U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Bench-2 Present: Shri Balvindar Kumar, Member Complaint No.: NCR45/08/80783/202I Rajneesh Manrai Versus Rise Projects Pvt. Ltd. The present complaint application has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party seeking the return of the deposited amount with interest. In brief, the lead complainant's statement is that they booked Unit No. T4-42A09 in the opposite party's project Rise Organic Ghar [?], whose total price was Rs. 24,79,540/—, and for which they paid Rs. 48,74,002 /— from time to time in instalments. The complainant says that, according to the agreement, the opposite party has not carried out any construction work for the last four years, but possession has still not been made available. The complainant has therefore requested the return of the deposited amount with interest against the opposite party. In support of the statement, the complainant has filed photocopies of the power of attorney [vakalatnama], the account statement, etc. The opposite party, filing its reply, has stated that the complainant had booked Unit No. T4-42A09 in its project "RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE-I", and against it an apartment buyer agreement was signed between the parties on 22.0220i6.

As per the agreement, the opposite party was to give possession within 48 months, comprising 42 months and a 6-month grace period. The complainant had booked the unit under the construction-linked plan. The opposite party says that the project was also delayed due to the COVID-49 pandemic. On the other hand, the opposite party stated before the Bench during the hearing on 43.04.2022 that it would make possession available to the complainant by December 2022. Both parties were heard and the case file was perused. On the basis of the parties' pleadings, the following issues were framed for consideration: 4. Whether it is proper for the complainant to demand the return of the deposited amount? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to possession and interest for the delayed period? Disposal of Issue No. 4 The complainant says that, according to the agreement, the opposite party has not carried out any construction work for the last four years, for which reason the complainant has requested the return of the deposited amount with interest. On the other hand, the opposite party says that it will make possession of the unit available to the complainant by December 2022. As far as the buyer's request for refund is concerned, the provisions of the 'RERA' Act must be read as a whole on this subject, so that a balanced decision can be taken keeping in view the views of all parties. Section [?] (4) F of the 'RERA' Act provides that: Page 2

"Section 78 (6) "If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed" Thus the buyer has the right that, if possession is not given as per the agreement, they may demand the return of the deposited amount with interest, or remain in the project receiving interest at a monthly rate. Section 34 of the 'RERA' Act also mentions, along with RERA's other "functions", "to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder".

Similarly, Section 32 provides that the Authority's responsibilities for the development of the real estate sector include the following: "32. The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a) protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent,....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector." From these provisions it is clear that it is the responsibility of this Authority to take appropriate decisions, looking at the interests of all the stakeholders as a whole, to ensure the healthy development of the "real estate sector". In this connection, in paragraph 424 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in 'Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India', in which a decision was given on the constitutional validity of the RERA Act, the Hon'ble High Court made the following observation:

"24. The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth. Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section 77 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections /2, 74, 46 and /9. A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work."

From the above it is clear that, after hearing all parties, although an allottee has the right to demand the return of their money with interest where the unit is not received on time, the Authority may, in view of the above observations and on the basis of all the facts of the case, pass orders in line with "by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth". In the context of balancing the interests of allottees who seek the return of their money and of allottees who remain in the project, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its judgment in 'Chitra Sharma vs. Union of India' ((744 / 2047)), made the following observation in paragraph 40:

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

Having regard to the observations quoted in the above paragraphs by the Hon'ble High Court and the Supreme Court, and to the overall scheme of the RERA Act, it is also clear that if the decision in every case of delay were to be to return the money, that would certainly not be in line with the objective and scheme of the Act. While deciding on a refund, it will be in the interest of justice to consider the "uniqueness" of each case, all the facts of the case such as the state of "construction", the "timeline" for completion, the position of the "commitment" regarding the offer of possession made by the promoters, the effect on other "[?] holders" and especially on the "allottees" who remain with the project, the "consensus" regarding the "proposed possession date", and so on. Keeping in view the basic objectives for which RERA was formed, it would be legally proper to pass an order after taking an appropriate decision. In connection with the formation of 'RERA', the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 940,/ 2047 Vikram Chatterjee and Others vs. Union of India and Others, in its order dated 23.07.20i9, at page [?] paragraph 420, has stated: Page 6 "20

It is apparent that RERA intends protection of home-buyers and aims at completion of the buildings. The buildings have to be completed, for that, we are required to pass orders. We have already assigned the task to NBCC for completion of buildings as the promoters/builders have failed to complete the building within the time fixed and the time which could have been extended. Now, more than 0 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the promoter/builder. The maximum time fixed in RERA has also expired and extension could not have been beyond | year." As stated above, it has been made clear that RERA is meant to protect the interests of allottees, and its aim is that promoters should complete all the development works of the building so that home buyers can get their residence / flats. Accordingly, at page 255, paragraph 437 of the same order, it has stated as follows: "The provisions of RERA are beneficial to the home buyers and are intended to insulate them from fraudulent action, ensures completion of the building and it is the duty of the court to protect and ensure the home buyers' interest and at the same time to hold them responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under the said statute. Page 7

We are not absolving the home buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At the same time, they have the right of enforcement of their right for compensation due to undue delay in completion of the project." The above observation also makes clear that the provisions of RERA are beneficial to home buyers and are meant to protect the interests of allottees against any kind of betrayal, that supervision to get the building completed is RERA's job, and that the duties and responsibilities of the parties have been fixed in the Act. It has also been held that, if the project is delayed, home buyers have the right to receive interest for the delay as per the rules until the project is completed. Thereafter again, with regard to 'RERA', the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 43,/209 Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited and Others vs. Union of India and Others, in its order dated 09.08.2049, at page 86, paragraph 29, has stated as follows:

"The object of RERA is to see that real estate projects come to fruition within the stated period and to see that allottees of such projects are not left in the lurch and are finally able to realise their dream of a home, or be paid compensation if such dream is shattered, or at least get back monies that they had advanced towards the project with interest. At the same time, recalcitrant allottees are not to be tolerated, as they must also perform their part of the bargain, namely, to pay instalments as and when they become due and payable." Page 8 The important observation in that order is that RERA's aim is to see, under its supervision and oversight, that a real estate project is completed by the promoter within a fixed period, so that allottees do not lose their flats and get the home of their dreams. At the same time, recalcitrant allottees have also been held responsible for not cooperating in completing the project. It has also been said that allottees must perform their duties properly, mainly by ensuring timely payment of instalments, so that the project can be completed.

Thus, according to the legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the main objective of RERA is to ensure that the project is completed by the promoters, and that allottees properly ensure payment of their instalments, so that the project can be completed within the stipulated period. To protect the interests of allottees, interest for project delay will also be payable to allottees; however, before that, it is also the complainant's responsibility to pay their instalments on time. Since the opposite party has stated that the project will be completed and possession given by December 2022, it appears that the project is nearing completion. In such a situation, the complainant should take possession by 3.42.2022. After that, the complainant may decide for themselves on the future use of the unit. In any case, the complainant's investment in the project was made for possession, and the opposite party has used it in constructing the project. Certainly, if the allottee remains in the project, interest for the delay shall be payable by the promoters as per the rules. If the opposite party does not give possession to the complainant by 42.2022, then immediately after that, it would be proper for the complainant's deposited amount to be returned with interest. Issue No. 4 is disposed of accordingly. Disposal of Issue No. 2

The complainant says that the opposite party was to complete the project and give possession, but possession has still not been given. On the other hand, the opposite party stated before the Bench during the hearing on 43.04.2022 that it would provide an alternative unit to the complainant within 3 months. In support of his statement, the complainant has filed a photocopy of only the first page of the allotment letter, so it is not clear by what date the opposite party was to give possession. It is also clear [?] when the agreement was executed between the parties. In the opposite party's reply filed on the record, the date of signing of the agreement is recorded as 22.02.20i6, to which the complainant has not raised any objection. The parties executed the agreement on 22.02.2046. From the possession paragraph it is clear that the opposite party was to give possession within 48 months from the date of execution of the apartment buyer agreement, with 42 months and a 6-month grace period. The apartment buyer agreement dated 22.02.20i6 was executed by the parties. In such a case, the date for possession comes to 22.02.2020. It is clear that the project is delayed, and in such a case the complainant is entitled to interest for the delayed period from 23.02.2020 up to the date of receipt of O.C./C.C. or the offer of possession, whichever is later. Page 0

In this connection, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the petition of "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. etc. vs. Union of India", has held that: "Section 8(])0) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." Therefore, in the light of the above decision, it is clear that under the provisions of RERA, interest for the delay and on the principal amount shall be payable in accordance with the agreement between the promoter and the buyer, because the promoters have used the said amount.

As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 20i6, notified the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules 20i8 on 47.40.2048. In the format of the sale/lease deed given as an annexure to them, paragraph 9 defines the events of default of promoters (Events of default), and paragraph 9.2 (ii) 4 provides for the allottee in case the promoter is in default, that: "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +l% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:" The same rate is also prescribed in paragraph 9.30) in case of default by allottees. Keeping this provision in view, it appears justified to award the allottee interest for the delayed period at the rate of [?] percent. As to up to which period interest is to be awarded, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50 // 2048, "Supertech Limited vs. Rajni Goyal", has held [?]:

"The period of Interest should close on April 20l6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant —Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 206. The Respondent - Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 206 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent — Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession." According to the above legal position, the complainant shall be entitled to delay interest up to the date on which O.C./C.C. is obtained or possession is offered, whichever is later. In such a case, the complainant shall be entitled to interest for the delay up to the period ending on the date of O.C./C.C. or the offer of possession, whichever is later. By notification No. 4740 / 8-3-48-65 Miscellaneous /46 of the [?] Government, Housing and Urban Planning Department, Section-3, dated 7.0.20i8, the following has been stated with respect to force majeure in paragraph 7 of the Model [?] Rules: 7. POSSESSION OF THE APARTMENT/PLOT:

Schedule for possession of the said [Apartment/Plot] - The Promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot] to the Allottee and the Common Areas to the association of Allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, is the essence of the Agreement. The Promoter assures to hand over possession of the [Apartment/Plot] along with ready and complete Common Areas with all specifications, amenities and facilities of the Project in place on , unless there is delay or failure due to war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project ("Force Majeure"). If, however, the completion of the Project is delayed due to the Force Majeure conditions then the Allottee agrees that the Promoter shall be entitled to the extension of time for delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot]: In the same way, after considering all relevant facts and circumstances, the U.P. RERA Authority has given all projects, owing to the effect of COVID-49 (Corona Virus Disease), a period of 6 months from 25.03.2020, that is, up to 25.09.2020, for completion, and this period shall be treated as a force majeure period. Keeping this in view, no interest for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020 shall be paid by the promoter to the allottees, and no delay interest shall be taken from the allottees. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is disposed of. Page 4

While disposing of the above issues, the following orders are passed. ORDER 1 [?]. The opposite party is directed to ensure that, after completing all the amenities of the complainant's unit as per the allotment letter/agreement, it gives possession along with O.C./C.C. by 34.42.2022, and, after receiving the payable stamp duty, gets the registry done as per rules. 2. The opposite party is directed to ensure that it pays the complainant interest for the delayed period, at the annual rate of MCLR+] percent on the amount deposited by the complainant, from 23.02.2020 up to the date of receipt of O.C./C.C. or the offer of possession, whichever is later. It is also made clear that this interest amount shall be adjusted against the final payment amount, and if the interest amount is more than the amount payable, it shall be refunded to the complainant as per rules. Keeping in view the lockdown in the country to prevent and control COVID-49 and the force majeure, interest shall not be calculated for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020. 3. The opposite party is directed that, under Section 2 (zai) [@] of the RERA Act 20:6, after RERA comes into force, if a promoter takes any interest rate for the allottee's default, the same rate shall also be payable to the allottee when the promoter defaults. The interest rate notified by the State Government is [?]/8,2+ percent. Page 5

4. If the opposite party fails to give possession to the complainant by 3.42.2022, then after 34.42.2022 the opposite party shall ensure that, within 45 days, it pays back the amount deposited by the complainant along with interest at the annual rate of MCLR+ percent. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 and other relevant provisions. The order shall be uploaded on the portal. Date: 03/02/2022 (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Page 6

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर। पीठ-2 उपस्थिति :-- श्री बलविन्दर कुमार, सदस्य शिकायत संख्याः-- NCR45/08/80783/202I रजणनीश मनराई बनाम राईज प्रोजेक्ट्स प्रा.लि. प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज की दर से वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में अग्रणी शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना Rise Organic Ghar ?॥98०- में यूनिट संख्या- T4-42A09 बुक किया गया था, जिसकी कुल कीमत 24,79,540/— जिसके लिए उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 48,74,002 /— रूपये का भुगतान किया गया। शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अनुबन्ध पत्र के अनुसार पिछले चार वर्षों से कोई भी निर्माण कार्य नहीं किया जा रहा है, परन्तु अभी तक कब्जा उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में वकालतनामा, खाता विवरण, आदि की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयीं। विपक्षी द्वारा जवाब दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी परियोजना "RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE-I" में यूनिट संख्या- T4-42A09 बुक किया गया था, जिसके सापेक्ष उभयपक्षों के मध्य अपार्टमेंट बायर अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांक 22.0220i6 को हत्ताक्षरित किया गया। ए86व dy

अनुबन्ध पत्र के प्रस्तर- के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा 42 माह एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के साथ 48 माह में कब्जा दिया जाना था। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना में कंस्ट्रक्शन लिंक्ट प्लान के अन्तर्गत बुक किया गया था। विपक्षी का कहना है कि परियोजना में विलम्ब कोविड-49 गहागारी के कारण भी परियोजना विलम्बित हुई। दूसरी ओर विपक्षी द्वारा सुनवाई के दौरान दिनांक 43.04.2022 को पीठ के समक्ष कहा गया है कि वह शिकायतकर्ता को दिसम्बर 2022 तक कब्जा उपलब्ध करा देंगे। उभयपक्ष को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। पक्षकारों के अभिवचनों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचारणीय किये गये :- 4. क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि वापस दिलाये जाने की मांग करना उचित है ? 2 क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है? निस्तारण बिन्दु We- शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अनुबन्ध पत्र के अनुसार पिछले चार वर्षों से कोई भी निर्माण कार्य नहीं किया जा रहा है, जिस कारण जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। दूसरी ओर विपक्षी का कहना है.कि वह दिसम्बर 2022 तक शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा उपलब्ध करा दिया जायेगा। जहाँ तक क्रेता द्वारा रिफण्ड के अनुरोध का प्रश्न है, इस विषय में 'रेरा' अधिनियम के प्राविधानों को समग्र रूप से पढ़ा जाना आवश्यक है, ताकि सभी पक्षों के मत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए एक संतुलित निर्णय लिया जा सकें। 'रेरा' एक्ट की धारा is (4) F प्राविधान है कि :- WV Page 2 "Section 78 (6) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building,

in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed" इस प्रकार Sa को यह अधिकार है कि यदि उन्हें एग्रीमेंट के अनुरूप कब्जा नही मिलता तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि को ब्याज सहित वापिस माँग सकते हैं अथवा मासिक दर से ब्याज प्राप्त करते हुए परियोजना में बने रहें। 'रेरा' अधिनियम की धारा 34 में रेरा के अन्य “फंग्शन्स” के साथ-साथ ” to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and of regulations made thereunder / का भी उल्लेख है। = प्रकार धारा 32 में रियल = सेक्टर के विकास हेतु अथॉरिटी के उत्तरदायित्यों में निम्न भी सम्मिलित हैं :-

“32. The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a)protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent,....... (करा other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” उक्त प्राविधानों से यह wre है कि “रियल एस्टेट सेक्टर” के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके wh ee होल्डर्स के हितों को समग्र रूप से देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेने- का उत्तरदायित्व इस अथॉरिटी का है। इस क्रम में मा. मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा 'नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबथअर्बन प्रालि. बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया, जिसमें 'रेरा अधिनियम की वैद्यानिकता के सम्बंध में निर्णय दिया गया था, के प्रस्तर 424 में मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निम्न संवीक्षण किया :- “"[24, The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth. Under RERA now this function is NW Page 4

assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section 77 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections /2, 74, 46 and /9. A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work.” उक्त से स्पष्ट है कि सभी पक्षों को सुनने के बाद, यद्यपि समय से इकाई न मिलने की दशा में आवंटी का अपनी धनराशि ब्याज सहित मांगने का अधिकार है, तथापि उक्त वर्णित संवीक्षा को देखते हुए अथॉरिटी, प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों, के आधार पर ‘by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the _allottees, and_issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit_ accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth’ के अनुरूप आदेश पारित किए जा सकते हैं। एलोटीज द्वारा धनराशि वापस किए जाने व परियोजना में बने रहने वाले एलोटीज के हितों में ages के प्रसंग में “चित्रा शर्मा बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया” (744 / 2047) के निर्णय में मा. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने निर्णय के प्रस्तर 40 में निम्न ऑबजरवेशन किया है :-

"40. As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is lying in deposit before this Court pursuant to the interim directions, on which interest has accrued. The home buyers have earnestly sought the issuance of interim directions to facilitate a pro-rata disbursement of this amount to those of the home buyers who seek a refund. "We are keenly conscious of the fact that the claim VL Page 5 of the home buyers who seek a refund of monies deserves to be considered with empathy. Yet, having given our anxious consideration to the plea and on the balance, we are not inclined to accede to it for more than one reason. Firstly ..............- Secondly, the figures which have been made available presently, following the opening of the Web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be unmindful of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund."

मा. उच्च न्यायालय एवं सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा उक्त प्रस्तरों में उद्धरत “ऑबजरवेशनस्‌” एवं WI एक्ट की समग्र व्यवस्था को देखते हुए यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यदि विलम्ब के प्रत्येक मामले में धनराशि लौटाने का ही निर्णय लिया जाये तो निश्चय ही यह अधिनियम के “ऑबजेक्टिव” तथा “स्कीम” के अनुरूप न होगा। रिफण्ड का निर्णय लेते समय प्रत्येक मामले की “यूनीकनेस” प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों यथा “कन्सट्रक्शन” की स्थिति, कम्पलीशन की “टाईम लाईन”, प्रोमोटर्स के द्वारा ऑफर ऑफ पजेशन के “कमिटमेन्ट” की स्थिति, अन्य “wea होल्डर्स”, विशेष रूप से परियोजना के साथ बने रहने वाले “एलॉटीज” पर प्रभाव, “प्रस्तावित पज़ेशन डेट” के विषय में “कन्सेन्सस्‌” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। RW के गठन के मूल उद्देश्यों को देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेकर आदेश पारित किया जाना विधि संगत होगा। 'रेरा' के गठन के सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल AMI atcha deka? संख्या-940,/ 2047 बिक्रम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ Page 6 एवं अन्य में दिनांक 23.07.20i9 को परित आदेश के पृष्ठ Re. के प्रस्तर-420 में faq उल्लेख किया है:- 20

"It is apparent that RERA intends protection of home-buycrs and aims at completion of the buildings. The buildings have to be completed, for that,we are required to pass orders. We have already assigned the task to NBCC for completion of buildings as the promoters/builders have failed to complete the building within the time fixed and the time which could have been extended. Now, more than 0 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the promoter/builder.The maximum time fixed in RERA has also expired and extension could not have been beyond | year." उक्तानुसार यह स्पष्ट किया गया है कि रेरा आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए है और उसका लक्ष्य यह है कि प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा बिल्डिंग के समस्त विकास कार्यों को पूर्ण कराते हुए ग्ृहक्रेताओं को उनका आवास / फ्लैट मिल सके। तत्क्रमानुसार आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-255 के प्रस्तर-437 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है:- "The provisions of RERA are beneficial to the home buyers and are intended to insulate them from fraudulent action, ensures completion of the building and it is the duty of the court to protect and ensure the home buyers’ interest and at the same time to hold them responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under the said statute. Page 7 We are not absolving the home buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At the same time, they have the right of enforcement of their right for compensation due to undue delay in completion of the project."

उक्त आब्जर्वेशन में यह भी स्पष्ट किया गया है कि we के प्राविधान गृहक्रेताओं के लिए लाभकारी हैं और किसी प्रकार के विश्वासघात होने से आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए हैं एवं बिल्डिंग को पूर्ण करांने हेतु निगरानी का कार्य kr का है और पक्षकारों के कर्तव्यों एवं उत्तरदायित्व अधिनियम में तय किये गये हैं। यह भी लाभ दिया गया है कि परियोजना विलम्ब होने पर गृहकेताओं का यह अधिकार होगा कि वह विलम्ब के लिए परियोजना पूर्ण होने तक नियमानुसार ब्याज पा सके। इसी के पश्चात्‌ पुनः 'रेरा' के सम्बंध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-43,/209 पायनियर अर्बन लैन्ड एंड इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में दिनांक 09.08.2049 को आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-86 के प्रस्तर-29 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है:- "The object of RERA is to see that real estate projects come to fruition within the stated period and to see that allottees of such projects are not left in the lurch and are finally able to realise their dream of a home, or be paid compensation if such dream is shattered, or at least get back monies that they had advanced towards the project with interest. At the same _ time, recalcitrant allottees are not to be tolerated, as they must also perform their part of the bargain, namely, to pay instalments as and when they become due and payable." Nay Page 8

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

चूंकि विपक्षी द्वारा दिसम्बर 2022 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिये जाने की बात कही गयी है, जिससे विदित होता है कि परियोजना पूर्णता की ओर है। ऐसी स्थिति में शिकायतकर्ता दिनांक 3.42.2022 तक कब्जा प्राप्त करें| उसके बाद वे स्वयं यूनिट के भविष्य हेतु उपयोग के सम्बन्ध में निर्णय ले सकते हैं। वेसे भी शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा परियोजन। में निवेश कब्जे हेतु किया गया था, जिसका उपयोग विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना के निर्माण में किया गया है। निश्चय ही परियोजना में बने रहने की दशा में एलॉटीज़ को विलम्ब हेतु नियमानुसार ब्याज प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा देय होगा। यदि विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक Page 9 = 42.2022 तक शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है, तो उसके तुरन्त बाद शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस किया जाना उपयुक्त होगा। निस्तारण बिन्दु सं०-4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 शिकायणकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, परन्तु अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। दूसरी ओर विपक्षी द्वारा सुनवाई के दौरान दिनांक 43.04.2022 को पीठ के समक्ष कहा गया है कि वह शिकायतकर्ता 3 माह के अन्दर वैकल्पिक यूनिट उपलब्ध करा देंगे। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटन पत्र का सिर्फ प्रथम पृष्ठ की ही छायाप्रति दाखिल की गयी है, जिससे विपक्षी द्वारा कब तक कब्जा दिया जाना था यह स्पष्ट नहीं है साथ ही साथ यह भी स्पष्ट है कि उभयपक्षों के मध्य कब अनुबन्ध पत्र निष्पादित किया गया।

पत्रावली पर विपक्षी द्वारा दाखिल प्रतिवाद पत्र में अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांक 22.02.20i6 को हतस्ताक्षरित होने की तिथि अंकित है, जिस पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कोई आपत्ति दर्ज नहीं करायी गयी है। उभयपक्षों द्वारा aged दिनांक 22.02.2046 को निष्पादित किया गया है, जिसके कब्जे वाले प्रस्तर 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 22.02.20i6 को उभयपक्षों द्वारा निष्पादित किया गया था। ऐसे में उपरोक्तानुसार कब्जे की तिथि 22.02.2020 होती है। यह स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना विलम्बित है और ऐसे में शिकायतकर्ता दिनांक 23.02.2020 से ओ.सी /सी.सी प्राप्त होने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये dv Page 0 जाने, जो भी बाद में हो, तक की अवधि पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है। इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय के "नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया" की याचिका में माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है किः-

"Section 8(])0) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due _ to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व केता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा sad धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। VL Page i

ह तक देय ब्याज दर 3 प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 20i6 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विक्रय /पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 20i8 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विक्रय / पट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.2 (ii) 4 प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है कि:- "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +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 प्रस्तर 9.30) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को ४टाएका प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। जहां तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बंध में सिविल अपील सं० 6649-50 // 2048 "सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल" में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया Vv Page 2

" The period of Interest should close on April 20l6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant —Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 206. The Respondent - Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 206 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent — Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession." उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार ओ.सी. /सी.सी. मिलने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो, की तिथि तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता ओ.सी. /सी.सी. मिलने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो, तक की अवधि तक विलम्ब के लिए ब्याज पाने के अधिकारी होगें। दिनांक 7.0.20i8 को Goo शासन आवास एवं शहरी नियोजन अनुभाग-3 की अधिसूचना संख्या-4740 / 8-3-48-65 विविध /46 के द्वारा मॉडल Wire की नियमावली के प्रस्तर-7 में फोर्स मैज्योर के सम्बन्ध में निम्न उल्लेख किया गया है :- 7. POSSESSION OF THE APARTMENT/PLOT: 2६2 Page 3

a l Schedule for possession of the said [Apartment/Plot] - The Promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot] to the Allottee and the Common Areas to the association of Allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, is the essence of the Agreement. The Promoter assures to hand over possession of the [Apartment/Plot] along with ready and complete Common Areas with all specifications, amenities and facilities of the Project in place on , unless there is delay or failure due to war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project ("Force Majeure"). If, however, the completion of the Project is delayed due to the Force Majeure conditions then the Allottee agrees that the Promoter shall be entitled to the extension of time for delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot}:" इसी क्रम में समस्त सुसंगत तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों के बाद उ0प्र0 रेरा अथॉरिटी द्वारा कोविड-49 (Corona Virus Disease) के प्रभाव के कारण सभी परियोजनाओं को पूर्ण करने हेतु दिनांक 25.03.2020 से 6 माह की अवधि अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक की अवधि दे दी गयी है और यह अवधि फोर्स मैज्योर की अवधि मानी जायेगी। इसको दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03.2020 से दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु कोई ब्याज प्रोमोटर dv Page 4 4 आवंटियों को नहीं दिया जाएगा और न ही आवंटियों से कोई विलम्ब ब्याज लिया जायेगा। तदनुसार बिन्दु संख्या-2 निस्तारित किया जाता है।

उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते हैं:- आदेश 4... विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह शिकायतकर्ता की यूनिट की समस्त सुविधाओं को आवंटन »अनुबन्ध पत्र के अनुसार पूर्ण कराकर दिनांक 34.42.2022 तक ओ.सी. /सी.सी. सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय tery शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री कराएं। 2... विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 23.02.2020 से ओ.सी. /सी.सी. प्राप्त होने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो, की तिथि तक शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि पर MCLR+] प्रतिशत की वार्षिक ब्याज दर से विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। साथ ही यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की धनराशि में समायोजित की जायेगी और यदि ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक है, तो नियमानुसार शिकायतकर्ता को वापस की जाये। कोविड-49 की रोकथाम एवं नियंत्रण हेतु देश में हुए लॉकडाउन एवं फोर्स मैज्योर को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03.2020 से दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु ब्याज की गणना नहीं की जाएगी। 3. विपक्षी को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम 20:6 की धारा 2 (zai) @ अन्तर्गत रेरा लागू होने के बाद यदि कोई ब्याज दर आवंटी के डिफॉल्ट से प्रोमोटर द्वारा लिया जाता है, तो उसी दर से ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा डिफॉल्ट किये जाने पर भी आवंटी को ey) Page 5 जायेगा। राज्य सरकार द्वारा अधिसूचित ब्याज दर ॥/८,२+ प्रतिशत है। ॥॒

4. विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 3.42.2022 तक कब्जा देने में असफल रहता है, तो दिनांक 34.42.2022 के पश्चाण्‌ 45 feat के अन्दर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि MCLR+ प्रतिशत की वार्षिक ब्याज दर सहित वापस अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। इस आदेश का Goods 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 — 03/02/2022 Ree (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण Page 6