U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar | Bench-04 Present: Dr. Deepak Swaroop Saxena, Member Complaint No.: NCR45/08/98633/2022 Sumant Kumar Versus M/s [?] Projects [?] The present complaint application has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party seeking the return of the entire deposited amount along with interest. In brief, the complainant's statement is that they booked Unit GeN—-T-4-003 in the opposite party's project RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE |. The total price of the unit was Rs. 20,06,250/—, against which the complainant paid the opposite party Rs. 0,85,5i7 /- from time to time in instalments. The complainant says that the opposite party had promised to give possession by [ay] 20i8, but possession has not been given to date, and possession has been delayed by more than 4 years. It is also stated that construction work on the project is stalled, and no construction work has been carried out in Tower-4 for the last 6 years. For this reason, the complainant has lodged this complaint under Section 34 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act against the opposite party, seeking the return of the amount. In support of the statement, the complainant has filed photocopies of records such as the application form, the expression [?] letter dated 20.40.2045, the letter dated 20.40.2045, the account statement, etc.

The opposite party, filing its reply dated 46.4.2022 in support of its statement, has stated that after RERA came into force, it got the project 'Rise Organic Ghar phas-l' registered with RERA, and its registration number is eat-UPRERAPRI4403 [?]. The project is being developed on land numbered as plot No. 0p-03, Block-#, Jaipuria Sunrise [?] on NH-24, Ghaziabad. The project comprises 5 towers, which originally contain 764 units. The opposite party says that several other allottees, including the complainant, did not pay their instalments on time, due to which the progress of the project was fully affected. It has also been submitted that the unit was allotted to the complainant in March 2046, and under the agreement possession of the unit was to be given after 42 months with a 6-month grace period, which was subject to unforeseen circumstances. Further, the opposite party has said that it will provide the fit-out of the unit by September 2023, and will hand over physical possession of the unit, with the necessary certificates and NOCs, by December 2023.

The opposite party has also said that, on account of environmental pollution, the National Green Tribunal had completely banned any construction activity in Delhi-NCR, which adversely affected the progress of the project. It has also been said that the Government of India adopted some of the strictest measures in the world to stop the spread of the COVID-49 virus, and a nationwide lockdown was declared across the country from 24 March 2020, which was extended by various notifications. Because construction material was not available, construction activities remained completely obstructed, and as a result the completion of the project was delayed. In support of its statement, the opposite party has filed, with its reply, a photocopy of the unsigned flat buyer agreement dated 45.03.20:6. 2 Keeping in view the complaint, the following point is to be considered: + Whether the complainant's deposited amount can be returned along with interest? Disposal of Issue No. 4 The complainant says that the opposite party issued the allotment letter on 45.03.2046. As per page 8 of it, possession of the unit was to be given after 42 months with a grace period of 6 months (48 months), that is, by 44.03.2020, but the opposite party has not given possession within the stipulated period. For this reason, the complainant does not wish to remain in the project.

It is also clear that the project falls in the category of delay. In such a case, the return of the complainant's deposited amount with interest appears justified. Up to the said period for possession, the opposite party has been unable to give possession to the complainant. In this regard, it is clearly stated in Section [?] (II) of the Act that: "Section 8 () "If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed." 3

As stated above: if a promoter is unable, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, to complete an apartment, plot or building or to hand over possession within the period given in it, then, without prejudice to any other remedy available, on the demand of the allottee, if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, the promoter shall be liable to return, along with interest, the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot or building, as the case may be. It is also made clear that the opposite party was obliged to give possession to the complainant by 44.03.2020, and it was the opposite party's duty to fulfil this. The complainant has said that the deposited amount should be returned with interest. It is clear that possession was not given to the complainant within the stipulated period, and the opposite party has also not obtained the O.C./C.C. for this project. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to withdraw from the project under Section a—i8()(¥) [?] of the RERA Act. In addition, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 382/2049 Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. vs. Devashish [?] has held that:

"It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitaly for possession.by 206, nearly seven year has elapsed from the date of agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 206. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayet in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund." Along the same lines, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 42238 // 2048 Pioneer [?] and Infrastructure Limited vs. Govind [?] has also held that: 4

"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." According to the legal position stated above, a homebuyer may be made to wait for a reasonable time, and in the case of a long delay the complainant is entitled to the return of the deposited amount even after the completion certificate is received, because the complainant has not got possession within the period given in the agreement and the case has suffered extreme delay. As the project has not been completed on time, in such a case the complainant is entitled to receive the deposited amount with interest.

As regards the return of the amount with interest to the complainant, it is noteworthy that in the petition of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. [?] etc. vs. Union of India before the Bombay High Court, the Hon'ble High Court has held that: "Section 8(l)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." 5 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.

In addition, in Re No. -0.00 .3289/2020 dated 06.02.2020, "Rudra Buildwell Constructions [?] vs. Poonam Sood and Others", the Hon'ble High Court has held that under paragraph 9.2(i/) of the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2048, if there is delay on the part of the promoter, the allottee has the option of terminating the agreement, and in that case the promoter is liable to refund the entire deposited amount within 45 days, with interest at the rate of 48,2+ percent per annum on the State Bank of India home loan rate. The High Court has also held that the annual interest rate of [?]+ percent is reasonable and valid. As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2046, notified the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules 20i8 on 4 = 8. In the format of the sale/lease deed given in them, paragraph 9 defines the events of default of promoters (Events of default), and paragraph 9.2(9) provides for the allottee in case the promoter is in default, that:

"The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +i% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:" 6 The same rate is also prescribed in paragraph 9.30) for the case of default by allottees. Keeping this provision in view, it appears justified that the amount be returned to the allottee at the rate of [?] percent. Accordingly, Issue No. 4 is disposed of. While disposing of the above issue, the following orders are passed. ORDER 1 [?]. The opposite party is directed to ensure that, within 45 days from the date this order is uploaded on the portal, it pays back the complainant's entire deposited amount along with interest at the rate of MCLR+ percent per annum. 2. 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. 3. If the opposite party does not comply with this order, the complainant shall have the right to get their order enforced through the RERA Authority. Qs-04,2C0e3 [?] Dr. Deepak Swaroop Saxena (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

a भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | पीठ-04 उपस्थिति :- डा० दीपक स्वरूप सक्सेना, सदस्य शिकायत संख्या :-- NCR45/08/98633/2022 सुमंत कुमार बनाम मैसर्स wea प्रोजेक्ट्स wo feo प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्ध समस्त जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE | में यूनिट GeN—-T-4-003 बुक करायी गयी थी। यूनिट की कुल कीमत 20,06,250/— रुपये थी, जिसके सापेक्ष उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 0,85,5i7 /- रुपये का भुगतान विपक्षी को किया गया। शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा ay 20i8 तक कब्जा दिये जाने का वादा किया गया था, परन्तु आज तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है एवं कब्जा दिये जाने में 4 वर्ष से अधिक का विलम्ब किया गया है, साथ ही यह भी कहा गया है कि परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य स्थगित है और टॉवर-4 में विगत 6 वर्ष से कोई निर्माण कार्य नहीं किया जा रहा है। जिस कारण शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण अधिनियम की धारा 34 के अन्तर्गत विपक्षी के विरुद्ध यह शिकायत धनराशि वापस कराये जाने हेतु दर्ज करायी गयी है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवेदन फॉर्म, एक्सप्रेशन sith sexe पत्र दिनांक 20.40.2045 दिनांक 20.40.2045, खाता विवरण आदि अभिलेखों की छायाप्रतियाँ दाखिल की गई हैं।

| | द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में प्रतिवाद पत्र दिनांक 46.4.2022 दाखिल करते हुए कथन किया गया है कि रेरा आने के उपरांत उनके द्वारा परियोजना ‘Rise Organic Ghar phas-l' को रेरा में पंजीकरण कराया गया है, जिसकी पंजीकृत eat-UPRERAPRI4403 है। परियोजना, भूखण्ड संख्या-0प-03, ब्लॉक-#, जयपुरिया सनराइज WRT एन.एच-24, गाजियाबाद के रूप में क्रमांकित भूमि पर विकसित की जा रही है। परियोजना में 5 टॉवर शामिल हैं, जिसमें मूल रूप से 764 यूनिट्स शामिल हैं। विपक्षी का कहना है कि शिकायतकर्ता सहित कई अन्य आवंटियों द्वारा समय पर अपनी किस्तों का भुगतान नहीं किया गया, जिस कारण परियोजना की प्रगति पूर्ण रूप से प्रभावित हुई। यह भी प्रस्तुत किया गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को यह यूनिट वर्ष मार्च, 2046 में आवंटित की गयी थी और अनुबन्ध के अनुसार 42 माह एवं 6 माह ग्रेस पीरियड के साथ यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान किया जाना था, जोकि अप्रत्याशित परिस्थितियों के अधीन था। इसके अलावा, विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया है कि सितम्बर, 2023 तक यूनिट का फिट आउट प्रदान करने और दिसम्बर, 2023 तक आवश्यक प्रमाण पत्रों और एन.ओ.सी. के साथ यूनिट का भौतिक कब्जा सौंप दिया जाएगा। विपक्षी द्वारा यह भी कहा गया है कि पर्यावरण प्रदूषण के कारण नेशनल ग्रीन ट्रिब्यूनल ने दिल्‍ली एन.सी.आर. में किसी भी प्रकार की निर्माण गतिविधि पर पूर्ण रूप से प्रतिबन्ध लगा दिया था, जिससे

परियोजना की प्रगति पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पड़ा। साथ ही यह भी कहा गया है कि भारत सरकार ने कोविड-49 वायरस के प्रसार को रोकने के लिए विश्व में कुछ सबसे कठोर कार्यवाइयों का सहारा लिया और सम्पूर्ण देश में 24 मार्च, 2020 से राष्ट्रव्यापी लॉकडाउन घोषित किया गया, जिसे विभिन्‍न अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा बढ़ाया गया था, जिस कारण निर्माण सामग्री की उपलब्ध न होने के कारण निर्माण गतिविधियां पूर्ण रूप से बाधित रहीं, जिस कारण परियोजना को पूर्ण किये जाने में विलम्ब हुआ। विपक्षी द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में प्रतिवाद पत्र, अहस्ताक्षरित फ्लैट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 45.03.20:6 की छायाप्रति दाखिल की गयी हैं। 2 तन की शिकायत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए निम्न बिन्दु विचारणीय है :- + क्या शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलायी जा सकती है ? निस्तारण बिन्दु do 4 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 45.03.2046 को आवंटन पत्र जारी किया गया, जिसके पृष्ठ संख्या-8 के अनुसार यूनिट का कब्जा 42 माह एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के साथ (48 माह) अर्थात दिनांक 44.03.2020 तक दिया जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा निर्धारित अवधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। जिस कारण वह परियोजना में बने रहना नहीं चाहते हैं। यह भी स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना विलम्ब की श्रेणी में है। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। उक्त कब्जे की अवधि तक विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहा है। इस सम्बन्ध में tr अधिनियम की aria (॥) में स्पष्ट रूप से उल्‍लेखित है कि :- "Section 8 () “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building,

(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the 3 खत promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed." उपरोक्‍्तानुसार यदि प्रोमोटर करार के निबन्धों के अनुसार उसमें दिये गये अवधि तक समय से किसी अपार्टपेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन को पूरा करने में असमर्थ रहता है या कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहता है, तो वह उपलब्ध किसी अन्य उपचार पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव डाले बिना आवंटी की मांग पर यदि आवंटी परियोजना से बाहर होना चाहता है, तो प्रकरण के अनुसार, उस such, भू-खण्ड या भवन के सम्बन्ध में उसके प्राप्त धनराशि ब्याज सहित लौटाने का दायी होगा।

यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 44.03.2020 तक कब्जा दिया जाना था, जिसको विपक्षी द्वारा पूर्ण करने का दायित्व था। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कहा गया है कि जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलायी जाये। स्पष्ट है कि शिकायतकर्ता को निर्धारित अवधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया और न ही विपक्षी को इस परियोजना का ओ.सी. /सी.सी. प्राप्त हुआ है। अत: शिकायतकर्ता रेरा अधिनियम की a—i8()(¥) के अन्तर्गत वह परियोजना से बाहर आने का अधिकारी है। इसके अतिरिक्त इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि “माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील सं० 382/ 2049 कोलकाता वेस्ट इंटरनेशनल सिटी प्रा.लि. बनाम देवाशीष war’ में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- "It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitaly for possession.by 206, nearly seven year has elapsed from the date of agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 206. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayet in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund."

साथ ही साथ इसी क्रम में “माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के सिविल अपील संख्या-42238 // 2048 पायनियर ada aes एवं इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड बनाम गोविन्द waa’ में भी अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि-: 4 a & 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."

उपरोकक्‍्तानुसार दी गयी विधि व्यवस्था में गृहक्रेता को एक उचित समय तक प्रतीक्षा कराया जा सकता है व लम्बे विलम्ब की स्थिति में पूर्णता प्रमाण-पत्र प्राप्त होने के उपरान्त भी शिकायतकर्ता जमा धनराशि पाने का अधिकारी क्‍योंकि अनुबन्ध में दी गयी अवधि के अनुसार शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा नहीं मिला है व प्रकरण में अत्यधिक विलम्ब हुआ है। चूंकि परियोजना समय से पूर्ण नहीं की गयी है। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है। जहां तक शिकायकतकर्ता को मय ब्याज धनराशि वापस किये जाने का प्रश्न है, तो इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय के ”“नीलकमल Raced सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया” की याचिका में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- "Section 8(l)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a 5 ee ८ ee

SI 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." अत: 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 vad धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। इसके अतिरिक्त Re संख्या-0.०0 .3289/2020 दिनांक 06.02.2020 “रूद्रा बिल्डवेल कस्ट्रक्शन्स vio fo बनाम पूनम सूद एवं अन्य“ में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) नियमावली, 2048 की प्रस्तर 9.2(i/) के ओनसार प्रोमोटर की ओर से विलम्ब किये जाने की स्थिति में आवंटी के पास अनुबन्ध को समाप्त करने का विकल्प होगा एवं इस स्थिति में प्रोमोटर “भारतीय स्टेट बैंक“ के होम लोन दर ४८,२+ प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज दर से 45 दिनों में समस्त जमा धनराशि वापस करने के लिए उत्तरदायी होगा। साथ ही साथ उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा ॥ट7ए+ प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज दर को उचित एवं मान्य माना गया है।

जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 4 = 8 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विक्रय /पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 20i8 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें दिये गये विक्रय /पट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.2(9) में प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है किः- "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +i% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:" 6 बह री = दर आवंटियों के द्वारा डिफॉल्ट की स्थिति में भी प्रस्तर 9.30) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को शटाएका प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर धनराशि वापस दिलाये जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दु का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते eo आदेश 4... विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड होने की तिथि से 45 दिनों के अन्दर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा समस्त जमा धनराशि MCLR+ प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज दर सहित वापस अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें।

2. इस आदेश का उल्लघंन भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाए। 3. यदि विपक्षी द्वारा इस आदेश का अनुपालन नहीं किया जाता है, तो शिकायतकर्ता को यह अधिकार होगा कि रेरा प्राधिकरण के माध्यम से अपने आदेश का क्रियान्वयन करा सकेंगे। aaa Qs-04,2C0e3 Slo दीपक स्वरूप सक्सेना (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण