Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar | Bench-2 Present: Shri Balvinder Kumar, Member | Sr. No. | Complaint No. | Complainant | Unit No. | Amount | |---|---|---|---|---| | 1 | NCR45/07/56467/2020 [?] | Ankur Chauhan | T2-604 | Rs. 5,77,450/- | | 2 | NCR45/07/56474/2020 [?] | Rajesh Kumar Gupta | T4-805 | Rs. 0,82,88/- | | 3 | NCR45/07/57325/2020 [?] | Parashuram Kumar | P5-207 | Rs. ,90,596/- | | 4 | NCR45/07/57327/2020 [?] | [?] | P6-80 | Rs. 28,34,09/- | | 5 | NCR45/08/5770/2020 [?] | Dinesh Kumar | T3-602 | Rs. 5,50,922/- | | 6 | NCR45/08/58205/2020 [?] | Danish Asrar | [?]/402 | Rs. 9,80,82/- | v. Rise Projects Pvt. Ltd. Together with complainant Ankur Chauhan, 05 other complainants have instituted complaints against the opposite party; the case of Ankur Chauhan shall be the lead case. The facts of all these complaints are the same and they have common evidence. All these complaints relate to the opposite party's project "RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE-". Therefore they are being disposed of by a single order. Lead complaint: NCRL45/07/56467/2020. The complaint application has been instituted by the complainant for refund, with interest, of the amount deposited against the opposite party.

In brief, the complainant's statement is that he booked unit no. 72-604 in the opposite party's project "RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE-i", for which he paid, from time to time in instalments, Rs. 5,77,450/-. The opposite party was to complete the project and hand over possession to the complainant, but the opposite party has not yet given possession. The complainant also states that construction in the project has been stopped for 42 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 application form, demand letter, allotment letter / apartment buyer agreement dated 02.03.20:6, etc. In its reply, the opposite party has stated that the complainant had applied in its project, for which the allotment letter / apartment buyer agreement dated 02.03.20:6 was executed, in which unit no. T2-604 was allotted to the complainant. As per the agreement, possession was to be given by July 2020. 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. Further, during the hearing before the Bench, the opposite party stated that it would refund the complainant's deposited amount in 4 instalments from June 2024. The arguments of both parties were heard and the file was perused.

To see the progress of construction in the project, the Authority's technical team carried out a site inspection of the project. It was found that construction work in the project has been lying closed for the past [i] years. In Towers T2, T3 and T6, construction was to be done up to the 45th floor, but only up to the 44th floor has the work been completed. In Tower 4, 75, construction was to be done up to the 47th floor, but work has been completed only up to the 4th floor. Page 2 The inspection [?] has also stated that no labour is present at the project site, nor is any material available for construction work. Only 25-30 per cent construction work has been done in the project. In conclusion, it is clear from the Authority's inspection report that no work is being done in the project and there is no prospect of the project being completed in the near future. In such a situation, while disposing of the points below, refund of the complainants' deposited amounts with interest appears justified. 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? 2. Whether the complainant's deposited amount is to be refunded with interest? Disposal of point No. 4

Point No. 4 concerns whether the project in question is registered with RERA and whether the Authority has jurisdiction to hear this matter. Firstly, 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 [?] is registered with RERA, with registration number UPRERAPRJ4403. This makes clear that the project is in the ongoing project category 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 [?] Suburban [?] and another v. Union of India, is important, in which it has clearly been stated: "The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section 4(2)()(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)()(C) 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 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. The matter in question is therefore within the jurisdiction of RERA. Accordingly, point No. 4 is disposed of. Disposal of point No. 2 The complainant states that the opposite party was to complete the project and hand over possession, but the opposite party has not given possession within the stipulated period, due to which he wishes to come out of the project. On the other hand, the opposite party says that it will refund the complainant's deposited amount in 4 instalments from June 2024.

In support of his statement the complainant has filed a photocopy of the allotment letter / apartment buyer agreement dated 02.03.20i6. On perusal of sub-clause 6) 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 and 6 months, from the date of execution of the apartment buyer agreement. The apartment buyer agreement dated 02.03.20I6 was executed by both parties. In such a case, as above, the date of possession comes to 02.03.2020. 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. Page 4 Up to the said possession period, the opposite party has failed to give possession to the complainant. In this regard Section 48(4) of the [?] Act clearly mentions: "8, (.) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building.- (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or

(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner 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, on the allottee's demand, if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, the promoter shall 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 02.03.2020, 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. Page 5 Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to withdraw from the project under Section IRI-78(4)(@) [?] of the RERA Act. Further, in this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held in Civil Appeal No. 382,/ 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 ,// 2048, 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 - 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 as per the period given in the agreement, and the matter has suffered extreme delay. 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 Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that: "Section 8()(b) lays down that if the. promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." Therefore, in light of the above judgment, it is clear that under the provisions of RERA, in accordance with the agreement between the promoter and the buyer, interest on the delay and on the principal amount shall be payable, because [?] has used the said amount. Page 7

As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2046, notified on 27.:0.20:8 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale) Rules 208. In the form of the sale / lease [?] annexed to these Rules, in paragraph 9 the events of default of promoters (Events of default) are defined, in which [?] 9.2(i) 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 MCLRtI [?] percent appears justified. Accordingly, point No. 2 is disposed of. While disposing of the above points, the following orders are passed:- Order

4. The opposite party is directed to ensure that it refunds the amount deposited by the complainants, together with interest at the annual rate of MCLR+ [?] percent, in 4 equal monthly instalments, starting from the first week of June 2024. If the opposite party defaults in paying any one of the 4 instalments, the complainants' total deposited amount together with interest shall become payable at once. Page 8 A copy of this order shall be placed on each of the relevant files, and the amount and interest shall be calculated in each case 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 shall be uploaded on the portal. Date: 06/04/2024 ([?] Kumar) (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

ry भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | पीठ--2 उपस्थिति :- श्री बलविन्दर कुमार, सदस्य क्रम सं0 शिकायत der =| . शिकायतकर्तागण यूनिट सं० | धनराशि रु /- I, पटारा45/07/56467/2020 अंकुर चौहान T2-604 5,77,450/- 2.° | टारा45/07/56474/2020 राजेश कुमार गुप्ता T4-805 0,82,88/- 3. पटारा45/07/57325/2020 परशुराम कुमार प5-207 ,90,596/- et कमी एटारा45/07/57327/2020 SETS 9 शम प6-80 28,34,09/-.. | = पटारा45/08/5770/2020 दिनेश कुमार T3-602 5,50,922/- 6. | फटारा45/08/58205/2020 दानिश असरार प्‌/402 9,80,82/- — बनाम राइज प्रोजेक्ट्स प्रा0 लि0 शिकायतकर्ता अंकुर चौहान के साथ 05 अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा अंकुर चौहान अग्रणी वाद रहेगा। विपक्षी के विरूद्ध वाद योजित किया गया है। इन सभी शिकायतों के तथ्य समान हैं और एक समान साक्ष्य हैं। यह सभी शिकायतें विपक्षी की परियोजना "RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE-" से सम्बंधित है। अतः: एक ही निर्णय से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत Wo NCRL45/07/56467/2020 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 PHASE-i" में यूनिट सं0- 72-604 बुक किया गया था, जिसके लिए उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के qv Page l

e 5,77,450 /— रुपये का भुगतान किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है कि 42 माह से परियोजना में 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 आवेदन फार्म, मांग पत्र, आवंटन »अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 02.03.20:6 आदि की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं। 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 02.03.20:6 को निष्पादित कराया गया, जिसमें कि शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट सं0- T2-604 आवंटित किया गया अनुबन्ध के अनुसार जुलाई 2020 तक कब्जा दिया जाना था। परियोजना में विलम्ब माननीय N.GT. के आदेश एवं माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्माण कार्य पर लगाए गये प्रतिबन्ध के कारण हुआ। इसके अतिरिक्त पीठ के. समक्ष सुनवाई के दौरान विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया है कि वह जून 2024 से शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि 4 किश्तों में वापस कर देंगे। उभयपक्ष के तर्कों को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया।

परियोजना मे निर्माण कार्य की प्रगति देखे जाने हेतु प्राधिकरण की तकनीकी टीम द्वारा परियोजना का स्थलीय निरीक्षण कराया गया, जिसमें यह 'पाया गया कि परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य विगत i वर्ष से बन्द पड़ा है, टॉवर- T2, T3, T6 4 45 वें तल तक निर्माण किया जाना था, परन्तु 44 तल तक ही SER कार्य पूर्ण किया गया है। टॉवर- 4, 75 में 47 वें तल तक निर्माण किया जाना था, परन्तु 4 ही तल तक we कार्य पूर्ण किया गया है। निरीक्षण दस्तक द्वारा यह भी बताया गया है कि परियोजना स्थल पर TU Page 2 लेबर उपस्थित नहीं है और न ही निर्माण कार्य हेतु कोई सामग्री उपलब्ध है। परियोजना में मात्र 25-30 प्रतिशत ही निर्माण कार्य किये गये हैं। निष्कर्षत: प्राधिकरण की निरीक्षण आख्या से .यह स्पष्ट होता है कि परियोजना में कोई कार्य नहीं हो रहा है और आगामी tat में भी परियोजना पूर्ण होने की कोई सम्भावना नहीं है। ऐसी दशा में निम्न बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए शिकायतकर्तागण की जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। शिकायतकर्ता की शिकायत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए निम्न बिन्दु विचारणीय हैं :- 4.0 Far USTs परियोजना रेरा में पंजीकृत है एवं “ऑनगोईंग” की श्रेणी में है? 2... कया शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलायी जाये? निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4

बिन्दु संख्या-4 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 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 Ww में पंजीकृत है, जिसकी पंजीकरण संख्या- UPRERAPRJ4403 है, जिससे यह स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना ऑनगोइईग प्रोजेक्ट की श्रेणी में और यह रेरा के क्षेत्राधिकार में है। इस सम्बंध में माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 2737 /20:7 नीलकमल Raced सबअर्बन wofto 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)()(C) enables the promoter to give fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered d- 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)()(C) 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 गोईग” परियोजनायें निश्चित रूप से रेरा अधिनियम की परिधि में आते है। अतः 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 वह जून 2024 से शिकयतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि 4 किश्तों में वापस कर देंगे। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटन पत्र/ अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 02.03.20i6 की छायाप्रति दाखिल की गयी है, जिसके कब्जे वाले प्रस्तर-(७) के उप-प्रस्तर-6) के अवलोकन से विदित है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध निष्पादन की तिथि से 42 माह एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के साथ 48 माह में कब्जा दिया जाना था। उक्त अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 02.03.20I6 को उभयपक्षों द्वारा निष्पादित किया गया था। ऐसे में उपरोक्तानुसार कब्जे की तिथि 02.03.2020 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 न्‍्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। ९४ है Page 4 2 कब्जे की अवधि तक विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा देने में असफल रहा है। इस सबंध में ww अधिनियम के धारा-48(4) में स्पष्ट रूप से उललेखित है कि :- "8, (.) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building.— (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner 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 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 02.03.2020 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। we Page 5 & रेरा अधिनियम की IRI-78(4)(@) के अन्तर्गत वह परियोजना से बाहर आने का अधिकारी है। इसके अतिरिक्त इस सम्बंध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के सिविल अपील संख्या-382,/ 2049 कोलकाता बेस्ट इंटरनेशनल सिटी प्राएलि0 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 ,// 2048 पायनियर ada chs 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 AW — 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." wea 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 क॑ 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 रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया की याचिका में माननीय बॉम्बे 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 possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable. " अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि a के प्राविधानों री अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व क्रेता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा ' Page 7 & मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि vated 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 27.:0.20:8 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विक्रय /पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 208 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विक्रय / पट्टा facta के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें WAR 9.2(i) 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 MCLRtI 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 किये जाते हैं :- आदेश

4... विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह जून 2024 के प्रथम सप्ताह से 4 मासिक बराबर किश्तों में शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा जमा धनराशि MCLR+ प्रतिशत की वार्षिक ब्याज दर सहित वापस अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। विपक्षी द्वारा किसी 4 किश्त का भुगतान करने में चूक की जाती है, तो शिकायतकर्तागण की कुल जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित एक साथ देय होगी। AY Page 8 | इस आदेश की एक-एक प्रति सम्बंधित पत्रावलियों पर रखी जाये एवं इस ओदश में प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्तों के अनुरूप धनराशि व ब्याज की प्रत्येक मामले में गणना की जायेगी। 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 :- 06/04 / 2024 लि" Ae कुमार) (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण