U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar | Present: Shri Balvinder Kumar, Member Complaint No.: NCRI45/07/77862/202 Raksha Bakshi v. Rise Projects [?] The complaint application has been instituted by the complainant against the opposite party for refund of the deposited amount with interest. In brief, the complainant's statement is that he booked unit no. 004 [?] in Tower T6 of the opposite party's project "RISE ORGANIC HOMES PHASE-I". The total price was Rs. 25,25,820/-, against which he has paid Rs. 5,72,409/- from time to time in instalments. The complainant says that for the last 4 years no construction work of any kind has been carried out at the project site, and there appears to be no prospect of the opposite party giving possession. On the basis of the above facts, the complainant has requested refund of the deposited amount with interest. In support of his statement the complainant has filed photocopies of the agreement dated 24.09.2046, [?] amount receipts, the demand letter, 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 24.09.206 was executed, under which the complainant was to be given possession of the unit in 42 months and a grace period of 6 months, that is, 48 months. The delay in the project was caused by force majeure events and COVID-49, and the opposite party will give possession of the unit to the complainant by August 2022. Further, during the hearing before the Bench on 02.42.2024, the opposite party stated that it would complete the project and give possession of the unit to the complainant by August 2022. Both parties were heard and the file was perused. On the basis of the parties' pleadings, the following issues were framed for consideration:- 4. Whether the opposite party's project was delayed due to force majeure events? If so, what is the effect? 2. Whether the demand for refund [?] of the deposited amount with interest is justified? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to possession and to interest for the delayed period? Disposal of point No. 4 Point No. 4 is framed to decide whether in fact the project was delayed due to force majeure events. This point is framed on the opposite party's allegations, and the burden of proving it lies on the opposite party.

The opposite party has stated that the delay in the project was beyond its control. Due to the order passed by the Hon'ble N.G.T. in Delhi NCR and the COVID-49 pandemic, construction work was delayed by at least 6 months. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its order dated [i 4.2049] passed in Civil Appeal No. 43029 ,/ 4985, "M.C. Mehta v. Government of India", has given the following directions:- "With respect to demolition and construction activities we direct that no demolition and construction activities take place in Delhi and NCR region. In case it is found that such activity is done, the local administration as well as the municipal authorities including the Zonal Commissioners, Deputy Zonal Commissioners shall be personally held responsible for all such activities. They have to act in furtherance of the Court's order and to ensure that no such activity takes place. We direct that construction, demolition and activities be stopped forthwith as well as garbage burning. In case, any person is found in construction and demolition activity and garbage burning in Delhi and NCR region, he/she shall be penalized. Any person is doing construction and demolition activity in violation of this order, shall be penalized with Rs.l Lac for such activity. For garbage burning he/she shall be penalized with Rs.5,000/- and besides liable for violation of the order passed by this Court to be dealt with in accordance with law."

Further, in the said Civil Appeal No. 43029 ,/ 4985, in the order dated 09.:2.20:9, the following directions were given:- "In the affidavit dated 05.2.209, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has stated as under:- 2. That it is respectfully submitted that it is normally experienced that in month of December depending upon Climatic Condition the AQI category varies. As a matter of fact, last year (208) 8 days in the month of December were in severe AQI category. Presently the situation not being severe, CPCB is of considered opinion that partial ban could be in place of construction activities in as much as no construction should be permitted during night time (6.00 pm to 6.00 am). The ban imposed could be partially lifted by permitting activities during day time (6.00 am to 6.00 pm), subject to the criteria stipulated in GRAP, wherein strict enforcement of rules for dust control in construction 1). Page 3 [?] and closure of non-compliant sites is mandated in moderate to poor AQI category and further a ban on construction activities may be imposed by EPCA if Ambient AIR quality levels persist in severe/emergency category for 48 hours or more." Hence, the ban is relaxed in terms of the recommendations made by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), as quoted above. However, conditions for raising construction be scrupulously followed."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court had stayed construction work for a period (from 04.44.20i9 to 4.02.2020). By its order dated 09.42.2049, the Hon'ble Supreme Court removed the complete ban and imposed a partial ban. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court imposed a ban on construction work for 35 days (from 04.44.2049 to 09.42.2049) and for 33 days (6652) (from 40.2.2049 to [?]4.02.2020, from [?] o'clock to 6 am). In such a case the opposite party is entitled to the benefit for a total of 35+33 = 68 days of construction work affected. After consideration of all relevant facts, the U.P. RERA Authority, by its order dated 06.06.2020, due to the effect of COVID-49 (Corona Virus Disease), granted an additional period of 6 months from 25.03.2020, that is, up to 25.09.20200, for completing all projects, and this additional period shall be deemed to be on account of force majeure events. Having regard to this, no interest for the delay in the project during 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020 shall be paid by the promoter to the allottees, and no delay interest shall be taken from the complainant. Accordingly, point No. 4 is disposed of. Disposal of point No. 2 The complainant says that for the last 4 years no construction work of any kind has been carried out at the project site, and the opposite party's possession [?] appears to have no prospect, for which reason he has requested refund of the deposited amount with interest. Page 4

On the other hand, the opposite party says that it will complete the project and make possession of the complainant's unit available by August 2022. As regards the buyer's request for refund, the provisions of the RERA Act must be read as a whole in this matter, so that a balanced decision can be taken having regard to the views of all parties. Section 48 (4) F of the RERA Act provides that:- "Section 76 () "If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, 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 Page 5 = of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed"

Thus the buyer has the right that, if possession is not received in accordance with the agreement, he may demand return of the deposited amount with interest, or remain in the project while receiving interest at a monthly rate. Section 34 of the RERA Act, along with the other "functions" of RERA, also mentions "to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder" 8. Similarly, Section 32 includes among the Authority's responsibilities for the development of the real estate sector the following:- "32. The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a) protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent,....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector." From the above provisions it is clear that, to ensure the healthy development of the "real estate sector", it is the responsibility of this Authority to take appropriate decisions after viewing the interests of all its [?] as a whole.

In this sequence, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, in which a decision was given on the constitutional validity of the RERA Act, examined the following in paragraph i244:- "24. The entire scheme of the RERA is to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth, Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section 7 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 72, /4, 36 and /9, A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work."

From the above it is clear that, after hearing all parties, although the allottee has the right to demand his amount with interest if the unit is not received on time, nevertheless, in view of the above-stated scrutiny, the Authority may pass orders on the basis of all the facts of the case, in accordance with "by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth". 60 In the context of balancing the refund of money with the allottees who remain in the project, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its judgment in "Chitra Sharma v. Union of India" (744/20:7), has made the following observation in paragraph 40 of the judgment:-

"40. As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is lying in deposit before this Court pursuant to the interim directions, on which interest has accrued. The home buyers have earnestly sought the issuance of interim directions to facilitate a pro-rata disbursement of this amount to those of the home buyers who seek a refund. "We are keenly conscious of the fact that the claim of the home buyers who seek a refund of monies deserves to be considered with empathy. Yet, having given our anxious consideration to the plea and on the balance, we are not inclined to accede to it for more than one reason. Firstly sssvessssvsssens Secondly, the figures which have been made available presently, following the opening of the Web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be unmindful of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund."

Having regard to the "observations" quoted in the above paragraphs by the High Court and the Supreme Court, and to the overall scheme of the RERA Act, it is also clear that if money is ordered to be returned in every case of delay, that would certainly not be in line with the "objective" and "scheme" of the Act. While deciding refund, it would be in the interest of justice to consider the "uniqueness" of each case [?], such as the state of "construction", the "time line" of completion, the state of the promoters' "commitment" of offer of possession, other "[?] holders", the effect on "allottees" who remain with the project, the "[?] date" in respect of "proposed", "pany" and the like. Page 8 Regarding the constitution of "RERA", the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 940,/ 2047, Bikram Chatterjee and others v. Union of India and others, in its order dated 23.07.2049, at page 244, paragraph 420 [?], has stated as follows:-

"20 It is apparent that RERA intends protection of home-buyers and aims at completion of the buildings. The buildings have to be completed, for that, we are required to pass orders. We have already assigned the task to NBCC for completion of buildings 38 the promoters/builders have failed to complete the building within the time fixed and the time which could have been extended. Now, more than 0 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the promoter/builder.The maximum time fixed in RERA has also expired and extension could not have been beyond | year." As stated above, it is made clear that RERA is meant to protect the interests of allottees, and its aim is that, by getting all the development work of the building completed by the promoters, home buyers may receive their homes / flats. Page 9 "The provisions of RERA are beneficial to the home buyers and are intended to insulate them from fraudulent action, ensures completion of the building and it is the duty of the court to protect and ensure the home buyers' interest and at the same time to hold them responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under the said statute. We are not absolving the home buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At the same time, they have the right of enforcement of their right for compensation due to undue delay in completion of the project." Following this, the order, at page 255, [?]-737, states as follows:-

The said observation also makes clear that the provisions of RERA are beneficial to home buyers and are meant to protect the interests of allottees against any breach of faith; supervision for completion of the building is the work of RERA, and the duties and responsibilities of the parties are fixed in the Act. It also gives the benefit that, if the project is delayed, home buyers shall have the right to receive interest for the delay as per rules until the project is completed. Thereafter, again regarding RERA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 43 // 209, Pioneer Urban [?] and Infrastructure Limited and others v. Union of India and others, in its order dated 09.08.209, at page 86, paragraph 29, has stated as follows:- "The object of RERA is to see that real estate projects come to fruition within the stated period and to see that allottees of such projects are not left in the lurch and are finally able to realise their dream of a = or be paid compensation if such dream _ is shattered, or at least get back monies that they had advanced towards the project with interest. At the same time, recalcitrant allottees are not to be tolerated, as they must also perform their part of the bargain, namely, to pay instalments as and when they become due and payable."

The important observation in the said order is that the aim of RERA is that, under its supervision and oversight, the real estate project be completed by the promoter within a fixed period, so that allottees do not lose their flats and may obtain the home of their dreams; at the same time, recalcitrant allottees are held responsible for not cooperating in completion of the project. It has also been said that allottees should duly perform their duties, mainly by ensuring timely payment of instalments, so that the project can be completed. Accordingly, as per the legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the main object of RERA is to get the project completed by the promoters and to ensure that allottees duly pay their instalments, so that the project can be completed within the fixed period. To protect the interests of allottees, interest for delay in the project shall also be payable to allottees, but before that the complainant also has the responsibility to pay his instalments on time.

Since the opposite party has said that its project is nearing completion, and has stated that it will complete the construction work and give possession by August 2022, from which it is evident that the project is nearing completion and other allottees of the project are waiting for possession, in view of all the circumstances it would be in the interest of justice that the complainant takes possession on completion of the project by 34.08.2022. After that, he may himself decide about the future use of the unit. Also, the investment made by the complainant in the project for possession has been used by the opposite party in construction of the project. Certainly, if the allottees remain in the project, interest for the delay shall be payable by the promoters as per rules. If the opposite party does not give the complainant possession of the completed project by 34.08.2022, then after that it would be appropriate to return the complainant's deposited amount with interest. Point No. 2 is disposed of. Disposal of point No. 3 The complainant says that for the last 4 years no construction work of any kind has been carried out at the project site, and there appears to be no prospect of possession being given by the opposite party. In response, the opposite party has said that it will complete the construction of the unit and give possession to the complainant by August 2022.

A photocopy of the allotment / agreement dated 24.09.2046, executed between the parties, is available on the file. According to its possession clause [WA], the opposite party was to complete the project and give possession of the unit in 48 months. From this it is clear that the opposite party was to give possession of the unit by 24.09.2020. In such a case, the opposite party's project does not fall in the category of extreme delay. In addition, under the force majeure head the opposite party is entitled to the benefit for a total period of 68 days (as stated in disposal point o7 [?]). Page 2 In such a case, the complainant is entitled to interest for the delayed period from 2.09.2020 + 68 days, that is, from [?]4.2020, up to the date of OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later, which appears justified. In this regard 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(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 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 buyer, because the promoters have used the said amount. Page 3

As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2046, notified on 7.020i8 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale) Rules 20i8. In the sale / lease deed format annexed to these Rules, in paragraph 9 the events of default of promoters (Events of default) are defined, in which [wee] 9.2(II) 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 +i% 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, it appears justified that the allottee be given interest for the delayed period at the rate of MCLRH [?] percent. As regards up to what period interest is to be given, in this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Civil Appeal No. [?] 6649-50 / 208, Supertech Ltd. v. Rajni Goyal, that:-

"The period of Interest should close on April 206 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent - Purchaser herself in Para 40) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant -Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 206. The Respondent - Purchaser could not have any further grievance Page 4 after April 206 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent - Purchaser [?] not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession." In accordance with the legal position, the complainant shall be entitled to delay interest up to the date of receipt of OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. In such a case the complainant shall be entitled to interest for the delay up to the period till OC/CC is received or possession is offered, whichever is later. By notification dated 7.020i8 of the [?] Government, Housing and Urban Planning Section-3, No. 740/8-3-48-65 Miscellaneous /ie, the following has been stated regarding force majeure in paragraph 7 of the Model Agreement Rules:- "7. POSSESSION OF THE APARTMENT/PLOT:

The Promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot] to the Allottee and the Common Areas to the association of Allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, is the essence of the Agreement. The Promoter assures to hand over possession of the [Apartment/Plot] along with ready and complete Common Areas with all specifications, amenities and facilities of the Project in place on , unless there is delay or failure due to war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project ("Force Majeure"). If, however, the completion of the Project is delayed due to the Force Majeure conditions then the Allottee agrees that the Promoter shall be entitled to the extension of time for delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot]}:" In the same sequence, after considering all relevant facts and circumstances, the U.P. RERA Authority, due to the effect of COVID-49 (Corona Virus Disease), granted a period of 6 months from 25.03.2020, that is, up to 25.09.2020, [to complete all projects], and this period shall be deemed to be a force majeure period. Having regard to this, no interest for the delay in the project during 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020 shall be paid by the promoter to the allottees, nor shall any delay interest be taken from the allottees. Accordingly, point No. 3 is [?] disposed of.

While disposing of the above points, the following orders are passed:- Order 4. The opposite party is directed to ensure that all facilities of the complainant's unit are completed as per the allotment letter / agreement, and that possession is given along with OC/CC by 34.08.2022, and, on receipt of the payable stamp duty, to get the registry done as per rules. 2. The opposite party shall ensure payment to the complainant of interest for the delayed period on the amount deposited by the complainant, at the rate of MCLRH [?] percent, from 29.44.2020 up to the date of receipt of OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. It is also clarified that this interest amount shall be adjusted against the final payment, and if the interest amount is more than the amount due, it shall be returned to the complainant as per rules. 3. The opposite party shall ensure that, as above, the possession offer letter is issued after receipt of OC.

4. The opposite party is directed that, as defined in interest under Section 2 (ali) of the RERA Act 2046, if any interest rate has been charged by the promoter from the allottee on account of the allottee's default, then the same rate of interest shall also be given by the promoter to the allottee when the promoter defaults. The interest rate notified by the State Government is MCLR+ percent. In view of the prevention and control of [?] and the lockdown and force majeure in the country, interest shall not be calculated for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020. Page 6 5. If the opposite party fails to give possession to the complainant by 34.08.2022, it shall ensure that, within 45 days after 34.08.2022, it repays the amount deposited by the complainant together with interest at the annual rate of MCLR+l [?] percent. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20i6 and other relevant provisions. The order shall be uploaded on the portal. Date: 07/02/2022 (Balvinder Kumar) (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Page 7

उ०प० भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | = उपस्थिति :- श्री बलविन्दर कुमार, सदस्य शिकायत संख्या :- NCRI45/07/77862/202 रक्षा बख्शी बनाम राइज प्रोजेक्ट्स Wo feo प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना "RISE ORGANIC HOMES PHASE-I" के टॉवर- T6 में यूनिट संख्या- 004 बुक किया गया था, जिसकी कुल कीमत 25,25,820/— जिसके सापेक्ष शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 5,72,409/— रुपये का भुगतान किया गया। शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विगत 4 वर्षों से परियोजना स्थल पर किसी प्रकार का निर्माण कार्य नहीं किया जा रहा है एवं विपक्षी की ओर से कब्जा प्रदान किये जाने की कोई संभावना नजर नहीं आ रही है। उपरोक्त तथ्यों के आधार पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि मय बयाज वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांकित 24.09.2046, OTAT धनराशि की wee, मांग पत्र 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 Ee अनुबन्ध दिनांक 24.09.206 को निष्पादित कराया गया, जिसमें कि

शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट 42 माह एवं 6 की अनुग्रह अवधि के साथ 48 माह में कब्जा दिया जाना था। परियोजना में विलम्ब माननीय फोर्स मैज्योर इवेंट्स एवं कोविड-49 के कारण परियोजन। में विलम्ब हुआ वह अगस्त 2022 तक शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान कर दिया जायेगा। इसके अतिरिक्त पीठ के समक्ष सुनवाई के दौरान दिनांक 02.42.2024 को विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा अगस्त 2022 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा उपलब्ध करा देंगे। उभयपक्ष को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। पक्षकारों के अभिवचनों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचारणीय किये गये हैं :- 4. क्या force majeure events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलम्बित हुई? यदि हाँ तो प्रभाव? 2 क्‍या Remand द्वारा जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने की मांग करना उचित है ? 3. क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है? निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 बिन्दु रांख्या-4 इस आशय से विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या वास्तव में परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर gece होने कारण विलम्बित gee 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 हुई देरी विपक्षी के नियंत्रण के बाहर थी। परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य माननीय एन.जी.टी. द्वारा दिल्‍ली NcR में पारित आदेश एवं कोविड-49 महामारी के कारण, निर्माण कार्य कम से कम 6 माह का विलम्ब हुआ। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-43029 ,/ 4985 “एम.सी. मेहता बनाम भारत सरकार” में पारित आदेश दिनांक i 4.2049 में निम्नलिखित निर्देश दिये है :-

With respect to demolition and construction activities wedirect that no demolition and construction activities take place inDelhi and NCR region. In case it is found that such activity isdone, the local administration as well as the municipalauthoritiesincluding the Zonal Commissioners, Deputy Zonal Commissionersshallbe personally held responsible for all such activities. They haveto act in furtherance of the Court’s order and to ensure that nosuch activity takes place. We direct that construction, demolition and activities bestopped forthwith as well as garbage burning. In case, any personis found in construction and demolition activity and garbageburning in Delhi and NCR region, he/she shall be penalized. Anyperson is doing construction and demolition activity in violationof this order, shall be penalized with Rs.l Lac for such activity.For garbage burning he/she shall be penalized with Rs.5,000/- andbesides liable for violation of theorder passed by this Court tobe dealt with in accordance with law. इसके sifaRar उपरोक्त सिविल अपील संख्या-43029 ,/“ 4985 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 09.:2.20:9 4 निम्नलिखित निर्देश दिये है — In the affidavit dated 05.2.209, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has stated as under:-

#]2, That it is respectfully submitted that it is normally experienced that in month of December depending upon Climatic Condition the AQI category varies. As a matter of fact, last year (208) 8 days in the month of December were in severe AQI category. Presently the situation not being severe, CPCB is of considered opinion that partial ban could be in place of construction activities in as much as no construction should be permitted during night time (6.00 pm to 6.00 am). The ban imposed could be partially lifted by permitting activities during day time (6.00 am to 6.00 pm), subject to the criteria stipulated in GRAP, wherein strict emforcement of rules for dust control in construction १). Page 3 Ky and closure of non-compliant sites is mandated in moderate to poor AQI category and further a bank on construction activities may be imposed by EPCA if Ambient AIR quality levels persist in severet/emergency category for 48 hours or more." Hence, the ban is relaxed in terms of the recommendations made by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), as quoted above. However, conditions for raising construction be scrupulously followed. माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा (दिनांक 04.44.20i9 से दिनांक 4.02.2020)

की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगायी गयी है, जिसमें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 09.42.2049 में पूर्ण प्रतिबन्ध को हटाते हुए आंशिक प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया। ऐसे में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा 35 दिन (दिनांक 04.44. 2049 से दिनांक 09.42.2049) एवं 33 दिन (6652) (दिनांक 40.2.2049 से दिनांक ॥4. 02.2020 तक Hae बजे से सुबह 6 बजे तक) की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया [विपक्षी ऐसी दशा में कुल 35+33 5 68 दिन निर्माण कार्य प्रभावित रहने के कारण लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है। समस्त सुसंगत तथ्यों पर विचारोपरान्त उ0प्र0 रेरा अथॉरिटी द्वारा दिनांक 06.06.2020 को कोविड-49 (Corona Virus Disease) के प्रभाव के कारण सभी परियोजनाओं को पूर्ण करने हेतु दिनांक 25.03.2020 से 6 माह की अतिरिक्त अवधि अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 25.09.20200 तक की अवधि दे दी गयी है और यह अतिरिक्त अवधि फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण मानी जायेगी। इसकोदृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03. 2020 से दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु कोई ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा आवंटियों को नहीं दिया जाएगा और न ही. शिकायतकर्ता से कोई विलम्ब ब्याज लिया जायेगा। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-4 का निस्तारण किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विगत 4 वर्षों से परियोजना स्थल पर किसी प्रकार का निर्माण कार्य नहीं किया जा रहा है एवं विपक्षी की ओर से W Page 4 ne ene गा, ae किये जाने की कोई संभावना नजर नहीं आ रही है, जिस कारण जमा t ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। दूसरी ओर विपक्षी का कहना है कि वह शिकायतकर्ता की यूनिट परियोजना पूर्ण कर अगस्त 2022 तक कब्जा उपलब्ध करा देंगे।

जहाँ तक क्रेता द्वारा रिफण्ड के अनुरोध का प्रश्न है, इस विषय में रेरा अधिनियम के प्राविधानों को समग्र रूप से पढा जाना आवश्यक है, ताकि सभी पक्षों के मत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए एक संतुलित निर्णय लिया जा सकें | रेरा एक्ट की धारा 48 (4) F प्राविधान है कि :- "Section 76 () “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, 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 Page 5 = of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed" इस प्रकार क्रेता को यह अधिकार है कि यदि उन्हें एग्रीमेंट के अनुरूप कब्जा नहीं मिलता तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि को ब्याज सहित वापिस माँग सकते हैं अथवा मासिक दर से ब्याज प्राप्त करते हुए परियोजना में बने रहें।

रेरा अधिनियम की धारा 34 में रेरा के अन्य “फंग्शन्स” के साथ-साथ "to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder ” का भी उल्लेख 8 | इसी प्रकार धारा 32 में रियल gee सेक्टर के विकास हेतु अथॉरिटी के उत्तरदायित्यों में निम्न भी सम्मिलित हैं :- “32. The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a)protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent,....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” उक्त प्राविधानों से यह स्पष्ट है कि “रियल एस्टेट सेक्टर” के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके सभी ea deed के हितों को समग्र रूप से देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेने का उत्तरदायित्व इस ऑथरिटी का है। इस क्रम में मा. मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअरबन प्रालि. बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया, जिसमें रेरा अधिनियम की वैद्यानिकता के सम्बंध में निर्णय दिया गया था, के प्रस्तर i244 मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निम्न संवीक्षण किया :- VV Page 6 pt + ee ol “24. The entire scheme of the RERA is

z to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth, Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section 7 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 72, /4, 36 and /9, A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work.” उक्त से स्पष्ट है कि सभी पक्षों को सुनने के बाद, यद्यपि समय से इकाई न मिलने की दशा में आवंटी का अपनी धनराशि ब्याज सहित मांगने का अधिकार है, तथापि उक्त वर्णित संवीक्षा को देखते हुए अथॉरिटी, प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों, के आधार पर ‘by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit

accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth’ के अनुरूप आदेश पारित किए जा सकते हैं। 60 ca ee वापस किए जाने eR मं बने काले बे... द्वारा धनराशि वापस किए जाने व परियोजना में बने रहने वाले एलोटीज के हितों में सन्तुलन के प्रसंग में “चित्रा शर्मा बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया” (744/20:7) के निर्णय में मा. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने निर्णय के प्रस्तर 40 में निम्न ऑबजरवेशन किया है —

"40. As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is lying in deposit before this Court pursuant to the interim directions, on which interest has accrued. The home buyers have earnestly sought the issuance of interim directions to facilitate a pro-rata disbursement of this amount to those of the home buyers who seek a refund. "We are keenly conscious of the fact that the claim of the home buyers who seek a refund of monies deserves to be considered with empathy. Yet, having given our anxious consideration to the plea and on the balance, we are not inclined to accede to it for more than one reason. Firstly sssvessssvsssens Secondly, the figures which have been made available presently, following the opening of the Web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be unmindful of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund."

मा. उच्च न्यायालय एवं सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा उक्त प्रस्तरों में उद्धरत “ऑबजरवेशनस्‌” एवं रेरा एक्ट की समग्र व्यवस्था को देखते हुए यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यदि विलम्ब के प्रत्येक मामले में धनराशि लौटाने का ही निर्णय लिया जाये तो निश्चय ही यह अधिनियम के “ऑबजेक्टिव” तथा “स्कीम” के अनुरूप न होगा। रिफण्ड का निर्णय लेते समय प्रत्येक मामले की “यूनीकनेस” प्रकरण aia सत्र Page 8 err eo ee यथा “कन्सट्रक्शन” की स्थिति, कम्पलीशन की “टाईम लाईन“, प्रोमोटर्स के i ऑफर ऑफ पजेशन के “कमिटमेन्ट” की स्थिति, अन्य “Kew होल्डर्स”, विशेष रूप से परियोजना के साथ बने रहने वाले “एलॉटीज” पर प्रभाव, “प्रस्तावित Ta डेट” के विषय में “pany” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। 'रेरा' के गठन के सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940,/ 2047 बिक्रम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में दिनांक 23.07.2049 को परित आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-244 के प्रस्तर-420 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है:ः-

20 It is apparent that RERA intends protection of home-buyers and aims at completion of the buildings. The buildings have to be completed, for that,we are required to pass orders. We have already assigned the task to NBCC for completion of buildings 38 the promoters/builders have failed to complete the building within the time fixed and the time which could have been extended. Now, more than 0 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the promoter/builder.The maximum time fixed in RERA has also expired and extension could not have been beyond | year. उक्तानुसार यह स्पष्ट किया गया है कि रेरा आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए है और उसका लक्ष्य यह है कि प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा बिल्डिंग के समस्त विकास कार्यों को पूर्ण कराते हुए गृहक्रेताओं को उनका आवास / फ्लैट मिल सके। Page 9 हे provisions of RERA are beneficial to the home buyers and are intended to insulate them from fraudulent action, ensures completion of the building and it is the duty of the court to protect and ensure the home buyers’interest and at the same time to hold them responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under the said statute. We are not absolving the home buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At the same time, they have the right of enforcement of their right for compensation due to undue delay in completion of the project." तत्क्रमानुरार आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-255 के weR-737 में निम्नवत्‌ | उल्लेख किया हैः-

उक्त आब्जर्वेशन में यह भी स्पष्ट किया गया है कि रेरा के प्राविधान गृहक्रेताओं के लिए लाभकारी हैं और किसी प्रकार के विश्वासघात होने से आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए हैं एवं बिल्डिंग को पूर्ण कराने हेतु निगरानी का कार्य रेरा का है और पक्षकारों के कर्तव्यों एवं उत्तरदायित्व अधिनियम में तय किये गये हैं। यह भी लाभ दिया गया है कि परियोजना विलम्ब होने पर गृहक्रेताओं का यह अधिकार होगा कि वह विलम्ब के लिए परियोजना पूर्ण होने तक नियमानुसार ब्याज पा सके। इसी के पश्चात्‌ पुनः रेरा के सम्बंध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-43 // 209 पायनियर अर्बन oes एंड इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में दिनांक 09.08.209 को आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-86 के प्रस्तर-29 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है :- "The object of RERA is to see that real estate projects come to fruition within the stated period and to see that allottees of such projects are not left in Naw, —- the lurch and are finally able to realise their dream of a = or be paid compensation if such dream _ is shattered, or at least get back monies that they had advanced towards the project with interest. At the same time, recalcitrant allottees are not to be tolerated, as they must also perform their part of the bargain, namely, to pay instalments as and when they become due and payable."

उक्त आदेश में महत्वपूर्ण आब्जर्वेशन यह दिया गया है कि रेरा का लक्ष्य है कि वह अपनी निगरानी एवं देखरेख में प्रोमोटर द्वारा भू-सम्पदा परियोजना को एक निर्धारित अवधि में फलस्वरूप पूर्ण कर। ली जाये, जिससे कि आवंटी अपने फ्लैटस्‌ पाने से वंचित न हो जाये और उन्हें अपने सपनों का घर मिल सके, साथ ही साथ दुर्दम्य (Recalcitrant) आवंटियों को भी परियोजना पूर्ण कराने का सहयोग न करने में उत्तरदायित्व माना है। यह भी कहा गया है कि आवंटी अपने कर्तव्यों को सम्यक रूप से पूर्ण करें, मुख्य रूप से जैसे कि किश्तों का समय से भुगतान करना सुनिश्चित कर लें, जिससे कि परियोजना को पूर्ण किया जा सके। ऐसे में उपरोक्त माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्धारित की गयी विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा का मुख्य उद्देश्य, परियोजना को फलस्वरूप प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा पूर्ण कराना और आवंटियों द्वारा सम्यक रूप से अपनी किश्तों का भुगतान सुनिश्चित कर लिया जाना, जिससे कि परियोजना को निर्धारित अवधि में पूर्ण कराया जा सके। आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए परियोजना विलम्ब होने पर ब्याज का लाभ भी आवंटियों को देय होगा, परन्तु इससे पूर्व शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी उत्तरदायित्व होगा कि वह अपनी किश्तों का समय से भुगतान करें| चूंकि विपक्षी द्वारा की उनकी परियोजना पूर्णा की ओर है वह शिकायतकर्ता को परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण कर अगस्त 2022 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिलाये जाने की बात कही गयी है, जिससे विदित है ee =

कि परियोजना पूर्णता की ओर है तथा परियोजना के अन्य आवंटी कब्जे हेतु प्रतिक्षारत हैं। समस्त परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए न्‍्यायहित में यह उचित होगा शिकायतकर्ता दिनांक 34.08.2022 तक परियोजना पूर्ण होने पर कब्जा लें। उसके बाद वे स्वयं यूनिट के भविष्य हेतु उपयोग के सम्बन्ध में निर्णय ले सकते हैं। वैरो भी शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा परियोजना में निवेश कब्जे हेतु किया गया था, जिसका उपयोग विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना के निर्माण में किया गया है। निश्चय ही परियोजना में बने रहने की दशा में एलॉटीज़ को विलम्ब हेतु नियमानुसार ब्याज प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा देय होगा। यदि विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 34.08.2022 तक शिकायतकर्ता को परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है, तो उसके पश्चात्‌ शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस किया जाना उपयुक्त होगा। निस्तारण बिन्दु सं०-2 dager Prana किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु to 3 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विगत 4 वर्षों से परियोजना स्थल पर किसी प्रकार का निर्माण कार्य नहीं किया जा रहा है एवं विपक्षी की ओर से कब्जा प्रदान किये जाने की कोई संभावना नजर नहीं आ रही है, जिसके कम में विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया है कि अगस्त 2022 तक यूनिट का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण कर शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा प्रदान कर दिया जायेगा। पत्रावली पर उभयपक्षों के मध्य निष्पादित आवंटन/अनुबन्ध दिनांकित 24.09.2046 की छायाप्रति उपलब्ध है, जिसके कब्जे वाले WA के अनुसार 48 माह में विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना पूर्ण कर यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान किया जाना था। उक्त से स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 24.09.2020 तक यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान किया जाना था। ऐसे में विपक्षी की परियोजना अत्याधिक विलम्बित की श्रेणी में नहीं आती है।

इसके अतिरिक्त फोर्स मैज्योर के मद में विपक्षी कुल 68 दिन की अवधि के लिए लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है। (जैसा कि निस्तारण बिन्दु o7 में वार्णित “VV Page 2 tees see न कम oe कद ts दशा में शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 2.09.2020 + 68 दिन अर्थात्‌ दिनांक a 4.2020 से ओ.सी. / सी.सी. प्राप्त होने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो, तक की अवधि पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित त प्रतीत होता है। 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(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 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 उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। SL Page 3

जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भूनसम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 _ के अधीन दिनांक 7.020i8 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 wee 9.2(॥) में प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है किः- "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +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 MCLRH प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। जहां तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बंध में सिविल अपील to 6649-50 / 208 सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

"The period of Interest should close on April 206 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 40) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant —Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 206. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance VV Page 4 after April 206 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent — Purchaser = not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession. " sided विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार ओ.सी./सी.सी. मिलने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जागे, जो भी बाद गें हो की तिथि तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता ओ.सी./सी.सी. मिलने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो तक की अवधि तक विलम्ब के लिए ब्याज पाने के अधिकारी होंगे। दिनांक 7.020i8 को Soyo शासन आवास एवं शहरी नियोजन अनुभाग-3 की अधिसूचना संख्या-740 /8-3-48-65 विविध /ie के द्वारा मॉडल एग्रीमेन्ट की नियमावली के प्रस्तर-7 में फोर्स मैज्योर के सम्बन्ध में निम्न उल्लेख किया गया है:- 7. POSSESSION OF THE APARTMENT/PLOT:

"प्‌] Schedule for possession of the said [Apartment/Plot] - The Promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot] to the Allottee and the Common Areas to the association of Allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, is the essence of the Agreement. The Promoter assures to hand over possession of the [Apartment/Plot] along with ready and complete Common Areas with all specifications, amenities and facilities of the Project in place on , unless there is delay or failure due to war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, carthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project ("Force Majeure"). If, however, the completion of the Project is delayed due to the Force Majeure conditions then the Allottee agrees that the Promoter shall be entitled to the extension of time for delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot]}:" इसी क्रम में समस्त सुसंगत तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों के बाद उ0प्र0 रेरा अथॉरिटी द्वारा कोविड--49 (Corona Virus Disease) के प्रभाव के कारण सभी E को पूर्ण करने हेतु दिनाक 25.03.2020 से 6 माह की अवधि अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक की अवधि दे दी गयी है और यह अवधि फोर्स मैज्योर की अवधि मानी जायेगी। इसको दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03.2020 से दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु कोई ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा आवंटियों को नहीं दिया जाएगा और न ही आवंटियों से कोई विलम्ब ब्याज लिया जायेगा। तदनुसार बिन्दु संख्या-3 Prema किया जात। है।

उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निश्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते हैं :- आदेश 4... विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है. कि वह शिकायतकर्ता के यूनिट की समस्त सुविधाओं को आवंटन-पत्र /अनुबन्ध के अनुसार पूर्ण कराकर दिनांक 34.08.2022 तक ओ.सी./ सी.सी. सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें। 2... विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 29.44.2020 से ओ.सी /सी.सी प्राप्त होने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो की तिथि तक शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि पर MCLRH प्रतिशत की दर से विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। साथ ही यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की धनराशि में समायोजित की जायेगी और यदि ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक है, तो नियमानुसार शिकायतकर्ता को वापस की जाए। 3, विपक्षी, उपरोक्तानुसार कब्जा ऑफर पत्र ओ.सी. मिलने के उपरान्त जारी करना सुनिश्चित करें। 4. विपक्षी को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम 2046 के धारा 2 (ali) के अन्तर्गत ब्याज को परिभाषित किया गया है कि रेरा ay Page 6 i न न न नननभिननननननननन-ंनंन-ऊ-नननमनमऊझभ३न-नममक-ं-म--भकभनगगाननगनीण-यननन-ण-ऊीनिनन ननननननम-ननमनम-न--क--ननगगगभ<--न-नदआकआनन.

के बाद यदि कोई ब्याज दर आवंटी के डिफॉल्ट से प्रोमोटर द्वारा लिया दी है, तो उसी दर से ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा डिफॉल्ट किये जाने पर भी आवंटी को दिया जायेगा। राज्य सरकार द्वारा अधिसूचित ब्याज दर MCLR+ प्रतिशत है। Hifas—t9 की रोकथाम एवं नियंत्रण हेतु देश में हुए लॉकडाउन एवं फोर्स मैज्योर को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03. 2020 से दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु ब्याज की गणना नहीं की जाएगी। 5. विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 34.08.2022 तक कब्जा देने में असफल रहता है, तो वह दिनांक 34.08.2022 के पश्चात्‌ 45 दिनों के अन्दर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि MCLR+l प्रतिशत की वार्षिक ब्याज दर सहित वापस अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। इस आदेश का veda 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 :- 07/02/2022 (बलविन्दर कुमार) (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण = «मनन» ++3८+न+न++++७५७++७+3५++3+++++न+++++«3+++«+++क+नननन++++कननम-नम--ननननमननननमम-म----+<-+------ा+-+-+ा॑++--ा-+>ल Page 7