परियोजना रेरा में पंजीकृत है एवं “ऑनगोईंग” की श्रेणी में है? 4... क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जाये ? (८ निस्तारण बिन्दु ae Pag eee 57 le इस अथॉरिटी को यह प्रकरण सुनने का क्षेत्राधिकार अधिकार है ?

जहाँ तक प्राधिकरण को विधिक रूप से प्रकरण की सुनवाई करने के क्षेत्राधिकार का प्रश्न है, इस सम्बंध में स्पष्ट करना है कि प्रथम दृष्टया किसी परिवाद को दर्ज कराये जाने के लिए भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 के धारा-3 के अन्दर प्राविधान दिये गये है जो कि निम्न रूप से उललेखित है-: 3l. (!) Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any promoter allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section "person" shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force. (2) The form, manner and fees for filing complaint under sub-section (l) shall be such as may be specified by regulations

उपरोक्तानुसार कोई पीड़ित व्यक्ति, किसी सम्प्रवर्तक, आवंटी या भू-सम्पदा अभिकर्ता के विरूद्र अधिनियम या उसके अधीन बनाये गये नियमों या विनियमों के उपबन्धों के किसी अतिकमण या उल्लंघन के लिए मामलों के अनुसार (as the case may be), प्राधिकरण या न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के समक्ष शिकायत दाखिल कर सकता है। इससे स्पष्ट है कि शिकायत को प्राधिकरण और न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी दोनों के समक्ष उनके क्षेत्राधिकार एवं मामलों के अनुसार (as the case may ४०) प्रस्तुत किये जा सकते है। प्राधिकरण और न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के क्षेत्राधिकार और उनके सुने जाने वाले मामले रेरा अधिनियम में सम्बंधित प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत उल्लेख किये गये है। रेरा अधिनियम में प्राधिकरण (&ए॥०१७) द्वारा प्रयोग किये जाने वाली शक्तियों (Powers) का अधिकार धारा-35,36,37,38, के अन्तर्गत दी गयी है। इनमें से मुख्य शक्ति जो कि धारा-38 में प्राधिकरण को दी गयी है, जिसका पढ़ा जाना उचित होगा, जो कि निम्नवत है :- tv Page 3 38. (]) The Authority shall have powers to impose penalty or interest, inregard to any contravention of obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents, under this Act or the rules and the regulations made thereunder. (2) The Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Authority shall have powers to regulate its own procedure. (3) Where an issue is raised relating to agreement, action, omission, practice or procedure that—

(a) has an appreciable prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in connection with the development of areal estate project; or (b) has effect of market power of monopoly situation being abused for then the Authority, may suo motu, make reference in respect of such issue to the Competition Commission of India. उपरोक्त प्राविधान की धारा-38 की suet—- यह है कि प्राधिकरण को, सम्प्रवर्तकों, आवंटियों और भू-सम्पदा अभिकर्ताओं पर डाली गयी बाध्यताओं के किसी भी उल्लंघन के सम्बंध में, इस अधिनियम और उसके अधीन बनाये गये नियमों और विनियमों के अधीन अर्थदंड (Penalty) या ब्याज (Interest) अधिरोपित करने की शक्ति होगी। इससे स्पष्ट है कि सम्प्रवर्तक, आवंटियों और भू-सम्पदा अभिकर्ताओं पर डाली गयी बाध्यताओं (Obligations) के किसी भी उल्लंघन के लिए अर्थदंड (Penalty) और ब्याज (Interest) WRT FRI घारा 38() के अन्तर्गत अधिरोपित किया जायेगा। इसके अतिरिक्त नन्‍यायनिर्णयन करने की शक्ति भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) अधिनियम 206, की धारा-74 में दी गयी है। जो कि निम्नवत्‌ Fe Vv Page 4

= . () For the purpose of adjudging compensation under sections 2, 4, 8 and section 9, the Authority shall appoint in consultation with the appropriate Government one or more judicial officer as deemed necessary, who is or has been a District Judge to be an adjudicating officer for holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner, after giving any person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided that any person whose complaint in respect of matters covered under sections 2, 4, l8 and section 9 is pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission, established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 986, on or before the commencement of this Act, he may, with the permission of such Forum or Commission, as the case may be, withdraw the complaint pending before it and file an application before the adjudicating officer under this Act. 2) The application for adjudging compensation, under sub-section (l), shall be dealt with by the adjudicating officer as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application: Provided that where any such application could not be disposed of within the said period of sixty days, the adjudicating officer shall record his reasons in writing for not disposing of the application within that period.

(3) While holding an inquiry the adjudicating officer shall have power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to give evidence or to produce any document which in the opinion of the adjudicating officer, may be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry and AL Page 5 == on such inquiry, he is satisfied that the person has failed to comply with the provisions of any of the sections specified in sub-section (l), he may direct to pay such compensation or interest, as the case any be, as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of any of those sections. उपरोक्त प्राविधान की amez7i(i) यह है कि अधिनियम की ani—2, धारा-44, gRHis और aig के अधीन क्षतिपूर्ति (Compensation) न्यायनिर्णीत करने के लिए, प्राधिकरण समुचित सरकार के परामर्श से ऐसे एक या अधिक न्यायिक अधिकारी जैसा आवश्यक समझे, जो जिला न्यायधीश है या रहा है, न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करेगा, जो कि किसी संबद्ध व्यक्ति को सुनवाई का समुचित अवसर प्रदान किये जाने के पश्चात्‌, विहित रीति (Prescribed manner) में जाँच करेगा। ऐसे में यह स्पष्ट है कि जहाँ क्षतिपूर्ति (Compensation) की मांग की जायेगी, तो उसका निर्णय न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा दिया जायेगा। इससे यह भी प्रतीत होता है कि प्राधिकरण की शक्ति न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के नियुकती हेतु अहम है, क्योंकि मुख्यतः नियुक्तिकर्ता प्राधिकरण है जो कि सरकार के परामर्श से करेगा।

अतः रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-38 एवं aRi-7 से स्पष्ट है कि धारा-38 में प्राधिकरण की शक्तियां दी गयी है जिसमें कि सम्प्रवर्तकों, आवंटियों और - - .- पून्‍्कक्‍दाओं-अभिकर्ताओं ae डाली-मयी-बाध्यताओं Obligations) fae उल्लंघन (Any Contravention) के सम्बंध में, अर्थदंड (Penalty) एवं ब्याज (Interest) अधिरोपित किया जायेगा और धारा-74 में क्षतिपूर्ति (Compensation) हेतु न्यायनिर्णयन करने की शक्ति का अधिकार न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी को है जो कि केवल धारा-42, धारा-44, धारा-48 और धारा-49 (Only for Sections 2,4,8,9) के अधीन किया जायेगा। रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-42 में निम्न प्राविधान है :- 2. Where any person makes an advance or a deposit on the basis of the information contained in the notice advertisement or prospectus, or on the basis of any model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, and sustains any loss or damage by reason of any incorrect, false statement included therein, he shall be compensated by the promoter in the manner as provided under this Act: Page 6 Provided that if the person affected by such incorrect, false statement contained in the notice, advertisement or prospectus, or the model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, intends to withdraw from the proposed project, he shall be returned his entire investment along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and the compensation in the manner provided under this Act.

