U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddha Nagar. Order under Section-31, Bench-2 (Former Bench-4) Presiding Officer :- Shri T. Venkatesh, Member Sl. No. | Complaint No. | Complainants | Unit No. | Total Value | Deposited Amount 1. | NCR45/03/076/2023 | Sanjay Kumar Srivastava | T3-0 | Rs. 6,52,000/- | Rs. 2,28,696 /- 2. | पटारा45/08/735/2023 | Anand Narayan Pandey & Meenakshi Pandey | 72-009 | Rs. 35,2,500 /- | Rs. 23,3,3 /- 3. | NCRI45/04/0756/2023 | Manju Singh & others | T4-205 | Rs. 22,67,250/- | Rs. ,75,03I/- vs M/s Rise Projects Private Limited Along with complainant Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, 02 other complainants have instituted the complaints in question against the respondent. The facts of all these complaints are identical and evidence is identical. All these complaints pertain to the same project RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE ।. Therefore, the complaints in question are being disposed of through a single order. Complaint No.- NCR45/03/076/2023 Sanjay Kumar Srivastava shall be the leading case. The present complaint application has been instituted by the complainant against the respondent seeking refund of all deposited amounts along with interest.

In brief, the statement of the leading complainant is that they booked unit number Gea-T3-0 in the respondent's project RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE - I on date 26.i0.20i5. The total price of the unit was Rs. 6,52,000/-, against which payment of Rs. 2,28,696/- was made to the respondent from time to time on an installment basis. The complainant also states that as per the flat buyer agreement, possession of the unit was to be provided by September, 20:9, but till date the respondent has failed to provide possession of the unit, nor has the respondent obtained OC/CC of the project till now, and construction work in the project is suspended. For this reason, the present complaint has been registered by the complainant under Section 31 of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act against the respondent for refund of the deposited amount. In support of their statement, copies of documents such as allotment letter, flat buyer agreement dated 04.03.20i6, payment plan, account statement, project photographs, etc., have been filed by the complainant.

Submitting a written reply on behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that the complainant was allotted unit number der-iiio in Tower-73 of the project RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE-I, against which a flat buyer agreement was executed between both parties on date 04.03.206, according to which possession of the unit was to be provided by March, 2020 with 42 months and a grace period of 6 months. The total value of the unit was Rs. 6,52,000/-, against which payment of Rs. ,66,936 /- was made by the complainant to the respondent, and Rs. 5,40,342 / - is due from the complainant in addition to delayed interest. It was also stated that out of Rs. 2,28,696 /-, an amount of Rs. 6,760/- was paid by the complainant to the respondent company towards service tax / GST. The complainant delayed payment of installments of their due amounts by 204 days from the very beginning. The complainant has violated Section 19(6) of the RERA Act, 20:6. For payment of due installment amounts, demand letters dated 04.08.2076, 40.02.2047, 42.06.2047, 22.09.2047, 46.04.2048, 44.03.2022, 25.08.2022 and reminder letters dated 43.04.2046, 25.05.2046, 48.0.2022, 45.44.2022 were sent by the respondent to the complainant, copies of which are annexed as Annexure-01. There has been no delay on the part of the respondent in handing over possession of the unit. The delay in the project occurred due to unforeseen events and non-payment by the complainant on time against the unit. It is also stated by the respondent that due to environmental pollution, the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal completely banned any kind of construction activity in Delhi NCR, adversely affecting progress of the project. It is further stated that the Government of India resorted to some of the most stringent actions in the world to arrest the spread of Covid-49 virus and declared a nationwide lockdown across the entire country from 24 March, 2020, which was extended through various notifications, due to which construction activities were completely halted owing to non-availability of construction materials, leading to delay in project completion. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the respondent requested to dismiss the present complaint and grant time to handover physical possession of the said unit by October, 2024.

In support of its contention, copies of documents including vakalatnama, written reply, flat buyer agreement, demand letters, reminder letters, payment plan, architect certificate dated 04.07.2023, etc., have been filed by the respondent. Arguments of both parties were heard and evidence available on the record perused, on the basis of which the following point for determination has been framed :- Point 1: Whether the deposited amount of the complainant can be refunded along with interest? Determination of Point No.-01: Point No.-01 has been framed with the intent whether the deposited amount of the complainant can be refunded with interest? This issue is based on the pleadings of the complainant, the burden of proving which lies on the complainant.

The complainant states that as per the flat buyer agreement, possession of the unit was to be provided by the respondent by September, 20:9, but till date the respondent has failed to provide possession of the unit, nor has the respondent obtained OC/CC of the project till now, and construction work in the project is suspended, due to which they do not wish to remain in the project. Hence, request has been made by the complainant for refund of the deposited amount along with interest. The complainant states that possession was to be delivered according to the agreed timeframe, but possession was not delivered by the respondent within the specified timeframe. Due to this, they do not wish to remain in the project. It is also stated that unit was booked in the respondent's project in the year 2045, but the respondent has not completed the project till date; under such circumstances, they seek refund of their deposited amount with interest.

On this, the respondent submitting reply stated that complainant was allotted unit we-iii0 in Tower-T3 of project RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE-I, against which flat buyer agreement was executed on 04.03.2046, under which possession was to be provided by March, 2020 with 42 months and 6 months grace period. Total price was Rs. 16,52,000/-, against which Rs. ,66,936/- was paid and Rs. 5,40,342/- is due. Rs. 6i,760/- was paid towards service tax/GST. Complainant delayed payments by 204 days violating Section 19(6) of RERA Act 2046. Demand letters dated 04.08.2046, 0.02.2047, 42.06. 207, 22.09.2047, 6.0.20I8, 14.03.2022, 25.08.2022 and reminders dated 43.04.206, 25.05.2046, 18.10.2022, 15.11.2022 were issued. No delay on promoter's part. Respondent requested dismissal of complaint and time till October, 2024 to handover physical possession. A copy of the allotment letter / flat buyer agreement dated 04.03.2046 executed between both parties has been filed on record by the complainant, perusal of possession clause (a) on page 8 of which reveals that construction of the project was to be completed and possession made available to the complainant within 42 months plus 6 months grace period, totaling 48 months, from the date of the flat buyer agreement. As such, the complainant was entitled to receive possession of their unit by date 04.03.2020, but possession of the unit was not delivered by the respondent within the stipulated timeframe.

It is clear that the project falls within the category of delay. In such circumstances, refunding the deposited amount of the complainant with interest appears just and proper. The respondent has failed to deliver possession to the complainant by the said possession date. In this regard, Section 18(1) of the RERA Act explicitly provides that: "18 (1) 'If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building,- (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or 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.'"

According to the above, if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot, or building by the time given in accordance with the terms of the agreement, then without prejudice to any other remedy available, on demand of the allottee if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, the promoter shall be liable to return the amount received in respect of that apartment, plot, or building along with interest. If construction of the project is not completed in time by the promoter and possession is not delivered to allottees as per agreement, the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held in Pradeep Kumar Gupta vs Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. CC 489,//2047 that:

"In my opinion, since the OPs were already in default as far as the offer of possession was concerned, when the 5th, 6th, 7th & 8th installments were demanded, the complainants were under no obligation to pay the said installments. As far as the default in payment of the 4th installment by the complainants in CC No.!999/20I6 & CC No.2000/206 is concerned, it would be seen that the said installment was raised at the stage of casting of roof slab of the lower basement. The demand was raised about two weeks before the last date for offering possession of the flats to the said complainants. Since the construction was still at the stage of casting roof slab of the lower basement at that time, the complainants knew that even if they pay the 4th installment, it was impossible for the OPs to deliver possession of the apartments to them by the last date stipulated in this regard i.e. 23.0.207 or within six months thereafter, i.e. 23.07.20I7 even if the benefit of the grace period was given to them. When a flat buyer who is saddled with a demand applicable at the stage when the construction is at a very initial stage and the demand is raised just two weeks before the last date for offer of possession, he is not expected to sink more money with the builder despite knowing that the builder will not be able to honour his contractual obligation even if the benefit of a grace period of six months which was otherwise available only in case of unforeseen circumstances, is given to him. Therefore, even the complainants in CC No.999/20l6 & CC No.2000/206 cannot be said to be defaulters, in the sense that they would lose their legal right to claim refund of the amount paid by them and the compensation for the defect/deficiencies on the part of the builder in rendering services to them."

From the above, it is evident that if construction work is not completed on time by the promoter, the allottee shall not be liable to pay upcoming installments, because terms of agreement have been breached by the builder. Under such circumstances, the allottee shall not be held liable for delay in construction and breach of contract by the promoter. Furthermore, in this regard it is clarified that the U.P. State Government, exercising powers under clause (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 84 read with sub-section (2) of Section 43 and sub-section (1) of Section 84, notified the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 208 on date 77.0.20:8. In clause 9.2 of the draft agreement for sale/lease annexed thereto, events of default of the promoter and interest rates are defined, wherein clause 9.20) provides that in the event of default by the promoter, the allottee may: "Stop making further payments to Promoter as demanded by the Promoter. If the Allottee stops making payments, the Promoter shall correct the situation by completing the construction milestones and only thereafter the Allottee be required to make the next payment without any interest."

From the above Rules, it is clear that if there is delay in construction of the project, payment shall be stopped by the allottee and after the situation of construction is rectified, the allottee shall make payment of remaining amount without interest. It is clear that the project is delayed and neither OC/CC has been received by the respondent. It is also clarified that possession was to be delivered to the complainant by the respondent by 04.03.2020, which the respondent was obligated to fulfill. Complainant has requested refund of deposited amount with interest. Evidently, possession was not delivered within the stipulated timeframe, nor has OC/CC of this project been obtained by the respondent. Therefore, under Section 18(1)(a) of the RERA Act, the complainant is entitled to withdraw from the project.

Additionally, in this regard it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.-3482 / 2049 Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. vs Devasis Rudra held that: "It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By 20I6, nearly seven year had elapsed from the date of agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 20I6. 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."

Likewise, in Civil Appeal No. 2238/20i8 Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited vs Govindan Raghavan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: "We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.0.20l8 passed by the National Commission. The Appellant — Builder failed to fulfill his contractual obligation of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent - Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired. During this period, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser had to service a loan that he had obtained for purchasing the flat, by paying Interest @l0% to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the Respondent — Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest."

Under the legal principles laid down above, a homebuyer can be made to wait only for a reasonable period, and in case of prolonged delay, even after obtaining completion certificate, the complainant is entitled to refund of the deposited amount because possession was not received according to the timeframe in the agreement and excessive delay occurred. As the project was not completed on time, the complainant is entitled to refund of deposited amount along with interest.

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

Furthermore, in Writ C No.-.3289/2020 dated 06.02.2020 "Wave Buildwell Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Poonam Sood and others", the Hon'ble High Court held that under Clause 9.2(ii) of the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2048, in case of delay by the promoter, the allottee shall have option to terminate the agreement and the promoter shall be liable to refund all deposited amounts within 45 days along with annual interest equal to State Bank of India home loan rate MCLR+1%. The High Court held MCLR+1% annual interest rate to be just and proper. Regarding interest rate, the State Government on 47.40.208 notified the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 20:8 under RERA Act 20i6. Clause 9 defines Events of Default, where Clause 9.2(i) provides 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 prescribed in clause 9.30) in case of default by allottees. In view of the said provision, refunding the amount to the allottee at MCLR+1% interest appears just. Point No.-1 is disposed of accordingly.

Disposing of the above point, the following order is passed :- Order The respondent is directed to ensure refunding the amount deposited by the complainants along with interest at the rate of MCLR + 1% per annum within 45 days from the date of uploading of the order on the portal. One copy each of this order be placed on the respective files, and computation of amount and interest in each case shall be made in accordance with the principles laid down in this order. If the respondent fails to comply with this order, the complainants shall have the right to get the order executed through the RERA Authority. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section-63 and other relevant provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046. The order be uploaded on the portal. T. Venkatesh (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर। आदेश अन्तर्गत धारा-34, पीठ-2 (पूर्व पीठ-4) पीठासीन अधिकारी :- श्री टी. वेंकटेश, सदस्य क्रम सं. शिकायत संख्या शिकायतकर्तागण [यूनिट संख्या | कुल मूल्य | जमा धनराशि l. | NCR45/03/076/2023 | संजय कुमार श्रीवास्तव | T3-0 | 6,52,000 /- | 2,28,696 /- 2... पटारा45/08/735/2023 | ast नारायण पांडेय एवं | 72-009 | 35,2,500 /- | 23,3,3] /- मीनाक्षी पांडेय 3. | NCRI45/04/0756/2023 | मंजू सिंह एवं अन्य T4-205 | 22,67,250/— | ,75,03I/- बनाम मैसर्स राइज प्रोजेक्ट्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड शिकायतकर्ता संजय कुमार श्रीवास्तव के साथ 02 अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्ध प्रश्नगत शिकायतें योजित की गयी हैं। इन सभी शिकायतों के तथ्य समान है और एक समान साक्ष्य हैं। यह सभी शिकायतें एक ही परियोजना RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE । से सम्बन्धित हैं। अतः एक ही निर्णय से प्रश्नगत शिकायतों का निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत संख्या- NCRI45/03/07I6/2023 संजय कुमार श्रीवास्तव अग्रणी वाद रहेगा | प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्ध समस्त जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है।

संक्षेप में अग्रणी शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE - I में दिनांक 26.i0.20i5 को यूनिट Gea-T3-0 बुक करायी गयी थी। यूनिट की कुल मूल्य 6,52,000/— रुपये था, जिसके सापेक्ष उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 2,28,696/- रुपये का भुगतान विपक्षी को किया गया। शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा फ्लैट क्रेता अनुबन्ध के अनुसार सितम्बर, 20:9 तक यूनिट का कब्जा उपलब्ध कराया जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी आज तक यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान किये जाने में असफल रहा है और न ही विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक परियोजना का ओ.सी. /सी.सी. प्राप्त किया गया है pL Page 4 तथा परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य स्थगित है। जिस कारण शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण अधिनियम की ast के अन्तर्गत विपक्षी के विरुद्ध यह शिकायत धनराशि वापस कराये जाने हेतु दर्ज करायी गयी है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटन पत्र» फ्लैट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांकित 04.03.20i6, पेमेन्ट प्लान, खाता विवरण, परियोजना के फोटोग्राफ, आदि अभिलेखों की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गई हैं।

विपक्षी की ओर से लिखित जवाब प्रस्तुत करते हुए यह कथन किया गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को परियोजना RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE-I के टॉवर-73 में यूनिट der-iiio आवंटित की गयी थी, जिसके सापेक्ष उभयपक्षों के मध्य दिनांक 04.03.206 को फ्लैट क्रेता अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किया गया, जिसके अनुसार 42 माह एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के साथ मार्च, 2020 तक यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान किया जाना था। यूनिट की कुल मूल्य 6,52,000/— रुपये था, जिसके सापेक्ष शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा ,66,936 /— रुपये का भुगतान विपक्षी को किया गया तथा शिकायतकर्ता पर विलम्ब ब्याज के अतिरिक्त 5,40,342/- रुपये देय हैं। साथ ही यह भी कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा 2,28,696 /- रुपये में से 6,760/— रुपये विपक्षी कंपनी को सेवा कर/जी.एस.टी. के सम्बन्ध में भुगतान किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रारम्भ से ही अपनी देय धनराशि की किश्तों को भुगतान किये जाने में 20: दिनों का विलम्ब किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा रेरा अधिनियम, 20:6 की ARI-9(6) का उल्लंघन किया गया है। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को अपनी देय धनराशि की किश्तों का भुगतान किये जाने हेतु दिनांक 04.08.2076, 40.02.2047, 42.06.2047, 22.09.2047, 46.04.2048, 44.03.2022, 25.08.2022 को मांग पत्र व दिनांक 43.04.2046, 25.05.2046, 48.0.2022, 45.44.2022 को अनुस्मारक पत्र प्रेषित किये गये, जिनकी प्रति अनुलग्नक-09 के रूप में संलग्न है। विपक्षी की ओर से यूनिट का कब्जा सौंपने में कोई विलम्ब नहीं हुआ है। परियोजना में विलम्ब अप्रत्याशित घटनाओं और शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा यूनिट के सापेक्ष समय पर भुगतान न करने के कारण हुआ। विपक्षी द्वारा यह भी कहा गया है कि पर्यावरण प्रदूषण के कारण माननीय राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण ने दिल्‍ली एन.सी.आर. में किसी भी प्रकार की निर्माण गतिविधि पर पूर्ण रूप से प्रतिबन्ध लगा दिया था, जिससे परियोजना की प्रगति पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पड़ा। साथ ही यह भी कहा गया है कि भारत सरकार ने कोविड-49 वायरस के प्रसार को रोकने के लिए विश्व में कुछ सबसे कठोर कार्यवाइयों का सहारा लिया और सम्पूर्ण देश में 24 मार्च, 2020 से राष्ट्रव्यापी लॉकडाउन घोषित किया गया, जिसे विभिन्‍न अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा बढ़ाया गया था, जिस कारण निर्माण की सामग्री उपलब्ध न होने के कारण निर्माण गतिविधियां पूर्ण रूप से बाधित रहीं,

Page 2 | जिस कारण परियोजना को पूर्ण किये जाने में विलम्ब हुआ | उपर्युक्त तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए विपक्षी द्वारा वर्तमान शिकायत को खारिज करने और उक्त यूनिट का भौतिक कब्जा अक्टूबर, 2024 तक सौंपने के लिए समय प्रदान किये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। विपक्षी द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में वकालतनामा, लिखित जवाब, फ्लैट क्रेता अनुबन्ध, मांग पत्र, अनुस्मारक पत्र, पेमेन्ट प्लान, आर्किटेक सर्टिफिकेट दिनांकित 04.07.2023, अभिलेखों की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं। उभयपक्ष के तर्कों को सुना गया व पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों का अवलोकन किया गया, जिसके आधार पर निम्न बिन्दु विचरित किया गया है :- 4. क्या शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस fear जा सकती है ? निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-04 निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-04 इस आशय से विचरित किया गया है कि क्या शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलायी जा सकती है ? यह वाद बिन्दु शिकायतकर्ता के अभिवचनों के आधार पर आधारित है, जिसे साबित करने का भार शिकायतकर्ता पर है ? शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा फ्लैट क्रेता अनुबन्ध के अनुसार सितम्बर, 20:9 तक यूनिट का कब्जा उपलब्ध कराया जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी आज तक यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान किये जाने में असफल रहा है और न ही विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक परियोजना का ओ.सी. /सी.सी. प्राप्त किया गया है तथा परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य स्थगित है, जिस कारण वह परियोजना में बने रहना नहीं चाहते हैं। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है।

शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अनुबन्धित अवधि के अनुसार कब्जा दिया जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा निर्धारित अवधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। जिस कारण वह परियोजना में बने रहना नहीं चाहते हैं। साथ ही यह भी कहा गया है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना में वर्ष, 2045 में यूनिट बुक करायी गयी थी, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा आज तक परियोजना पूर्ण नहीं की गयी है, ऐसे में वह अपनी जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस चाहते हैं। इस पर विपक्षी द्वारा जवाब दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि कि शिकायतकर्ता को परियोजना RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE-I के ¢lax—-T3 Page 3 (#-

में यूनिट we-iii0 आवंटित की गयी थी, जिसके सापेक्ष उभयपक्षों के मध्य दिनांक 04.03.2046 को फ्लैट क्रेता अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किया गया, जिसके अनुसार 42 माह एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के साथ मार्च, 2020 तक यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान किया जाना था। यूनिट की कुल मूल्य 6,52,000/— रुपये था, जिसके सापेक्ष शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा ,66,936/— रुपये का भुगतान विपक्षी को किया गया तथा शिकायतकर्ता पर विलम्ब ब्याज के अतिरिक्त 5,40,342 / - रुपये देय हैं। साथ ही यह भी कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा 2,28,696/— रुपये में से 6i,760/— रुपये विपक्षी कंपनी को सेवा कर» जी.एस.टी. के सम्बन्ध में भुगतान किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रारम्भ से ही अपनी देय धनराशि की किश्तों को भुगतान किये जाने में 204 दिनों का विलम्ब किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा रेरा अधिनियम, 20:6 की धारा-9(6) का उल्लंघन किया गया है। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को अपनी देय धनराशि की किश्तों का भुगतान किये जाने हेतु दिनांक 04.08.2046, 0.02.2047, 42.06. 207, 22.09.2047, 6.0.20I8, 44.03.2022, 25.08.2022 को मांग पत्र व दिनांक 43.04.206, 25.05.2046, 48.0.2022, 45.44.2022 को अनुस्मारक पत्र प्रेषित किये गये, जिनकी प्रति अनुलग्नक-0 के रूप में संलग्न है। विपक्षी की ओर से यूनिट का कब्जा सौंपने में कोई विलम्ब नहीं हुआ है। उपर्युक्त तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए विपक्षी द्वारा वर्तमान शिकायत को खारिज करने और उक्त यूनिट का भौतिक कब्जा अक्टूबर, 2024 तक सौंपने के लिए समय प्रदान किये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है।

पत्रावली पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा आवंटन पत्र/फ्लैट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांकित 04.03.2046 की छायाप्रति दाखिल की गयी है, जो उभयपक्षों के मध्य निष्पादित है, जिसके पृष्ठ संख्या-8 के कब्जे वाले प्रस्तर-»() के अवलोकन से विदित है कि विपक्षी द्वारा फ्लैट क्रेता अनुबन्ध की तिथि से 42 माह एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के साथ 48 माह में परियोजनां का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण कर शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा उपलब्ध कराया जाना था। ऐसे में उपरोक्तानुसार शिकायतकर्ता दिनांक 04.03.2020 तक अपनी यूनिट का कब्जा पाने का अधिकारी था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा निर्धारित समयावधि में यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान नहीं किया गया है। यह स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना विलम्ब की श्रेणी में है। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाया जाना aaa प्रतीत होता है। उक्त कब्जे की अवधि तक विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहा है। इस सम्बन्ध में रेश अधिनियम की धारा-48 (॥) में स्पष्ट रूप से उल्‍लेखित है कि :- Page 4 ८22 & 8 (l) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or

(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shal] 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." उपरोक्‍तानुसार यदि प्रोमोटर करार के निबन्धों के अनुसार उसमें दिये गये अवधि तक समय से किसी अपार्टपेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन को पूरा करने में असमर्थ 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 अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन के सम्बन्ध में उसके द्वारा प्राप्त धनराशि ब्याज सहित लौटाने का जाता माननीय दायी होगा यदि प्रमोटर द्वारा परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य समय से पूर्ण नहीं कराया ता है और आवंटियों को अनुबन्धानुसार कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है, तो ननीय राष्ट्रीय उपभोक्‍ता विवाद निवारण आयोग द्वारा इस सम्बन्ध में प्रदीप कुमार गुप्ता बनाम इरियो ग्रेस रियलटेक wife. सी.सी. 489,//2047 में

अभिनिर्धारित किया है कि — In my opinion, since the OPs were already in default as far as the offer of possession was concerned, when the 5h 67, 70" & 87 installments were demanded, the complainants were under ————— obligation to pay the said installments. As far as the default in payment of the 4" installment by the complainants in CC Page 5

No.!999/20I6 & CC No.2000/206 is concerned, it would be seen that the said installment was raised at the stage of casting of roof slab of the lower basement. The demand was raised about two weeks before the last date for offering possession of the flats to the said complainants. Since the construction was still at the stage of casting roof slab of the lower basement at that time, the complainants knew that even if they pay the 4" installment, it was impossible for the OPs to deliver possession of the apartments to them by the last date stipulated in this regard i.e. 23.0.207 or within six months thereafter, i.e. 23.07.20I7 even if the benefit of the grace period was given to them. When a flat buyer who is saddled with a demand applicable at the stage when the construction is at a very initial stage and the demand is raised just two weeks before the last date for offer of possession, he is not expected to sink more money with the builder despite knowing that the builder will not be able to honour his contractual obligation even if the benefit of a grace period of six months which was otherwise available only in case of unforeseen circumstances, is given to him. Therefore, even the complainants in CC No.999/20l6 & CC No.2000/206 cannot be said to be defaulters, in the sense that they would lose their legal right to claim refund of the amount paid by them and the compensation for the defect/deficiencies on the part of the builder in rendering services to them.

उपरोक्तानुसार यह स्पष्ट है कि यदि प्रोमोटर द्वारा परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य समय से पूर्ण नहीं किया जाता है, तो आवंटी अपने आगामी किश्तों के भुगतान करने के लिए उत्तरदायी नहीं होगा, क्योंकि बिल्डर द्वारा किये गये अनुबन्ध के शर्तों का उल्लंघन किया गया है। ऐसे में प्रोमोटर द्वारा निर्माण में किये गये विलम्ब एवं अनुबन्ध की शर्तों के उल्लंघन के लिए आवंटी उत्तरदायी नहीं होगा। इसके अतिरिक्त इस सम्बंध में स्पष्ट करना है कि उ0प्र0 राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (fafa और विकास) अधिनियम की धारा-84 की उपधारा-2 के खण्ड-(च) और धारा-43 की उपधारा-2 के साथ पठित उक्त धारा-84 की उपधारा-+ द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का अधिकार प्रयोग करते हुए दिनांक 77.0.20:8 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास), (विक्रय, पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली Rules), 208 अधिसूचित की गयी है। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विक्रय ,/ पट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के We 9.2 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) BA में ब्याज दर निर्धारित है, जिसके wear 9.20) में प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है किः- ee ees Page 6 ESSE | Stop making further payments to Promoter as demanded by the Promoter. If the Allottee stops making payments, the Promoter shall correct the situation by completing the construction milestones and only thereafter the Allottee be required to make the next payment without any interest. उपरोक्त नियमावली से यह स्पष्ट है कि यदि परियोजना के निर्माण में

