Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar | Bench-2 Present: Shri Balvinder Kumar, Member Complaint No.: NCR45/06/75990/202 Raj Kumar Sharma v. Rise Projects Pvt. Ltd. The present complaint application has been filed by the complainant. Earlier the complainant had lodged complaint NCR45/06//0273//2020, and in accordance with the order under Section 63 the present complaint has been filed afresh. The complainant has instituted it for refund, with interest, of the amount deposited with the opposite party. In brief, the complainant's case is that he booked unit no. 76-304 in the opposite party's project "RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE-I", for which he paid Rs. 8,27,568/- from time to time in instalments. The complainant also states that construction in the project has been stopped for 3 years 6 months. The complainant has therefore requested that the amount deposited with the opposite party be refunded with interest. In support of his statement the complainant has filed photocopies of the allotment letter-cum-apartment buyer agreement dated 44.02.2046, cheques, receipts of the deposited amount, etc. Page

The opposite party, filing its reply, has stated that the complainant had applied for a unit in its project, for which the allotment letter / apartment buyer agreement dated 46.02.2046 was executed, under which unit no. T6-304 was allotted to the complainant. As per the agreement, possession was to be given in 42 months and 6 months. The delay in the project was caused by the order of the Hon'ble N.G.T. and by the restriction on construction imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The opposite party has stated at paragraph (vi) 0. of its reply: "That due to revised sanctioned plan height of tower has been reduced. It is also pertinent to mention that due to reducing the height of the towers 250 units has reduced although the respondent shall Endeavour to complate the construction of tower of complainant by on or before November 2022 Subject to Force Majure." Having regard to the complainant's complaint, the following points arise for consideration: 4. Whether the project in question is registered with RERA and is in the "ongoing" category? Whether the complainant's deposited amount is to be refunded with interest? Disposal point

Point No. 4 concerns whether the project in question is registered with RERA and whether this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Authority to hear it, 31, [?]. [garbled OCR] First, it is necessary to consider whether the project in question is registered with RERA. In this regard, on checking the portal, it was found that the opposite party's project RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE I is listed in RERA, with registration number UPRERAPRJ4403. This makes clear that the project is in the category of ongoing project and is within the jurisdiction of RERA. In this regard, the observation made by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2737 /20:7, Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Union of India, is important, where it has been clearly stated: "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)0)(0) he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale."

From the above legal position it is clear that under the provisions of RERA, the clause of completion and handing over of possession given in the agreement cannot be rewritten. Under Section 4(2)0)(C) the promoter may give a fresh timeline, which does not depend on the agreement, and by that section, as a result of the provision given in RERA, he can be saved only from penal consequences. Therefore it is determined that the promoter is liable for the date of possession given in the agreement. It is also clear under the RERA Act that "ongoing" projects certainly fall within the ambit of the RERA Act. Page 3 The matter in question is within the jurisdiction of RERA. Accordingly, point No. 4 is disposed of. Point No. 2 (disposal): The complainant states that the opposite party was to complete the project and hand over possession, but possession has not been given by the opposite party within the stipulated period, due to which he wishes to come out of the project. On the other hand, the opposite party states that possession will be given by November 2022.

In support of his statement the complainant has filed a photocopy of the allotment letter / apartment buyer agreement dated t6.02.20:6. On perusal of sub-clause () of clause (7) relating to possession, it appears that the opposite party was to give possession within 48 months, with a grace period of 42 months, from the date of execution of the apartment buyer agreement. The apartment buyer agreement dated 46.02.2046 was executed by both parties. In such a case, as above, the date of possession comes to 46.02.2020. It is also clear that the project is in the category of delay. In such a situation, refund of the complainant's deposited amount with interest appears justified. Up to the said possession date, the opposite party has failed to give possession to the complainant. In this regard the RERA Act clearly mentions, in Section 48(): "|8, (J) 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 Page 4

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." As stated above, if the promoter fails to complete any apartment, plot or building within the time stipulated in the terms of the agreement, or is unable to give possession, then, without prejudice to any other remedy available, the promoter shall, on the allottee's demand, if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, be liable to return, with interest, the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot or building, as the case may be.

It is also clear that the opposite party was obliged to give the complainant possession of the unit by 46.02.2020, which it was bound to complete. The complainant has said that the deposited amount should be refunded with interest. It is clear that possession was not given to the complainant within the stipulated period, and the opposite party has also not obtained the OC/CC for this project. Therefore the complainant is entitled to withdraw from the project under Section 8(4)(a) of the RERA Act. Page 5 Further, in this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held in Civil Appeal No. 3482 ,// 2049, Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. v. Devashish Rudra, that:

"It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By 206, 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 the same sequence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in Civil Appeal No. 42238 /20i8, Pioneer [?] and Infrastructure Limited v. Govind Raghavan, that:

"We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.0.20I8 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 @I0% to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent - Page 6 Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the Respondent Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest." In view of the legal position laid down above, a home buyer can be made to wait for a reasonable time. Even after receipt of the completion certificate, the complainant is entitled to receive the deposited amount, because possession was not given to the complainant within the period stated in the agreement and there has been extreme delay in the matter. Since the project has not been completed on time, in such a situation the complainant is entitled to get back his deposited amount with interest.

As regards refund of the complainant's deposited amount with interest, it is noteworthy that in the petition of Neelkamal [?] Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that: "Section 8(l)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the 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 Page 7 interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." Therefore, in light of the above judgment, it is clear that under the provisions of RERA, interest on the delay, and on the principal amount, shall be payable in accordance with the agreement between the promoter and the allottee, because the promoters have used the amount.

As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 20i6, notified on 47.40.2048 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale) Rules 2oi8. In the format of the sale / lease deed annexed to those Rules, under TAR 9 [?], the events of default of promoters are defined, in which paragraph 9.2(ii) F 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 prescribed in paragraph 9.30) for default by allottees. Having regard to the said provision, refunding the amount to the allottee with interest at the rate of MCLRHI [?] percent appears justified. Accordingly, point No. 2 is disposed of. While disposing of the above points, the following orders are passed: Page 8 4. The opposite party is directed to ensure payment of the amount deposited by the complainant, together with interest at the annual rate of MCLR+2 [?] percent, within 45 days from the date of uploading of this order on the portal.

Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046, and other relevant provisions. This order be uploaded on the portal. Date: 07/02/2022 (Balvinder Kumar) (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Page 9

— भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | पीठ-2 उपस्थिति — श्री बलविन्दर कुमार, सदस्य शिकायत संख्या — NCR45/06/75990/202 राज कुमार शर्मा बनाम राइज प्रोजेक्ट्स प्रा० लि० प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा पूर्व में शिकायत eo एनसीआर45 /06 // 0273 // 2020 दर्ज करायी गयी थी जिसके धारा-63 के आदेशानुसार पुनः प्रश्नगत शिकायत योजित की गयी है। 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 PHASE-I" में यूनिट सं०- 76-304 बुक किया गया था, जिसके लिए उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 8,27,568/- रुपये का भुगतान किया गया। शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कथन है कि परियोजना में 3 वर्ष 6 माह से निर्माण कार्य बन्द है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में अलॉटमेंट लेटर कम अपार्टमेंट बायर एग्रीमेंट दिनांकित 44.02.2046, चेक तथा जमा धनराशि की रसीदें आदि की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं। dv Page विपक्षी द्वारा जवाब दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी परियोजना में आवेदन किया गया था, जिसके लिए आवंटन पत्र / अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 46.02.2046 को निष्पादित कराया गया, जिसमें कि शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट सं0- T6-304 आवंटित किया गया अनुबन्ध के अनुसार 42 माह एवं 6 माह में कब्जा दिया जाना था। परियोजना में विलम्ब माननीय NG.T. के आदेश एवं माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्माण कार्य

पर लगाए गये प्रतिबन्ध के कारण हुआ। विपक्षी द्वारा जवाब के (vi) ०. में अंकित किया गया है फि — "That due to revised sanctioned plan height of tower has been reduced. It is also pertinent to mention that due to reducing the height of the towers 250 units has reduced although the respondent shall Endeavour to complate the construction of tower of complainant by on or before November 2022 Subject to Force Majure." शिकायतकर्ता की शिकायत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए निम्न बिन्दु विचारणीय हैं :- 4. क्या प्रश्नगत परियोजना रेरा में पंजीकृत है एवं “ऑनगोईंग” की श्रेणी में है? an शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलायी जाये? निस्तारण बिन्दु deat बिन्दु संख्या-4 इस तथ्य पर विचरित है कि क्‍या प्रश्नगत परियोजना रेरा में पंजीकृत है एवं क्या इस प्रकरण की सुनवाई करने का ३१, Page 2 [fren हैं? प्रथम स्वरुप यह Pe किया जाना आवश्यक है कि क्या को है? प्रथम स्वरूप यह विचार किया जाना आवश्यक है के क्‍या प्रश्नगत परियोजना रेरा में पंजीकृत है। इस सम्बन्ध में पोर्टल पर जाँच के उपरान्त यह पाया गया कि विपक्षी की परियोजना RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE i रेरा' में tied है, जिसकी पंजीकरण संख्या-- UPRERAPRJ4403 है, जिससे यह स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना ऑनगोई+ प्रोजेक्ट की श्रेणी में है और यह रेरा के क्षेत्राधिकार में है। इस सम्बंध में माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 2737 /20:7 नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्राणलि0 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)0)(0) he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale." उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था से यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा के प्राविधान के अनुसार अनुबन्ध में दिये गये पूर्णता एवं कब्जे देने के प्रस्तर का पुनर्लेखन नहीं किया जा सकता। धारा 4(2)0)(सी) के अन्तर्गत प्रोमोटर एक नई समय सीमा दे सकता है, जो कि अनुबन्ध पर निर्भर नहीं होगा और उक्त धारा रेरा में दिये गये प्राविधान के परिणाम स्वरूप केवल अर्थदंड से बचाया जा सकता है। अतः इससे अवधारित किया जाता है कि प्रोमोटर अनुबन्ध में दिये गये कब्जे की तिथि के लिए उत्तरदायी है। यह भी रेरा अधिनियम में स्पष्ट है कि “ऑन net” परियोजनायें निश्चित रूप से रेरा अधिनियम की परिधि में आते है। ep) Page 3 प्रश्नगत प्रकरण रेरा के क्षेत्राधिकार में है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, परन्तु 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 नवम्बर 2022 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा।

शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटन पत्र/अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक t6.02.20:6 की छायाप्रति दाखिल की गयी है, जिसके कब्जे वाले प्रस्तर-(७) के उप-प्रस्तर-() के अवलोकन से विदित है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध निष्पादन की तिथि से 42 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के साथ 48 माह में कब्जा दिया जाना था। var अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 46.02.2046 को उभयपफक्षों द्वारा निष्पादित किया गया था। ऐसे में उपरोक्तानुसार कब्जे की तिथि 46.02.2020 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 धारा-48() गें रपष्ट रूप रो उल्लेखित है कि :- "|8, (J) 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 dv Page 4

Pe ee = 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." उपरोकतानुसार यदि प्रोमोटर करार के निबन्धों 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 ands, 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 46.02.2020 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 कब्जा नहीं दिया गया और न ही विपक्षी को इस परियोजना का ओ.सी./सी.सी. प्राप्त हुआ है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-8(4)(ए) के अन्तर्गत वह परियोजना से AD बाहर आने का अधिकारी है। Page 5 इसके अतिरिक्त इस सम्बंध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के सिविल अपील संख्या-3482 ,// 2049 कोलकाता बेस्ट इंटरनेशनल सिटी प्राणलि0 बनाम देवाशीष रूद्रा में स्पष्ट रूप से अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

"It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By 206, 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." साथ ही इसी क्रम में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के सिविल अपील संख्या-42238 /20i8 पायनियर ada ces एवं इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड बनाम गोविन्द राघवन में भी अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

" We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.0.20I8 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 @I0% to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent VV Page 6 — Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the Respondent Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for i.e. refund of the entire amount 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 जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है, तो इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय के नीलकमल Raced सबअर्बन प्रा.लि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया की याचिका में माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- "Section 8(l)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the 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 S)_ Page 7 interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable. " अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि 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 var धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है।

जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 20i6 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विक्रय /पद्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 2oi8 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विक्रय / पट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के TAR 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.2(ii) F प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है कि:- "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +% 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 MCLRHI प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर धनराशि वापस दिलाये जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। तदानुसार बिन्दु संख्या-2 निस्तारित किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित iV जाते हैं :- Page 8 — 4. विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड होने की तिथि से 45 दिनों के अंदर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि ध८टा,र२+ प्रतिशत की वार्षिक ब्याज दर सहित अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें| इस आदेश का उल्लघंन भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम,

2046 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। दिनांक :- 07/ 02 / 2022 (बलविन्दर कुमार) (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण Page 9