उपरोकतानुसार प्राविधान से यह है कि जहाँ कोई व्यक्ति सूचना, विज्ञापन प्रास्पक्ट्स में दिये जानकारी के आधार पर कोई अग्रिम देता है या जमा करता है और उसे उसमें सम्मलित गलत, मिथ्या कथन के कारण कोई हानि या नुकसान उठाना पढ़ता है, तो उसकी सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा इस अधिनियम के अधीन यथा meee | रीति में क्षतिपूर्ति की जायेगी। ऐसे में जहाँ शिकायतकर्ता धारा 42 के प्राविधानों के अनुसार ससाक्ष्य क्षतिपूर्ति की माँग करेगें वहाँ उसका अभिनिर्णय anata अधिकारी द्वारा दिया जायेगा। इसी धारा के प्राविधान के दूसरे अनुच्छेद (Paragraph 2) में यह कहा गया है कि पीड़ित आवंटी परियोजना से यदि अपना नाम वापस लेना चाहता है तो उसके निवेश की गयी धनराशि, ब्याज सहित, ऐसी दर जो कि पर जो कि ६#ःएहौए- वबविहेत की जाए के अनुसार लौटाया जायेगा. और अधिनियम के अघीन उपबंधित रीति के अनुरूप उसकी क्षतिपूर्ति की जायेगी। स्पष्टतया यदि केवल ब्याज सहित धनराशि वापिस माँगी गई है व ब्याज दर विहित है तो उसमें अभिनिर्णय का कोई अंश समाविष्ट नहीं है। अतः इस धारा में 2 अंग है, पहला (Para ) जहाँ क्षतिपूर्ति का प्रश्न है वह न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा निर्णय किया जायेगा और दूसरा (Para 2) जहाँ जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज का प्रश्न है वह प्राधिकरण द्वारा निर्णीत किया जायेगा, इसी प्रकार रेरा अधिनियम की aia की उपधारा-3 निम्नवत प्राविधानित है-: 4(3) In case any structural defect or any other defect in workmanship, quality or provision of services or any other obligations of the promoter as per the agreement for sale relating to such development is brought to the notice of the dL

ee within a period of five years by the allottee from the date of handing over possession, it shall be the duty of the promoter to rectify such defects without further charge, within thirty days, and in the event of promoter's failure to rectify such defects within such time, the aggrieved allottees shall be entitled to receive appropriate compensation in the manner as provided under this Act. धारा-4 में सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा मंजूर रेखांको और परियोजना विनिर्देशों का पालन किये जाने का प्राविधान है। इसी कम में धारा-44 की उपधारा-3 में यह प्राविधानित है कि यदि कब्जा सौपें जाने की तारीख से 5 वर्ष की अवधि के भीतर आवंटी द्वारा, ऐसे विकास से सम्बंधित किसी संरचनात्मक त्रुटि या सेवाओं के कर्मकौशल, क्वालिटी या उपबन्ध या सम्प्रवर्तक की feed} अन्य बाध्यताओं की ओर सम्प्रवर्तक का ध्यान दिलाया जाता है, तो सम्प्रवर्तक का यह कर्तव्य | Saar fe वह ऐसी त्रुटियों को बिना किन्हीं अतिरिक्त प्रभारों के 30 दिन के भीतर दूर कराये और सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा ऐसी त्रुटियों को ऐसे अवधि के भीतर दूर करने में असफल रहने की दशा में पीड़ित आवंटी समुचित प्रतिकर पाने का हकदार होगा, जो इस अधिनियम के अधीन उपबंधित हो। इससे भी यह स्पष्ट है कि इसमें क्षतिपूर्ति के निर्धारण का प्रश्न है जो कि बाध्यकारी शर्तों को पूरा न किये जाने के लिए इस घारा @ अन्तर्गत, इसका... निर्णय न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी का होगा। परन्तु पीड़ित व्यक्ति को यह स्वतंत्रता होगी कि वह, सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा उन बाध्यकारी शर्तों को पूर्ण कराये जाने हेतु आदेश के लिए, प्राधिकरण के समक्ष अपना वाद प्रस्तुत कर सकते है।

रेरा अधिनियम की ais के अन्तर्गत निम्नवत्‌ प्राविधान दिये गये है :- 8. (l) 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 tor 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 WV Page 8 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. उपरोक्त प्राविधान यह है कि यदि सम्प्रवर्तक-: (क). विक्रय करार के निबन्धों के अनुसार उसमें निर्धारित तारीख तक सम्यक रूप से पूरा करने में, या (ख). इस अधिनियम के अधीन अथवा किसी अन्य प्रकरण से रजिस्ट्रीकरण का निलंबन या प्रतिसंहरण के कारण विकासकर्ता के रूप में ६ के कास्म,

यथास्थिति, किसी अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन का पूरा करने में असफल रहता है या उसका कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहता है, तो वह उपलब्ध किसी अन्य उपचार पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव डाले बिना आवंटी की मांग पर, यदि आवंटी परियोजना से बाहर होना चाहता है, तो यथास्थिति, उस अपार्टगेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन के सम्बंध में उसके द्वारा प्राप्त रकग कौ, ऐसी दर पर ब्याज सहित, जो इस नियमित विहित की जाये एवं इस अधिनियम के अधीन यथा उपबन्धित रीति में क्षतिपूर्ति दिलाये जाने का पात्र होगा। परन्तु जहाँ किसी आवंटी का परियोजना से बाहर आने का आशय नहीं है, वहाँ सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा उसे कब्जा सौपें जाने तक विलम्ब के प्रत्येक माह के लिए उस दर पर जो विहित की जाये, ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। अतः यह स्पष्ट है कि यदि सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा अनुबन्ध के अनुसार परियोजना को अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन पूर्ण नहीं किया जाता है, या कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है और यदि आवंटी परियोजना से बाहर आना v4) Page 9 | अंडिसिइओ तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित और क्षतिपूर्ति भी पाने का अधिकारी होगा। यदि आवंटी परियोजना में बना रहना चाहता है, तो प्रतिमाह विलम्ब के लिए ब्याज देय होगा। इससे भी यह स्पष्ट है कि धारा-38 के अन्तर्गत प्राधिकरण को यह शक्ति है कि जहाँ ब्याज और अर्थदंड का प्रश्न होगा, तो यह प्राधिकरण के क्षेत्राधिकार में होगा और जहाँ क्षतिपूर्ति का प्रश्न होगा, तो वह धारा-74 के अन्तर्गत न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के क्षेत्राधिकार में होगा।

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

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

72. While adjudging the quantum of compensation or interest, as the case may be, under section 7l, the adjudicating officer shall have due regard to the following factors, namely: (a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; 42 ए age l] (b) the amount of loss caused as a result of the default; (c) the repetitive nature of the default; (d) such other factors which the adjudicating officer considers necessary to the case in furtherance of justice. इस धारा के प्राविधान में ब्याज भी जोड़ा गया है, क्योंकि क्षतिपूर्ति की धनराशि की मात्रा का निर्धारण एकमुश्त धनराशि अथवा समकक्ष ब्याज दोनों के रूप हो सकता है। स्पष्टतया क्षतिपूर्ति के रूप दिये जाने वाला ब्याज, आवंटी की जमा धनराशि की ब्याज सहित धनवापसी के प्रकरण से अलग है। जहाँ ब्याज के रूप में दी जाने वाली क्षतिपूर्ति की राशि में ब्याज दर का निर्धारण सम्मिलित है, प्राधिकरण द्वारा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वार्षिक करने की दशा में बडम लक | दर पूर्व निर्धारित है तथा उसमें अभिनिर्णय का अंश नहीं है। धनवापस किये जाने वाले प्रकरण में भुगतान किये जाने वाले ब्याज की दर राज्य सरकार द्वारा बनाये गये नियमावली के अन्तर्गत दी जाती है और क्षतिपूर्ति निर्धारण या ब्याज की गणना अधिनिर्याणक द्वारा निम्न 4 बिन्दुओं को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिये जाते है। (क) व्यतिक्रम के परिणाम स्वरूप अनुपातिक लाभ या अनुचित फायदे (ख) व्यतिक्रम के परिणामस्वरूप हानि की रकमः (ग) व्यतिक्रम के पुनरावुत्तिपूर्ण प्रकृति: (घ) ऐसे अन्य कारक, जो न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी wa के अग्रसरण के मामले में आवश्यक समझें |

