U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddha Nagar Bench-2 Present:- Shri Balwinder Kumar, Member Complaint No.:- NCR45/09/643/2020 Manish Patel v. Rise Projects Pvt. Ltd. The present complaint application has been instituted by the complainant against the respondent for refund of the deposited amount along with interest. In brief, the complainant states that flat number 0I2 in Tower- 73 was booked by them in the respondent's project RISE ORGANIC HOMES PHASE I, for which payment of Rs. 5,86,098/- was made by them from time to time on an instalment basis. Possession has not been handed over by the respondent to the complainant till now. The complainant also states that possession was to be handed over by the respondent with 42 months and 6 months grace period. Therefore, prayer has been made by the complainant for refund of the deposited amount along with interest. In support of his statement, photocopies of cheques, application form, allotment letter, apartment buyer agreement dated 27.02.2046, tripartite agreement, etc. have been filed by the complainant.

Filing a reply, it has been stated by the respondent that an apartment was booked by the complainant in their residential project ORGANIC HOMES through application form dated 09.02.20i6. Allotment letter / apartment buyer agreement was executed on 29.02.20I6, wherein unit no. 73-40i2 was allotted to the complainant. A construction-linked plan was selected by the complainant. According to possession clause 8 of the agreement, possession was to be given with 42 months and 6 months from the date of execution of the agreement. Delay in the project occurred due to orders of the Hon'ble N.G.T. and ban imposed on construction work by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. They are making efforts to complete the project and will hand over possession to allottees by the completion date given in RERA. In addition, during hearing before the Bench on date 04.02. 2024, it was stated by the respondent that they will complete the project and hand over possession by June 2024. Heard both parties and perused the file. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following points for determination have been framed:- 1. Whether this Authority has jurisdiction to hear this matter? 2. Whether the respondent's project was delayed due to force majeure? If yes, its effect? 3. Whether it is proper for the complainant to seek refund of the deposited amount? 4. Whether the complainant is entitled to receive possession and interest for the delayed period?

Disposal of Point No. 1: Whether this Authority has jurisdiction to hear this matter? So far as the question of the Authority legally having jurisdiction to hear the matter is concerned, in this regard it is clarified that prima facie for registering a complaint, provisions are given under Section-31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20i6, which are mentioned as follows:- "31. (1) Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any promoter allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be. Explanation — For the purpose of this sub-section "person" shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force. (2) The form, manner and fees for filing complaint under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be specified by regulations."

As per the above, any aggrieved person may file a complaint before the Authority or the Adjudicating Officer, as the case may be, for any contravention or violation of the provisions of the Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder against any promoter, allottee, or real estate agent. It is clear from this that complaints can be presented before both the Authority and the Adjudicating Officer according to their jurisdiction and matters (as the case may be). The jurisdiction of the Authority and the Adjudicating Officer and matters heard by them are mentioned under relevant provisions of the RERA Act. In the RERA Act, the power exercised by the Authority is provided under Sections 35, 36, 37, 38. Among these, the principal power given to the Authority in Section 38, which is appropriate to read, is as follows:-

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

In addition, power to adjudicate is given under Section 71 (7764) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20i6, which is as follows:-

"71. (1) For the purpose of adjudging compensation under sections 12, 14, 18 and section 19, the Authority shall appoint in consultation with the appropriate Government one or more judicial officer as deemed necessary, who is or has been a District Judge to be an adjudicating officer for holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner, after giving any person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided that any person whose complaint in respect of matters covered under sections 12, 14, 18 and section 19 is pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission, established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 986, on or before the commencement of this Act, he may, with the permission of such Forum or Commission, as the case may be, withdraw the complaint pending before it and file an application before the adjudicating officer under this Act. (2) The application for adjudging compensation under sub-section (1), shall be dealt with by the adjudicating officer as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application: Provided that where any such application could not be disposed of within the said period of sixty days, the adjudicating officer shall record his reasons in writing for not disposing of the application within that period. (3) While holding an inquiry the adjudicating officer shall have power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to give evidence or to produce any document which in the opinion of the adjudicating officer, may be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry and if, on such inquiry, he is satisfied that the person has failed to comply with the provisions of any of the sections specified in sub-section (1), he may direct to pay such compensation or interest, as the case any be, as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of any of those sections."

Sub-section (1) of the above provision is that for the purpose of adjudging compensation under Section 12, Section 14, Section 18, and Section 19 of the Act, the Authority shall appoint in consultation with the appropriate Government one or more judicial officers as deemed necessary, who is or has been a District Judge, as an Adjudicating Officer, who after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to any concerned person, shall hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner. In this way, it is clear that where compensation is claimed, its decision shall be given by the Adjudicating Officer. From this it also appears that the power of the Authority is crucial for appointing the Adjudicating Officer, because primarily the appointing authority is the Authority which shall do so in consultation with the Government. Therefore, from Section 38 and Section 71 of the RERA Act it is clear that powers of the Authority are given in Section 38 wherein penalty and interest shall be imposed in regard to any contravention of obligations cast upon promoters, allottees and real estate agents, and under Section 71 the power of adjudication for compensation lies with the Adjudicating Officer which shall be done only under Section 12, Section 14, Section 18 and Section 19 (only for Sections 12, 14, 18, 19). Section 12 of the RERA Act contains the following provision:-

"12. Where any person makes an advance or a deposit on the basis of the information contained in the notice advertisement or prospectus, or on the basis of any model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, and sustains any loss or damage by reason of any incorrect, false statement included therein, he shall be compensated by the promoter in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that if the person affected by such incorrect, false statement contained in the notice, advertisement or prospectus, or the model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, intends to withdraw from the proposed project, he shall be returned his entire investment along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and the compensation in the manner provided under this Act." According to the above provision, where any person makes an advance or deposit on the basis of information given in a notice, advertisement, or prospectus, and sustains any loss or damage by reason of incorrect, false statement included therein, they shall be compensated by the promoter in the manner provided under this Act. In such situation, where complainants claim compensation with evidence under the provisions of Section 12, its adjudication shall be given by the Adjudicating Officer.

In paragraph 2 of the proviso to this section, it is stated that if the affected allottee intends to withdraw from the project, their entire invested amount shall be returned along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed, and they shall be compensated in accordance with the manner provided under the Act. That is, if only refund of amount with interest is sought and the interest rate is prescribed, then no element of adjudication is involved therein. Therefore, this section has 2 parts: first, where the question of compensation arises, it shall be decided by the Adjudicating Officer; and second, where the question of deposited amount with interest arises, it shall be decided by the Authority. Similarly, sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the RERA Act provides as follows:- "14. (3) In case any structural defect or any other defect in workmanship, quality or provision of services or any other obligations of the promoter as per the agreement for sale relating to such development is brought to the notice of the promoter within a period of five years by the allottee from the date of handing over possession, it shall be the duty of the promoter to rectify such defects without further charge, within thirty days, and in the event of promoter's failure to rectify such defects within such time, the aggrieved allottees shall be entitled to receive appropriate compensation in the manner as provided under this Act."

In Section 14, provision is made for adherence by the promoter to sanctioned plans and project specifications. In this sequence, in sub-section (3) of Section 14 it is provided that if within a period of 5 years from the date of handing over possession, any structural defect or any other defect in workmanship, quality or provision of services or any other obligations of the promoter is brought to the notice of the promoter by the allottee, it shall be the duty of the promoter to rectify such defects without further charge within 30 days, and in the event of failure of the promoter to rectify such defects within such period, the aggrieved allottee shall be entitled to receive appropriate compensation as provided under this Act. From this also it is clear that the question of determination of compensation for failure to fulfill binding conditions under this section shall be decided by the Adjudicating Officer. However, the aggrieved person shall have liberty to present their case before the Authority for an order directing the promoter to fulfill those binding conditions. Under Section 18 of the RERA Act, the following provisions are given:-

"18. (1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building,— (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed." Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, they shall be entitled to receive interest from the promoter for every month of delay till possession is handed over at such rate as may be prescribed.

Therefore, it is clear that if the project apartment, plot, or building is not completed by the promoter according to the agreement, or possession is not handed over, and if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, they shall be entitled to receive their deposited amount with interest and also compensation. If the allottee wishes to remain in the project, interest shall be payable for every month of delay. From this also it is clear that under Section 38 the Authority has power where the question of interest and penalty arises, that lies within the jurisdiction of the Authority; and where the question of compensation arises, that lies within the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71. Reading these provisions jointly, it is propounded in the language of these provisions that if possession is not handed over by the promoter according to the terms of their binding agreement, the allottee shall have the right to claim refund of their deposited amount with interest. Keeping the above in view, under Section 84 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, the U.P. Real Estate Rules, 2046 were framed. Therein, provision is made under Rule-33(1) for Form "M" for submitting complaints before the Authority, and under Rule-34(1) for Form "N" for applying before the Adjudicating Officer. In addition, provision is also made under Regulation 24 of the U.P. Real Estate Authority (General) Regulations, 20i9 for registering online complaints.

In this sequence, for the benefit of allottees, the following provision exists:- Right of Allottee "19. (4) The allottee shall be entitled to claim the refund of amount paid along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and compensation in the manner as provided under this Act, from the promoter, if the promoter fails to comply or is unable to give possession of the apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of his registration under the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder." As per the above, if the promoter fails to comply with the terms of the agreement for sale or is unable to give possession of the apartment, plot, or building, as the case may be, or due to discontinuance of business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of registration under the Act or rules or regulations made thereunder, the allottee shall be entitled to claim refund of amount paid to the promoter along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and compensation in the manner provided under the Act.

Therefore, it is clear that if possession is not given according to the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale entered into by the promoter, the allottee shall be entitled to claim deposited amount with interest under the Act and rules and regulations, and in addition shall also be entitled to receive compensation. In such situation, it can be held that where the allottee is entitled to claim deposited amount with interest, its jurisdiction shall be considered under the Authority, whose power is given under Section 38, because the rate of interest is prescribed by the State Government and no question of "adjudication" is involved therein. So far as the question of granting compensation is concerned, that jurisdiction shall be of the Adjudicating Officer according to Section 71, because therein determination of compensation on the basis of evidence according to the prescribed procedure is required. In Section 72 of the RERA Act, provisions are also given regarding the factors to be considered by the Adjudicating Officer on compensation, which are as follows:-

"72. While adjudging the quantum of compensation or interest, as the case may be, under section 71, the adjudicating officer shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:— (a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; (b) the amount of loss caused as a result of the default; (c) the repetitive nature of the default; (d) such other factors which the adjudicating officer considers necessary to the case in furtherance of justice." In the provision of this section, interest has also been added because determination of the quantum of compensation can be in the form of both a lump sum amount or equivalent interest. Clearly, interest given as compensation is distinct from the matter of refund of deposited amount of the allottee with interest. Where determination of interest rate is included in the compensation amount given in the form of interest, in the event of refund of amount with interest by the Authority, the interest rate is pre-determined and there is no element of adjudication therein.

The rate of interest payable in cases of refund is given under the rules framed by the State Government, and calculation of compensation or interest by the Adjudicating Officer is given keeping in view the following 4 points:- (a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; (b) the amount of loss caused as a result of the default; (c) the repetitive nature of the default; (d) such other factors which the Adjudicating Officer considers necessary in furtherance of justice in the case. In this situation, it is clear that disposal of compensation matters which shall be done by the Adjudicating Officer has no bearing on refund of deposited amount with interest. It is also that distinct provisions are given in the RERA Act for compensation and for deposited amount with interest. Calculation of compensation shall be given only according to the 4 grounds given in Section 72 and the provisions and conditions of Sections 12, 14, 18, and 19. According to the Act, the Authority has been given powers to develop the real estate sector systematically according to various provisions, and the Authority has been given power to appoint an Adjudicating Officer who shall specifically determine the compensation amount according to functions.

So far as the question of distinction between interest, penalty, and compensation is concerned, regarding distinction among all these, it has been clarified on the basis of the following authorities. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others that:- "258. In paragraph-9 of Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India, (2007) 3 SCC 545, the Apex Court has held that “There is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest of the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B.” The object of Section 18 is to recompense an allottee for depriving him of the use of the funds paid by him. The promoter who has received money from the allottee but has failed to adhere to his contractual or statutory obligations, cannot claim that he is entitled to utilize the monies without paying any interest with respect thereto to the allottee."

It is clear from the above that interest is neither a penalty nor a punishment, but is normal accretion on capital. The object of Section 18 is to recompense the allottee for the use of funds deposited. For this reason, the Authority has jurisdiction to hear the present complaint. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is disposed of. Disposal of Point No. 2: Point No. 2 has been framed to the effect whether the respondent's project was delayed due to force majeure events? This point has been framed on the assertions of the respondent, the burden of proving which lies on the respondent. It has been stated on behalf of the respondent that delay in the project occurred due to orders of the Hon'ble N.G.T. and ban imposed on construction work by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. No evidence has been filed on record on behalf of the respondent in support of the said statement from which it could literally be known that construction work was actually disrupted on the land of the project. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 940/20:7 Bikram Chatterjee and others v. Union of India and others, at page number 234 and paragraph 420 of the judgment, has defined force majeure as follows:- "Force majeure shall mean a case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature."

From the above definition of force majeure, it is clear that force majeure is a situation in which war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or other natural calamity has occurred. In the case at hand, no such situation arose, and in such situation the respondent is not entitled to get the benefit of this argument. It has been stated by the respondent that Covid-19 be considered in the category of force majeure. Therefore, looking at the present circumstances, it would be appropriate to consider Covid-19 in the category of force majeure. Accordingly, Point No. 2 is disposed of. Disposal of Point No. 3: The complainant states that possession has not been handed over by the respondent till now, due to which they wish to withdraw from the project. In such situation, prayer has been made for refund of the deposited amount along with interest. On the other hand, it has been stated by the respondent during hearing before the Bench that they will complete the project and hand over possession by June 2024. So far as the question of buyer's request for refund is concerned, in this regard it is necessary to read the provisions of the RERA Act holistically, so that keeping the views of all parties in mind, a balanced decision can be taken. Section 18(1) of the RERA Act provides that:-

"Section 18 (1) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed." In this manner, the buyer has the right that if they do not get possession according to the agreement, they may claim refund of their deposited amount with interest or remain in the project receiving monthly interest. In Section 34 of the RERA Act, along with other functions of RERA, "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" is also mentioned.

Similarly, in Section 32, among the responsibilities of the Authority for growth of the real estate sector, the following is also included:- "32. The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a) protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent; (b) any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector." From the said provisions it is clear that to ensure healthy growth of the real estate sector, the responsibility of this Authority is to take an appropriate decision looking holistically at the interests of all its stakeholders. In this sequence, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, wherein judgment was rendered regarding RERA, observed in paragraph 424 as follows:-

"The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth. Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section 71 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19. 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 in the event of not receiving the unit in time the allottee has the right to claim refund of their amount with interest, nevertheless looking at the above-described observations, the Authority, on the basis of all facts of the case, can pass orders according to "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 seeking refund of amount and allottees remaining in the project, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chitra Sharma v. Union of India (744 / 207) observed in paragraph 40 of the judgment as follows:-

"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."

Looking at the observations quoted in the above paragraphs by the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court and the overall scheme of the RERA Act, it is also clear that if in every case of delay a decision is taken only to refund the amount, it would certainly not be in accordance with the objective and scheme of the Act. At the time of taking a decision on refund, it would be in the interest of justice to consider the uniqueness of each case, all facts of the case such as the status of construction, timeline of completion, status of promoter's commitment to offer possession, impact on other stakeholders, especially allottees remaining with the project, consensus regarding proposed possession date, etc. Regarding constitution of RERA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 940 ,/ 2047 Bikram Chatterjee and others v. Union of India and others, in the order passed on date 23.07.209 at paragraph 420, mentioned as follows:-

"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 the projects. 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." In the said observation, it has also been clarified that the provisions of RERA are beneficial to homebuyers and are intended to protect the interests of allottees from any breach of trust, and the task of monitoring completion of buildings belongs to RERA, and duties and responsibilities of the parties have been fixed in the Act. This benefit has also been given that in the event of project delay, homebuyers shall have the right to receive interest as per rules till completion of the project for the delay.

Subsequent to this, again regarding RERA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 43,/2049 Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited and others v. Union of India and others, on date 09.08.2049, at paragraph 29 of page number 86 of the order, mentioned as follows:- "29. 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." In the said order, an important observation given is that the aim of RERA is that under its monitoring and supervision, real estate projects be completed fruitfully by promoters within a prescribed period, so that allottees are not deprived of getting their flats and can get the home of their dreams, while at the same time recalcitrant allottees are also held responsible for not cooperating in completing the project. It has also been stated that allottees should properly fulfill their duties, primarily ensuring payment of instalments on time, so that the project can be completed.

In this situation, according to the legal proposition determined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court above, it is clear that the main object of RERA is to have projects completed fruitfully by promoters and to ensure proper payment of instalments by allottees, so that projects can be completed within the prescribed period. To protect the interests of allottees, the benefit of interest shall also be payable to allottees upon project delay, but prior to this it shall also be the responsibility of the complainant to pay their instalments on time.

Since it has been stated by the respondent that the project will be completed and possession handed over by June 2024, from which it is evident that it is towards completion and other allottees of the project are waiting for possession. Looking at all circumstances, in the interest of justice it would be appropriate that the complainant take possession upon completion of the project by date 30.06.2024. Thereafter, they may themselves decide regarding future use of the unit. In any case, investment was made by the complainant in the project for possession, which has been utilized by the respondent in construction of the project. Certainly, in the event of remaining in the project, interest for delay shall be payable by promoters to allottees as per rules. If possession is not handed over to the complainant by completing the project by the respondent by date 30.06.2024, thereafter it would be appropriate to refund the deposited amount of the complainant with interest. Point No. 3 is disposed of.

Disposal of Point No. 4: The complainant states that possession was to be received with 42 months and 6 months grace period, that is, up to date 27.02.2020 / 28.02.2020 from the date of agreement dated 27.02.2046, but till now possession of the unit has not been handed over. The respondent states that the project was delayed due to force majeure. Delay occurred due to orders of the N.G.T., orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and Covid-19. In this regard, in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50 /20:8 "Supertech Limited v. Rajni Goyal", it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that after obtaining the full occupancy certificate / completion certificate, the allottee shall have no further grievance with respect to delay in handing over possession. According to the said legal proposition, the complainant shall be entitled to receive delayed interest up to the date of OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. In the notification number 4740 ,/8-3-48-65 dated 47.40.2048 of the U.P. Government, Housing and Urban Planning Section-3, under Clause 7.1 of the Rules, the following is mentioned regarding force majeure:-

"7. POSSESSION OF THE APARTMENT/PLOT: 7.1 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 [date], unless there is delay or failure due to war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project ("Force Majeure"). If, however, the completion of the Project is delayed due to the Force Majeure conditions then the Allottee agrees that the Promoter shall be entitled to the extension of time for delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot]."

In this sequence, after all relevant facts and circumstances, an additional period of 6 months from date 25.03.2020, that is, up to date 25.09.2020, was granted by the U.P. RERA Authority for completing all projects due to the effect of Covid-19 (Corona Virus Disease), and this period shall be considered a period of force majeure. Keeping this in view, for the delay occurring in the project from date 25.03.2020 to date 25.09.2020, no interest shall be given by the promoter to allottees, nor shall any delayed interest be charged from allottees. Accordingly, Point No. 4 is disposed of. Disposing of the above points, the following order is passed:- ORDER 1. The respondent is ordered to complete all amenities of the complainant's unit according to the allotment letter / agreement and ensure handing over possession with OC/CC by date 30.06.2024, and after receiving payable registry fees, execute registry as per rules.

2. The respondent ensure paying interest for the delayed period at an annual interest rate of MCLR+ 1% to the complainant on the amount deposited by the complainant from date 28.02.2020 up to the date of obtaining OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. Also, it is clarified that this amount of interest shall be adjusted in the final payment amount, and if the amount of interest exceeds the payable amount, it shall be refunded to the complainant. Keeping in view the lockdown in the country for prevention and control of Covid-19 and force majeure, interest shall not be calculated for delay in the project from date 25.03.2020 to date 25.09.2020. 3. The respondent ensure issuing offer of possession letter as above after obtaining the OC. 4. The respondent is directed that under Section 2(za)(i) of the RERA Act, 2046, interest has been defined that after RERA came into force, if any rate of interest is charged by the promoter upon default of the allottee, interest shall be given to the allottee at the same rate upon default by the promoter as well. The interest rate notified by the State Government is MCLR+ 1 percent. 5. If the respondent fails to hand over possession to the complainant by date 30.06.202, they ensure refunding the deposited amount along with annual interest rate of MCLR+ 1 percent to the complainant within 45 days after date 30.06.2024. It shall be the liability of the complainant to repay the bank loan amount taken against their unit to the bank.

6. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section-63 and other relevant provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046. The order be uploaded on the portal. Date:- 19/02/2024 (Balwinder Kumar) Member U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Fa भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | पीठ-2 उपस्थिति:- श्री बलविन्दर कुमार, सदस्य शिकायत संख्या:- NCR45/09/643/2020 मनीष पटेल बनाम राइज प्रोजेक्ट्स wo feo 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 । के टावर- 73 में फ्लैट WeN-0I2 बुक किया गया था, जिसके लिए उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 5,86,098/- रूपये का भुगतान किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा 42 माह एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के साथ कब्जा दिया जाना था। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में चैक, आवेदन फॉर्म, आवंटन पत्र,अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांक 27.02.2046, त्रिपक्षीय अनुबन्ध आदि की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं। विपक्षी द्वारा जवाब दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी आवासीय परियोजना ORGANIC HOMES में आवेदन aL Page 4 = 09.02.20i6 के माध्यम से अपार्टमेंट बुक कराया गया था। आवंटन

पत्र/ अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 29.02.20I6 को निष्पादित कराया गया, जिसमें कि शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट सं0- 73-40i2 आवंटित किया गया। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कंस्ट्रक्शन fies प्लान का चयन किया गया था। अनुबन्ध के कब्जे वाले प्रस्तर-& के उप-प्रस्तर- के अनुसार अनुबन्ध निष्पादन की तिथि से 42 माह एवं 6 माह के साथ कब्जा दिया जाना था। परियोजना में विलम्ब माननीय NG.T. के आदेश एवं माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्माण कार्य पर लगाए गये प्रतिबन्ध के कारण हुआ। वह परियोजना को पूर्ण करने के लिए प्रयासरत हैं और ker में दी गयी पूर्णता तिथि तक वह आवंटियों को कब्जा दे देंगे। इसके अतिरिक्त पीठ के समक्ष सुनवाई के दौरान दिनांक 04.02. 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 वाद बिन्दु विचारणीय किये गये हैं :- 4. FO इस प्राधिकरण को यह प्रकरण सुनने का क्षेत्राधिकार है ? 2... क्या force majeure होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? 3. क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि वापस दिलाये जाने की मांग करना उचित है ? 4. क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है? निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 क्या इस अथॉरिटी को यह प्रकरण सुनने का क्षेत्राधिकार अधिकार है ? जहाँ तक प्राधिकरण को विधिक रूप से प्रकरण की सुनवाई करने के क्षेत्राधिकार का प्रश्न है, इस सम्बंध में स्पष्ट करना है कि प्रथम दृष्टया किसी परिवाद को दर्ज कराये जाने के लिए भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और ar Page 2

अधिनियम, 20i6 के धारा-34 के अन्दर प्राविधान दिये गये है जो कि निम्न रूप से उललेखित है-: 3l. () Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any promoter allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be. Explanation —For the purpose of this sub-section "person" shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force. (2) The form, manner and fees for filing complaint under sub-section (l) shall be such as may be specified by regulations उपरोक्तानुसार कोई पीड़ित व्यक्ति, किसी wade, आवंटी या भू-सम्पदा अभिकर्ता के विरूद्र अधिनियम या उसके अधीन बनाये गये नियमों या विनियमों के उपबन्धों के किसी अतिकमण या उल्लंघन के लिए मामलों के अनुसार (as the case may ४०) प्राधिकरण या नन्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के समक्ष शिकायत दाखिल कर सकता है। इससे स्पष्ट है कि शिकायत को प्राधिकरण और न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी दोनों के समक्ष उनके क्षेत्राधिकार एवं मामलों के अनुसार (as the case may ४०) प्रस्तुत किये जा सकते है। प्राधिकरण और न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के क्षेत्राधिकार और उनके सुने जाने वाले मामले रेरा अधिनियम में सम्बंधित प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत उल्लेख किये गये है।

रेरा अधिनियम में प्राधिकरण (Authority) ERT प्रयोग किये जाने वाली शक्तियों (Powers) का अधिकार धारा-35,36,37,38, के अन्तर्गत दी गयी है। इनमें से मुख्य शक्ति जो कि erase में प्राधिकरण को दी गयी है, जिसका पढ़ा जाना उचित होगा, जो कि निम्नवत है :- 38. (l) The Authority shall have powers to impose penalty or interest, inregard to any contravention of obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents, under this Act or the rules and the regulations made thereunder. & The Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Authority shall have powers to regulate its own procedure. (3) Where an issue is raised relating to agreement, action, omission, practice or procedure that— (a) has an appreciable prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in connection with the development of a real estate project; or (b) has effect of market power of monopoly situation being abused for affecting interest of allottees adversely, then the Authority, may suo motu, make reference in respect of such issue to the Competition Commission of India.

उपरोक्त प्राविधान की धारा-38 की उपधारा-4 यह है कि प्राधिकरण को, सम्प्रवर्तकों, आवंटियों और भू-सम्पदा अभिकर्ताओं पर डाली गयी बाध्यताओं के किसी भी उल्लंघन के सम्बंध में, इस अधिनियम और उसके अधीन बनाये गये नियमों और विनियमों के अधीन अर्थदंड (Penalty) या ब्याज (Interest) अधिरोपित करने की शक्ति eri) इससे स्पष्ट है कि सम्प्रवर्तक, आवंटियों और भू-सम्पदा अभिकर्ताओं पर डाली गयी बाध्यताओं (Obligations) के किसी भी उल्लंघन के लिए अर्थदंड Penalty) और ब्याज (7७6४) प्राधिकरण द्वारा घारा 38) के अन्तर्गत अधिरोपित किया जायेगा। इसके अतिरिक्त नन्‍्यायनिर्णयन करने की शक्ति भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) अधिनियम 20:6, की धारा-74 में दी गयी है। जो कि निम्नवत्‌ है-: 7. (l) For the purpose of adjudging compensation under sections 2, 4, 8 and section 9, the Authority shall appoint in consultation with the appropriate Government one or more judicial officer as deemed necessary, who is or has been a District Judge to be an adjudicating officer for holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner, after giving any person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided that any person whose complaint

in respect of matters covered under sections 2, 4, 8 and section 9 is pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or the Consumer Disputes _Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission, established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 986, on or before the commencement of this Act, he may, with the permission of such Forum or Commission, as the case may be, withdraw the complaint pending before it and file an application before the adjudicating officer under this Act. (2) The application for adjudging compensation under sub-section (), shall be dealt with by the adjudicating officer as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application: Provided that where any such application could not be disposed of within the said period of sixty days, the adjudicating officer shall record his reasons in writing for not disposing of the application within that period.

(3) While holding an inquiry the adjudicating officer shall have power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to give evidence or to produce any document which in the opinion of the adjudicating officer, may be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry and if, on such inquiry, he is satisfied that the person has failed to comply with the provisions of any of the sections specified in sub-section (), he may direct to pay such compensation or interest, as the case any be, as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of any of those sections. उपरोक्त प्राविधान की oii) यह है कि अधिनियम की ot, धारा-44, धारा-48 और धारा-49 के अधीन कक्षतिपूर्ति (Compensation) न्यायनिर्णीत करने के लिए, प्राधिकरण समुचित सरकार के परामर्श से ऐसे एक या अधिक न्यायिक अधिकारी जैसा आवश्यक समझे, जो जिला न्‍्यायधीश wy) Page 5 रहा है, न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करेगा, जो कि किसी संबद्ध व्यक्ति को सुनवाई का समुचित अवसर प्रदान किये जाने के पश्चात्‌, विहित रीति (Prescribed manner) में जाँच करेगा। ऐसे में यह स्पष्ट है कि जहाँ क्षतिपूर्ति (Compensation) की मांग की जायेगी, तो उसका निर्णय zara अधिकारी द्वारा दिया जायेगा। इससे यह भी प्रतीत होता है कि प्राधिकरण की शक्ति न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के नियुकती हेतु अहम है, क्‍योंकि मुख्यतः नियुक्तिकर्ता प्राधिकरण है जो कि सरकार के परामर्श से करेगा।

अतः रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-38 एवं धारा-74 से स्पष्ट है कि धारा-38 में प्राधिकरण की शक्तियां दी गयी है जिसमें कि सम्प्रवर्तकों, आवंटियों और भू-सम्पदाओं अभिकर्ताओं पर डाली गयी बाध्यताओं (Obligations) के किसी भी उल्लंघन (Any Contravention) के सम्बंध में, अर्थदंड Penalty) एवं ब्याज (Interest) अधिरोपित किया जायेगा और धारा-7१ में क्षतिपूर्ति (Compensation) हेतु न्‍्यायनिर्णयन करने की शक्ति का अधिकार न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी को है जो कि केवल धारा-42, धारा-44, धारा-48 और धारा-49 (Only for Sections 2,4,8,9) के अधीन किया जायेगा। रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-42 में निम्न प्राविधान है :- 2, Where any person makes an advance or a deposit on the basis of the information contained in the notice advertisement or prospectus, or on the basis of any model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, and sustains any loss or damage by reason of any incorrect, false statement included therein, he shall be compensated by the promoter in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that if the person affected by such incorrect, false statement contained in the notice, advertisement or prospectus, or the model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, intends to withdraw from the proposed project, he shall be returned his entire investment along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and the compensation in the manner provided under this Act. उपरोक्तानुसार प्राविधान से यह है कि जहाँ कोई व्यक्ति सूचना, विज्ञापन प्रास्पेक्ट्स में दिये जानकारी के आधार पर कोई अग्रिम देता है या जमा करता

है eee छल उसे उसमें सम्मलित गलत, मिथ्या कथन के कारण कोई हानि Ny ; Page 6 नुकसान उठाना पढ़ता है, तो उसकी सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा इस अधिनियम के अधीन यथा उपबंधित रीति में क्षतिपूर्ति की जायेगी | ऐसे में जहाँ शिकायतकर्ता धारा 42 के प्राविधानों के अनुसार ससाक्ष्य क्षतिपूर्ति की माँग करेगें वहाँ उसका अभिनिर्णय न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा दिया जायेगा। इसी धारा के प्राविधान के दूसरे अनुच्छेद (Paragraph 2) में यह कहा गया है कि पीड़ित आवंटी परियोजना से यदि अपना नाम वापस लेना चाहता है, तो उसके निवेश की गयी धनराशि, ब्याज सहित, ऐसी दर जो कि पर जो कि विहित की जाए के अनुसार लौटाया जायेगा, और अधिनियम के अधीन उपबंधित रीति के अनुरूप उसकी क्षतिपूर्ति की जायेगी। wean यदि केवल ब्याज सहित धनराशि वापिस माँगी गई है व ब्याज दर विहित है तो उसमें अभिनिर्णय का कोई अंश समाविष्ट नहीं है। अतः इस धारा में 2 अंग है, पहला (Paral) जहाँ क्षतिपूर्ति का प्रश्न है वह न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा निर्णय किया जायेगा और दूसरा (Para 2) जहाँ जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज का प्रश्न है वह प्राधिकरण द्वारा निर्णीत किया जायेगा, इसी प्रकार wr अधिनियम की aria की उपधारा-3 निम्नवत प्राविधानित है-:

4(3) In case any structural defect or any other defect in workmanship, quality or provision of services or any other obligations of the promoter as per the agreement for sale relating to such development is brought to the notice of the promoter within a period of five years by the allottee from the date of handing over possession, it shall be the duty of the promoter to rectify such defects without further charge, within thirty days, and in the event of promoter's failure to rectify such defects within such time, the aggrieved allottees shall be entitled to receive appropriate compensation in the manner as provided under this Act. धारा-4 में सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा मंजूर रेखांको और परियोजना विनिर्देशों का पालन किये जाने का प्राविधान है। इसी कम में oeri4 की उपधारा-3 में यह प्राविधानित है कि यदि कब्जा सौपें जाने की तारीख से 5 वर्ष की अवधि के भीतर आवंटी द्वारा, ऐसे विकास से सम्बंधित किसी संरचनात्मक त्रुटि या Pe Page 7 हु कर्मकौशल, क्वालिटी या उपबन्ध या सम्प्रवर्तक की fet अन्य बाध्यताओं की ओर सम्प्रवर्तक का ध्यान दिलाया जाता है, तो सम्प्रवर्तत का यह कर्तव्य होगा कि वह ऐसी त्रुटियों को बिना fest अतिरिक्‍त प्रभारों के 30 दिन के भीतर दूर कराये और सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा ऐसी त्रुटियों को ऐसे अवधि के भीतर दूर करने में असफल रहने की दशा में पीड़ित आवंटी समुचित प्रतिकर पाने का हकदार होगा, जो इस अधिनियम के अधीन उपबंधित हो।

इससे भी यह स्पष्ट है कि इसमें क्षतिपूर्ति के निर्धारण का प्रश्न है जो कि बाध्यकारी शर्तों को पूरा न किये जाने के लिए इस धारा के अन्तर्गत, इसका निर्णय न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी का होगा। परन्तु पीड़ित व्यक्ति को यह स्वतंत्रता होगी कि वह, सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा उन बाध्यकारी शर्तों को पूर्ण कराये जाने हेतु आदेश क॑ लिए, प्राधिकरण के समक्ष अपना वाद प्रस्तुत कर सकते है। रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-48 के अन्तर्गत निम्नवत्‌ प्राविधान दिये गये है :- 8. () If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building,— (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed. उपरोक्त प्राविधान यह है कि यदि सम्प्रवर्तक-: ५८

(क). विकय करार के निबन्धों के अनुसार उसमें निर्धारित तारीख तक सम्यक रूप से पूरा करने में, या (ख). इस अधिनियम के अधीन अथवा किसी अन्य प्रकरण से रजिस्ट्रीकरण का निलंबन या प्रतिसंहरण के कारण विकासकर्ता के रूप में उसका कारोबार बन्द होने के कारण, यथास्थिति, किसी अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन का पूरा करने में असफल रहता है या उसका कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहता है, तो वह उपलब्ध किसी अन्य उपचार पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव डाले बिना आवंटी की मांग पर, यदि आवंटी परियोजना से बाहर होना चाहता है, तो यथास्थिति, उस अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन के सम्बंध में उसके gh प्राप्त रकम को, ऐसी दर पर ब्याज सहित, जो इस नियमित विहित की जाये एवं इस अधिनियम के अधीन यथा उपबन्धित रीति में क्षतिपूर्ति दिलाये जाने का पात्र होगा। परन्तु जहाँ किसी आवंटी का परियोजना से बाहर आने का आशय नहीं है, वहाँ सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा उसे कब्जा सौपें जाने तक विलम्ब के प्रत्येक माह के लिए उस दर पर जो विहित की जाये, ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। अतः यह स्पष्ट है कि यदि सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा अनुबन्ध के अनुसार परियोजना को अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन पूर्ण नहीं किया जाता है, या कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है और यदि आवंटी परियोजना से बाहर आना चाहता है, तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित और क्षतिपूर्ति भी पाने का अधिकारी होगा।

यदि आवंटी परियोजना में बना रहना चाहता है, तो प्रतिमाह विलम्ब के लिए ब्याज देय होगा। इससे भी यह स्पष्ट है कि धारा-38 के अन्तर्गत प्राधिकरण को यह शक्ति है कि जहाँ ब्याज और अर्थदंड का प्रश्न होगा, तो यह प्राधिकरण के क्षेत्राधिकार में होगा और जहाँ क्षतिपूर्ति का प्रश्न होगा, तो वह धारा-74 के अन्तर्गत न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी के क्षेत्राधिकार में होगा। इन प्राविधानों को संयुक्त रूप से पढ़ा जाये, तो इन प्राविधानों की भाषा में यह प्रस्तावित है कि यदि प्रोमोटर द्वारा अपने बाध्यकारी अनुबन्ध के निबन्धनों के अनुसार कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है, तो आवंटी को यह दावा करने का अधिकार होगा कि अपना जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस ले सकेगें। उपरोक्तानुसार विशेष रूप से amie को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) अधिनियम की धारा-84 के अन्तर्गत DP) भू-सम्पदा नियमावली, 206 बनायी गयी। जिसमें प्राधिकरण के समक्ष शिकायत प्रस्तुत करने के लिए फार्म “एम” नियम-33() एवं waht अधिकारी के समक्ष आवेदन करने के लिए फार्म “एन” नियम-34(4) का प्राविधान है। इसके अतिरिक्त उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा प्राधिकरण (सामान्य) विनियमन, 20i9 @ TER 24 के अन्तर्गत ऑनलाईन शिकायत दर्ज कराना का भी प्राविधान है। इसी कम में आवंटियों के हित के लिए निम्न प्राविधान हैं :- Right of Allottee

9. (4) The allottee shall be entitled to claim the refund of amount paid along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and compensation in the manner as provided under this Act, from the promoter, if the promoter fails to comply or is unable to give possession of the apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of his registration under the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder. उपरोक्तानुसार यह है कि यदि सम्प्रवर्क्त विकय करार के निबन्धों के अनुसार या इस अधिनियम या उसके अधीन बनाये गये नियमों या विनियमों के soe के अधीन उसके रजिस्ट्रीकरण निलम्बन या प्रतिसंहरण हो जाने के कारण, विकासकर्ता के रूप में उसका कारोबार बन्द हो जाने के कारण या विकय करार के निबन्धानुसार अनुपालन करने में असफल रहता है या, यथास्थिति, अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन का कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहता है, तो आवंटी द्वारा सम्प्रवर्कक को दिये गये धनराशि ऐसी ब्याज दर पर वापस जायेगी जो कि विहित की जायेगी तथा अधिनियम के अधीन उपबंधित रीति में क्षतिपूर्ति सहित दावा करने का हकदार होगा। अतः यह स्पष्ट है कि यदि सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा किये गये विकय करार के नियम एवं शर्तों के अनुसार कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है, तो वह अधिनियम के अधीन नियम एवं नियमावली के अन्तर्गत जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित दावा करने Page 0

का हकदार होगा और इसके अतिरिक्त क्षतिपूर्ति पाने का भी अधिकारी होगा। ऐसे में यह अवधारित किया जा सकता है कि जहाँ आवंटी जमा धनराशि का ब्याज सहित दावा करने का हकदार है, तो उसका क्षेत्राधिकार प्राधिकरण के अन्तर्गत मानी जायेगी, जिसकी शक्ति धारा-38 के अन्तर्गत दी गयी है, क्‍योंकि ब्याज दर राज्य सरकार द्वारा विहित है एवं इसमें कोई “एडज्यूडिकेशन” का प्रश्न निहित नहीं है। जहाँ तक क्षतिपूर्ति दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है, तो यह क्षेत्राधिकार धारा-74 के अनुसार wats अधिकारी का होगा, क्‍योंकि इसमें निर्धारित प्रकियानुसार साक्ष्यों के आधार पर क्षतिपूर्ति का निर्धारण अपेक्षित है। रेरा अधिनियम धारा-72 में न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा क्षतिपूर्ति पर विचार किये जाने वाले कारण के बारे में भी प्राविधान दिये गये है जो कि निम्नवत्‌ है :- 72. While adjudging the quantum of compensation or interest, as the case may be, under section 7, the adjudicating officer shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:— (a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, | wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; (b) the amount of loss caused as a result of the default; (c) the repetitive nature of the default; (d) such other factors which the adjudicating officer considers necessary to the case in furtherance of justice.

