U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar | Bench-2 Present: Shri Balvinder Kumar, Member Complaint No.: NCRL45/09/6092/2020 Manish Patel Versus Rise Projects Pvt. Ltd. The present complaint petition has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party seeking refund of the deposited amount with interest. In brief, the complainant's statement is that the complainant booked unit No. toi [?] in the opposite party's project "RISE ORGANIC HOMES PHASE-I", Tower-73. The complainant paid Rs. 5,96,576/- from time to time in instalments. The opposite party was to complete the project and give possession by 29.08.209, but possession has still not been given. The complainant also states that construction in the project has not been taking place since 20:7. The complainant has therefore requested that the deposited amount be refunded with interest. In support of the complainant's statement, copies of the allotment letter / apartment buyer agreement dated 29.02.2046, cheques, the tripartite agreement, the application form, receipts of the deposited amounts, the account statement and other documents have been filed.

The Authority, by issuing notice to the opposite party, informed it that it should appear on the fixed date with the necessary evidence and submit its 1) statement of claim. The opposite party appeared on various dates, on which it was directed to file its written reply on the next fixed date. Even after the opposite party was given adequate opportunity, no written reply was filed. Moreover, during the hearing before the Bench on 25.02.2024, the opposite party stated that it would complete the project and give possession by June 2024. Both parties were heard and the file was perused. On the basis of the parties' pleadings, the following points have been considered: 4. Is it proper for the complainant to demand refund of the deposited amount with interest? 2. Is the complainant entitled to possession and to interest for the delayed period? Disposal of Point No. 4 The complainant's statement is that the opposite party was to complete the project and give possession by August 20:9, but possession has still not been given, for which reason the complainant has requested refund of the deposited amount with interest. On the other hand, the opposite party says that it will complete the project and give possession by June 2024. As regards the request of the buyer [?], the provisions of the RERA Act must be read as a whole, so that a balanced decision can be taken keeping in view the views of all parties. The provision of Section [?](4)F of the RERA Act is that: Page 2

Section 28 (7): "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 received in accordance with the agreement, they may demand return of their deposited amount with interest, or remain in the project and receive interest at a monthly rate.

Section 34 of the RERA Act also mentions, along with the other "functions" of RERA, the function "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 includes among the Authority's responsibilities for the development of the real estate sector 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 or the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a) protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent, ....... (b) any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector." It is clear from these provisions that it is the responsibility of this Authority, in order to ensure the healthy development of the "real estate sector", to take appropriate decisions after viewing the interests of its stakeholders as a whole. In this sequence, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, in which a decision was given on the constitutional validity of the RERA Act, made the following observation at paragraph 424:

"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 Page 4 to be resolved. Provisions of Section 7I refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 72, 74, 76 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 the allottee has the right to claim their money back with interest if the unit is not received on time, nevertheless, in view of the observation described above, the Authority may, on the basis of all the facts of the case, pass orders in accordance 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 refund of money and allottees who remain in the project, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its judgment in "Chitra Sharma v. Union of India" (744 ,/ 207), made the following observation at 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."

Also, in view of the observations quoted above by the Hon'ble High Court and the Supreme Court, and the overall scheme of the RERA Act, it is clear that if it were decided in every case of delay to return the money, that would certainly not be in line with the "objective" and "scheme" of the Act. While deciding refund, it will be in the interest of justice to consider the "uniqueness" of each case and all its facts, such as the state of "construction", the "timeline" of completion, the state of the promoters' "commitment" in offering possession, the impact on other [?] holders, especially allottees who remain with the project, the "consensus" regarding the "proposed possession date", and so on. In relation to the constitution of RERA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its order dated 23.07.209 passed in Civil Appeal No. 940,/ 2047, "Bikram Chatterjee and others v. Union of India and others", at page 24 [?] 420 [?], has stated as follows: 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 is made clear that RERA is meant to protect the interests of allottees, and its aim is that, by getting the promoters to complete all development work of the building, home buyers receive their residence / flat [?]. Accordingly, at page 255, [?]-i37, 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. 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 said 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 of the completion of the building is the work of RERA, and that the duties and responsibilities of the parties are fixed in the Act. It is also given as a benefit that, if the project is delayed, home buyers shall have the right to receive interest as per the rules for the delay until the project is completed. Thereafter, again in relation to RERA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 43 ,// 2049, "Pioneer [?] and Infrastructure Limited and others v. 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."

The important observation in that order is that the aim of RERA is that, under its supervision and oversight, the promoter completes the real estate project within a fixed period, so that allottees are not deprived of their flats and can get the home of their dreams; and at the same time, recalcitrant allottees are held responsible for not cooperating in completing the project. It has also been said that allottees should properly perform their duties, mainly by ensuring timely payment of instalments, so that the project can be completed. Page 8 Thus, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the main objective of RERA is that the project be completed by the promoters, and that allottees ensure proper payment of their instalments, so that the project can be completed within the fixed period. To protect the interests of allottees, the benefit of interest for delay is also payable to allottees when the project is delayed; but before that, it shall also be the complainant's responsibility to pay instalments on time.

Since the opposite party has said that it would complete the project and hand over possession by June 2024, from which it is known that the project is moving towards completion and other allottees in the project are waiting for possession, in view of all the circumstances it would be appropriate, in the interest of justice, for the complainant to take possession on completion of the project by 30.06.20204. Thereafter the complainant may decide for themselves on the future use of the unit. In any case, the investment made by the complainant in the project for possession has been used by the opposite party in the construction of the project. Certainly, if the allottees remain in the project, interest for the delay shall be payable by the promoters to the allottees as per the rules. If the opposite party does not give possession to the complainant by completing the project by 30.06.202, then thereafter it would be appropriate that the complainant's deposited amount be refunded with interest. Point No. 4 is accordingly disposed of. Disposal of Point No. 2 The complainant's statement is that the opposite party was to complete the project and give possession by August 209, but the opposite party has still not given possession. On this, the opposite party says that it will complete the project and give possession by June 2024.

A photocopy of the allotment letter / apartment buyer agreement dated 29.02.20:6 has been filed on the file. On a perusal of clause (7) and sub-clause ( ) of the possession clause, it is evident that the opposite party was to give possession within 48 months from the date of the apartment buyer agreement, namely 42 months with a grace period of 6 months. The said apartment buyer agreement dated 29.02.2046 was executed by both parties. Accordingly, the possession date as above is 28.02.2020. It is clear that the project is delayed, and accordingly the complainant is entitled to interest for the delayed period from 28.02.2020 until the OC/CC is obtained or possession is offered, whichever is later. In this regard it is noteworthy that, in the petition of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India of the Maharashtra High Court, the Hon'ble High Court has held that:

"Section 8()(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 U.P. RERA, interest on 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 on 47.40.2048 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale / Lease) Rules 2048. In clause 9 of the format of the sale / lease deed given as an annexure therein, the promoters' default cases (Events of Default) are defined, and clause 9.20) provides for the allottee, in the event of the promoter's 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 +% unless provided otherwise under the Rules, within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:" Page i2 The same rate is also fixed in clause 9.30) for default by allottees. Keeping in view the said provision, it appears justified that interest for the delayed period be awarded to the allottee at MCLRH per cent. As regards the question up to what period interest is to be awarded, in this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal "to 6649-50 /20i8", Supertech Limited v. Rajni Goyal, has held that:

"The period of Interest should close on April 20I6 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." Under the above legal position, the complainant shall be entitled to delay interest up to the date on which the OC/CC is received 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 until OC/CC is received or possession is offered, whichever is later. By notification dated 47.40.208 of the U.P. Government, Housing and Urban Planning Department, Section-3, No. [?]-740 / 8-3-48-65 Vividh/46, it has been stated in clause 7 of the rules for the model agreement, regarding force majeure, as follows: "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]:" Page 2

In this sequence, after considering all relevant facts and circumstances, the U.P. RERA Authority, because of the effect of COVID-49 (Corona Virus Disease), has granted a period of 6 months from 25.03.2020, that is up to 25.09.2020, to complete all projects, and this period shall be treated as the 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, nor shall any delay interest be taken from the allottees. Accordingly, Point No. 2 is disposed of. Disposing of the above points, the following orders are passed: Order 4. The opposite party is directed to ensure that it completes all facilities of the complainant's unit in accordance with the allotment letter / agreement [?], and hands over possession with OC / CC by 30.06.202, and, on receiving the payable stamp duty, gets the registration done as per the rules. Page 3 2. The opposite party is directed to ensure that it pays delay interest at MCLRH per cent on the amount deposited by the complainant from 28.02.2020 until receipt of OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. It is also clarified that this interest amount shall be adjusted against the final payment amount, and if the interest amount exceeds the amount due, the excess shall be refunded to the complainant as per the rules. 3. The opposite party is directed to ensure that, after receipt of the OC as above, it issues the possession offer letter.

4. The opposite party is directed that, under Section 2(8)(0) of the RERA Act, 2046, interest has been defined to mean that, after RERA came into force, if any rate of interest is charged by the promoter from the allottee upon the allottee's default, the same rate of interest shall also be paid by the promoter to the allottee upon the promoter's default. The interest rate notified by the State Government is 8 72+] [?] per cent. In view of the lockdown imposed in the country for the prevention and control of COVID-49 and the force majeure, interest for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020 shall not be calculated. 5. If the opposite party fails to give possession to the complainant by 30.06.2024, it shall ensure that within 45 days after 30.06.2024 it refunds the amount deposited by the complainant with interest at the annual rate of MCLR+ per cent. Page 4 Any violation of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 206, and other relevant provisions. The order shall be uploaded on the portal. (Balvinder Kumar) (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Date: 04/04/2024 Page 5

el sono भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | पीठ-2 उपस्थिति :-- श्री बलविन्दर कुमार, सदस्य शिकायत संख्या :- NCRL45/09/6092/2020 मनीष पटेल बनाम राइज प्रोजेक्ट्स प्रा0 लि0 प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध 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 HOMES PHASE-I" के टॉवर- 73 में यूनिट संख्या- toi बुक किया गया था, जिसके लिए उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 5,96,576/- रुपये का भुगतान किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को परियोजना पूर्ण कर 29.08.209 तक कब्जा दिया जाना था, परन्तु अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है कि परियोजना में वर्ष 20:7 से निर्माण कार्य नहीं हो रहा है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटन पत्र/ अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांक 29.02.2046, चैक, त्रिपक्षीय अनुबन्ध, आवेदन फार्म, जमा धनराशि की रसीदें, खाता विवरण आदि की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं। प्राधिकरण की ओर से विपक्षी को नोटिस जारी करते हुए सूचित किया गया था कि निर्धारित तिथि पर उपस्थित होकर आवश्यक साक्ष्यों सहित १) Page SSS ree Page ene es

अभिकथन प्रस्तुत करें। विपक्षी विभिन्‍न तिथियों पर उपस्थित रहां है, जिसमें उन्हें निर्देशित किया गया था कि वह अग्रिम नियत तिथि पर प्रतिवाद पत्र दाखिल करें। विपक्षी को पर्याप्त अवसर दिये जाने पर भी कोई प्रतिवाद पत्र दाखिल नहीं किया गया। इसके अतिरक्‍त पीठ के समक्ष सुनवाई के दौरान दिनांक 25.02.2024 को विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया है कि वह जून 2024 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दे देंगे। उभयपक्ष को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। | पक्षकारों के अभिवचनों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित are बिन्दु विचारणीय किये गये हैं :- 4. क्या शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने | की मांग करना उचित है ? 2. क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है? निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अगस्त 20:9 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, किन्तु अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है, जिस | कारण जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। | दूसरी ओर विपक्षी का कहना है कि वह जून 2024 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दे देंगें। | जहाँ तक क्रेता द्वारा Roos 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 :- NW Page 2 eo Section 28 (7) “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 क्रेता को यह अधिकार है कि यदि उन्हें एग्रीमेंट के अनुरूप कब्जा नहीं 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” GF 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 regulations made thereunder " का भी उल्लेख है। इसी प्रकार धारा 32 में रियल gee सेक्टर के विकास हेतु अथॉरिटी के उत्तरदायित्यों में निम्न भी सम्मिलित हैं :- ॥

“32. The Authority shall in order to Jacilitate 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,....... (Dany other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” उक्त प्राविधानों से यह स्पष्ट है कि “रियल wee सेक्टर” के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके wil Re होल्डर्स के हितों को समग्र रूप से देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेने का उत्तरदायित्व इस ऑथरिटी का है। इस क्रम में मा. मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा नीलकमल Raced सबअरबन 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 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 dV Page 4 = | to be resolved. Provisions of Section:7I refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under | Sections 72, 74, 76 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 सन्तुलन के प्रसंग में “चित्रा शर्मा बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया” (744 ,/ 207) 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 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 savssssesosss 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 vat wert में उद्धरत “ऑबजरवेशनस्‌” एवं रेरा 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 “eo होल्डर्स विशेष रूप से परियोजना के साथ बने रहने वाले “एलॉटीज” पर प्रभाव, “प्रस्तावित पजेशन डेट” के विषय में “कन्सेन्सस्‌” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। रेरा' के गठन के सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940,/ 2047 बिक्रम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में दिनांक 23.07.209 को परित आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-24 के हु 420 Ai निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है:- Al? 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. 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 गृहक्रेताओं को उनका आवास / फ्लैट मिल Wa | तत्क्रमानुसार आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-255 के weR-i37 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. 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 रेरा के प्राविधान गृहकेताओं के लिए लाभकारी हैं और किसी प्रकार के विश्वासघात होने से आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए हैं एवं बिल्डिंग को पूर्ण कराने हेतु निगरानी का कार्य रेरा 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 गृहक्रेताओं 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 ,// 2049 पायनियर ada aw 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."

उक्त 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 AWA Page 8 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 सके | 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 सम्यक 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 जून 2024 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिलाये जाने की बात कही गयी है, जिससे विदित है कि परियोजना पूर्णता की ओर है तथा परियोजना के अन्य आवंटी कब्जे हेतु प्रतिक्षारत हैं। समस्त परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए न्‍यायहित में यह उचित होगा शिकायतकर्ता दिनांक 30.06.20204 तक परियोजना पूर्ण होने पर कब्जा लें। उसके बाद वे स्वयं यूनिट क॑ भविष्य हेतु उपयोग के सम्बन्ध में निर्णय ले सकते हैं। वैसे भी शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा परियोजना 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 एलॉटीज को विलम्ब हेतु नियमानुसार ब्याज प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा देय होगा। यदि विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 30.06.202 तक शिकायतकर्ता को परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है, तो उसके पश्चात्‌ शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस किया जाना उपयुक्त होगा। निस्तारण बिन्दु सं०-4 तदनुसार Paka किया जाता है। (\/ निस्तारण बिन्दु Ho 2 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अगस्त 209 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है, जिस पर विपक्षी का कहना है कि वह जून 2024 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दे देंगे।

पत्रावली पर आवंटन पत्र,अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 29.02.20:6 की छायाप्रति दाखिल की गयी है, जिसके कब्जे वाले प्रस्तर-(७) के उप-प्रस्तर-() के अवलोकन से विदित है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध 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 29.02.2046 को उभयपक्षों द्वारा निष्पादित किया गया था। ऐसे में उपरोक्तानुसार कब्जे की तिथि 28.02.2020 होती है। यह स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना विलम्बित है और ऐसे में शिकायतकर्ता दिनांक 28.02.2020 से ओ.सी.,//सी.सी. अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो, तक की अवधि पर विलंबित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है। इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि महाराष्ट्र उच्च न्यायालय के नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया की याचिका में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया.है कि — "Section 8()(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 dV & |

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 we है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व क्रेता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 20i6 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विक्रय/पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 2048 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विक्रय / पट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के WER 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.20) 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 +% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:" Page i2 यही दर आवंटियों के द्वारा डिफॉल्ट की स्थिति में भी प्रस्तर 9.30) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को MCLRH 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 to 6649-50 /20i8 सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- "The period of Interest should close on April 20I6 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 होंगे। दिनांक 47.40.208 को उ0प्र०0 शासन आवास एवं शहरी नियोजन अनुभाग-3 की अधिसूचना WeT-740 / 8-3-48-65 विविध,/46 के द्वारा मॉडल एग्रीमेन्ट की नियमावली के प्रस्तर-7 में फोर्स मैज्योर के सम्बन्ध में निम्न उल्लेख किया गया है:- 7. POSSESSION OF THE APARTMENT/PLOT: dV | Page 2 | & 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 द्वारा आवंटियों को नहीं दिया जाएगा और न ही आवंटियों से कोई विलम्ब ब्याज़ 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 के यूनिट की समस्त सुविधाओं को आवंटन-पत्र /अनुबन्ध के अनुसार पूर्ण qi7 TX Page 3 दिनांक 30.06.202 तक ओ.सी. / सी.सी. सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें। 2. विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 28.02.2020 से ओसी »सी.सी प्राप्त होने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो की तिथि तक शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि पर MCLRH प्रतिशत की 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 जाए। 3. विपक्षी, उपरोक्तानुसार कब्जा ऑफर पत्र ओ.सी. मिलने के उपरान्त जारी करना सुनिश्चित करें।

4. विपक्षी को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम 2046 के धारा 2 (8)0) के अन्तर्गत ब्याज को परिभाषित किया गया है कि 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 दिया जायेगा। राज्य सरकार द्वारा अधिसूचित ब्याज दर ८ 7२+] प्रतिशत है। 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। 5. विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 30.06.2024 तक कब्जा देने में असफल रहता है, तो वह दिनांक 30.06.2024 के पश्चात्‌ 45 दिनों के अन्दर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि MCLR+ प्रतिशत की वार्षिक ब्याज दर | सहित वापस अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। fy een oo Page 4 इस आदेश का उल्लघंन भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम, 206 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा | आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। ४१,9८८-८- (बलविन्दर कुमार) (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण दिनांक :- 04/04 / 2024 rr ॥ 3 age 5