ऐसे में यह स्पष्ट है कि क्षतिपूर्ति वाले प्रकरण के निस्तारण जो न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा किया जाएगा, उसका जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस किये जाने वाली धनराशि से कोई लेन-देना नहीं है। यह भी है कि रेरा अधिनियम में क्षतिपूर्ति एवं जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज हेतु अलग-अलग प्राविधान दिये गये है। क्षतिपूर्ति की vue धारा-72 में दिये गये सिर्फ 4 आधारों एवं धारा 42, 44, 48 व १9 के प्राविधानों तथा शर्तों के अनुसार ही दी जायेगी। अधिनियम के अनुसार प्राधिकरण को भू-सम्पदा सेक्टर को नियमित रूप विभिन्‍न प्राविधानों के अनुसार विकास करने हेतु दिये गये है साथ प्रा AW HAUT को Page 2 for this period. Hence equity demands that A - ह Ee अधिनिर्णायक अधिकारी को नियुक्त करने का अधिकार दिया गया है जो सिर्फ विशिष्ठ रूप से कृत्य अनुसार क्षतिपूर्ति वाली धनराशि का निर्धारण करेगें। जहाँ तक ब्याज, अर्थदंड, क्षतिपूर्ति में अन्तर का प्रश्न है, तो इन सभी के अन्तर के सम्बंध में निम्नवत्‌ साक्ष्यों के आधार पर स्पष्ट किये गये है माननीय उच्च न्यायालय बाम्बे द्वारा नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्राएलि0 आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया आदि में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि-८

258, In paragraph-9 of Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India, (2007) 3 SCC 545, the Apex Court has held that “There is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say|0 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest of the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 0 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it should जाता only pay back the principat amount but also the interest thereon to B.” The object of Section l8 is to recompense an allottee for depriving him of the use of the funds paid by him. The promoter who has received money from the allottee but has failed to adhere to his contractual or statutory obligations, cannot claim that he is entitled to utilize the monies without paying any interest with respect thereto to the allottee. उक्त से स्पष्ट है कि ब्याज अर्थदंड नहीं है और न ही कोई सजा है, किन्तु साधारण रूप से रकम पर हुई अभिषृद्धि है। aet—i8 का लक्ष्य आवंटी को जगा fet गये धनराशि के उपयोग का wert करने हेतु है। sl कारण यह अनुतोष प्राधिकरण द्वारा क्षेत्राधिकारिता के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिया जा रहा है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-4 निस्तारित 97 ज्ाक्षा ; 4 Page 3 ॥ निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2

बिन्दु Wo 2 इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि क्या वास्तव में परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्ट्स होने कारण विलम्बित हुई? यह बिन्दु विपक्षी के अभिकथनों पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार विपक्षी पर है| विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि परियोजना में विलम्ब माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्माण कार्य पर लगाए गये प्रतिबन्ध के कारण हुआ। विपक्षी की ओर से cere: रूप से फोर्स मैज्योर की बाबत कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर दाखिल नहीं किया गया है, जिससे की विदित हो कि परियोजना की भूमि पर कार्य बाधित था | इस सम्बंध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 /20i7 बिक्रम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में निर्णय के पृष्ठ संख्या-234 एवं प्रस्तर 440 में फोर्स मैज्योर को निम्नवत्‌ परिभाषित किया है:- re cee, | majeure shall mean a case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature. उपरोक्त फोर्स मैज्योर के परिभाषा से यह स्पष्ट है कि फोर्स मैज्योर वह स्थिति है, जिसमें की युद्ध, बाढ़, सूखा, आग, तूफान, भूकम्प या अन्य आपदा आई हो, प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में ऐसी कोई परिस्थिति उत्पन्न नहीं हुई और विपक्षी ऐसी दशा में वह इस तर्क का लाभ पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु to 2 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-3

बिन्दु संख्या-3 इस तथ्य पर विचरित है कि क्‍या प्रश्नगत परियोजना रेरा में पंजीकृत है एवं क्या इस प्रकरण की सुनवाई करने का क्षेत्राधिकार प्राधिकरण को है? प्रथम स्वरूप यह विचार किया जाना आवश्यक है कि क्‍या yeaa परियोजना रेरा में पंजीकृत है। इस सम्बन्ध में पोर्टल पर जाँच के उपरान्त यह पाया गया कि विपक्षी की परियोजना RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE ॥| रेशा' में पंजीकृत है, जिसका पंजीकरण संख्या- UPRERAPRJ4403 है, जिससे यह स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना ऑनगोईंग प्रोजेक्ट की श्रेणी में और यह रेरा के क्षेत्राधिकार में है। Vv — a STENT seme | aa सम्बंध में मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 2737 / 2047 नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्राएलि0 एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया में दिया गया आब्जर्वेशन महत्वपूर्ण है जिसमें स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लिखित किया गया है कि-: The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section 4(2)(I)(C) enables the promoter to give fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered into between him and the allottees so that he is not visited with penal consequences laid down under RERA. In other words, by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh time line under Section 4(2)(I)(C) he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale.

उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था से यह we है कि रेरा के प्राविधान के अनुसार अनुबन्ध में दिये गये पूर्णता एवं कब्जे देने के प्रस्तर का पुनर्लेखन नहीं किया जा सकता। धारा 4(2)0)(सी) के अन्तर्गत प्रोमोटर एक नई समय सीमा दे सकता है, जो कि अनुबन्ध पर निर्भर नहीं होगा और उक्त धारा रेरा में दिये गये प्राविधान के परिणाम स्वरूप केवल अर्थदंड से बचाया जा सकता है। अत तिथि के लिए उत्तरदायी है। यह भी रेरा अधिनियम में स्पष्ट है कि “ऑन Ten’ परियोजनायें निश्चित रूप से रेरा अधिनियम की परिधि में आते है। अतः प्रश्नगत प्रकरण रेरा के क्षेत्राधिकार में है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-3 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा निर्धारित अवधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है, जिस कारण वह परियोजना से बाहर आना चाहता है। दूसरी ओर विपक्षी का कहना है कि वह शिकायतकर्ता को मूल यूनिट का कब्जा अगस्त 2022 तक अन्यथा वैकल्पिक यूनिट उपलब्ध करा देगें। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा वैकल्पिक यूनिट के लिये सहमति नहीं दी गयी है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटन पत्र/अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 44.04.20:6 की प्रति दाखिल की गयी है, जिसके कब्जे कि क्रेता अनुबन्ध निष्पादन की तिथि से 42 माह एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के साथ 48 माह में कब्जा दिया जाना था। उक्त अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 4404.20I6 को उभयपक्षों द्वारा निष्पादित किया गया था। ऐसे में SUSAR कब्जे की तिथि 4.04.2020 होती है। यह भी स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना विलम्ब की श्रेणी में है। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है।

उक्त कब्जे की अवधि तक विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा देने में | असफल रहा है। इस सबंध में रेश अधिनियम के oew-ta(t) 4 स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लेखित है कि--: ee | 8. (l) 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 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. AL Page 6 |

Eee यदि प्रोमोटर करार के feel के अनुसार उसमें दिये गये अवधि तक समय से किसी अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन को पूरा करने में असफल रहता है या कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहता है, तो वह उपलब्ध किसी अन्य उपचार पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव डाले बिना आवंटी की मांग पर यदि आवंटी परियोजना से बाहर होना चाहता है, तो प्रकरण के अनुसार, उस अपार्टमिन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन के सम्बन्ध में उसके प्राप्त धनराशि ब्याज सहित लौटाने का दायी होगा। यह भी स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 44.04.2020 तक यूनिट का कब्जा देना था, जिसको विपक्षी द्वारा पूर्ण करने का दायित्व था। शिकायकर्ता द्वारा कहा गया कि जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाये। स्पष्ट है कि शिकायतकर्ता को निर्धारित अवधि में कब्णा नहीं दिया गया और न —— विपक्षी को इस परियोजना का ओसी./सी.सी. प्राणा हुआ है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-48(4)(ए) के अन्तर्गत वह परियोजना से बाहर आने का अधिकारी है। इसके अतिरिक्त इस सम्बंध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के सिविल अपील संख्या-3482 /20i9 कोलकाता बेस्ट इंटरनेशनल सिटी wofeio बनाम देवाशीष रूद्रा में स्पष्ट रूप से अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि-: It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By

20l6, nearly seven years had elapsed from the date of the agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was reccived on 29 March 206. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the orders passed by the SCDRC and by the NCDRC for refund of moneys were justified. साथ ही इसी क्रम में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के सिविल अपील संख्या-42238 /20i8 पायनियर ada aes एवं इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड बनाम गोविन्द राघवन में भी अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि-:

We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.0.208 passed by the National Commission. The Appellant — Builder failed to fulfill his contractual obligation of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent — Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired. During this period, the Respondent — Flat Purchaser had to service a loan that he had obtained for purchasing the flat, by paying Interest @l0% to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent — Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the Respondent — — Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief aged fo ee refund of the entire amoun deposited by him with Interest.

उपरोक्तानुसार दी गयी विधि व्यवस्था में गृहक्रेता को एक उचित समय तक प्रतीक्षा कराया जा सकता है। पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त होने के उपरान्त भी शिकायतकर्ता जमा धनराशि पाने का अधिकारी क्‍योंकि अनुबन्ध में दी गयी अवधि के अनुसार शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा नहीं मिला है व प्रकरण में अत्यधिक विलम्ब हुआ है। चूंकि परियोजना समय से पूर्ण नहीं की गयी है। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता अपनी जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज सहित वापस पाने का अधिकारी है। जहां तक शिकायतकर्ता को मय ब्याज धनराशि वापस किये जाने का प्रश्न है, तो इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय के नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया की याचिका में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- Section |8()(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give = Page 8

= 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 हम | 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. अत: उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में ge we है कि रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व क्रेता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है।

जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.208 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विक्रय /पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 20i8 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विक्रय / पट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.2(॥) में प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की रिथति गें आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है कि: The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the V)_ rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of ae Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +i% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice: यही दर आवंटियों के द्वारा डिफॉल्ट की स्थिति में भी प्रस्तर 9.30) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को ॥धटा॥२+ प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर धनराशि वापस fad जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। तदानुसार बिन्दु संख्या-4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते हैं। आदेश

4... विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह नवम्बर 202 के प्रथम सप्ताह से 4 मासिक किश्तों में शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा जमा धनराशि MCLR+I प्रतिशत की वार्षिक ब्याज दर सहित वापस अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। यदि विपक्षी द्वारा एक भी किश्त का भुगतान करने में चूक की जाती है तो विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा जमा धनराशि MCLR+ प्रतिशत की वार्षिक ब्याज दर सहित एकमुश्त अदा की foresee | 2... शिकायतकर्तागण का यह दायित्व होगा कि वह अपनी यूनिट के सापेक्ष ली गयी बैंक ऋण की धनराशि बैंक को वापस अदा करें। 3. इस आदेश की एक-एक प्रति सम्बंधित पत्रावलियों पर रखी जाये एवं इस आदेश में प्रतिपादित fart के अनुरूप धनराशि व ब्याज की प्रत्येक मामले में गणना की जायेगी | इस आदेश का vera भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम, 20I6 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। दिनांक:-- 42,//40 / 2024 ay Gec— (बलविन्दर कुमार) (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण ES Page 20