इस धारा कं प्राविधान में ब्याज भी जोड़ा गया है, क्‍योंकि क्षतिपूर्ति की धनराशि की मात्रा का निर्धारण एकमुश्त धनराशि अथवा समकक्ष ब्याज दोनों के रूप हो सकता है। स्पष्टतया क्षतिपूर्ति के रूप दिये जाने वाला ब्याज, आवंटी की जमा धनराशि की ब्याज सहित धनवापसी के प्रकरण से अलग है। जहाँ ब्याज के रूप में दी जाने वाली क्षतिपूर्ति की राशि में ब्याज दर का निर्धारण सम्मिलित है, प्राधिकरण द्वारा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वार्षिक करने की दशा में ब्याज दर पूर्व निर्धारित है cen उसमें अभिनिर्णय का अंश नहीं है। JL = किये जाने वाले प्रकरण में भुगतान किये जाने वाले ब्याज की दर राज्य सरकार द्वारा बनाये गये नियमावली के अन्तर्गत दी जाती है और क्षतिपूर्ति निर्धारण या ब्याज की गणना अधिनिर्याणक द्वारा निम्न 4 बिन्दुओं को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिये जाते है। (क) व्यतिक्रम के परिणाम स्वरूप अनुपातिक लाभ या अनुचित फायदे की, जहाँ कहीं अनुमान्य हो, रकमः (ख) after के परिणामस्वरूप हानि की रकम: (ग) व्यतिकम के पुनरावुत्तिपूर्ण प्रकृति: (घ) ऐसे अन्य कारक, जो न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी न्याय के अग्रसरण के मामले में आवश्यक समझें | ऐसे में यह स्पष्ट है कि क्षतिपूर्ति वाले प्रकरण के निस्तारण जो न्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी द्वारा किया जाएगा, उसका जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस किये जाने वाली धनराशि से कोई लेन-देना नहीं है। यह भी है कि रेरा अधिनियम में क्षतिपूर्ति एवं जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज हेतु अलग-अलग प्राविधान दिये गये है। क्षतिपूर्ति की गणना धारा-72 में दिये गये सिर्फ 4 आधारों एवं धारा 42, 44, 8 व १9 के प्राविधानों तथा शर्तों के अनुसार ही दी जायेगी।

अधिनियम के अनुसार प्राधिकरण को भू-सम्पदा सेक्टर को नियमित रूप विभिन्‍न प्राविधानों के अनुसार विकास करने हेतु दिये गये है साथ प्राधिकरण को एक अधिनिर्णायक अधिकारी को नियुक्त करने का अधिकार दिया गया है जो सिर्फ विशिष्ठ रूप से कृत्य अनुसार क्षतिपूर्ति वाली धनराशि का निर्धारण करेगें। जहाँ तक ब्याज, अर्थदंड, क्षतिपूर्ति में अन्तर का प्रश्न है, तो इन सभी के अन्तर के सम्बंध में निम्नवत्‌ साक्ष्यों के आधार पर स्पष्ट किये गये है माननीय उच्च न्यायालय are द्वारा नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्राएलि0 आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया आदि में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है fe: 258. In paragraph-9 of Alok Shanker Pandey y, Union of India, (2007) 3 SCC 545, the Apex Court has held that “There is misconception about intcrest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, sayl0 years AW, Y

ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest of the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 0 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B.” The object of Section 8 is to recompense an allottee for depriving him of the use of the funds paid by him. The promoter who has received money from the allottee but has failed to adhere to his contractual or statutory obligations, cannot claim that he is entitled to utilize the monies without paying any interest with respect thereto to the allottee. उक्त से स्पष्ट है कि ब्याज अर्थदंड नहीं है और न ही कोई सजा है, किन्तु साधारण रूप से रकम पर हुई अभिवृद्धि है। धारा-48 का लक्ष्य आवंटी को जमा किये गये धनराशि के उपयोग का प्रतिदान करने हेतु है। इसी कारण यह अनुतोष प्राधिकरण द्वारा क्षेत्राधिकारिता के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिया जा रहा है। तदनुसार बिन्दु de निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 बिन्दु सं? 2 इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या वास्तव में परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्ट्स होने कारण विलम्बित हुई? यह बिन्दु विपक्षी के अभिकथनों पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार विपक्षी पर है।

विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि परियोजना में विलम्ब माननीय ६.७... के आदेश एवं माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्माण कार्य पर लगाए गये प्रतिबन्ध के कारण हुआ। विपक्षी की ओर से vat कथन के बाबत कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर दाखिल नहीं किया गया है, जिससे अक्षरश: रूप से विदित हो सके कि परियोजना की भूमि पर वास्तव में निर्माण कार्य बाधित था। = wig में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील WeN-940/20:7 बिक्रम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में निर्णय के पृष्ठ संख्या-234 एवं प्रस्तर 0 4 फोर्स मैज्योर को निम्नवत्‌ परिभाषित किया है:- Force majeure shall mean a case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature. उपरोक्त फोर्स मैज्योर के परिभाषा से यह स्पष्ट है कि फोर्स मैज्योर वह स्थिति है, जिसमें की युद्ध, बाढ़, सूखा, आग, तूफान, भूकम्प या अन्य प्रकृतिक आपदा आई हो, प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में ऐसी कोई परिस्थिति उत्पन्न नहीं हुई और विपक्षी ऐसी दशा में वह इस तर्क का लाभ पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है। विपक्षी द्वारा कोविड-49 को फोर्स मैज्योर की श्रेणी में माने जाने का कथन किया गया है। अतः वर्तमान परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए कोविड-49 को फोर्स मैज्योर की श्रेणी में माना जाना उचित होगा। तदनुसार बिन्दु सं0 2 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-3 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है, जिस कारण वह परियोजना से बाहर आना चाहते हैं। ऐसे में जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है।

दूसरी ओर विपक्षी द्वारा पीठ के समक्ष सुनवाई के दौरान कहा गया है कि वह जून 2024 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दे देंगे। जहाँ तक क्रेता द्वारा रिफण्ड के अनुरोध का प्रश्न है, इस विषय में रेरा अधिनियम के प्राविधानों को समग्र रूप से पढा जाना आवश्यक है, ताकि सभी पक्षों के मत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए एक संतुलित निर्णय लिया जा सकें। रेरा एक्ट की धारा 48 () में प्राविधान है कि :- Section 78 (4) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, 0८ 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 नही मिलता तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि को ब्याज सहित वापिस माँग सकते हैं अथवा मासिक दर से ब्याज प्राप्त करते हुए परियोजना में बने रहें। रेरा अधिनियम की धारा 34 में रेरा के अन्य “फंग्शन्स” के साथ-साथ "to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder ” का भी उल्लेख है। इसी प्रकार धारा 32 में रियल इस्टेट सेक्टर के विकास हेतु अथॉरिटी के उत्तरदायित्यों में निम्न भी सम्मिलित हैं :- “32. The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may he, on,— (a)protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent; @any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” उक्त प्राविधानों से यह we है कि “रियल एस्टेट सेक्टर” के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके सभी wo eed 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 रियलटर्स सबअरबन प्रा.लि. बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया, जिसमें रेरा a —_—_—_—_—_—_____E eee Page 5 & के सम्बंध में निर्णय दिया गया था, के WER 424 में मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निम्न संवीक्षण किया:

7[24, The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth. Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal, An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section 7 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections /2, /4, 26 and 79. 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 nat he 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 3 moulding reliefs 60 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। एलोटीज़ 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 ............... Secondly, the figures which have been made available presently, following the opening of the Web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be unmindful of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund."

मा. उच्च न्यायालय एवं सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा उक्त प्रस्तरों में उद्धरत “ऑबजरवेशनस्‌” एवं 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 “erase” की स्थिति, कम्पलीशन की “टाईम लाईन”, प्रोमोटर्स के द्वारा ऑफर ऑफ पजेशन के “कमिटमेन्ट” की स्थिति, अन्य “स्टेक होल्डर्स“, विशेष रूप से परियोजना के साथ बने रहने वाले “एलॉटीज” पर प्रभाव, “प्रस्तावित पज़ेशन डेट” के विषय में “कन्सेन्सस्‌” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। 22: Page 7 WW 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 Hen के प्रस्तर-420 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है:-

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 सके | तत्क्रमानुसार आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-255 के weR-i37 में निम्नवत्त्‌ 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 (५ | due to undue delay in completion of the project.

उक्त आब्जर्वेशन में यह भी स्पष्ट किया गया है कि रेरा के प्राविधान गृहकंताओं 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 aes 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 को भी परियोजना पूर्ण कराने का सहयोग न करने में उत्तरदायित्व माना है। यह भी कहा गया है कि आवंटी अपने कर्तव्यों को सम्यक रूप से पूर्ण करें, मुख्य रूप से जैसे कि Page 9 LJ 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 दिये जाने की बात कही गयी है, जिससे विदित है कि पूर्णता की ओर है तथा परियोजना के अन्य आवंटी कब्जे हेतु प्रतिक्षारत हैं। समस्त परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए न्यायहित में यह उचित होगा कि शिकायतकर्ता दिनांक 30.06.2024 तक परियोजना पूर्ण होने पर कब्जा लें। उसके बाद वे स्वयं यूनिट के 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 एलॉटीज़ को विलम्ब हेतु नियमानुसार ब्याज प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा देय होगा। यदि विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 30.06.2024 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 सं०-3 तद्नुसार निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु to 4 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है, जिस पर विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया है कि वह जून 2024 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दे देंगे। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटन पत्र»अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 27.0220I6 की छायाप्रति दाखिल की गयी है, जिसके कब्ने वाले WIA के VII के अवलोकन से विदित है कि विपक्षी aS \V अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध की तिथि से 42 माह एवं 6 माह की Page 20 अवधि के साथ 48 माह में कब्जा दिया जाना था। उक्त अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध

दिनांक 27.02.2046 को उभयपक्षों द्वारा हस्ताक्षर करते हुए निष्पादित किया गया था। ऐसे में उपरोक्तानुसार कब्जे की तिथि 27.02.2020 होती है। यह स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना विलम्बित है और ऐसे में शिकायतकर्ता दिनांक 28.02.2020 से ओ.सी./सी.सी. प्राप्त होने 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 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 उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व क्रेता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के TOY) Page 2 है तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विक्रय पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 2048 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विक्रय / पट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.2(॥) 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 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 /20:8 सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- " the period of Interest should close on April 20l6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer \v 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 47.40.2048 को उ0प्र0 शासन आवास एवं शहरी नियोजन अनुभाग-3 की अधिसूचना संख्या-4740 ,/8-3-48-65 fafar/ie B ser Fist Wire की नियमावली के प्रस्तर-7 में फोर्स मैज्योर के सम्बन्ध में निम्न उल्लेख किया गया है:- 7. POSSESSION OF THE APARTMENT/PLOT:

"7.l Schedule for possession of the said [Apartment/Plot] - The Promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot] to the Allottee and the Common Areas to the association of Allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, is the essence of the Agreement. The Promoter assures to hand ovet 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 J) conditions then the Allottee agrees that the न 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) ® प्रभाव के कारण सभी परियोजनाओं को पूर्ण करने हेतु दिनोक 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 ब्याज लिया जायेगा। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-4 Pena किया जाता है।

उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते आदेश 4. विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह शिकायतकर्ता के यूनिट की समस्त सुविधाओं को आवंटन-पत्र /अनुबन्ध के अनुसार पूर्ण कराकर दिनांक 30.06.2024 तक ओ.सी./सी.सी. सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय tera शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें। विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 28.02.2020 से ओ.सी /सी.सी प्राप्त होने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो, की तिथि तक शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि पर MCLR+ प्रतिशत की वार्षिक ब्याज दर से विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। साथ ही यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की धनराशि में समायोजित की जायेगी और यदि ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक है, तो mi Page 24 शिकायतकर्ता को वापस की जाए। 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। विपक्षी, उपरोक्तानुसार कब्जा ऑफर पत्र ओ.सी. मिलने के उपरान्त जारी करना सुनिश्चित करें। विपक्षी को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम 2046 के धारा 2 Gai) 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 MCLR+I प्रतिशत है।

विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 30.06.202 तक कब्जा देने में असफल रहता है, तो वह दिनांक 30.06.2024 के पश्चात्‌ 45 दिनों के अन्दर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि MCLR+l प्रतिशत की वार्षिक ब्याज दर सहित वापस अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। शिकायतकर्ता का यह दायित्व होगा कि वह अपनी यूनिट के सापेक्ष ली गयी बैंक ऋण की धनराशि बैंक को वापस अदा करें। इस आदेश का उल्लघंन भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। दिनांक:- 49,// 02 / 2024 aH Alpe नह (बलविन्दर कु (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण