U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddha Nagar. Hearing Bench-04A E-Court Shri Rajive Kumar, Hon'ble Chairman Serial No. | Complaint Number | Complainants 1 | NCR45/09/6466/2020 | Sushila 2 | NCRI45/09/646/2020 | ... 3 | NCRI45/09/59898/2020 | ... Singh 4 | उलरा45/0/62895/2020 | ... Kumar Gupta Versus Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Private Limited Suits have been instituted against the respondent by complainant Sushila along with 03 other complainants. The facts of all these complaints are identical and evidence is identical. All these complaints relate to UCHDPL- Sector-4 Plots / ए०७. Therefore, they are being disposed of by a single decision. Complaint Number — NCRI45/09/6466/2020 Sushila shall be the lead case. The present complaint applications have been instituted by the complainants against the respondent for grant of possession and interest for the delayed period.

In brief, the complainant states that plot number 95 was booked by them in the respondent's project UCHDPL Sector-4 Plots, for which an amount of Rs. 9,46,934/- was paid by the complainant on an installment basis from time to time. The respondent was obligated to complete the project and give possession to the complainant, but possession has not been given by the respondent till now. The respondent's project is delayed by approximately 7 years, nor has OC been obtained. Therefore, request has been made by the complainant for grant of possession and interest for the delayed period. In support of their statement on behalf of the complainant, photocopies of Plot Allottee Arrangement dated 02.42.2040 , transfer letter dated 20.05.20:2, and account statement have been filed.

The respondent, filing its written statement, stated that plot number 95 in their project UCHDPL Sector-4 Plots was purchased by the complainant in re-sale under the Development Linked Installment Payment Plan. The total cost of the plot (without taxes) is Rs. 4,4,686/-, out of which an amount of Rs. 9,46,934/- was paid by the complainant. Hurdles arose in work due to dharna and agitation by local farmers, and the project was delayed due to stay orders of Hon'ble Courts regarding land acquisition. Taking into consideration rising pollution in Delhi NCR, construction work was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from October 2049 to January 2020. In addition, construction work was banned from 6:00 pm to 6:00 am, due to which also construction work in the project was delayed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, passing an order dated 30.07.20i2 / 300720i2, had stayed the land. Only those complaints should be heard before the Authority in which causes of action arose after registration of the project in RERA. Under the provisions of the Builder Buyer Agreement, which is not the subject matter of this Authority, the complainant must invoke arbitration or approach other forums for grievance redressal. In support of their statement, the respondent filed photocopies of order dated 30.0:.20:2 / 300720i2 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Office Memorandum dated 40.03.2047 of U.P. Government.

Arguments of both parties were heard and the record was perused, on the basis of which the following issues are framed: - 1. Whether agreements entered into prior to RERA do not come under the purview of RERA, and whether the provisions of RERA will not apply if an agreement was executed between the parties prior to the coming into force of RERA? 2. Whether the respondent's project was delayed due to force majeure events? If yes, its effect? 3. Whether this Bench does not have jurisdiction to hear the case due to an arbitration clause in the agreement? 4. Whether it is proper to calculate delay period interest from the date the unit was transferred in favor of the complainants? 5. Whether the complainants should be granted possession and interest for the delayed period? If yes, what will be the rate of interest? Points of Determination: Point No. 1 is framed on the fact whether agreements prior to RERA do not come under the purview of RERA, and whether the provisions of RERA will not apply if an agreement was executed between the parties prior to the coming into force of RERA? In this regard, the observation given by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.-2737 / 2047 "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and another versus Union of India" is significant, wherein it was clearly mentioned that: -

"86. On behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that registration of ongoing project under RERA would be contrary to the contractual rights established between the promoter and allottee under the agreement for sale executed prior to registration under RERA. In that sense, the provisions have retrospective or retroactive application. After assessing, we find that the projects already completed are not in any way affected and, therefore, no vested or accrued rights are getting affected by RERA. The RERA will apply after getting the project registered. In that sense, the application of RERA is prospective in nature. 87. The important provisions like Section 3 to 9, 40, 59 to 70 and 79 to 80 were notified for operation from /5/207. RERA law was enacted in the year 20l6. The Central Government did not make any haste to implement these provisions at one and the same time, but the provisions were made applicable thoughtfully and phase-wise. Considering the scheme of RERA, object and purpose for which it is enacted in the larger public interest, we do not find that challenge on the ground that it violates rights of"

From the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble High Court, it is also clear that although agreements were executed between promoter and allottee prior to RERA registration, if the project is registered under RERA, all provisions of RERA will apply. The project in question has been registered under RERA and falls under the ongoing category. In such circumstances, all provisions of RERA will apply. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is decided. Point of Determination No. 2: Point No. 2 is framed to the effect whether the project was actually delayed due to force majeure events? This point has been framed on the averments of the respondent, the burden of proving which is on the respondent. It was stated on behalf of the respondent that the project was delayed due to force majeure events which were beyond their control. Hurdles arose in carrying out work due to dharna and agitation by local farmers. Taking into consideration rising pollution in Delhi NCR, construction work was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from October 2049 to January 2020. In addition, construction work was banned from 6:00 pm to 6:00 am, due to which also construction work in the project was delayed. In addition, bans imposed on construction work by the National Green Tribunal and the period of COVID-19 / कोविड--49 are reasons of force majeure.

In this regard, the Hon'ble NCDRC in Consumer Complaint No.-4430 /206 "Neeru Kaushal and another versus Unitech Limited", in paragraph 14 of the judgment, made the following observation regarding delay of projects due to force majeure: - "Coming to the plea of Force Majeure taken by the opposite party. It may be noted that issue raised by the opposite party is no more: reintegrate. Similar pleas to explain the delay in construction were taken by the opposite party in Consumer Complaint No. 347 of 294 / 427/204 Swarn Talwar and 2 Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. and other connected consumer complaints which pertain to the alleged deficiency i.e. failure of the opposite party to deliver possession of the booked apartments in the same project. In the aforesaid matters, Coordinate Bench of this Commission vide order dated 4.08.20!5 / 08.06.2045 declined to accept the plea of Force Majeure taken by the opposite party. The relevant reasoning of the Coordinate Bench rejecting the plea of Force Majeure is reproduced as under "Coming to the pleas that there was recession in the economy and a disruption due to agitation by farmers and acute shortage of labour, etc., the following view taken by us In Satish Kumar Pandey (Supra) is relevant.

"Neither any new legislation was enacted nor an existing rule, regulation or order was amended stopping suspending or delaying the construction of the complex in which apartments were agreed to be sold to the complainants. There is no allegation of any lock-out or strike by the labour at the site of the project. There is no allegation of any slow-down having been resorted to by the labourers of the opposite party or the contractors engaged by it at the site of the project. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God which could have delayed the completion of the project within the time stipulated in the Buyers Agreement. It was contended by the counsel for the OP that the expression 'slow down' would include economic slow-down or recession in the Real Estate sector. I, however, find no merit in this contention. The word ‘slow down' having been used along with the words lock-out and strike, I has to be read ejusdem generis with the words lock-out and strike and therefore, can mean only a slow down if resorted by the labourers engaged in construction of the project."" In addition, in Civil Appeal No.-940 / 2047 "Bikram Chatterjee and others versus Union of India and others", at pages 234 and tt0 / 234, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 present case, no such circumstance arose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 04.11.04.44.20:9 passed in Civil Appeal No.-43029 /4985 "M.C. Mehta versus Union of India" gave directions regarding prohibition of construction activities. In order dated 09.12.09.2.2049 / 09422049 passed in the said Civil Appeal, directions were given partially lifting the ban. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had banned construction activities for 35 days (from date 04.44.20:9 to date 09.2.2049) and for 33 days (66/2) (from date 09.2.2049 to 14.02.2020 / 74022020 from 6.00 pm to 6.00 am). In such circumstances, the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of a total of 35+33 = 68 days due to construction work being affected.

After considering all relevant facts, U.P. RERA Authority vide order dated 06.06.2020 / 66202, on account of the effect of COVID-19 (Corona Virus Disease), granted an additional period of 6 months from date 25.03.2020, i.e., up to date 25.09.2020, for completing all projects, and this additional period will be treated as due to force majeure events. Keeping this in view, for the delay occurred in the project from date 25.03.2020 to date 25.09.2020, no interest shall be paid by the promoter to allottees, nor will any delay interest be charged from the complainant. Accordingly, Point No. 2 is disposed of. Point of Determination No. 3: The contention was also raised on behalf of the respondent that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, due to which any dispute between the complainant and respondent can be decided only through an arbitrator, and this Bench has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited versus Aftab Singh" 208 SCC Online SC 277 / 2707 has held that: - "55. In view of the afore-going discussion, we arrive at the following conclusions: (i) the disputes which are to be adjudicated and governed by statutory enactments, established for specific public purpose to sub-serve a particular public policy are not arbitrable; (ii) there are vast domains of the legal universe that are non-arbitrable and kept at a distance from private dispute resolution;

(iii) the subject amendment was meant for a completely different purpose, leaving status quo ante unaltered and subsequently reaffirmed and restated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; (iv) Section 2(3) of the Arbitration Act recognizes schemes under other legislations that make disputes non-arbitrable and :" In light of the aforesaid legal propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that certain disputes cannot be resolved by an arbitrator even after an arbitration agreement. The jurisdiction of specially constituted authorities cannot be ousted merely under the cloak of an arbitration clause. In all such disputes for which special bodies have been created by law and given jurisdiction, an arbitrator is not competent to dispose of such disputes. In light of the above legal propositions, it is clear that Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 will prevail over the Arbitration Act. The Hon'ble NCDRC in "A. Ayyasamy versus A. Paramasivam and others", (2016) 10 SCC 386, applying the reasoning, concluded that the same principle applies to matters under the Real Estate Act, because this Act provides a special mechanism for resolution of disputes between home buyers and builders. Keeping in view the principles laid down above, the question of referring the matter to an arbitrator by the respondent automatically comes to an end. Accordingly, Point No. 3 is disposed of. Point of Determination No. 4:

Point No. 4 has been framed to the effect whether it is proper to calculate delay period interest from the date the unit was transferred in favor of the complainants? In this regard, copy of order dated 23.0.20:8 passed in Civil Appeal No.-3409 / 2003 "Haryana Urban Development Authority versus Diwan Singh" has been filed on record, in paragraph 8 of which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: - "One significant aspect to be noticed is that the respondent is not the allottee who was allotted the plot in 990, but a re-allottee who was re-allotted the plot in April 998. When he was offered possession of the plot in May 998, he found that a part of it was used for purpose of road. Thereafter, the applicant even offered an alternative plot. The respondent however rushed to the District Forum in 999, hardly within a year of re-allotment. The allegations of inordinate delay, negligence, harassment on the part of the appellant in a complaint filed by a re-allottee, within one year of re-allotment, appears to be hollow and without merit. In this factual background, having regard to the principles laid down in GDA v. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65, HUDA v. Darsh Kumar (2005) 9 SCC 449 and Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank (2007) 6 SCC 7ll, the award of interest was not warranted. A re-allottee in 998 cannot obviously be awarded interest from 992 on the amounts paid by the original allottee in 990 on the ground that the original allottee was not offered delivery in 990."

In the aforesaid case, after re-allotment of the plot to the new allottee by the opposite party in April 998 / 4998, the opposite party offered possession to the new allottee in May 998 / 4998, which was not accepted by the new allottee. Considering this, the opposite party also offered an alternative plot to the new allottee, but the new allottee instituted a suit before the District Forum in the year t999 within one year from the date of re-allotment of the plot and did not wait for obtaining possession. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order stating that the new allottee clearly cannot be granted interest from the year t992 on the amount paid by the original allottee, whose possession was not given to the original allottee in the year 990 / 4990. In addition, in order dated 23.40.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.-2384 / 2003 (including Civil Appeal No.-2382 / 2003 and Civil Appeal No.-3443 / 2003) "Haryana Urban Development Authority versus Raje Ram", in paragraph 7, it was held that: -

"Respondents in the three appeals are not the original allottees. They are re-allottees to whom re-allotment was made by the appellant in the years 4997 respectively. They were aware, when the plots were re-allotted to them, that there was delay (either in forming the layout itself or delay in delivering the allotted plot on account of encroachment etc.). In spite of it, they took re-allotment. Their cases cannot be compared to cases of original allottees who were made to wait for a decade or more for delivery and thus put to mental agony and harassment. They were aware that time for performance was not stipulated as the essence of the allotment of contract and the original allottees had accepted the delay. The appellant offered possession to respondents (re-allottee) and they took possession of the respective plots on 27.6.2002, 2!.3.2000 and 3.9.999 respectively. They approached the District Forum in 997, within a short period from the dates of re-allotment in their favour. They had not paid the full price when they approached the District Forum. In the circumstances, having regard to the principles laid down by this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh- 2004 (5) SCC 65, Darsh Kumar (supra) and Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank - 2007 (6) SCC 7i, we are of the view that the award of interest was neither warranted nor justified."

In addition, in order dated 05.09.20I2 passed by the Hon'ble NCDRC in Consumer Complaint No.- 4702 /206 "Shalabh Nigam versus Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.", in paragraph 24, it was held that: - "24. It is seen that the present complainant is a subsequent allottee, who purchased the apartment from the original buyer on 3.08.202 and endorsement in the allotment letter was made on 05.09.20I2. In the case of refund, the complainant shall be entitled only to get interest from the date when his name was endorsed on the allotment i.e. from 5.9.20I2 as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Diwan Singh / Diwas Singh, (200) 4 SCC 770." In addition, in order dated 08.06.2045 passed by the Hon'ble NCDRC in Consumer Complaint No.- 427 /204 "Shri Satish Kumar Pandey and others versus M/s Unitech Limited", in paragraph 19 / 49, it was held that: -

"19. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the opposite party should handover possession of the apartments booked by the complainants on or before the last date stipulated in the letter of the opposite party dated 27-05-205. In the cases of those complainants who are the initial allottees of the apartments or who acquired the same within one year of the initial allotment, the opposite party should also pay compensation to them in the form of simple interest at the rate of 2% per annum with effect from the date of possession stipulated in the agreement till the date on which the possession is actually handed over to them. The persons who purchased the flats within one year of the initial allotment, ought to be treated at par with the initial allottees, because atleast two more years being still available to the opposite party at the time of purchase by them, they could not have anticipated that the builder will not be able to honour its commitment, as regards the stipulated date of delivery of possession. No separate compensation for the mental agony, harassment and suffering needs to be paid by the opposite party to the complainants. However, in the case of those complainants who acquire the flats by way of resale more than one year after the initial allotment, the opposite party should pay compensation in the form of simple interest at the rate of 2% per annum with effect from three years from the date of the repurchase till the date on which the possession is delivered to them. As in other cases no compensation would be payable for the first three years from the date of initial allotment of the flat. For the interregnum i.e. between three years from the date of initial allotment and three years from the date of repurchase by them, compensation shall be paid by the opposite party at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. of the super area in terms of clause 4.c of the buyers agreement. I am awarding lesser compensation to those who purchased the flat from the initial allottee more than one year after the date of initial allotment, considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Raje Ram, AIR 2009 SC 2030."

If any such evidence is available from which it is clear that along with endorsement, a commitment was given by the opposite party that clauses relating to delay in the agreement will remain in accordance with earlier dates, then delay amount will certainly be payable for the full period; otherwise, in light of the aforesaid precedents, delay amount will be payable only from the date of endorsement. Accordingly, Point No. 4 is decided. Point of Determination No. 5: The complainant states that the respondent had the liability to complete the project and give possession, but possession has not been given till now. The respondent's project is delayed by approximately 7 years, nor has OC been obtained. Therefore, request has been made by the complainant for grant of possession and interest for the delayed period. On this, no explanation regarding delivery of possession has been given in the written statement filed by the respondent. Section 18(1) / धारा-48(॥) / Section 78 (7) of the RERA Act provides as follows: - "Section 78 (7) “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, buyers have the right that if they do not receive possession in accordance with the agreement, they can demand refund of their deposited money with interest, or remain in the project receiving interest for every month of delay.

In support of their statement, the complainant filed a copy of Plot Allottee Arrangement dated 02.42.2040, in which according to Clause 3.1 regarding construction and possession, the complainant was to get plans approved from the competent authority and carry out construction of a building on their allotted plot within 3 years from the date of receiving notice for possession from the opposite party, and according to Clause 3.3, the complainant was to take possession within 30 days of notice for possession being sent by the opposite party, but possession has not been given till now. Notice for possession has not been given by the opposite party. In such circumstances, it would not be proper to say that the opposite party will give possession at their discretion and the date of possession will be endless. In this regard, in paragraph 15 / 45 of Civil Appeal No. 3533-3534 / 20:7 / 35333534 "M/s Fortune Infrastructures and another versus Trevor D'Lima and others", the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly laid down that: -

"Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e, the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 204. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered." According to the observation and legal proposition of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession; where date of possession is not given in the agreement, taking into account facts and circumstances, a time period of 3 years has been considered reasonable for completing this work. In the present case, the Plot Allottee Arrangement was executed on date 02.12.2010 / 02.42.2040. Upon verification on the RERA portal, the date of commencement of construction work in the project is given as 02.7.20:3 and the completion date of the project is given as 34.07.2048.

In the present case, the unit was transferred in favor of the complainant on date 20.06.20i2. No such evidence is available on record from which it is clear that along with endorsement, a commitment was given by the opposite party that clauses of the agreement regarding delay will remain in accordance with complete dates. Therefore, possession was to be given to the complainant within 3 years from date 20.06.2042, i.e., by date 20.06.20i5, but possession was not given by the opposite party within the said stipulated period. In addition, under the head of force majeure, the opposite party is entitled to get benefit for a total period of 68 days (as described in Point of Determination No. 2). As to the question up to which period interest should be granted, in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50 ,/ 208 "Supertech Limited versus Rajni Goyal", the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: - "the period of Interest should close on April 20!6 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 20l6. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 206 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent — Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession."

According to the above legal proposition, the complainant will be entitled to delay interest up to the date of OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. In such circumstances, it appears justified to grant interest for the delayed period to the complainant from date 20.0620I5 + 68 days, i.e., 28.08.2045, up to the date of obtaining OC/CC or the date of offer of possession, whichever is later. So far as the question of liability of interest is concerned, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. etc. versus Union of India" held that: -

"Section 8(l)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." Therefore, in light of the above judgment, it is clear that under the provisions of UP RERA, interest will be payable on the delayed period and principal amount as per the agreement between promoter and allottee, because the said funds were utilized by the promoters. Section 2(za) of the RERA Act provides that: -

(za) "interest" means the rates of interest payable by the promoter or the allottee, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause— (i) the rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default; (ii) the interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the amount or any part thereof till the date the amount or part thereof and interest thereon is refunded, and the interest payable by the allottee to the promoter shall be from the date the allottee defaults in payment to the promoter till the date it is paid;

It is also noteworthy that an agreement was executed between the parties, according to Clause 12.2 of which there is a provision to pay an amount at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. yd. per day for delay occurring in the project, according to which the complainant is entitled to receive the amount; under the provisions of RERA, there is a provision to pay amount at the same rate at which amount was received by the opposite party. Section 18 / erer—i8 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 206 was notified on date 07.05. 20:7, in respect of which from notification dated 03.05.20I7 of U.P. Housing and Urban Planning Section-2, sanction to function as Regulatory Authority in U.P. was granted by the Hon'ble Governor on date 07.05.20i7, i.e., from date 04.05.2047 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20i6 came into force. The operation of this Act is prospective. Therefore, for the period up to date 07.05. 207, delay compensation will be calculated under the provisions of the agreement, and for the period from date 04.05.2047 onwards, delay interest will be calculated under the provisions of the Act.

As far as the rate of interest payable is concerned, the State Government notified the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2018 / 20:8 under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20i6 on date 47.40.2048. In Clause 9 of the draft Agreement for Sale/Lease given as an annexure therein, Events of default of promoters are defined, wherein in Clause 9.2(ii) in case of promoter being in default, it is provided for the allottee 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:" The same rate is prescribed in Clause 9.3(i) in case of default by allottees. Keeping the said provision in view, it appears justified to grant interest for the delayed period to the allottee at the interest rate of MCLR+1 percent / MCLR+I . It is also clarified that if any amount of the complainant is overdue, the opposite party can also receive interest thereon only at the rate of MCLR+1 percent / MCLR+I . The same definition of interest is given in Section 2(za)(i) of RERA. Accordingly, Point No. 5 is disposed of.

Disposing of the above issues, the following orders are passed: - Order:

1. The respondent is directed to complete the plots of the complainants as per the agreement and ensure handing over possession along with OC/CC by date 3.0.20204, and after obtaining payable stamp duty, execute registry as per rules. 2. The respondent shall ensure payment of compensation to the complainant at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. yd. per day from date 28.08.2045 to date 30.04.2047, and from date 04.05.2047 up to the date of obtaining OC/CC or the date of offer of possession, whichever is later, ensure payment of interest at MCLR+1% percent on the amount deposited by the complainant as delay interest. This amount of interest shall be adjusted against payable amount in final payment. In case the interest amount is more than the payable amount, it shall be refunded to the complainant. Keeping in view the force majeure period, interest shall not be calculated for delay occurred in the project from date 25.03.2020 to date 25.09.2020 . Also, if there are any overdues against the complainant during this period, no interest shall be payable for this period on the same. In the cases of other complainants, calculation shall be done as aforesaid in accordance with the agreement/endorsement letter. 3. The respondent is directed that as per Section 2(za)(i) of the RERA Act, 2046, if any rate of interest is charged by the promoter for default of the allottee after the coming into force of RERA, interest at the same rate shall also be paid to the allottee in case of default by the promoter. Therefore, on delayed payment, interest will be payable by the complainant also at the rate of MCLR+1% / MCLR+I percent. If any amount has been taken from the allottee for delay at a higher rate after RERA came into force, the amount of interest for the delayed period shall also be calculated at that same rate. 4. One copy each of this order shall be placed on the concerned files and calculation of amount and interest in each case shall be done in accordance with the principles laid down in this order. 5. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 and other relevant provisions. The order shall be uploaded on the portal. 6. If this order is not complied with by the respondent, the complainants shall have the right to get the order executed through the RERA Authority.

Dated :-) 66/202! (Rajive Kumar) (Chairman) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर। सुनवाई पीठ-04ए E-Court श्री राजीव कुमार, माननीय अध्यक्ष कम संख्या शिकायत संख्या शिकायतकर्तागण् ] NCR45/09/6466/2020 | ee eee , 2 NCRI45/09/646/2020 Pe ae | (m= NCRI45/09/59898/2020 es सिंह 4 उलरा45/0/62895/2020 [weer | कुमार गुप्ता L wa उप्पल चड्ढा हाई-टेक डेवलपर्स प्राईवेट लिमिटेड शिकायतलकर्ता सुशीला के साथ 03 अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध वाद योजित किये गये हैं। इन सभी शिकायतों के तथ्य समान है और एक समान साक्ष्य हैं। यह सभी शिकायतें UCHDPL- Sector-4 ए०७ से सम्बन्धित है। अतः एक ही निर्णय से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत संख्या — NCRI45/09/6466/2020 सुशीला अग्रणी वाद रहेगा। प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्द कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। . संपेक्ष में शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना UCHDPL Sector-4 Plots % प्लॉट संख्या-95 बुक किया गया था, जिसके लिए शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 9,46,934/- रूपये की घनराशि का भुगतान किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिये जाने का दायित्व था; परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया pl 2 है। विपक्षी की परियोजना लगभग 7 ay विलम्बित है और न ही ओ.सी. प्राप्त किया गया है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है।

शिकायतकर्ता की ओर से अपने कथन के समर्थन में प्लॉट एलॉटी अरेन्जमेन्ट दिनांक 02.42.2040, Bere पत्र दिनांक 20.05.20:2, खाता विवरण की छायाप्रतियाँ दाखिल की गयी हैं। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवादपत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी परियोजना UCHDPL Sector-4 Plots 4 प्लॉट संख्या-95 डेवलपमेंट लिंक इन्स्टालमेंट पेमेंट wit के अर्न्तगत रि-सेल में खरीदा गया। प्लॉट की कुल कीमत (बिना कर के) रू. 4,4,686/— है, जिसमें से शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा 9,46,934 /- रूपये का भुगतान किया गया था। स्थानीय किसानों द्वारा धरना प्रदर्शन के कारण कार्यों में बाधा उत्पस्न हुई, माननीय न्यायालयों के भूमि अधिग्रहण के eer आदेश के कारण परियोजना व्रिलम्बित ee! दिल्ली NCR में बढ़ते हुए प्रदूषण को ध्यान में रखते हुए माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अक्टूबर 2049 से जनवरी 2020 तक निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगा दी गयी थी। इसके अतिरिक्त सांय 6 बजे से प्रात: 6 बजे तक के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगा दी गयी थी, जिसके कारण भी परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य विलम्बित हुआ है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा आदेश पारित करते हुए दिनांक 300720i2 कौ भूमि पर स्थगन लगा दिया था। germ प्राधिकरण के समक्ष वहीं शिकायतें सुनी जानी चाहिए, जिसमें वाद परियोजना को रेरा में पंजीकरण कराये जाने के बाद उत्पन्न हुए हों। बिल्डर बायर एग्रीमेन्ट के प्रावधानों के अनुसार, जो इस प्राधिकरण का विषय नहीं है, शिकायतकर्ता को Arbitration का आह्वान करना होगा या शिकायतों के निवारण के लिए अन्य फोरम में जाना होगा। ॥

विपक्षी द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 30.0:.20:2, उ0प्र०0 शासन का कार्यालय ज्ञाप दिनांक 40.03.2047 की छायाप्रतियाँ दाखिल की गयी है। wre के तर्कों को सुना गया व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया, जिसके आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचरित किये जाते हैं -- 4. क्या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध WS दायरे में नहीं आते हैं व क्या पक्षकारों के भध्य रेरा लागू होने से पूर्व अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किये जाने पर रेरा के प्राविधान लागू नहीं होगें ? sf 2. al force majeure events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलम्बित हुई? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? 3. क्या अनुबन्ध में आरबिट्रैशन ait होने के कारण वाद की सुनवाई का क्षेत्रिधिकार इस पीठ को नही है ? - 4. क्‍या शिकायतकर्तागण के पक्ष में यूनिट स्थानांतरित किये जाने की तिथि से विलम्बित अवधि के ब्याज की गणना किया जाना उचित है ? 5. क्‍या शिकायतकर्तागण को कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाये? यदि हाँ तो ब्याज की दर क्‍या होगी ? निस्तारण बिन्दु Gea बिन्दु संख्या 4 इस तथ्य पर विचरित है कि क्‍या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेरा के दायरे में नहीं आते है? व क्‍या पक्षकारों के मध्य रेरा लागू होने से पूर्व अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किये जाने पर रेरा के .प्राविधान लागू नहीं होगें ? इस सम्बन्ध में बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय 'द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या-2737 / 2047 “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्राणलि0 एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया” में दिया गया आब्जर्वेशन महत्वपूर्ण है जिसमें स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लिखित किया गया है कि :-

86. On behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that registration of ongoing project under RERA would be contrary to the contractual rights established between the promoter and _allottee under the agreement for sale executed prior to registration under RERA. In that sense, the provisions have retrospective or retroactive application. After assessing, we find that the projects already completed are not in any way affected and, therefore, no vested or accrued rights are getting affected by RERA. The RERA will apply after getting the project registered. In that sense, the application of RERA is prospective in nature. Ny

87. The important provisions like Section 3 to 9, 40, 59 to 70 and 79 to 80 were notified for operation from /5/207. RERA law was enacted in the year 20l6. The Central Government did not make any haste to implement these provisions at one and the same time, but the provisions were made applicable thoughtfully and phase-wise. Considering the scheme of RERA, object and purpose for which it is enacted in the larger public interest, we do not find that challenge on the ground that it violates rights of the petitioners under Articles ]4 and 9(l)(g) stand to reason. Merely because sale and purchase agreement was entered into by the promoter prior to coming into force of RERA does not make the application of enactment retrospective in nature. The RERA was passed because it was felt that several promoters had defaulted and such defaults had taken place’ prior to coming into force of RERA. In the affidavit-in- reply, the UOI had stated that in the State of Maharashtra 2608 ongoing projects have been registered, while 806 new projects have been registered. This figure itself would justify the registration of ongoing projects. for_regulating the development work of such projects.

256. "Section 4(2)0)(0) enables the promoter to revise the date of completion of project and hand over possession. The provisions of RERA, however, do not rewrite the clause of completion or handing over possession in agreement for sale. Section 4(2)0)(0) enables the promoter to give fresh time line independent of the time period stipulated in the agreements for sale entered into between him and the allottees so that he is not visited with penal consequences laid down under RERA. In other words, by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh time line under Section 4(2)(I)(C) he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale." उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था से यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा के प्राविधान के अनुसार अनुबन्ध में दिये गये पूर्णता एवं कब्जे देने के प्रस्तर का पुनर्लेखन नहीं किया जा सकता। धारा 4(2)0)(सी) के अन्तर्गत प्रोमोटर रेरा में पंजीकरण के समय एक नई समय सीमा दे सकता है, किन्तु उक्त समयावधि रेरा के परिणाम स्वरूप केवल अर्थदंड से बचा सकता है। अतः इससे अवधारित किया जाता है कि प्रोमोटर अनुबन्ध (कं 5

में दिये गये कब्जे की तिथि के लिए उत्तरदायी है। यह भी रेरा अधिनियम में स्पष्ट है कि “ऑन tea" परियोजनायें निश्चित रूप से रेरा अधिनियम की परिधि में आते हैं। उपरोक्त माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आर्ब्जेवेशन से यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यद्यपि रेरा पंजीकरण से पूर्व प्रोमोटर एवं आवंटी के मध्य अनुबन्ध निष्पादित हुए हैं, परन्तु यदि परियोजना को रेरा में पंजीकरण कराया जाता है, तो रेरा के सभी प्राविधान लागू होगें। प्रश्ननत परियोजना को रेरा में पंजीकृत कराया गया है और यह ऑनगोईंग की श्रेणी में है। ऐसी दशा में रेरा के सभी प्राविधान लागू ert | तद्नुसार बिन्दु er Prema किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 बिन्दु संख्या-2 इस आशय से विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या वास्तव में परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टसं 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 फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण विलम्बित हुई, जो कि उनके नियंत्रण में नहीं था। स्थानीय किसानों द्वारा धरना प्रदर्शन के कारण कार्य कराये जाने में बाधा उत्पन्न हुई। दिल्‍ली NCR 4 बढ़ते हुए प्रदूषण को ध्यान में रखते हुए माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ENT aN 2049 से जनवरी 2020 तक निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगा दी गयी थी। इसके अतिरिक्‍त Wid 6 बजे से प्रातः 6 बजे तक 'के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगा दी गयी थी, जिसके कारण भी परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य विलम्बित हुआ है। इसके अतिरिक्त राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण द्वारा निर्माण कार्य पर लगाये गये प्रतिबन्ध और कोविड--49 के समयावधि फोर्स मैज्योर के कारण हैं। ह

इस सम्बन्ध में माननीय MASA द्वारा उपभोक्ता शिकायत संख्या-4430 /206 ” नीरू कौशल एवं अन्य बनाम यूनिटेक लिमिटेड” में निर्णय के प्रस्तर 44 में फोर्स मैज्योर द्वारा परियोजना विलम्बित होने के लिए निम्न ऑबजरवेशन किया है :- "Coming to the plea of Force Majeure taken by the opposite party. It may be noted that issue raised by the opposite party is no more: reintegrate. Similar pleas to explain the delay in construction were taken by the opposite party in Consumer Complaint No. 347 of 294 Swarn Talwar and 2 Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. and other connected consumer complaints which pertain to the alleged deficiency i.e. failure of the opposite party to deliver possession of the booked apartments in the same project. In the aforesaid matters, Coordinate Bench of this Commission vide order dated 4.08.20!5 declined to accept the plea of Force Majeure taken by the opposite party. The relevant reasoning of the Coordinate Bench rejecting the plea of Force Majeure is reproduced as under "Coming to the pleas that there was recession in the economy and a disruption due to agitation by farmers and acute shortage of labour, etc., the following view taken by us In Satish Kumar Pandey (Supra) is relevant.

"Neither any new legislation was enacted nor an existing rule, regulation or order was amended stopping suspending or delaying the construction of the complex in which apartments were agreed to be sold to the complainants. There is no allegation of any lock- out or strike by the labour at the site of the project. There is no allegation of any slow-down having been resorted to by the labourers of the opposite party or _the-contractors-engaged-by it at the site of the project. There was no civil commotion, war, enemy action, terrorist action, earthquake or any act of God which could have delayed the completion of the project within the time stipulated in the Buyers Agreement. It was contended by the counsel for the OP that the expression 'slow down' would include economic slow- down or recession in the Real Estate sector. I, however, find no merit in this contention. The word ‘slow down' having been used along with the words lock-out and strike, I has to be read ejusdem generis with the words lock-out and strike and therefore, can mean only a slow down if resorted by the labourers engaged in construction of the project." इसके अतिरिक्त माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940,/ 2047 “विकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य” में निर्णय के पृष्ठ संख्या-234 एवं wee tt0 में फोर्स मैज्योर को निम्नवत्‌ परिभाषित किया हैः- py) —— 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 | माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-43029 /4985 “एम. सी. मेहता बनाम भारत सरकार“ में पारित आदेश दिनांक 04.44.20:9 में निम्नलिखित निर्देश दिये है :- With respect to demolition and construction activities we direct that no demolition and construction activities take place in Delhi and NCR region. In case it is found that such activity is done, the local administration as well as the municipal authorities including the Zonal Commissioners, Deputy Zonal Commissioners shall be personally held responsible for all such activities. They have to act in furtherance of the Court’s order and to ensure that no such activity takes place. We direct that construction, demolition and activities be stopped forthwith as well as garbage burning. In case, any person is found in construction and demolition activity and garbage burning in Delhi and NCR region, he/she shall be penalized. Any person is doing construction and demolition activity in violation of this order, shall be penalized with Rs.l Lac for such activity. For garbage burning he/she shall be penalized with Rs.5,000/- and besides liable for violation of the order passed by this Court to be dealt with in accordance with law.

इसके अतिरिक्त उपरोक्त सिविल अपील संख्या-43029 /4985 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 09.42.2049 में निम्नलिखित निर्देश दिये है :- In the affidavit dated 05.2.209, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has stated as under:- "]2, That it is respectfully submitted that it is normally experienced that in month of December depending upon of Climatic Condition the AQI category varies. As a matter of fact, last year (20i8) 8 days in the month of December were in severe AQI category. Presently the situation not being severe, CPCB is of considered opinion that partial ban could be in place of construction activities in as much as no construction should be permitted during night time (6.00 pm to 6.00 am). The ban imposed could be partially lifled by permitting activities during day time (6.00 am to 6.00 pm), subject to the criteria stipulated in GRAP, wherein strict emforcement of rules for dust control in construction activities and closure of non-compliant sites is mandated in moderate to poor AQI category and further a bank on construction activities may be imposed by EPCA if Ambicnt AIR quality levels persist in severet/emergency category for 48 hours or more. " Hence, the ban is relaxed, in terms of the recommendations made by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), as quoted above. However, conditions for raising construction be scrupulously followed.

माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा (दिनांक 04.t.209 से दिनांक 24.02.2020) की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगायी गयी है, जिसमें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 09.2.2049 में पूर्ण प्रतिबन्ध को हटाते हुए आंशिक प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया। ऐसे में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा 35 दिन (दिनांक 04.:4.209 से दिनांक 09.2.2049) एवं 33 दिन 6652) (दिनांक 0.22. ooi9 से विनांक 74.022020 तक a 6 बजे रो रुबह 6 बजे तक) की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया। विपक्षी ऐसी दशा में कुल 35+33 = 68 दिन निर्माण कार्य प्रभावित रहने के कारण लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है। समस्त सुसंगत तथ्यों पर विचारोपरान्त Goro रेरा अथॉरिटी द्वारा दिनांक 20. 05.2020 को कोविड-49 (Corona Virus Disease) के प्रभाव के कारण सभी परियोजनाओं को पूर्ण करने हेतु दिनांक 25.03.2020 से 6 माह की अतिरिक्त अवधि अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक की अवधि दे दी गयी है और यह अतिरिक्त अवधि फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण 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 शिकायतकर्ता से कोई विलम्ब ब्याज लिया जायेगा। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-2 Prana किया जाता है। C\ \ or निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-3 विपक्षी की ओर से यह भी तर्क प्रस्तुत किया गया है कि अनुबन्ध में आरबिट्रेशन का क्लाज है, जिस कारण शिकायतकर्ता व विपक्षी के मध्य किसी भी विवाद को केवल आर्बिट्रेटर के माध्यम से ही Paka fear जा सकता है और इस पीठ को इस शिकायत को सुने जाने की क्षेत्राधिकारिता प्राप्त नही है।

इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा “मैसर्स एमआर एम.जी.एफ. लैन्ड लिमिटेड बनाम आफताब सिंह” 208 SCC Online SC 277 में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- “८55, In view of the afore-going discussion, we arrive at the following conclusions: i (i) the disputes which are to be adjudicated and governed by statutory enactments, established for specific public purpose to sub-serve a particular public policy are not arbitrable; (ii) there are vast domains of the legal universe that are non-arbitrable and kept at a distance from private dispute resolution; _(iii)_thesubject_amendment_was meant for a completely different purpose, leaving status quo ante unaltered and subsequently reaffirmed and restated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; (iv) Section 2(3) of the Arbitration Act recognizes schemes under other legislations that make disputes non- arbitrable and :

माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा पारित उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्थाओ के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि कुछ विवादों का निराकरण आरबिट्रेटर द्वारा आरबिट्रेशन अनुबन्ध के पश्चात्‌ भी नहीं की जा सकती है। विशेष रूप से गठित प्राधिकरणों का क्षेत्राधिकार मात्र आरबिट्रेशन क्लॉज के आवरण से बेदखल नहीं किया जा सकता है। ऐसे सभी विवाद जिसके लिए विधि द्वारा विशेष निकाय बनाये गये है और इसका क्षेत्राधिकार दिया गया है, इस प्रकार विवाद को निस्तारित करने के लिए आरबिट्रेटर सक्षम नही है। उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्थाओं के प्रकाश में यह स्पष्ट है कि भू-सम्पदा विनियामक एवं विकास प्राधिकरण अधिनियम 2046 की धारा 79, आरबिट्रेशन एक्ट पर अभिभूत होगा। माननीय एन.सी.डी.आर.सी. ने “ए.अय्यास्वामी बनाम पारमाशिवम एवं अन्य“, (206) 0 SCC 386 में दिए तर्क को लागू करने के लिए यह निष्कर्ष निकाला है कि यही सिद्धान्त, रियल एस्टेट अधिनियम के तहत उक्त मामलों में भी 40 लागू होता है, क्योंकि यह अधिनियम गृहकेताओं एवं बिल्डरों के बीच विवादों के समाधान के लिए एक विशेष तंत्र प्रदान करता है। उपरोक्त प्रतिपादित सिद्धांतों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए विपक्षी द्वारा आरबिट्रेटर को संदर्भित करने का प्रश्न स्वतः समाप्त हो जाता है। तदनुसार बिन्दु संख्या-3 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 बिन्दु ders इस आशय से विचरित किया गया है कि क्या शिकायतकर्तागण के पक्ष में यूनिट स्थानांतरित किये जाने की तिथि से विलम्बित अवधि के ब्याज की गणना किया जाना उचित है ?

इस सम्बन्ध में सिविल अपील संख्या-3409,//2003 "हरियाणा अर्बन डेवलपमेन्ट अथॉरिटी बनाम दीवान सिंह" में पारित आदेश दिनांक 23.0.20:8 की प्रतिलिपि पत्रावली पर दाखिल की गयी है, जिसके प्रस्तर-8 में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- "One signifact aspect to be noticed is that the respendent is not the allottee who was allotted the plot in 990, but a re- - allottee who was re-allotted the plot in April 998. When he was offered possesion of the plot in May 998, he found that a part of it was used for purpose of road. Thereafter, the applicant even offered a alternative plot. The respondent however rushed to the District Forum in 999, hardly within a year of re-allotment. The allegations of inordiante delay, negligence, harassment on the part of the appellant in a complaint filed by a re-allottee, within one year of re-allotment, appears to be hallow and without merit. In this factual background, having regard to the principles laid down in GDA v. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65, HUDA v. Darsh Kumar (2005) 9 SCC 449 and Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank (2007) 6 SCC 7ll, the award of interest was not warranted. A re-allottee in !998 cannot obviously be awarded interest from 992 on the amounts paid by the original allottee in 990 on the ground that the original allottee was not offered delivery in 990. a ii°

उपरोक्त वाद में विपक्षी द्वारा नये आवंटी को प्लॉट का पुनः आवंटन अप्रैल 4998 में किये जाने के बाद, विपक्षी ने नये आवंटी को कब्जा मई 4998 में ऑफर किया, जिसको नये आवंटी द्वारा स्वीकार्य नहीं किया गया, जिसको देखते हुए विपक्षी ने नये आवंटी को वैकल्पिक प्लॉट का भी ऑफर किया, परन्तु नये आवंटी ने प्लॉट का पुनः आवंटन किये जाने की तिथि से एक वर्ष के भीतर वर्ष t999 में उपभोक्ता फोरम के समक्ष वाद योजित कर दिया और नये आवंटी ने कब्जा प्राप्त किये जाने के लिए प्रतीक्षा नहीं किया, जिसमें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा आदेश पारित करते हुए यह कहा गया है कि नये आवंटी को स्पष्ट रूप से वर्ष t992 से मूल आवंटी द्वारा भुगतान की गयी धनराशि पर ब्याज नहीं दिया जा सकता है, जिसका कब्जा मूल आवंटी को वर्ष 4990 में नहीं दिया गया। इसके अतिरिक्त माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिंविल अपील संख्या-2384 / 2003 (सिविल अपील संख्या-2382,/2003 एवं सिविल अपील संख्या-3443 / 2003 सहित) "हरियाणा ada डेवलपमेन्ट अथॉरिटी बनाम राजे राम" में पारित आदेश दिनांक 23.40.2008 के प्रस्तर-7 में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

"Respondents in the three appeals are not the original allottees. They are re-allottees to whom re-allotment was का made~by-the-appellant-in-the-years-994;-4997-and-I996- resepctively. They were aware, when the plots were re- alloted to them, that there was delay (either in forming the layout itself or delay in delivering the allotted the plot on account of encroachment etc.). In spite of it, they took re-allotment. Their cases cannot be compared to cases of original allottees who were made to wait for a decade or more for delivery and thus put to mental agony and harassment. They were aware that time for performance was not stipulated as the essence of the allotment of contract and the original allottees had accepted the delay. The appellant offered posession to respondents (re-allottee) and they took possession of the respective plots on 27.6.2002, 2!.3.2000 and 3.9.999 respectively. They aproached the District Forum in 997, within a short period from the dates of re-allotment in their favour. They had not paid the full price when they approached the District Forum. In the circumstances, having regard to the priniciples laid down by this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh- 2004 at i2 (5) SCC 65, Darsh Kumar (supra) and Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank - 2007 (6) SCC 7i, we are of the view that the award of the interest was neither warranted ior justified.

इसके अतिरिक्त माननीय NCDRC द्वारा उपभोक्ता वाद संख्या- 4702 /206 "शलभ निगम बनाम ऑरिस ईंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर प्राणलि0" में पारित आदेश दिनांक 23.40.2008 के प्रस्तर-7 में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- 24. It is seen that the present complainant is a susequent allottee, who purchased the apartment from the original buyer. on 3.08.202 and endoresement in the allotment letter was made on 05.09.20I2. In the case of refund, the complaiant shall be entitiled only to get interest from the date when his name was endorsed on the allotment i.e. from 5.9.20I2 as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Diwas Singh, (200) 4 SCC 770. It has been observed that :- wad the award of interest was not warranted. A re-allottee in 7998 cannot obviously be awarded interest from 7992: on the amounts paid by the original allottee in 7990 on the ground that the original allottee was not offered delivery 7990." इसके अतिरिक्त माननीय NCDRC द्वारा उपभोक्ता वाद संख्या- 427 /204 "श्री सतीश कुमार पाण्डेय व अन्य बनाम मैसर्स यूनिटेक लिमिटेड" में पारित आदेश दिनांक 08.06.2045 के प्रस्तर-49 में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the opposite party should handover possession of the apartments booked by the complainants on or before the last date.stipulated in the letter of the opposite party dated 27-05-205. In the cases of those complainants who are the initiaf allottees of the apartments or who acquired the same within one year of the initial allotment, the opposite party should also pay compensation to them in the form of simple interest at the rate of 2% per annum with effect from the date of possession stipulated in the agreement till the date on ~~ | SB) as 33

which the possession is actually handed over to them. The persons who purchased the flats within one year of the initial allotment, ought to be treated at par with the initial allottees, because atleast two more years being still available to the opposite party at the time of purchase by them, they could not have anticipated that the builder will not be able to honour its commitment, as regards the stipulated date of delivery of possession. No separate compensation for the mental agony, harassment and suffering needs to be paid by the opposite party to the complainants. However, in the case of those complainants who acquire the flats by way of resale more than one year after the initial allotment, the opposite party should pay compensation in the form of simple interest at the rate of 2% per annum with effect from three years from the date of the repurchase till the date on which the possession is delivered to them. As in other cases no compensation would be payable for the first three years from the date of initial allotment of the flat. For the interregnum i.e. between three years from the date of initial allotment and three years from the date of repurchase by them, compensation shall be paid by the opposite party at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. of the super area in terms of clause 4.c of the buyers agreement. I am awarding lesser compensation to those purchased the flat from the initial allottee more than one year after the date of initial allotment, considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Raje Ram, AIR 2009 SC 2030.

यदि ऐसा कोई साक्ष्य उपलब्ध हो, जिससे स्पष्ट हो कि enodorsement के साथ विपक्षी द्वारा यह कमिटमेन्ट दिया गया है कि अनुबन्ध में विलम्ब सम्बन्धी प्रस्तर पूर्व तिथियों के अनुरूप ही रहेंगे, तो निश्चय ही पूर्ण अवधि के लिए विलम्ब राशि देय होगी अन्यथा उक्त नजीरों के परिपेक्ष्य F endorsement की तिथि से ही विलम्ब राशि देय होगी। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-4 Peake किया जाता है। yy 44 निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या--5 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिये जाने का दायित्व था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। विपक्षी की परियोजना लगभग 7 वर्ष विलम्बित है और न ही ओ.सी. प्राप्त किया गया है। अतः: शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। इस पर विपक्षी द्वारा दाखिल प्रतिवाद पत्र में कब्जा दिये जाने के सम्बन्ध में कोई स्पष्टीकरण नहीं दिया गयौ है। रेरा एक्ट की धारा ig (॥) में प्राविधान है कि :- Section 78 (7) “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 shull 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. वि : इस प्रकार केता को यह अधिकार है fH यदि उन्हें एग्रीमेंट के अनुरूप कब्जा नहीं मिलता तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि को ब्याज सहित वापिस माँग सकते हैं अथवा प्रत्येक माह के विलम्ब हेतु ब्याज प्राप्त करते हुए परियोजना में बने रहें। » 45 शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में प्लॉट एलॉटी sic दिनांक 02.2.2040 की प्रति दाखिल की गयी है, जिसमें निर्माण एवं कब्जे के प्रस्तर-3. के अनुसार शिकायतकर्ता को अपने आवंटित प्लॉट पर भवन का निर्माण कार्य हेतु, सक्षम प्राधिकरण से प्लॉन स्वीकृत कराकर, विपक्षी से कब्जे हेतु सूचना प्राप्त करने की तिथि से 3 वर्ष में निर्माण कराया जाना था एवं प्रस्तर-3.3 के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा कब्जे हेतु सूचना भेजे जाने के 30 दिनों में शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा प्राप्त करना था, परन्तु अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। विपक्षी द्वारा कब्जे हेतु सूचना नहीं दी गयी है। ऐसे में ae कहना उचित नहीं होगा कि विपक्षी स्वेच्छानुसार कब्जा देगें और कब्जे की तिथि अंतहीन होगी।

इस सम्बन्ध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के सिविल अपील eT 3533-3534 /20:7 “मैसर्स फार्च्यून इन्फास्ट्रक्चर्स एवं अन्य बनाम ट्रेवर डेलिमा एवं अन्य“ के प्रस्तर 45 में स्पष्ट रूप से निर्धारित किया गया है कि :- “Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e, the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 204. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issuc is answered.

उपरोक्त माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के आर्ब्जेवेशन yd विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार wie के कब्जे हेतु किसी व्यक्ति को अनिश्चित समय तक प्रतीक्षा नहीं करा सकता, जहाँ अनुबन्ध में कब्जे की तिथि नहीं दी गयी है वहाँ तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए 3 वर्ष का समयावधि इस कार्य को पूर्ण कराये जाने हेतु उचित समय माना है। प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में प्लॉट एलॉटी अरेन्जमेन्ट का निष्पादन दिनांक 02.42.2040 को किया गया है। रेरा पोर्टल पर जाँच S उपरान्त परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य शुरू किये जाने की तिथि 02.7.20:3 दी गयी है और परियोजना की पूर्णता तिथि 34.07.2048 दी गयी है। हा 46 gerd प्रकरण में शिकायतकर्ता के पक्ष में festa 20.06.20i2 को यूनिट wert की गयी है। पत्रावली पर ऐसा कोई साक्ष्य उपलब्ध नहीं है, जिससे स्पष्ट हो कि enodorsement के साथ विपक्षी द्वारा यह कमिटमेन्ट दिया गया है कि विलम्ब सम्बन्धी अनुबन्ध के प्रस्तर पूर्ण तिथियों के अनुरूप रहेंगे। अत: शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 20.06.2042 से 3 वर्ष अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 20.06.20i5 तक कब्जा दिया जाना था, किन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा उक्त निर्धारित अवधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। इसके अतिरिक्त फोर्स मैज्योर & मद में विपक्षी कुल 68 दिन की अवधि के लिए लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है। (जैसा कि निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 में वर्णित है|) जहाँ तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बन्ध में सिविल अपील Wo 6649-50 ,/ 208 "सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल" में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि:-

"the period of Interest should close on April 20!6 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 20l6. 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. अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 20.0620I5 + 68 दिन अर्थात्‌ 28.08.2045 से ओ.सी /री.री. प्राप्त किये जाने की तिथि अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। जहाँ तक ब्याज देयता का प्रश्न है, माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रा.लि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया” के वाद में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- "Section 8(l)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment / ॥7

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. " अत: उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि Toro रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व Sar के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा wai धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। रेरा एक्ट की धारा za) में प्राविधान है कि :- (za) "interest" means the rates of interest payable by the promoter or the allottee, as the case may be. Explanation.—F or the purpose of this clause— (i) the rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default;

(ii) the interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the amount or any part thereof till the date the amount or part thereof and interest thereon is refunded, and the interest payable by the allottee to the promoter shall be from the date the allotiee defaults in payment to the promoter till the date it is paid; » 38 यह भी उल्लेखनीय है कि पक्षकारों के मध्य अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किया गया है, जिसके प्रस्तर-42.2 के अनुसार परियोजना में हो रहे विलम्ब के लिए 5/- रूपये प्रतिवर्ग गज़ प्रतिदिन की दर से धनराशि दिये जाने का प्राविधान है, जिसके अनुसार शिकायतकर्ता धनराशि पाने का अधिकारी है, रेरा के प्राविधानों के अनुसार जिस दर से विपक्षी द्वारा धनराशि प्राप्त की गयी है उसी दर से धनराशि देने का प्राविधान है। भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम, 206 की erer—i8 दिनाक 07.05. 20:7 को अधिसूचित हुई, जिसके सम्बन्ध में उ0प्र० आवास एवं शहरी नियोजन अनुभाग-2 की अधिसूचना दिनांक 03.05.20I7 से उ0प्र0 में रेगुलेटरी अथॉरिटी के रूप मे कार्य करने की स्वीकृति राज्यपाल, महोदय ने दिनांक 07.05.20i7 F प्रदान की अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 04.05.2047 से भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम, 20i6 लागू हुआ है। इस अधिनियम का प्रवर्तन प्रोस्पेक्टिव है। अतः दिनांक 07.05. 207 Uw a अवधि के लिए विलम्ब ब्याज की गणना अनुबन्ध के प्रावधानों के अन्तर्गत की जायेगी और दिनांक 04.05.2047 से आगे की अवधि के लिए विलम्ब ब्याज की गणना अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अधीन की जायेगी।

जहाँ तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, तो राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 20i6 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विकय,/पटटा के लिए करार) नियमावली 20:8 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विकय /पटटा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.26) 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 + % 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 were 9.30) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को MCLR+I प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि यदि शिकायतकर्ता की कोई धनराशि अतिदेय है, तो उस पर विपक्षी भी MCLR+I प्रतिशत की दर से ही ब्याज प्राप्त कर सकता Cc ५ ¢ 39 है। रेरा की धारा-2(2०)0) में भी यही ब्याज की परिभाषा दी गयी है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-5 निस्तारित किया जाता है। ile उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते है। आदेश

विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह शिकायतकर्तागण के प्लॉटस्‌ को अनुबन्ध के अनुसार पूर्ण कराकर दिनांक 3.0.20204 तक ओ.सी. / सी.सी. सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें। विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 28.08.2045 से दिनांक 30.04.2047 तक 5/- रूपये प्रतिवर्ग गज़ प्रतिदिन की दर से व दिनांक 04.05.2047 से ओ.सी./ सी.सी. प्राप्त किये जाने की तिथि अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि, जो भी बाद में हो तक शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि पर विलम्ब ब्याज के रूप में टा.₹+ प्रतिशत ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। ब्याज की यह धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक होने पर शिकायतकर्ता को वापस की जायेगी। फोर्स मैज्योर पीरियड को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03.2020 से दिनांक 25.09. 2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु ब्याज की गणना नहीं की जायेगी। साथ ही इस अवधि में शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा यदि कोई अतिदेय (Over Dues) है, तो उस पर भी इस अवधि का ब्याज देय न होगा। अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण के प्रकरण में अनुबन्ध,/एन्डोस्मेन्ट पत्र के अनुरूप उपरोक्तानुसार गणना की जायेगी। विपक्षी को यह निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा zai) के अनुसार यदि रेरा लागू होने के बाद 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। अतः विलम्बित भुगतान पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भी MCLR+I प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर से ब्याज देय होगा। यदि इससे अधिक दर से कोई धनराशि रेरा लागू होने के बाद आवंटी से विलम्ब हेतु ली गयी है, तो विलम्बित अवधि हेतु ब्याज की धनराशि की भी उसी दर से गणना की जायेगी। 20

4. इस आदेश की एक-एक प्रति सम्बन्धित पत्रावलियों पर रखी जाये एवं इस आदेश में प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्त के अनुरूप धनराशि व ब्याज की प्रत्येक मामले में गणना की जायेगी। 5., इस आदेश का उल्लघंन भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। 6. यदि विपक्षी ex इस आदेश का अनुपालन नहीं किया जाता है, तो शिकायतकर्तागण को यह अधिकार होगा कि रेरा प्राधिकरण के माध्यम से अपने आदेश का कियान्वयन करा सकेगें। दिनांक =) ¢ “/ 66/202! — ॥ wre a ae pen 2८ 082 (राजीव कुमार) ere) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण