U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar | Order under Mis, Bench-2 (formerly Bench-4) Presiding Officer: Shri T. Venkatesh, Member Complaint No. — NCRI45/09/3035/2023 Deepti Goyal Versus Rise Projects Private Limited The present complaint petition has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party seeking possession of the unit in question together with interest for the delayed period, or alternatively, refund of the deposited amount with interest. In brief, the complainant's statement is that the complainant booked unit "Ben—-200 [?]" in the opposite party's project RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE 1, Tower 7-4, on 05.42.205. The total value of the unit was Rs. 22,93,370/-, against which the complainant paid the opposite party Rs. 2,09,059/- from time to time in instalments.

The complainant also states that construction work in the opposite party's project is proceeding slowly, whereas the opposite party was to hand over possession of the unit in question by 4.08.20i9, but the opposite party has still not provided possession of the unit in question. Therefore the complainant is entitled to delay interest for every month of delay in handing over possession. Accordingly, under the [?] of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, the complainant has requested against the opposite party that possession of the unit in question be given together with interest for the delayed period, or alternatively, if the opposite company is unable to give possession of the unit in question, that the deposited amount be refunded with interest.

In addition, the complainant, by filing a detailed written complaint dated 28.08.2023, has stated that an allotment letter in respect of the unit in question was executed between the parties on 25.04.2046, under clause 8 of which the opposite party was to hand over possession of the unit in question within 42 months, that is by 44.08.2049, but the opposite party has not handed over possession of the unit in question. By letter dated (7.07.2023, the opposite party illegally demanded Rs. 3,49,799/-, whereas four years have already passed in providing possession of the unit in question. The complainant contacted the opposite party to provide possession of the unit as per the agreement, but the opposite party did not reply to any of the complainant's letters, e-mails or other communications. The complainant, citing Section 49(2) and Section 49(3) of the RERA Act, 20I6, and Section 48 and Section 44(4), has stated that the opposite party, while discharging its duties under the agreement, has still not provided physical possession of the unit in question, due to which the complainant has suffered mental harassment and distress. The complainant has set out a schedule of the amounts paid to the opposite party. In support of the original complaint, the complainant, mentioning various facts, has requested that possession of the unit in question be given with all agreed facilities and with legal OC/CC, along with interest for the delayed period, and that a conveyance deed be executed; or alternatively, if the opposite company is unable to give possession of the unit in question, that the deposited amount of Rs. 42,09,059/- be refunded with interest, and compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- be awarded under the head of litigation expenses.

In support of the complainant's statement, copies of the allotment letter-cum-apartment buyer agreement dated 44.02.20I6, a copy of the reminder letter dated 7.07.2023, a welcome letter, a copy of written arguments dated 04.07.2024, and photocopies of the receipts for the deposited amounts have been filed. In its written reply dated 42.06.2024, the opposite party has stated that its project "RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE 2, Ghaziabad, RERA..." is registered, its registration number being "aA-UPRERAPRI4403 [?]". The complainant booked unit "WAH-T4-00 [?]" in the said project. In respect of the unit in question, an agreement dated t4.0220I6 was executed between the parties, under which possession of the unit was to be given from the date of execution of the agreement within 42 + 06 months, or by 47.02.2020, which was subject to circumstances of force majeure. Against the total price of the unit in question, Rs. 22,93,370/-, the complainant has paid Rs. 47,60,984/-. Page 2

Out of the total amount of Rs. 42,09,059/- paid by the complainant, Rs. 48,075/- has been duly deposited by the opposite party towards service tax / GST, in compliance with its statutory obligations, and the said amount has not been used in any manner in the construction of the project. The opposite party sent demand letters and reminder letters to the complainant for payment of the balance amount relating to the unit on various dates, namely 05.07.2022, 6.06.2023, 22.09.2023, 30.07.2022, 03.44.2022, 22.44.2022, 08.42.2022, 07.07.2023 [written as ॥7.07.2023], 25.08.2023 and 44.40.2023, but the complainant did not pay the balance amount due in compliance with the said demands. The project was delayed due to circumstances of force majeure, which were beyond the control of the opposite company. The opposite party has also stated that during the period 20:6-2023, the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, on account of environmental pollution, had from time to time completely banned construction activities in Delhi NCR, which adversely affected the progress of the project. It has further been stated that the Government of India adopted some of the most stringent measures in the world to stop the spread of the COVID-i9 [?] pandemic. The complainant has violated the provisions of Section 49(6) of the RERA Act, 20i6. In the complaint, the complainant has prayed for refund of the deposited amount, and in response the opposite party is ready to refund the remaining amount with interest after deducting 40 per cent earnest money from the complainant's deposited amount of Rs. 44,60,984/-. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the opposite party has requested that the complaint be dismissed and that it be directed to refund the deposited amount in accordance with paragraph 45 of its written reply.

In support of its statement, the opposite party has filed a copy of the allotment letter-cum-apartment buyer agreement dated 44.02.2046, the applicant file, and photocopies of various demand letters and reminder letters. The submissions of both sides were heard and the evidence available on the file was perused, on the basis of which the following point has been considered: 4. Whether the complainant has paid the amount according to the payment plan or not, and whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought? Page 3 Disposal of Point No. 4 Point No. [?] has been considered to the effect: whether the complainant has paid the amount according to the payment plan or not, and whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought.

The complainant's statement is that construction work in the opposite party's project is proceeding slowly, whereas the opposite party was to hand over possession of the unit in question by 08.20I9, but the opposite party has still not given possession of the unit in question. Therefore the complainant is entitled to delay interest for every month of delay in handing over possession. In addition, the complainant, by filing a detailed written complaint dated 28.08.2023, has stated that an allotment letter in respect of the said unit was executed between the parties on 25.04.2046, under paragraph 8 of which the opposite party was to hand over possession of the said unit within 42 months, that is by 44.08.20I9, but the opposite party has not given possession of the unit in question. By letter dated 47.07.2023, the opposite party illegally demanded Rs. 3,49,799/-, whereas four years have already passed in providing possession of the said unit. The complainant contacted the opposite party to provide possession of the unit in accordance with the agreement, but the opposite party did not reply to any of the complainant's letters, e-mails or other communications. The complainant, citing Section 4#2) and Section 49(3) of the RERA Act, 2076, and Section 48 and Section 44(4), has stated that the opposite party, while discharging its duties under the agreement, has still not provided physical possession of the unit in question, due to which the complainant has suffered mental harassment and distress. The complainant has set out a schedule of the amounts paid to the opposite party. In support of the original complaint, the complainant, mentioning various facts, has requested possession of the unit with all agreed facilities and with legal OC/CC, along with interest for the delayed period and execution of a conveyance deed; or alternatively, if the opposite company is unable to give possession of the unit in question, refund of the deposited amount of Rs. 42,09,059/- with interest, and compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- under the head of litigation expenses.

Page 4

The opposite party, in its written reply dated 42.06.2024, has stated that in respect of the unit in question an agreement dated i4.02.20:6 was executed between the parties, under which possession of the unit was to be given from the date of execution of the agreement within 42 + 06 months, or by 44.02.2020, which was subject to circumstances of force majeure. Against the total price of the unit in question, Rs. 22,93,370/-, the complainant has paid Rs. 44,60,984/-. Out of the total amount of Rs. 42,09,059/- paid by the complainant, Rs. 48,075/- has been duly deposited by the opposite party towards service tax / GST, in compliance with its statutory obligations, and the said amount has not been used in any manner in the construction of the project. The opposite party sent demand letters and reminder letters to the complainant for payment of the balance amount relating to the unit on various dates, namely 05.07.2022, 6,06.2023, 22.09.2023, 30.07.2022, 03.44.2022, 22.44.2022, 08.42.2022, 47.07.2023, 25.08.2023 and 44.40.2023, but the complainant did not pay the balance amount due in compliance with the said letters. The complainant has violated the provisions of Section 49(6) of the RERA Act, 2046. In the complaint, the complainant has prayed for refund of the deposited amount, and in response the opposite party is ready to refund the remaining amount with interest after deducting 40 per cent earnest money from the complainant's deposited amount of Rs. 44,60,984/-. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the opposite party has requested that the said complaint be dismissed and that it be directed to refund the deposited amount in accordance with paragraph [?] of the written reply.

In this regard, Rules 9.2 and 9.3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale / Lease) Rules, 2048 are stated as follows: "In case of Default by Promoter under the conditions listed above, a non-defaulting Allottee is entitled to the following: i. Stop making further payments to Promoter as demanded by the Promoter. If the Allottee stops making payments, the Promoter shall correct the situation by completing the construction milestones and only thereafter the Allottee be required to make the next payment without any interest; or Page 5 ii. 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 +7% unless provided otherwise under the Rules, within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice: Provided that where an Allottee does not intend to withdraw from the Project or terminate the Agreement, he shall be paid, by the Promoter, interest at the rate prescribed in the Rules, for every month of delay till the handing over of the possession of the [Apartment/Plot], which shall be paid by the Promoter to the Allottee within forty-five days of it becoming due." Rule 9.3:

"The Allottee shall be considered under a condition of Default, on the occurrence of the following events: i. In case the Allottee fails to make payments for 2 (two) consecutive demands made by the Promoter as per the Payment Plan annexed hereto, despite having been issued notice in that regard, the Allottee shall be liable to pay interest to the promoter on the unpaid amount at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +7%2 unless provided otherwise under the Rules. The Promoter must not be in default to take this benefit; ii. In case of Default by Allottee under the condition listed above continues for a period beyond 3 (three) consecutive months after notice from the Promoter in this regard, the Promoter may cancel the allotment of the [Apartment/Plot] in favour of the Allottee and refund the money paid to him by the Allottee by deducting the booking amount and the interest liabilities, and this Agreement shall thereupon stand terminated. The Promoter must not be in default to take this benefit; Provided that the Promoter shall intimate the Allottee about such termination at least thirty days prior to such termination." It is important to mention clauses 0 & 6 of the allotment letter-cum-apartment buyer agreement dated 44.02.2046, which are as follows:

D. "The allottee(s) understands and agrees that the timely payment is the essence of the agreement. The Allottee(s) shall pay the balance amount of the Consideration in accordance with the Payment Plan annexed as Annexure 'A' hereto. If the payment of any of the installment is delayed by more than 3 months of its due date, then the Developer shall have the right to cancel the allotment of the Apartment without any further notice to the Allottee(s). In the event Allottee(s) fails to pay any installment(s) with interest within 3 months from the due date, the Developer shall have the right to cancel the allotment without any intimation and forfeit the entire amount of Earnest Money deposited by the Allottee(s), and the Allottee(s) shall be left with no right or lien on the said Apartment, and the Developer shall be free to sell or dispose of the same in favour of a third person. The amount paid, if any, over and above the Earnest Money shall be refunded by the Developer, without interest, after adjustment of interest accrued on the delayed payment(s), if any, due from the Allottee(s), including brokerage, and after the Company is able to dispose of the Apartment in favour of a third person."

On a perusal of the above extract, it is evident that if the allottee/complainant does not pay the instalments of the amount due within 03 months, as per the rules and conditions contained in the agreement, the opposite company has the right to cancel the allotment of the unit in question without any prior notice and to forfeit the earnest money deposited by the allottee. Q In the present case, as per the payment plan (CLP) of [?] mentioned in Annexure-& to the allotment letter-cum-apartment buyer agreement dated 4.02.20i6 executed between the complainant and the present opposite company, the complainant was to pay the balance amount due in instalments from time to time. In this sequence, the opposite party sent various demand letters and reminder letters to the complainant on various dates, namely 05.07.2022, 46.06.2023, 22.09.2023, 30.07.2022, 03.44.2022, 22.44.2022, 08.42.2022, 47.07.2023, 25.08.2023 and 44.40.2023. Against the total price of the unit, Rs. 22,93,370/-, the complainant has, according to the complainant's own statement, so far paid a total of Rs. 42,09,059/-. However, in compliance with the above demand and reminder letters, the complainant has not paid the balance amount due in instalments from time to time in accordance with the terms agreed in the allotment letter-cum-apartment buyer agreement dated t4.0220i6, and has not shown any positive response.

Since the complainant has not paid the balance amount due in instalments from time to time, in accordance with the agreed terms and the payment plan stated in the agreement, and the complainant has violated the provisions of Rules 9.2 and 9.3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale / Lease) Rules, 20I8, and the terms described in paragraphs 9 and 6 of the allotment letter-cum-apartment buyer agreement executed between the parties, therefore the complainant has not discharged his duties under the terms of the agreement. In the present case, the complainant, while discharging the obligations stated above, did not pay the balance amount. From this it is clear that if the complainant wished to obtain possession of the unit in question, why did the complainant not pay the balance amount as per the agreement in compliance with the various demand letters and reminders sent by the opposite party? Therefore, it is proved from the above facts that the complainant, in performing the duties under the agreement, has shown no interest in obtaining possession of the unit.

On the other hand, the complainant, pursuing the complaint, has requested possession of the unit together with interest for the delayed period, or alternatively, if the opposite company is unable to give possession of the unit in question, refund of the deposited amount with interest. Since the complainant has not paid the balance amount, the opposite party, without giving possession of the unit in question to the complainant, is ready to refund the remaining amount after deducting [to] per cent earnest money from the complainant's deposited amount as per the agreement, and the complainant has also alternatively requested refund of the deposited amount with interest. Page 8 In the judgment dated 48-40--2042 passed by the Hon'ble [?] Court in "Satish Batra v. Sudhir Rawal", 2043 (l) SCC 345, it has been stated that:

"5. The law is, therefore, clear that to justify the forfeiture of advance money being part of "earnest money", the terms of the contract should be clear and explicit. Earnest money is paid or given at the time when the contract is entered into and, as a pledge for its due performance by the depositor, to be forfeited in case of non-performance by the depositor. There can be converse situation also, that if the seller fails to perform the contract the purchaser can also get double the amount, if it is so stipulated. It is also the law that part-payment of purchase price cannot be forfeited unless it is a guarantee for the due performance of the contract. In other words, if the payment is made only towards part-payment of consideration and not intended as earnest money, then the forfeiture clause will not apply. 46. When we examine the clauses in the instant case, it is amply clear that the clause extracted hereinabove was included in the contract at the moment at which the contract was entered into. It represents the guarantee that the contract would be fulfilled. In other words, "earnest" is given to bind the contract, which is a part of the purchase price when the transaction is carried out, and it will be forfeited when the transaction falls through by reason of the default or failure of the purchaser. There is no other clause that militates against the clauses extracted in the agreement dated 29-I]-20734.

7. We are, therefore, of the view that the seller was justified in forfeiting the amount of Rs 7,00,000 as per the relevant clause, since the earnest money was primarily a security for the due performance of the agreement and, consequently, the seller is entitled to forfeit the entire deposit. The High Court has, therefore, committed an error in reversing the judgment of the trial court." From the above it is clear that earnest money acts as a pledge for the performance of any contract, and a failure in the transaction gives the opposite party the right to deduct the earnest money. The above judgment has held such deduction to be legal and binding. Page 9 On the basis of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is clear that the complainant has not paid the balance amount as per the agreement. Therefore, the opposite party has failed to give possession of the unit to the complainant. However, as per clauses [0)] and [G] of the allotment letter dated 44.02.2046, the opposite party has deducted io per cent "earnest money", but the remaining amount of the complainant has not been returned so far. In such a situation, it appears justified that, after deduction of 40 per cent "earnest money" as per clauses 9 and 6 of the allotment letter dated 4.02.206, the balance amount be refunded to the complainant with interest at the rate of MCLRH per cent per annum.

As regards the liability to pay interest, it is noteworthy that in the petition "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India" of 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 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 the light of the above judgment, it is clear that under the provisions of RERA, interest is payable on the delay, in accordance with the agreement between the promoter and the buyer, and on the [?] amount, because the promoters have used the [?] 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) (Agreement for Sale / Lease) Rules 2048. In paragraph 9 of the format of the sale / lease deed given therein, the defaults of promoters (Events of Default) are defined, and paragraph 9.2(0) provides for the allottee, in the event of default by the promoter, 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 fixed in paragraph 9.3[0)] for allottees' default. Keeping in view the said provision, it appears justified that the balance amount be refunded to the allottee with interest at MCLRt per cent. Accordingly, Point No. 04 is disposed of. Disposing of the above point, the following orders are passed:

1. The opposite party is directed to ensure that, within 45 days from the date on which this order is uploaded on the portal, it takes the necessary action in accordance with the allotment letter dated 4.02.20i6 and [?] and clauses 9 and 6, and pays back the balance amount to the complainant with interest at the rate of MCLRH per cent per annum. Page 44 2. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20i6 and other relevant provisions. The complainant is also directed that if the opposite party does not comply with the above order within 45 days of the order being uploaded on the portal, then in such a situation the complainant shall upload a request on the "RERA Portal" for implementation of the order, and ensure that a physical copy is made available to the RERA Regional Office, Greater Noida. The order shall be uploaded on the portal. Accordingly, the file be consigned to record. (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Page 2

उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | आदेश अन्तर्गत Mis, पीठ-2, (पूर्व पीठ-4) पीठासीन अधिकारी :- श्री टी. वेंकटेश, सदस्य शिकायत संख्या — NCRI45/09/3035/2023 दीप्ति गोयल बनाम राइज प्रोजेक्ट्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्ध प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज अथवा वैकल्पिक रूप में जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE । के टॉवर-7-4 में दिनांक 05.42.205 को यूनिट Ben—-200 बुक करायी गयी थी। यूनिट का कुल मूल्य 22,93,370/— रुपये था, जिसके सापेक्ष उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 2,09,059/- रुपये or भुगतान विपक्षी को किया गया। शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य धीमी गति से चल रहा है, जबकि विपक्षी द्वारा प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा दिनांक 4.08.20i9 तक दिया जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया है। इसलिए शिकायतकर्ता कब्जे में हुए विलम्ब के आधार पर प्रत्येक माह विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण अधिनियम की mists अन्तर्गत विपक्षी के विरुद्ध प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने अथवा वैकल्पिक रूप में यदि विपक्षी कम्पनी प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा देने में असमर्थ है, तो ऐसी स्थिति में जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है।

इसके अतिरिक्त शिकायतकर्ता “द्वारा विस्तृत लिखित शिकायत पत्र दिनांक 28.08.2023 दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि प्रश्नगत यूनिट के सापेक्ष पक्षकारों के मध्य आवंटन पत्र दिनांक 25.04.2046 को निष्पादित किया गया, जिसके प्रस्तर-8 के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा 42 माह अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 44.08.2049 तक दिया जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा शि86 4

अभी तक प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा नहीं दिया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा पत्र दिनांक (7.07.2023 के माध्यम से अवैधानिक रूप से 3,49,799 /- रूपये की धनराशि की मॉँग की गयी, जबकि प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा उपलब्ध कराये जाने में 4 वर्ष का समय व्यतीत हो चुका है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी से अनुबन्धानुसार प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा उपलब्ध कराये जाने हेतु सम्पर्क किया गया, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता के किसी भी पत्र, ई-मेल आदि का कोई जवाब नहीं दिया गया। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा रेश अधिनियम, 20I6 की धारा-49(2) एवं धारा-49(3) तथा धारा-48 एवं धारा-44(4) का उल्लेख करते हुए कहा गया है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अनुबन्धानुसार अपने कर्तव्यों का निवर्हन करते हुए अभी तक प्रश्नगत यूनिट का भौतिक कब्जा उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया है, जिस कारण शिकायतकर्ता को मानसिक उत्पीड़न व कष्ट हुआ। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी को भुगतान की धनराशि के सम्बन्ध में समय सारणी का उल्लेख किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रश्नगत मूल शिकायत के सम्बन्ध में अपने कथन के समर्थन में विभिन्‍न तथ्यों का उल्लेख करते हुए अनुबन्धानुसार समस्त सुविधाओं सहित विधिक रूप ओ.सी.,/सी.सी. के साथ प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज तथा कन्वयेन्स डीड निष्पादित कराये जाने अथवा वैकल्पिक रूप में यदि विपक्षी कम्पनी प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा देने में असमर्थ है, तो ऐसी स्थिति में जमा धनराशि 42,09,059 //- रूपये मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने एवं वाद व्यय के मद में 4,00,000,//- रूपये क्षतिपूर्ति दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है।

शिकायतकर्ता की ओर से अपने कथन के समर्थन में एलॉटमेन्ट लेटर कम अपार्टमेन्ट बायर एग्रीमेन्ट दिनांक 44.02.20I6 की प्रति, अनुस्मारक पत्र दिनांक 7.07.2023 की प्रति, स्वागत पत्र, लिखित बहस दिनांक 04.07.2024 की प्रति, जमा धनराशि की रसीदें की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं। विपक्षी की ओर से लिखित जवाब दिनांकित 42.06.2024 प्रस्तुत करते हुए यह कथन किया गया है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना ' RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE 2, गाजियाबाद. रेरा... में पंजीकृत है, - जिसकी... पंजीकरण ‘aA-UPRERAPRI4403 है। शिकायतकर्ता ने उक्त परियोजना में प्रश्नगत यूनिट WAH-T4-00 बुक करायी गयी। प्रश्नगत यूनिट के सम्बन्ध में पक्षकारों के मध्य अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांक t4.0220I6 को निष्पादित किया गया, जिसके यूनिट का कब्जा अनुबन्ध के निष्पादन की तिथि से 42 + 06 माह या दिनांक 47.02.2020 को दिया जाना था, जो कि फोर्स मैज्योर की परिस्थितियों के अधीन था। प्रश्नगत यूनिट की कुल कीमत 22,93,370,/- रूपये के सापेक्ष शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा 47,60,984 /“- रूपये की धनराशि का भुगतान किया गया। a Page 2

शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भुगतान की गयी कुल धनराशि 42,09,059 /- रूपये में से 48,075 /— रूपये की धनराशि विपक्षी द्वारा सर्विस टैक्स /जीएसटी के मद में अपने वैधानिक दायित्वों के अनुपालन में विधिवत्‌ जमा करा दी गई है और ved धनराशि का किसी भी प्रकार से परियोजना के निर्माण में उपयोग नहीं किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को प्रश्नगत यूनिट के सापेक्ष अवशेष धनराशि का भुगतान करने हेतु विभिन्‍न तिथियों माँग पत्र /अनुस्मारक पत्र दिनांकित 05.07.2022, दिनांक 6.06.2023, दिनांक 22.09.2023, दिनांक 30.07.2022, दिनांक 03.44.2022, दिनांक 22.44.2022, दिनांक 08.42.2022, दिनांक ॥7.07.2023, दिनांक 25.08.2023, दिनांक 44.40.2023 को प्रेषित किये गये, परन्तु शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उक्त wal के अनुपालन में अपनी अवशेष देय धनराशि का भुगतान नहीं किया गया। प्रश्नगत परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर की परिस्थितियों के कारण विलम्बित हुई, जो कि विपक्षी कम्पनी के नियंत्रण के बाहर थीं। विपक्षी द्वारा यह भी कहा गया है कि वर्ष 20:6-2023 की अवधि के मध्य पर्यावरण प्रदूषण के कारण माननीय राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण द्वारा दिल्ली एन.सी.आर. में समय-समय पर निर्माण गतिविधियों 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 alfas—i9 महामारी के प्रसार को रोकने के लिए विश्व में कुछ सबसे कठोर कार्यवाइयों का सहारा लिया। शिकायतकर्ता ने रेरा अधिनियम, 20i6 की धारा-49(6) के प्राविधानों का उल्लंघन किया है। शिकायतकर्ता ने अपनी शिकायत में जमा धनराशि वापस दिलाये जाने की प्रार्थना की है, जिसके क्रम में विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि 44,60,984/— रूपये में से 40 प्रतिशत अर्नेस्ट मनी कटौती करने के उपरान्त अवशेष धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस करने हेतु तैयार है। उपर्युक्त तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए विपक्षी द्वारा प्रश्न्मत शिकायत को खारिज किये जाने तथा लिखित जवाब के प्रस्तर-45 के अनुसार जमा धनराशि वापस करने हेतु निर्देशित किये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है।

विपक्षी द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में एलॉटमेन्ट लेटर कम अपार्टमेन्ट बायर एग्रीमेन्ट दिनांक 44.02.2046 की प्रति, एप्लीकेन्ट फाईल, विभिन्‍न माँग पत्र /अनुस्मारक पत्रों की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गई हैं। उभयपक्ष के cat को सुना गया व पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों का अवलोकन किया गया, जिसके आधार पर निम्न बिन्दु विचरित किया गया है :- 4. क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा पेमेन्ट प्लॉन के अनुसार धनराशि का भुगतान किया गया है अथवा नहीं तथा क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता याचित अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ? Page 3 eo निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 बिन्दु संख्या-। इस आशय से विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा tre प्लॉन के अनुसार धनराशि का भुगतान किया गया है अथवा नहीं तथा क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता याचित अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है?

शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य धीमी गति से चल रहा है, जबकि विपक्षी द्वारा प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा दिनांक 08.20I9 तक दिया जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया है। इसलिए शिकायतकर्ता कब्जे में हुए विलम्ब के आधार पर प्रत्येक माह विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है। इसके अतिरिक्त शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विस्तृत लिखित शिकायत पत्र दिनांक 28.08.2023 दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि प्रश्नगत यूनिट के सापेक्ष पक्षकारों के मध्य आवंटन पत्र दिनांक 25.04.2046 को निष्पादित किया गया, जिसके प्रस्तर-8 के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा wea यूनिट का कब्जा 42 माह अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 44.08.20i9 तक दिया जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा नहीं दिया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा पत्र दिनांक 47.07.2023 के माध्यम से अवैधानिक रूप से 3,49,799,//- रूपये की धनराशि की माँग की गयी, जबकि Wt यूनिट का कब्जा उपलब्ध कराये जाने में 4 वर्ष का समय व्यतीत हो चुका है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी से अनुबन्धानुसार प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा उपलब्ध कराये जाने हेतु सम्पर्क किया गया, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता के किसी भी पत्र, ई-मेल आदि का कोई जवाब नहीं दिया गया। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा रेर अधिनियम, 2076 की धारा-4#2) एवं धारा-49(3) तथा धारा-48 एवं धारा-44(4) का उल्लेख करते हुए कहा गया है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अनुबन्धानुसार अपने कर्तव्यों का निवर्हन करते हुए अभी तक प्रश्नगत यूनिट का भौतिक कब्जा उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया है, जिस कारण शिकायतकर्ता को मानसिक उत्पीड़न व कष्ट हुआ | शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी को भुगतान की धनराशि के सम्बन्ध में समय सारणी का उल्लेख किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रश्नगत मूल शिकायत के सम्बन्ध में अपने कथन के समर्थन में विभिन्‍न तथ्यों का उल्लेख करते हुए अनुबन्धानुसार समस्त सुविधाओं सहित विधिक रूप ओ.सी./सी.सी. के साथ प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज तथा ear डीड निष्पादित कराये जाने अथवा वैकल्पिक रूप में यदि विपक्षी कम्पनी प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा देने में असमर्थ है, तो ऐसी स्थिति में जमा धनराशि 42,09,059 //- रूपये मय any वापस दिलाये जाने एवं वाद व्यय के मद में 4,00,000 /- रूपये क्षतिपूर्ति दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है।

= Page 4

इस पर विपक्षी की ओर से लिखित जवाब दिनांकित 42.06.2024 प्रस्तुत करते हुए यह कथन किया गया है कि प्रश्नगत यूनिट के सम्बन्ध में पक्षकारों के मध्य अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांक i4.02.20:6 को निष्पादित किया गया, जिसके यूनिट का कब्जा अनुबन्ध के निष्पादन की तिथि से 42 + 06 माह या दिनांक 44.02.2020 को दिया जाना था, जो कि फोर्स मैज्योर की परिस्थितियों के अधीन था। प्रश्नगत यूनिट की कुल कीमत 22,93,370,//- रूपये के सापेक्ष शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा 44,60,984/- रूपये की धनराशि का भुगतान किया गया। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भुगतान की गयी कुल धनराशि 42,09,059 /- रूपये में से 48,075 /- रूपये की धनराशि विपक्षी द्वारा सर्विस टैक्स /जीएसटी के मद में अपने वैधानिक दायित्वों के अनुपालन में विधिवत्‌ जमा करा दी गई है और उक्त धनराशि का किसी भी प्रकार से .परियोजना के निर्माण में उपयोग नहीं किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को प्रश्नगत यूनिट के सापेक्ष अवशेष धनराशि का भुगतान करने हेतु विभिन्‍न तिथियों माँग पत्र,/अनुस्मारक पत्र दिनांकित 05.07.2022, दिनांक 6,06.2023, दिनांक 22.09.2023, दिनांक 30.07.2022, दिनांक 03.44.2022, दिनांक 22.44.2022, दिनांक 08.42.2022, दिनांक 47.07.2023, दिनांक 25.08.2023, दिनांक 44.40.2023 को प्रेषित किये गये, परन्तु शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा var पत्रों के अनुपालन में अपनी अवशेष देय धनराशि का भुगतान नहीं किया गया। शिकायतकर्ता ने Rr अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा-49(6) के प्राविधानों का उल्लंघन किया है। शिकायतकर्ता ने अपनी शिकायत में जमा धनराशि वापस दिलाये जाने की प्रार्थना की है, जिसके क्रम में विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि 44,60,984,/- रूपये में से 40 प्रतिशत अर्नेस्ट मनी कटौती करने के उपरान्त अवशेष धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस करने हेतु तैयार है। उपर्युक्त तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए विपक्षी द्वारा wera शिकायत को खारिज किये जाने तथा लिखित जवाब के eR के अनुसार जमा धनराशि वापस करने हेतु निर्देशित किये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है।

इस सम्बन्ध में भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) (विक्रय/पढूटा के लिए करार) नियमावली, 2048 के नियम-9.2 एवं नियम-9.3 निम्नलिखित उल्लेखित है :- "In case of Default by Promoter under the conditions listed above anon defaulting Allottee is entitled to the following: i. Stop making further payments to Promoter as demanded by the Promoter. If the Allottee stops making payments, the Promoter shall correct the ‘situation by completing the construction milestones and only thereafter the Allottee be required to make the next payment without any interest; or ES Page 5 ii, 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 +7% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice: Provided that where an Allottee does not intend to withdraw Jrom the Project or terminate the Agreement, he shall be paid, by the Promoter, interest at the rate prescribed in the Rules, for every month of delay till the handing over of the possession of the [Apartment/Plot], which shall be paid by the Promoter to the Allottee within forty-five days of it becoming due." नियम-9.3 :-

"The Allottee shall be considered under a condition of Default, on the occurrence of the following events: i. In case the Allottee fails to make payments for 2 (two) - consecutive demands made by the Promoter as per the Payment | Plan annexed hereto, despite having been issued notice in that regard the Allottee shall be liable to pay interest to the promoter on the unpaid amount at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +7%2 unless provided otherwise under the Rules. The Promoter must not be in default to take this benefit; | मैं. In case of Default by Allottee under the condition listed above continues for a period beyond 3 (three) consecutive months after notice from the ‘Promoter in this regard, the Promoter may cancel the allotment of the [Apartment/Plot] in Javour of the Allottee and refund the money paid to him by the Allottee by deducting the booking amount and the interest liabilities and this Agreement shall thereupon stand terminated. The Promoter must not be in default to take this benefit; Provided that the Promoter shall intimate the Allottee about such termination at least thirty days prior to such termination." एलॉटमेन्ट लेटर कम अपार्टमेन्ट बायर एग्रीमेन्ट दिनांक 44.02.2046 के | प्रस्तर-0 & 6 का उल्लेख किया जाना महत्वपूर्ण है, जो कि निम्नवत्‌ है:-

D. "The allottee(s) understands and agrees that the timely payment is the essence of the agreement. The Allottee(s) shall pay the balance amount of the Consideration in accordance with the Payment Plan annexed as Annexure 'A' hereto. If the payment of any of the installment is delayed by more than 3 months of its due date then the Developer shall_have the right to cancel the allotment of the Apartment without any further notice to the Allottee(s). In the event, Allottee(s) fails to pay any installment(s) with interest within 3 months from the due date, the Developer shall have the right to cancel the allotment without any intimation and forfeit the entire amount of Earnest_Money deposited by the Allottee(s) and the Allottee(s) shall be left with no right or lien on the said Apartment and the Developer shall be free to sell/dispose of the same in favour of a third person. The amount paid, if any, over and above the Earnest Money shall be refunded by the Developer, without interest, after adjustment of interest accrued on the delayed payment(s), if any, due from the Allottee(s) including brokerage and after the Company is able to dispose of the Apartment in favour of a third person.

उपरोक्त प्रस्तत के अवलोकन से विदित है कि यदि आवंटी /शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अनुबन्ध में निहित नियमों एवं शर्तों के अनुसार यदि आवंटी द्वारा 03 माह के भीतर अपनी देय धनराशि की किश्तों का भुगतान नहीं किया जाता है, तो विपक्षी कम्पनी को यह अधिकार है कि वह बिना किसी पूर्व सूचना के प्रश्नगत यूनिट का आवंटन रद्द करते हुए आवंटी द्वारा जमा की गयी अरनेस्ट मनी जब्त कर लेगा। Q प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में शिकायतकता एवं वर्तमान विपक्षी कम्पनी के मध्य निष्पादित 4 हस्ताक्षरित एलॉटिगेन्ट ey कम अपार्टगेल्ट बायर एग्रीगेन्ट tin 4.02.20i6 के एनेग्जर-& पर उल्लिखित (re प्लान) के अनुसार शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा ogee fies पेमेन्ट प्लॉन (CLP) के अनुसार अपनी अवशेष देय धनराशि का भुगतान समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर किया जाना था, जिसके क्रम में विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को अपनी अवशेष देय धनराशि का भुगतान किये जाने हेतु विभिन्‍न माँग पत्र /अनुस्मारक पत्र विभिन्‍न तिथियों माँग पत्र /अनुस्मारक पत्र दिनांकित 05.07.2022, दिनांक 46.06.2023, दिनांक 22.09.2023, दिनांक 30.07.2022, दिनांक 03.44.2022, दिनांक 22.44.2022, दिनांक 08.42.2022, दिनांक 47.07.2023, दिनांक 25.08.2023, दिनांक 44.40.2023 को प्रेषित किये गये।

= में शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा यूनिट की कुल कीमत 22,93,370/— रूपये के सापेक्ष शिकायतकर्ता के कथनानुसार उनके द्वारा अभी तक कुल 42,09,059 //- रूपये का भुगतान किया गया है, परन्तु शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उपरोक्त माँग पत्र/अनुस्मारक पत्र के अनुपालन में एलॉटमेन्ट लेटर कम अपार्टमेन्ट बायर एग्रीमेन्ट दिनांक t4.0220i6 में सहमत शर्तों के अनुसार समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर अपनी अवशेष देय धनराशि का भुगतान नहीं किया गया और न ही कोई सकारात्मक प्रतिक्रिया दिखायी गयी। चूंकि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अनुबन्ध में उल्लिखित पेमेन्ट प्लॉन के अनुरूप सहमत शर्तों / किश्तों के अनुसार समय-समय पर किश्तों अपनी अवशेष देय धनराशि का भुगतान नहीं किया गया है और शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) (विक्रय //पदट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली, 20I8 की नियम-9.2 एवं नियम-9.3 के प्राविधानों एवं पक्षकारों के मध्य निष्पादित एलॉटमेन्ट लेटर कम अपार्टमेन्ट बायर एग्रीमेन्ट के प्रस्तर-9 एवं 6 में वर्णित शर्तों का उल्लंघन किया है। अतः: इस प्रकार शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अनुबन्ध पत्र में वर्णित शर्तों के अनुसार अपने कर्तव्यों का निवर्हन नहीं किया गया है।

प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उपरोक्तानुसार अपने दायित्वों का निवर्हन करते हुए अवशेष धनराशि का भुगतान नहीं किया गया, जिससे यह स्पष्ट है कि यदि शिकायतकर्ता प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा प्राप्त करना चाहता था, तो उसने अनुबन्धानुसार अपनी अवशेष धनराशि का भुगतान विपक्षी द्वारा प्रेषित विभिन्‍न माँग पत्र,अनुस्मारक के अनुपालन में क्‍यों नहीं किया। अतः उपरोक्त तथ्यों से यह सिद्ध है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अनुबन्धानुसार अपने कर्तव्यों का पालन करते हुए यूनिट का कब्जा प्राप्त करने में कोई रूचि नहीं दिखाई गयी । दूसरी ओर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रश्न्गत शिकायत योणित करते हुए यूनिट का कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने अथवा वैकल्पिक रूप में यदि विपक्षी कम्पनी प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा देने में असमर्थ है, तो ऐसी स्थिति में जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। चूंकि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपनी अवशेष धनराशि का भुगतान न किये जाने के कारण विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा उपलब्ध न कराते हुए, शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि में से अनुबन्धानुसार to प्रतिशत wre मनी की कटौती करने के उपरान्त अवशेष धनराशि वापस करने हेतु तैयार है और शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भी वैकल्पिक रूप से जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। Page 8 माननीय Watery न्यायालय द्वारा “झतीश बत्रा बनाम छुघीर रावल” 2043 (l) SCC 345, में दिनांक 48-40--2042 को पारित निर्णय में यह उल्लेखित किया गया है कि:-

“5. The law is, therefore, clear that to justify the forfeiture of advance money being part of “earnest money” the terms of the contract should be clear and explicit. Earnest money is paid or given at the time when the contract is entered into and, as a pledge for its due performance by the depositor to be forfeited in case of non- performance by the depositor. There can be converse situation also that if the seller fails to perform the contract the purchaser can also get double the amount, if it is so stipulated. It is also the law that part-payment of purchase price cannot be forfeited unless it is a guarantee for the due performance of the contract. In other words, if the payment is made only towards part- payment of consideration and not intended as earnest money then the forfeiture clause will not apply. 46. When we examine the clauses in the instant case, it is amply clear that the clause extracted hereinabove was included in the contract at the moment at which the contract was entered into. It represents the guarantee that the contract would be fulfilled. In other words, “earnest” is given to bind the contract, which is a part of the purchase price when the transaction is carried out and it will be forfeited when the transaction falls through by reason of the default or failure of the purchaser. There is no other clause that militates against the clauses extracted in the agreement dated 29-I]- 20734.

7 We ure, therefore, of the Slew that the seller was juseipled in forfeiting the amount of Rs 7,00,000 as per the relevant clause, since the earnest money was primarily a security for the due performance of the agreement and, consequently, the seller is entitled to forfeit the entire deposit. The High Court has, therefore, committed an error in reversing the judgment of the trial court.” उपर्युक्त से यह स्पष्ट है कि अर्नेस्ट धनराशि किसी भी अनुबन्ध को पूर्ण करने हेतु एक बन्धक के रूप में कार्य करती है तथा लेन-देन में हुई असफलता विपक्षी को अरनेस्ट धनराशि की कटौती किये जाने का अधिकार Page 9 देती है। उपर्युक्त निर्णय में ऐसे कटौती सम्बन्धी vent a विधिक एवं बाध्यकारी बताया गया है। उपरोक्त वर्णित तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों के आधार पर यह स्पष्ट है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अनुबन्धानुसार अपनी अवशेष धनराशि का भुगतान नहीं किया गया है। इसलिए विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा देने में असफल रहा, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा आवंटन पत्र दिनांकित 44.02.2046 के प्रस्तर-0) एवं G के अनुसार io प्रतिशत “अर्नेस्ट मनी” की कटौती करने के उपरांत शिकायतकर्ता की शेष धनराशि अभी तक वापस नहीं की गयी, ऐसी स्थिति में शिकायतकर्ता को आवंटन पत्र दिनांकित 4.02.206 के 9 एवं 6 के अनुसार 40 प्रतिशत “अर्नेस्ट मनी” की कटौती के उपरांत शेष धनराशि MCLRH प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज की दर से वापस दिलाया जाना नन्‍्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है।

जहाँ तक ब्याज देयता का प्रश्न, है, इस सम्बन्ध में उल्लेखनीय है कि बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय के “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रा.ललि. 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 trom the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व क्रेता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा z धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा var धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है।

जहाँ 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/पदढ्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 2048 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें दिये गये विक्रय //पद्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.2(0) में 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 MCLRt प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर अवशेष धनराशि वापस दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-04 निस्तारित किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दु का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न क्षादेज् पारित किये जाते हैं :- हि ESS \. विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड होने की तिथि से 45 दिनों के अन्दर शिकायतकर्ता को आवंटन पत्र दिनांक 4.02.20i6 & VER-D एवं 6 के अनुसार आवश्यंक कार्यवाही कर अवशेष धनराशि MCLRH प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज की दर से वापस अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें| Page 44

के dl आदेश का उल्लघंन भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 20i6 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। शिकायतकर्ता को यह भी निर्देशित' किया जाता है कि यदि आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड होने के 45 दिन के अन्दर विपक्षी द्वारा उपरोक्त आदेश का अनुपालन नहीं किया जाता है, तो ऐसी स्थिति में शिकायतकर्ता “रेरा पोर्टल” के माध्यम से आदेश का क्रियान्वयन कराये जाने हेतु अनुरोध अपलोड कर, भौतिक प्रति रेरा क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, ग्रेटर नोएडा में उपलब्ध कराना सुनिश्चित करें। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। तद्नुसार पत्रावली दाखिल दफ्तर हो। 5 peak हर (सदस्य) उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण Page 2 ee ——