U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar Bench-2 Present: Shri Balvinder Kumar, Member Complaint No.: 4842145/08/57339/2020 Himanshu Paliwal / Ranjana Vs. Rise Projects Pvt. Ltd. This complaint application has been filed by the complainant against the respondent, seeking refund of the deposited amount with interest. In brief, the complainant's case is that he booked unit no. 7-4/507 in the respondent's project RISE ORGANIC GHAR [garbled], for which he paid Rs. 9,33,579/- in instalments from time to time. The respondent has not handed over possession till now. The complainant also says that construction work in the project has been stopped for 42 months, and the project is still not complete. The complainant has therefore requested that the deposited amount be returned with interest. In support of his statement, the complainant has filed photocopies of the allotment letter [?] apartment buyer agreement, receipts for the amounts deposited, and other documents. The respondent, by filing a counter-statement, has stated that the complainant had applied for booking of an apartment in its project. The delay in the project has been caused by the orders of the Hon'ble N.G.T. and by the restriction on construction imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondent is trying to complete the project and will hand over possession to allottees by [?] 2022. The arguments of both parties were heard and the file was examined.

Photographs of the project are on the file, from which it appears that work in the project has been stopped for several years, the steel rods (iron bars) visible in the photographs are rusted, and the structure work has also not been completed. On the other hand, the respondent has said that it will hand over possession to allottees by the completion date given in [?]. On checking the RERA portal, it was found that the respondent's project RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE II is registered with RERA under registration No. UPRERAPRJ4403, and the completion date 30.06.2024 has been given. To see the progress of construction in the project, the Authority's technical team conducted a site inspection, in which it was found that construction work in the project has been lying closed for the past 4 years. Towers T2, T3 and T6 were to be constructed up to the 4 45th floor [?], but structure work has been completed only up to the 44th floor. Tower-4, 75 was to be constructed up to the 47th floor, but structure work has been completed only up to 4 [?] floors. The inspection report also states that no labour is present at the project site and no construction material is available. Only 25-30 per cent of the construction work has been done in the project.

In conclusion, the photographs filed by the complainant and the Authority's inspection report make it clear that no work is taking place in the project, and there is no prospect of the project being completed even in the next 4 [?] years. In such a case, while disposing of the following issues, it appears just and proper that the deposited amount of the complainants be returned with interest. In view of the complaint of [?], the following issues arise: 4. Does this Authority have jurisdiction to hear this case? 2. Was the respondent's project delayed due to force majeure? If so, what is the effect? 3. Is the project in question registered with RERA, and is it in the category of "ongoing"? 4. Should the complainant's deposited amount be returned? Disposal of Issue No. [?] As to whether the Authority legally has jurisdiction to hear the case, it is to be clarified that, first, the provisions for filing a complaint are given within Section 34 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046, which read as follows:

"3. (I) Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any promoter, allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section 'person' shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force. (2) The form, manner and fees for filing complaint under sub-section (l) shall be such as may be specified by regulations." As stated above, any aggrieved person may file a complaint for any violation or contravention of the provisions of the Act or of the rules or regulations made under it, against a promoter, allottee or real estate agent, before the Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be. It is clear that a complaint can be presented before both the Authority and the adjudicating officer, according to their respective jurisdiction and the matters involved. The jurisdiction of the Authority and of the adjudicating officer, and the matters they hear, have been provided under the relevant provisions of the Act. The powers to be exercised by the Authority under the RERA Act are given under Sections 35, 36, 37 and 38. The main power given to the Authority is in Section 38, which should be read, and which is as follows:

"38. (1) The Authority shall have powers to impose penalty or interest, in regard to any contravention of obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents, under this Act or the rules and the regulations made thereunder. (2) The Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Authority shall have powers to regulate its own procedure. (3) Where an issue is raised relating to agreement, action, omission, practice or procedure that— (a) has an appreciable prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in connection with the development of a real estate project; or (b) has effect of market power of monopoly situation being abused for affecting interest of allottees adversely, then the Authority, may suo motu, make reference in respect of such issue to the Competition Commission of India," The sub-section 4 of this provision [as written] states that the Authority has the power to impose penalty or interest in respect of any violation of the obligations placed on promoters, allottees and real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made under it. It is clear from this that penalty and interest for any violation of the obligations (Obligations) placed on promoters, allottees and real estate agents shall be imposed by the Authority under Section 38(3).

In addition, the power of adjudication is given under Section 7i of the RERA Act, 20t6, which is as follows: "7i. (1) For the purpose of adjudging compensation under sections 2, 4, 8 and section 9, the Authority shall appoint, in consultation with the appropriate Government, one or more judicial officers as deemed necessary, who is or has been a District Judge, to be an adjudicating officer for holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner, after giving any person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided that any person whose complaint in respect of matters covered under sections 2, 4, 8 and section 9 is pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission, established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 986, on or before the commencement of this Act, he may, with the permission of such Forum or Commission, as the case may be, withdraw the complaint pending before it and file an application before the adjudicating officer under this Act.

(2) The application for adjudging compensation under sub-section (l), shall be dealt with by the adjudicating officer as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application: Provided that where any such application could not be disposed of within the said period of sixty days, the adjudicating officer shall record his reasons in writing for not disposing of the application within that period. (3) While holding an inquiry the adjudicating officer shall have power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to give evidence or to produce any document which in the opinion of the adjudicating officer, may be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry and if, on such inquiry, he is satisfied that the person has failed to comply with the provisions of any of the sections specified in sub-section [?], he may direct to pay such compensation or interest, as the case may be, as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of any of those sections."