विलम्ब होता है, तो आवंटी द्वारा भुगतान रोक दिया जायेगा और निर्माण की स्थिति को सही करने के उपरान्त आवंटी द्वारा बिना ब्याज की शेष धनराशि का भुगतान किया जायेगा। यह स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना विलम्बित है और न ही विपक्षी को ओ.सी. / सी.सी प्राप्त हुई है। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 04.03.2020 तक कब्जा दिया जाना था, जिसको विपक्षी द्वारा पूर्ण करने का दायित्व था। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कहा गया है कि जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलायी 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 परियोजना है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता रेरा अधिनियम की ais()(@) के अन्तर्गत वह जना से बाहर आने का अधिकारी है। इसके अत्तिरिक्त इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय सिटी लय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-3482 / 2049 कोलकाता वेस्ट इंटरनेशनल wife. बनाम देवाशीष wat में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

"It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitaly for possession.by 20I6, nearly seven year has elapsed from the date of agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 20I6. This was nearly seven years afler Use 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 prayet in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund." Page 7 = = साथ ही साथ इसी क्रम में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के सिविल अपील Wea 2238/20i8 पायनियर ada os एवं इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड बनाम गोविन्द राघवन में भी अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

"We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.0.20l8 passed by the National Commission. The Appellant — Builder failed to fulfill his contractual obligation of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent - Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired. During this period, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser had to service a loan that he had obtained for purchasing the flat, by paying Interest @l0% to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the Respondent — 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 व लम्बे विलम्ब की स्थिति में पूर्णता प्रमाण-पत्र प्राप्त होने के उपरान्त भी शिकायतकर्ता जमा धनराशि पाने का अधिकारी है, 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 जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है।

जहां तक शिकायकतकर्ता को मय ब्याज धनराशि वापस किये जाने का प्रश्न है, तो इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय के नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया की याचिका में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- "Section 8(I)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this bchalf eee i कक <->--०+++थआ«---०>»आ«+++-->+-आ Page 8 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 ger cad धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है।

इसके अतिरिक्त Re संख्या-८.४० .3289/2020 दिनांक 06.02.2020 “WaT बिल्डवेल कंस्ट्रक्शन्स wo flo बनाम पूनम सूद एवं अन्य” में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) नियमावली, 2048 की प्रस्तर 9.2(ii) के ओनसार प्रोमोटर की ओर से विलम्ब किये जाने की स्थिति में आवंटी के पास अनुबन्ध को समाप्त करने का विकल्प होगा एवं इस स्थिति में प्रोमोटर “भारतीय स्टेट बैंक” के होम लोन दर ४८0॥२१+। प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज दर से 45 दिनों में समस्त जमा धनराशि वापस करने के लिए उत्तरदायी होगा। साथ ही साथ उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा MCLR+ प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज दर को उचित एवं सही माना गया है। जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 20i6 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.208 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विक्रय /पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 20:8 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें दिये गये विक्रय /पट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.2(i) ¥ 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 Page 9 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 MCLR+ प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर धनराशि वापस दिलाये जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। aq बिन्दु संख्या-4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दु का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते हैं :- आदेश विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड होने की तिथि से 45 दिन के अन्दर शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा जमा धनराशि MCLR+ प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज दर सहित वापस अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। इस आदेश की एक-एक प्रति सम्बन्धित पत्रावलियों पर रखी जाए एवं इस आदेश में प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्तों के अनुरूप धनराशि व ब्याज की प्रत्येक मामले में गणना की जाएगी। यदि विपक्षी द्वारा इस आदेश का अनुपालन नहीं किया जाता है, तो शिकायतकर्तागण को यह अधिकार होगा कि वह रेरा प्राधिकरण के माध्यम से अपने आदेश का क्रियान्वयन करा सकेंगे | इस आदेश का secrets भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाए। pen of 3 y ०» वेंकटेश, (सदस्य) उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण Page 0