The purpose of the above provision is that, for adjudging compensation under the Act's Sections [?]2, 44, [?]8 and [?]9, the Authority, in consultation with the appropriate Government, shall appoint as adjudicating officer one or more judicial officers, as it considers necessary, who is or has been a District Judge. Such officer, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to any concerned person, will hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner. It is therefore clear that where compensation is claimed, the decision will be given by the adjudicating officer. It also appears that the power of the Authority is important for the appointment of the adjudicating officer, because the appointment is to be made mainly by the Authority, in consultation with the Government. Therefore, from Section 38 and Section 7i [?] of the RERA Act, it is clear that Section 38 gives the Authority power to impose penalty and interest in respect of any contravention of obligations placed on promoters, allottees and real estate agents, while the power to adjudicate compensation under Section 7i lies with the adjudicating officer. That is to be done only under Sections 42, 44, [?]8 and 49 (only for Sections 2, 4, 8, 9). Section 42 of the RERA Act contains the following provision:

"42. Where any person makes an advance or a deposit on the basis of the information contained in the notice, advertisement or prospectus, or on the basis of any model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, and sustains any loss or damage by reason of any incorrect, false statement included therein, he shall be compensated by the promoter in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that if the person affected by such incorrect, false statement contained in the notice, advertisement or prospectus, or the model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, intends to withdraw from the proposed project, he shall be returned his entire investment along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and the compensation in the manner provided under this Act." The meaning of this provision is that where a person makes an advance or deposit on the basis of information given in a notice, advertisement or prospectus, and suffers any loss or damage because of an incorrect or false statement contained in it, he shall be compensated by the promoter in the manner provided under this Act. Accordingly, where the complainant claims compensation with evidence under Section 42, its adjudication shall be given by the adjudicating officer.

The second paragraph (Paragraph 2) of the same provision of Section 42 says that if an aggrieved allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, the amount invested by him, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed, shall be returned to him, and compensation shall be paid in the manner provided under the Act. Clearly, where the deposited amount with interest is claimed and the rate of interest is prescribed, there is no part of adjudication in it. Thus this section has two parts. The first (Para 1), where the question is of compensation, is to be decided by the adjudicating officer. The second (Para 2), where the question is of return of the deposited amount with interest, is to be decided by the Authority. Similarly, sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act provides as follows: "4(3) In case any structural defect or any other defect in workmanship, quality or provision of services or any other obligations of the promoter as per the agreement for sale relating to such development is brought to the notice of the promoter within a period of five years by the allottee from the date of handing over possession, it shall be the duty of the promoter to rectify such defects without further charge, within thirty days, and in the event of promoter's failure to rectify such defects within such time, the aggrieved allottees shall be entitled to receive appropriate compensation in the manner as provided under this Act."

There is a provision for compliance with the layout plans and project specifications sanctioned under [?]14. In the same sequence, sub-section (3) of Section 44 provides that if, within a period of 5 years from the date of handing over possession, the allottee brings to the promoter's notice any structural defect, or any defect in workmanship, quality or provision of services, or any other obligation of the promoter relating to such development, it is the duty of the promoter to get such defects rectified within 30 days without any additional charge. If the promoter fails to rectify such defects within that period, the aggrieved allottee is entitled to appropriate compensation provided under this Act. This also makes it clear that the question of fixing compensation for failure to comply with the binding conditions falls within the jurisdiction of the adjudicating officer under this Section. However, the aggrieved person shall be free to bring his case before the Authority, to obtain an order requiring the promoter to fulfil those binding conditions. Section 8 of the RERA Act provides as follows: "8. (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."

The provision says that if the promoter (a) fails to complete in accordance with the terms of the sale agreement, or duly by the date stated in it; or (b) on account of suspension or revocation of registration under this Act, or closure of its business as developer for any other reason, fails to complete any apartment, plot or building, or is unable to give possession, then, without prejudice to any other remedy available, on the allottee's demand, if the allottee wishes to leave the project, the promoter is liable to return the amount received in respect of that apartment, plot or building, with interest at the prescribed rate, including compensation in the manner provided under this Act. Provided that where an allottee does not intend to leave the project, he is entitled to interest for every month of delay till handing over of possession, at the prescribed rate.

Thus it is clear that if the promoter does not complete the apartment, plot or building according to the agreement, or does not give possession, and the allottee wishes to leave the project, the allottee is entitled to get back his deposited amount with interest, and also compensation. If the allottee wishes to remain in the project, interest is payable for each month of delay. It is also clear from this that under Section 38 the Authority has the power to decide interest and penalty, which falls within the Authority's jurisdiction, and where compensation is concerned, it falls within the jurisdiction of the adjudicating officer under Section 74 [7i]. Read together, the language of these provisions makes it clear that if the promoter does not give possession according to the terms of its binding agreement, the allottee has the right to claim the return of his deposited amount with interest. Accordingly, having particular regard to these matters, under Section 84 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 206 have been framed, which provide for Form "M" for filing a complaint before the Authority, and Form "N" for applying before the adjudicating officer, under Rule 34(II). Further, under paragraph 24 of the U.P. Real Estate Authority (General) Regulations, 2049, there is also a provision for filing an online complaint. The following provisions are made for the rights of allottees: Right of Allottee

"9. (4) The allottee shall be entitled to claim the refund of amount paid along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and compensation in the manner as provided under this Act, from the promoter, if the promoter fails to comply or is unable to give possession of the apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of his registration under the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder." As above, this means that if the promoter fails to comply with the terms of the sale agreement, or, because of suspension or revocation of its registration under this Act or the rules or regulations, or because its business as a developer has been closed, or is unable to give possession of the apartment, plot or building, then the amount paid by the allottee to the promoter shall be returned at the prescribed rate of interest, and the allottee is entitled to claim it along with compensation in the manner provided under this Act.

Thus, it is clear that if possession is not given according to the terms of the sale agreement made by the promoter, the allottee is entitled to claim the deposited amount with interest under the Act and the rules and regulations, and is also entitled to compensation. In such a case it can be determined that where an allottee is entitled to claim the deposited amount with interest, the jurisdiction lies with the Authority, whose power is given under Section 38, because the interest rate is prescribed by the State Government and there is no question of "adjudication" involved in it. As far as the grant of compensation is concerned, it will be the adjudicating officer's, under Section [?]7i. It must be determined on evidence, according to the procedure prescribed for it. Section 72 of the Act also provides for the factors to be considered by the adjudicating officer in respect of compensation, which are as follows: "72. While adjudging the quantum of compensation or interest, as the case may be, under section 7l, the adjudicating officer shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:— (a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; (b) the amount of loss caused as a result of the default; (c) the repetitive nature of the default; (d) such other factors which the adjudicating officer considers necessary to the case in furtherance of justice."

The provision in this section also adds interest, because the amount of compensation may be determined either as a lump sum or as interest. Clearly, interest given as compensation is separate from the case of return of the allottee's deposited amount with interest. Where the amount of compensation in the form of interest includes the fixing of an interest rate, in the case of return of money with interest by the Authority, the interest rate is pre-determined and there is no part of adjudication in it. In the case of money to be returned, the rate of interest payable is given under the rules framed by the State Government, and the adjudicating officer determines compensation or calculates interest having regard to the following four points: (a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage resulting from the default, wherever it can be estimated; (b) the amount of loss resulting from the default; (c) the repetitive nature of the default; (d) such other factors as the adjudicating officer considers necessary in furtherance of justice.

Thus it is clear that the disposal of a compensation case, which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer, has no connection with the return of the deposited amount with interest. The RERA Act has also made separate provisions for compensation and for the deposited amount with interest. Compensation is to be calculated only on the four grounds given in Section 72, and in accordance with the provisions and conditions of Sections 42, 4, 8 and 49. Under the Act, the Authority has been given powers to regulate the real estate sector regularly in accordance with various provisions, and the Authority has been given the power to appoint an adjudicating officer, who will determine the amount of compensation only, in the specific manner provided. As far as the difference between interest, penalty and compensation is concerned, the difference between all of these is clarified on the basis of the following authorities: The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Union of India and others, has held as follows:

"258. In paragraph-9 of Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India, (2007) 3 SCC 545, the Apex Court has held that 'There is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest of the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 0 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B.' The object of Section 8 is to recompense an allottee for depriving him of the use of the funds paid by him. The promoter who has received money from the allottee but has failed to adhere to his contractual or statutory obligations cannot claim that he is entitled to utilize the monies without paying any interest with respect thereto to the allottee." It is clear from the above that interest is not a penalty and is not any punishment, but is the normal accretion on the amount. The object of Section 8 is to compensate the allottee for the use of the money deposited by him. For this reason, this relief is being given by the Authority, exercising the powers conferred on it within its jurisdiction. Accordingly, Issue No. 4 is disposed of. Disposal of Issue No. 2

Issue No. 2 was framed to the effect of whether the project was in fact delayed due to force majeure events. This issue has been framed on the allegations of the respondent, and the burden of proving it is on the respondent. The respondent has stated that the delay in the project was caused by the orders of the Hon'ble N.G.T. and by the restriction on construction work imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the respondent has not placed on the file any evidence whatsoever regarding force majeure, from which it could be seen that work on the project land was obstructed. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 940/20:7, Vikram Chatterjee and others vs. Union of India and others, at page 234 of the judgment and paragraph 40 [?], defined force majeure as follows: "Force majeure shall mean a case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature." From the above definition of force majeure, it is clear that force majeure is a situation in which war, flood, drought, fire, storm, earthquake or another calamity has occurred. In the present case no such situation has arisen, and the respondent is therefore not entitled to the benefit of this plea. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is disposed of. Disposal of Issue No. 3

Issue No. 3 is whether the project in question is registered with RERA, and whether the Authority has jurisdiction to hear this case. As to the first aspect, it is necessary to consider whether the project in question is registered with RERA. On checking the portal in this regard, it was found that the respondent's project RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE I, RERA, is registered under registration No. UPRERAPRJ4403. From this it is clear that the project falls in the category of an ongoing project and is within the jurisdiction of RERA. In this regard, the observation of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2737/2047, Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Union of India, is important, which clearly states: "The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section 4(2)(I)(C) enables the promoter to give fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered into between him and the allottees so that he is not visited with penal consequences laid down under RERA. In other words, by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh time line under Section 4(2)0)(0) he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale."

From the above legal position it is clear that under the RERA provisions, the completion and possession terms given in the agreement cannot be rewritten. Under Section 4(2)(I)(C), the promoter may give a fresh time line, which does not depend on the agreement, and the consequence of that provision under RERA is only that the promoter is saved from penal consequences. Accordingly, it is determined that the promoter is liable for the possession date given in the agreement. It is also clear under RERA that projects fall squarely within the scope of the RERA Act. Therefore, the present case is within the jurisdiction of RERA. Accordingly, Issue No. 3 is disposed of. Disposal of Issue No. 4 The complainant says that the respondent has not given possession within the stipulated period, due to which he wishes to come out of the project. On the other hand, the respondent says that it will hand over possession according to the completion date given in [?]. In support of his statement, the complainant has filed a copy of the allotment letter cum apartment buyer agreement dated 27.02.20I6. On a perusal of sub-clause 6 of clause (7) relating to possession, it is seen that the respondent was to give possession within 48 months, being 42 months from the date of execution of the apartment buyer agreement together with a grace period of 6 months. The said apartment buyer agreement dated 27.02.20i6 was executed by both parties. Accordingly, the possession date comes to 27.02.2020.

It is clear from the inspection report received from the Authority's technical team that no work has been taking place in the project for the past 4 years, and no construction material is available at the project site. It is also clear that the project falls in the category of delay. In such a case, it appears just that the complainant's deposited amount be returned with interest. The respondent has failed to give possession to the complainant up to the said possession period. In this regard, Section 48(4) of the RERA Act expressly states: "8. (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." As stated above, if the promoter fails to complete any apartment, plot or building within the period given in the agreement, or is unable to give possession, then, without prejudice to any other remedy available, on the allottee's demand, if the allottee wishes to leave the project, the promoter is liable to return the amount received in respect of that apartment, plot or building, with interest. It is also clear that the respondent was obliged to give the complainant possession of the unit by 27.02.2020, which obligation the respondent had to fulfil. The complainant has stated that the deposited amount should be returned with interest. It is clear that the complainant was not given possession within the stipulated period, and the respondent has also not obtained the O.C./C.C. for the project. Therefore the complainant is entitled to come out of the project under Section 48()(a) of the RERA Act. In addition, in this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3482/2049, Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. vs. Devashish [?], has clearly held as follows:

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

"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 @0% to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for, i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest." In the legal position given above, a home buyer can be made to wait for a reasonable time. Even after receipt of the completion certificate, the complainant is entitled to the deposited amount, because possession was not given to the complainant within the period given in the agreement and there has been extreme delay in the case. Since the project has not been completed on time, the complainant is entitled to get back his deposited amount with interest.

As regards return of the amount to the complainant with interest, it is noteworthy that in the petition of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Union of India, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as follows: "Section 8(1)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." Therefore, in light of the above decision, it is clear that under the provisions of RERA, interest on the delay and on the principal amount is payable in accordance with the agreement made between the promoter and the buyer, because the promoters have used the said amount.

As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046, notified on 47.40.2048 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Rules for Agreement for Sale) Rules, 20i8. In paragraph 9 of the form of sale/lease deed annexed to those Rules, the events of default by promoters are defined (Events of Default), and paragraph 9.2(i) provides for the allottee, in case the promoter is in default, as follows: "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 +l% unless provided otherwise under the Rules, within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:" The same rate is prescribed in paragraph 9.3 [?] for the case of default by allottees. Having regard to the above provision, it appears just to get the amount returned to the allottee at the rate of interest of MCLR[?] per cent. Accordingly, Issue No. 4 is disposed of. While disposing of the above issues, the following orders are passed. ORDER

7. The respondent is directed to ensure that it returns the amount deposited by the complainant, with annual interest at MCLR+[?] per cent, in 4 monthly instalments, starting from the first week of July 2024. If the respondent does not pay even a single instalment, the amount deposited by the complainant shall be paid in a lump sum with annual interest at the rate of MCLR[?] per cent. 2. The complainant shall be responsible for repaying to the bank the amount of the bank loan taken against his unit. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046, and other relevant provisions. The order be uploaded on the portal. Date: 22,/06/202 (Balvinder Kumar) (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

जय उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | पीठ-2 उपस्थिति:- श्री बलविन्दर कुमार, सदस्य शिकायत संख्या:-४८४२१45/08/57339/2020 हिमांशु पालीवाल /रंजना बनाम राइज प्रोजेक्ट्स प्रा0 लि0 प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के fog oar धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिजाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना RISE ORGANIC GHAR एप्र45४- में यूनिट सं0- 7-4/507 बुक किया गया था, जिसके लिए उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 9,33,579 /- रुपये का भुगतान किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है कि 42 माह से परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य बन्द है। अभी तक परियोजना भी पूर्ण नहीं है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धगराशि ब्याज राहित वापरा दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटन » अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध,, जमा धनराशि की रसीदें आदि की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवाद पत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी परियोजना में अपार्टमेंट की बुकिंग हेतु आवेदन किया गया था। परियोजना में विलम्ब माननीय N.G.T. के आदेश एवं माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्माण कार्य पर लगाए गये प्रतिबन्ध के कारण Wa \ Page 2 को पूर्ण करने के लिए प्रयासरत हैं और ‘ard 2022 तक आवंटियों | को कब्जा दे देंगे। उभयपक्ष के तर्कों को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन far |

पत्रावली पर परियोजना के फोटोग्राफ की प्रति दाखिल है, जिससे यह विदित है कि परियोजना में विगत कई वर्षों से कार्य बन्द है और फोटोग्राफ में उपलब्ध सरिया (लोहे की छड़) में जंग लगा हुआ है। इसके अतिरिक्त स्ट्रक्‍्चर कार्य को भी पूर्ण नहीं किया गया है। दूसरी ओर विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया है कि eer में दी गयी पूर्णता तिथि तक वह आवंटियों को कब्जा दे देंगे। We पोर्टल पर जांच के उपरांत यह पाया गया कि विपक्षी की परियोजना RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE ॥ रेरा में पंजीकृत है, जिसका पंजीकरण संख्या- UPRERAPRJ4403 है, और पूर्णता तिथि 30.06.2024 दी गयी है। परियोजना मे निर्माण कार्य की प्रगति देखे जाने हेतु प्राधिकरण की तकनीकी टीम द्वारा परियोजना का स्थलीय निरीक्षण कराया गया, जिसमें यह पाया गया कि परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य विगत 4 वर्ष से बन्द पड़ा है, टॉवर- T2, T3, T6 4 45 वें तल तक निर्माण किया जाना था, परन्तु 44 तल तक ही स्ट्रक्चर कार्य पूर्ण किया गया है। टॉवर- 4, 75 में 47 वें तल तक निर्माण किया जाना था, परन्तु 4 ही तल aH wee कार्य पूर्ण किया गया है। निरीक्षण दस्तक द्वारा यह भी बताया गया है कि परियोजना स्थल पर कोई लेबर उपस्थित नहीं है और न ही निर्माण कार्य हेतु कोई सामग्री उपलब्ध है। परियोजना में मात्र 25-30 प्रतिशत ही निर्माण कार्य किये गये हैं। निष्कर्षत: शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा दाखिल किये गये फोटोग्राफ एवं प्राधिकरण की निरीक्षण आख्या से यह स्पष्ट होता है कि परियोजना में कोई कार्य नहीं हो रहा है और आगामी 4 af में भी परियोजना पूर्ण होने की कोई सम्भावना नहीं है। ऐसी दशा में निम्न बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए शिकायतकर्तागण की | जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत "dL Page 2

a की शिकायत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए निम्न बिन्दु विचारणीय हैं:- 4... क्या इस प्राधिकरण को यह प्रकरण सुनने का क्षेत्राधिकार है ? 2... क्या force majeure होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? 3. क्‍या प्रश्नगत परियोजना रेरा में पंजीकृत है एवं “ऑनगोईंग” की श्रेणी में है? 4... क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि वापस दिलायी जाये ? निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-॥ क्या इस अथॉरिटी को यह प्रकरण सुनने का क्षेत्राधिकार अधिकार है ? जहाँ तक प्राधिकरण को विधिक रूप से प्रकरण की सुनवाई करने के क्षेत्राधिकार का प्रश्न है, इस सम्बंध में स्पष्ट करना है कि प्रथम gear किसी परिवाद को दर्ज कराये जाने के लिए भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 के धारा-34 के अन्दर प्राविधान दिये गये है जो कि निम्न रूप से उल्लेखित है-: 3. (I) Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any promoter allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section "person" shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force. (2) The form, manner and fees for filing complaint under sub-section (l) shall be such as may be specified by regulations

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

(a) has an appreciable prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in connection with the development of a real estate project; or (b) has effect of market power of monopoly situation being abused for affecting interest of allottees adversely, then the Authority, may suo motu, make reference in respect of such issue to the Competition Commission of India, dix Page 4 t प्राविधान की धारा-38 की उपधारा-4 यह है कि प्राधिकरण | | को, सम्प्रवर्तकों, आवंटियों और भू-सम्पदा अभिकर्ताओं पर डाली गयी बाध्यताओं के किसी भी उल्लंघन के सम्बंध में, इस अधिनियम और उसके अधीन बनाये गये नियमों और विनियमों के अधीन अर्थदंड (Penalty) या ब्याज (interest) अधिरोपित करने की शक्ति होगी। इससे स्पष्ट है कि सम्प्रवर्तक, आवंटियों और भू-सम्पदा अभिकर्ताओं पर डाली गयी बाध्यताओं (Obligations) के किसी भी उल्लंघन के लिए अर्थदंड (Penalty) और ब्याज (7७:७४) प्राधिकरण द्वारा घारा 38(3) के अन्तर्गत अधिरोपित किया जायेगा। ॥ इसके अतिरिक्त नन्‍यायनिर्णयन करने की शक्ति भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और | विकास) अधिनियम 20t6, की aRi—7i में दी गयी है। जो कि निम्नवत्‌ है-:

7i. (0) For the purpose of adjudging compensation under sections 2, 4, 8 and section 9, the Authority shall appoint in consultation with the appropriate Government one or more judicial officer as deemed necessary, who is or has been a District Judge to be an adjudicating officer for holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner, after giving any person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided that any person whose complaint in respect of matters covered under sections 2, 4, 8 and section 9 is pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission, established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection | Act, 986, on or before the commencement of this Act, he may, with the permission of such Forum or Commission, as the case may be, withdraw the complaint pending before it and file an application before the adjudicating officer under this Act. (2) The application for adjudging compensation under sub-section (l), shall be dealt with by the adjudicating officer as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of {Vv \ the application: Provided that where any such | =r! (Co could not be disposed of within the said period of sixty days, the adjudicating officer shall record his reasons in writing for not disposing of the application within that period.

(3) While holding an inquiry the adjudicating officer shall have power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to give evidence or to produce any document which in the opinion of the adjudicating officer, may be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry and if, on such inquiry, he is satisfied that the person has failed to comply with the provisions of any of the sections specified in sub-section (), he may direct to pay such compensation or interest, as the case any be, as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of any of those sections. उपरोक्त प्राविधान की oz) यह है कि अधिनियम की aRtt2, धारा-44, TRI-i8 और aReig के अधीन क्षतिपूर्ति (Compensation) न्यायनिर्णीत करने के लिए, प्राधिकरण समुचित सरकार के परामर्श से ऐसे एक या अधिक न्यायिक अधिकारी जैसा आवश्यक समझे, जो जिला न्यायधीश है या रहा है, न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करेगा, जो कि किसी संबद्ध व्यक्ति को सुनवाई का समुचित अवसर प्रदान किये जाने के पश्चातू, विहित रीति (Prescribed manner) में जाँच करेगा। ऐसे में यह स्पष्ट है कि जहाँ क्षतिपूर्ति (Compensation) की मांग की जायेगी, तो उसका निर्णय न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा दिया जायेगा। इससे यह भी प्रतीत होता है कि प्राधिकरण की शक्ति न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के नियुकती हेतु अहम है, क्‍योंकि मुख्यतः नियुविणकर्णा प्राधिकरण है जो कि सरकार के परामर्श रो करेगा। अत: रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-38 एवं धारा-74 से स्पष्ट है कि धारा-38

में प्राधिकरण की शक्तियां दी गयी है जिसमें कि सम्प्रवर्तकों, आवंटियों और भू-सम्पदाओं अभिकर्ताओं पर डाली गयी बाध्यताओं (Obligations) के किसी भी उल्लंघन (Any Contravention) & सम्बंध में, अर्थदंड (Penalty) एवं ब्याज (Interest) अधिरोपित किया जायेगा और धारा-7 में क्षतिपूर्ति (Compensation) हेतु न्‍्यायनिर्णयन करने की शक्ति का अधिकार न्यायनिर्णायक ४४076 ( Page 6 है कि केवल धारा-42, धारा-44, GRI-8 और धारा-49 (Only for Sections 2,4,8,9) के अधीन किया जायेगा | रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-42 में निम्न प्राविधान है :- 2. Where any person makes an advance or a deposit on the basis of the information contained in the notice advertisement or prospectus, or on the basis of any model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, and sustains any loss or damage by reason of any incorrect, false statement included therein, he shall be compensated by the promoter in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that if the person affected by such incorrect, false statement contained in the notice, advertisement or prospectus, or the model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, intends to withdraw from the proposed project, he shall be returned his entire investment along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and the compensation in the manner provided under this Act.

BRAT प्राविधान से यह है कि जहाँ कोई व्यक्ति सूचना, विज्ञापन प्रास्पेक्ट्स में दिये जानकारी के आधार पर कोई अग्रिम देता है या जमा करता है और उसे उसमें सम्मलित गलत, मिथ्या कथन के कारण कोई हानि या नुकसान उठाना पढ़ता है, तो उसकी सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा इस अधिनियम के अधीन यथा उपबंधित रीति में क्षतिपूर्ति की जायेगी। ऐसे में जहाँ शिकायतकर्ता धारा 42 के प्राविधानों के अनुसार ससाक्ष्य क्षतिपूर्ति की माँग करेगें वहाँ उसका अभिनिर्णय न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा दिया जायेगा | इसी धारा के प्राविधान के दूसरे अनुच्छेद (Paragraph 2) में यह कहा गया है कि पीड़ित आवंटी परियोजना से यदि अपना नाम वापस लेना चाहता है, तो उसके निवेश की गयी धनराशि, ब्याज सहित, ऐसी दर जो कि पर जो कि विहित की जाए के अनुसार लौटाया जायेगा, और अधिनियम के अधीन उपबंधित रीति के अनुरूप उसकी क्षतिपूर्ति की जायेगी। स्पष्टतया यदि ता Page 7 EE EEE [| सहित धनराशि वापिस माँगी गई है व ब्याज दर विहित है तो उसमें अभिनिर्णय का कोई अंश समाविष्ट नहीं है। अतः इस धारा में 2 अंग है, पहला (Para l) जहाँ क्षतिपूर्ति का प्रश्न है वह न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा निर्णय किया जायेगा और दूसरा (Para 2) जहाँ जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज का प्रश्न है वह प्राधिकरण द्वारा निर्णीत किया जायेगा, इसी प्रकार ka अधिनियम की m4 की उपधारा-3 निम्नवत प्राविधानित है-:

4(3) In case any structural defect or any other defect in workmanship, quality or provision of services or any other obligations of the promoter as per the agreement for sale relating to such development is brought to the notice of the promoter within a period of five years by the allottee from the date of handing over possession, it shall be the duty of the promoter to rectify such defects without further charge, within thirty days, and in the event of promoter's failure to rectify such defects within such time, the aggrieved allottees shall be entitled to receive appropriate compensation in the manner as provided under this Act. oi—i4 Hwee द्वारा मंजूर रेखांको और परियोजना विनिर्देशों का पालन किये जाने का प्राविधान है। इसी कम में धारा-44 की उपधारा-3 में यह प्राविधानित है कि यदि कब्जा सौपें जाने की तारीख से 5 वर्ष की अवधि के भीतर आवंटी द्वारा, ऐसे विकास से सम्बंधित किसी संरचनात्मक त्रुटि या सेवाओं के कर्मकौशल, क्वालिटी या उपबन्ध या सम्प्रवर्तक की किन्हीं अन्य बाध्यताओं की ओर सम्प्रवर्तक का ध्यान दिलाया जाता है, तो सम्प्रवर्तक का यह कर्तव्य ear कि वह wh त्रुटियों फो बिना किन्‍्हीं अतिरिक्त प्रभारों के 30 दिन के भीतर दूर कराये और सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा ऐसी त्रुटियों को ऐसे अवधि के भीतर दूर करने में असफल रहने की दशा में पीड़ित आवंटी समुचित प्रतिकर पाने का हकदार होगा, जो इस अधिनियम के अधीन उपबंधित हो | इससे भी यह स्पष्ट है कि इसमें क्षतिपूर्ति के निर्धारण का प्रश्न है जो कि बाध्यकारी शर्तों को पूरा न किये जाने के लिए इस धारा के my | Page 8

i न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी का होगा। परन्तु पीड़ित व्यक्ति को यह स्वतंत्रता होगी कि वह, सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा उन बाध्यकारी शर्तों को पूर्ण कराये जाने हेतु आदेश के लिए, प्राधिकरण के समक्ष अपना वाद प्रस्तुत कर सकते है। रेरा अधिनियम की ais के अन्तर्गत निम्नवत्‌ प्राविधान दिये गये है :- 8. (l) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building,— (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement 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. wed प्राविधान यह है कि यदि सम्प्रवर्तक-: (क). विक्रय करार के निबन्धों के अनुसार उसमें निर्धारित तारीख तक सम्यक रूप से पूरा करने में, या

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

इन प्राविधानों को संयुक्त रूप से पढ़ा जाये, तो इन प्राविधानों की भाषा में यह प्रस्तावित है कि यदि प्रोमोटर द्वारा अपने बाध्यकारी अनुबन्ध के निबन्धनों के अनुसार कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है, तो आवंटी को यह दावा करने का अधिकार होगा कि अपना जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस ले सकेगें | उपरोक्तानुसार विशेष रूप से amis को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) अधिनियम की धारा-84 के अन्तर्गत उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा नियगावली, 206 बनायी wet) जिसमें प्राधिकरण के समक्ष शिकायत प्रस्तुत करने के लिए फार्म “एम” fraa—aa(i) एवं नन्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के समक्ष आवेदन करने के लिए फार्म “एन” नियम-34(॥) का प्राविधान है। इसके अतिरिक्त उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा प्राधिकरण (सामान्य) विनियमन, 2049 के प्रस्तर 24 के अन्तर्गत ऑनलाईन शिकायत दर्ज "५ क्राभी प्राविधान है। (५ Page 0 & कम में आवंटियों के fea के लिए निम्न प्राविधान हैं :- Right of Allottee 9. (4) The allottee shall be entitled to claim the refund of amount paid along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and compensation in the manner as provided under this Act, from the promoter, if the promoter fails to comply or is unable to give possession of the apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of his registration under the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder.

उपरोक्तानुसार यह है कि यदि wate flor करार के निबन्धों के अनुसार या इस अधिनियम या उसके अधीन बनाये गये नियमों या विनियमों के उपबन्धों के अधीन उसके रजिस्ट्रीकरण निलम्बन या प्रतिसंहरण हो जाने के कारण, विकासकर्ता के रूप में उसका कारोबार बन्द हो जाने के कारण या विकय करार के निबन्धानुसार अनुपालन करने में असफल रहता है या, यथास्थिति, अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन का कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहता है, तो आवंटी द्वारा सम्प्रवर्तत को दिये गये धनराशि ऐसी ब्याज दर पर वापस जायेगी जो कि विहित की जायेगी तथा अधिनियम के अधीन उपबंधित रीति में क्षतिपूर्ति सहित दावा करने का हकदार होगा। अतः: यह स्पष्ट है कि यदि सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा किये गये विकय करार के नियम एवं शर्तों के अनुसार कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है, तो वह अधिनियम के अधीन नियम एवं नियमावली के अन्तर्गत जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित दावा करने का हकदार होगा और इसके अतिरिक्त क्षतिपूर्ति पाने का भी अधिकारी होगा। ऐसे में यह अवधारित किया जा सकता है कि जहाँ आवंटी जमा धनराशि का ब्याज सहित दावा करने का हकदार है, तो उसका क्षेत्राधिकार प्राधिकरण के अन्तर्गत मानी जायेगी, जिसकी शक्ति धारा-38 के अन्तर्गत दी गयी है, क्योंकि ब्याज दर राज्य सरकार द्वारा विहित है एवं इसमें कोई “एडज्यूडिकेशन” का प्रश्न निहित नहीं है। जहाँ तक क्षतिपूर्ति दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है, ie / eater I-77 के अनुसार न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी का होगा, pil । Page 4 इसमें निर्धारित प्रकियानुसार साक्ष्यों के आधार पर क्षतिपूर्ति का निर्धारण अपेक्षित है।

ar अधिनियम धारा-72 में न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा क्षतिपूर्ति पर विचार किये जाने वाले कारण के बारे में भी प्राविधान दिये गये है जो कि निम्नवत्‌ है :- 72. While adjudging the quantum of compensation or interest, as the case may be, under section 7l, the adjudicating officer shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:— (a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, | wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; (b) the amount of loss caused as a result of the default; (c) the repetitive nature of the default; (d) such other factors which the adjudicating officer considers necessary to the case in furtherance of justice. इस धारा के प्राविधान में ब्याज भी जोड़ा गया है, क्योंकि क्षतिपूर्ति की धनराशि Bulan का निर्धारण एकमुश्त धनराशि अथवा रागकक्ष ब्याज दोनों के रूप हो सकता है। स्पष्टतया क्षतिपूर्ति के रूप दिये जाने वाला ब्याज, आवंटी की जमा धनराशि की ब्याज सहित धनवापसी के प्रकरण से अलग है। जहाँ ब्याज के रूप में दी जाने वाली क्षतिपूर्ति की राशि में ब्याज दर का निर्धारण शग्गिलित है, प्राधिकरण द्वारा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वार्षिक करने की दशा में ब्याज दर पूर्व निर्धारित है तथा उसमें अभिनिर्णय का अंश नहीं है। धनवापस किये जाने वाले प्रकरण में भुगतान किये जाने वाले ब्याज की दर राज्य सरकार द्वारा बनाये गये नियमावली के अन्तर्गत दी जाती है और क्षतिपूर्ति निर्धारण या ब्याज की गणना अधिनिर्याणक द्वारा निम्न 4 बिन्दुओं को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिये जाते है। (क) व्यतिक्रम के परिणाम स्वरूप अनुपातिक लाभ या अनुचित फायदे की, जहाँ कहीं अनुमान्य हो, रकम: dV

Page 2 हे व्यतिक्रम के परिणामस्वरूप हानि की रकम: (ग) व्यतिक्रम के पुनरावुत्ततिपूर्ण प्रकृति: (घ) ऐसे अन्य कारक, जो न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी न्याय के अग्रसरण के मामले में आवश्यक समझें | ऐसे में यह स्पष्ट है कि क्षतिपूर्ति वाले प्रकरण के निस्तारण जो न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा किया जाएगा, उसका जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस किये जाने वाली धनराशि से कोई लेन-देना नहीं है। यह भी है कि रेरा अधिनियम में क्षतिपूर्ति एवं जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज हेतु अलग-अलग प्राविधान दिये गये है। क्षतिपूर्ति की गणना धारा-72 में दिये गये सिर्फ 4 आधारों एवं धारा 42, 4, 8 व 49 के प्राविधानों तथा शर्तों के अनुसार ही दी जायेगी। अधिनियम के अनुसार प्राधिकरण को भू-सम्पदा सेक्टर को नियमित रूप विभिन्‍न प्राविधानों के अनुसार विकास कंरने हेतु दिये गये है साथ प्राधिकरण को एक अधिनिर्णायक अधिकारी को नियुक्त करने का अधिकार दिया गया है जो सिर्फ विशिष्ठ रूप से कृत्य अनुसार क्षतिपूर्ति वाली धनराशि का निर्धारण करेगें। जहाँ तक ब्याज, अर्थदंड, क्षतिपूर्ति में अन्तर का प्रश्न है, तो इन सभी के अन्तर के सम्बंध में निम्नवत्‌ साक्ष्यों के आधार पर स्पष्ट किये गये है माननीय उच्च न्यायालय बाम्बे द्वारा नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्राएलि0 आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया आदि में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि-८

258. In paragraph-9 of Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India, (2007) 3 SCC 545, the Apex Court has held that “There is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay 8 a certain amount, sayl0 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest of the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 0 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that A {Vv should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B.” \ | हज, object of Section 8 is to recompense an allottee for depriving him of the use of the funds paid by him. The promoter who has received money from the allottee but has failed to adhere to his contractual or statutory obligations, cannot claim that he is entitled to utilize the monies without paying any interest with respect thereto to the allottee. उक्त से स्पष्ट है कि ब्याज अर्थदंड नहीं है और न A कोई सजा है, किन्तु साधारण रूप से रकम पर हुई अभिवृद्धि है। oie का लक्ष्य आवंटी को जमा किये गये धनराशि के उपयोग का प्रतिदान करने हेतु है। इसी कारण यह अनुतोष प्राधिकरण द्वारा क्षेत्राधिकारिता के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिया जा रहा है। तद्‌नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2

बिन्दु सं? 2 इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या वास्तव में परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्ट्स होने कारण विलम्बित हुई? यह बिन्दु विपक्षी के अभिकथनों पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार विपक्षी पर है। विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि परियोजना में विलम्ब माननीय NG.T. के आदेश एवं माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्माण कार्य पर लगाए गये प्रतिबन्ध के कारण हुआ। विपक्षी की ओर से अक्षरश: रूप से फोर्स मैज्योर की बाबत कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर दाखिल नहीं किया गया है, जिससे की विदित हो कि परियोजना की भूमि पर कार्य बाधित था | इस सम्बंध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 /20:7 बिक्रम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में निर्णय के पृष्ठ संख्या-234 एवं प्रस्तर 40 4 फोर्स मैज्योर को निम्न4त्‌ परिभाषित किया है:- Force majeure shall mean a case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature. उपरोक्त फोर्स मैज्योर के परिभाषा से यह स्पष्ट है कि फोर्स मैज्योर वह स्थिति है, जिसमें की युद्ध, बाढ़, सूखा, आग, तूफान, भूकम्प या अन्य AV / ( \ Page 4 a आई हो, प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में ऐसी कोई परिस्थिति उत्पन्न नहीं हुई और विपक्षी ऐसी दशा में वह इस तर्क का लाभ पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है। तदनुसार बिन्दु सं० 2 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-3

बिन्दु संख्या-3 इस तथ्य पर विचरित है कि क्‍या प्रश्नगत परियोजना रेरा में पंजीकृत है एवं क्या इस प्रकरण की सुनवाई करने का क्षेत्राधिकार प्राधिकरण को है? प्रथम स्वरूप यह विचार किया जाना आवश्यक है कि क्‍या प्रश्नगत परियोजना रेरा में पंजीकृत है। इस सम्बन्ध में पोर्टल पर जाँच के उपरान्त यह पाया गया कि विपक्षी की परियोजना RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE | रेरा' में पंजीकृत है, जिसका पंजीकरण संख्या- UPRERAPRJ4403 है, जिससे यह स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना ऑनगोइईंग प्रोजेक्ट की श्रेणी में और यह रेरा के क्षेत्राधिकार में है । इस सम्बंध में मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 2737 / 2047 नीलकमल Raced सबअर्बन प्राएलि0 एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया में दिया गया आब्जर्वेशन महत्वपूर्ण है जिसमें स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लिखित किया गया है कि-: The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section 4(2)(I)(C) enables the promoter to give fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered into between him and the allottees so that he is not visited with penal consequences laid down under RERA. In other words, by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh time line under Section 4(2)0)(0) he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale.

उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था से यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा के प्राविधान क॑ अनुसार अनुबन्ध में दिये गये पूर्णता एवं कब्जे देने के TER का पुनर्लेखन नहीं किया जा सकता। धारा 4(2)0)(सी) के अन्तर्गत प्रोमोटर एक नई समय सीमा दे सकता है, जो कि अनुबन्ध पर निर्भर नहीं होगा और उक्त धारा रेरा में दिये गये प्राविधान के परिणाम स्वरूप केवल अर्थदंड से बचाया जा सकता है। अतः इससे अवधारित किया जाता है कि प्रोमोटर अनुबन्ध में दिये गये कब्जे तिथि के लिए उत्तरदायी है। यह भी रेरा अधिनियम में स्पष्ट है कि * / if Page 5 | - = परियोजनायें निश्चित रूप से रेरा अधिनियम की परिधि में आते है। अतः प्रश्नगत प्रकरण रेरा के क्षेत्राधिकार में है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-3 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा निर्धारित अवधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है, जिस कारण वह परियोजना से बाहर आना चाहता है। दूसरी ओर विपक्षी का कहना है कि वह ka में दी गयी पूर्णता तिथि के अनुसार कब्जा दे देंगे। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटन पत्र अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 27.02.20I6 की प्रति दाखिल की गयी है, जिसके कब्जे वाले प्रस्तर-(७) के उप-प्रस्तर-6) के अवलोकन से विदित है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध निष्पादन की तिथि से 42 माह एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के साथ 48 माह में कब्जा दिया जाना था। उक्त अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 27.02.20i6 को उभयपक्षों द्वारा निष्पादित किया गया था। ऐसे में उपरोक्‍तानुसार कब्जे की तिथि 27.02.2020 होती है।

प्राधिकरण की तकनीकी टीम से प्राप्त निरीक्षण आख्या से यह स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना में विगत 4 वर्ष से कोई कार्य नहीं हो रहा है और परियोजना स्थल पर निर्माण हेतु कोई सामग्री भी उपलब्ध नहीं है। यह भी स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना विलम्ब की श्रेणी में है। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाया जाना wri प्रतीत होता है। उक्त कब्जे की अवधि तक विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा देने में असफल रहा है। इस सबंध में Re अधिनियम के धारा-48(4) में स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लेखित है कि-: 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 Ce age 6 = (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.

उपरोक्तानुसार यदि प्रोमोटर करार के निबन्धों के अनुसार उसमें दिये गये अवधि तक समय से किसी अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन को पूरा करने में असफल रहता है या कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहता है, तो वह उपलब्ध किसी अन्य उपचार पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव डाले बिना आवंटी की मांग पर यदि आवंटी परियोजना से बाहर होना चाहता है, तो प्रकरण के अनुसार, उस अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन के सम्बन्ध में उसके प्राप्त धनराशि ब्याज सहित लौटाने का दायी होगा। यह भी स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 27.02.2020 तक यूनिट का कब्जा देना था, जिसको विपक्षी द्वारा पूर्ण करने का दायित्व था। शिकायकर्ता द्वारा कहा गया कि जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाये। स्पष्ट है कि शिकायतकर्ता को निर्धारित अवधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया और न ही विपक्षी को इस परियोजना का ओ.सी./सी.सी. प्राप्त हुआ है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-48()(ए) के अन्तर्गत वह परियोजना से बाहर आने का अधिकारी है। इसके अतिरिक्त इस सम्बंध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के सिविल अपील संख्या-3482 / 2049 कोलकाता बेस्ट इंटरनेशनल सिटी प्राएलि0 बनाम देवाशीष war में स्पष्ट रूप से अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि-: iW, है Page 7 |

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 years had elapsed from the date of the agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 20l6. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the orders passed by the SCDRC and by the NCDRC for refund of moneys were justified. साथ ही इसी क्रम में माननीय सर्वोच्च wore के सिविल अपील संख्या-42238 /20i8 पायनियर अर्बन cies 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 @0% to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent — Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In Page 8 nee | circumstances, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for ie. refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest. उपरोक्तानुसार दी गयी विधि व्यवस्था में गृहक्रेता को एक उचित समय तक प्रतीक्षा कराया जा सकता है। पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त होने के उपरान्त भी शिकायतकर्ता जमा धनराशि पाने का अधिकारी क्‍योंकि अनुबन्ध में दी गयी अवधि के अनुसार शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा नहीं मिला है व प्रकरण में अत्यधिक विलम्ब हुआ है। चूंकि परियोजना समय से पूर्ण नहीं की गयी है। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता अपनी जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज सहित वापस पाने का अधिकारी है।

जहां तक शिकायतकर्ता को मय ब्याज धनराशि वापस किये जाने का प्रश्न है, तो इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय के नीलकमल Raced सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया की याचिका में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- Section 8()(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give 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 allottecs, 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. Page 9 | eres 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।

जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विक्रय /पद्टा 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 ore प्रकरण Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.2(i) ¥ प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है fe 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 +l% 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 wea 9.30) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को MCLRH प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर धनराशि वापस दिलाये जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। तदानुसार बिन्दु संख्या-4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते हैं। आदेश 7, विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह जुलाई 2024 के प्रथम सप्ताह से 4 मासिक किश्तों में शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि MCLR+ प्रतिशत की वार्षिक ब्याज दर सहित वापस अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। यदि विपक्षी द्वारा एक भी किश्त का भुगतान WV XY a age 20

al की जाती है तो विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि MCLRH प्रतिशत की वार्षिक ब्याज दर सहित एकमुश्त अदा की जायेगी। 2. शिकायतकर्ता का यह दायित्व होगा कि वह अपनी यूनिट के सापेक्ष ली गयी बैंक ऋण की धनराशि बैंक को वापस अदा करें। इस आदेश का उल्लघंन भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। दिनांक:-- 22,/06 / 202 Abte+ (बलविन्दर कुमार) (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण Se Page 2i