U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar | Bench-2 Present: Shri Balvinder Kumar, Member Complaint No.: NCRI45/09/80982/202 Chitranjan Kumar and Rinku Devi Versus Rise Projects Pvt. Ltd. The present complaint petition has been filed by the complainants against the opposite party seeking refund of the deposited amount with interest. In brief, the lead complainant's statement is that they booked unit No. T4-2A09 in the opposite party's project "Rise Organic Ghar [?]". The total price is Rs. 24,47,250/-, against which they paid Rs. 8,60,450/- from time to time in instalments. The complainants state that, as per the agreement, the opposite party was to give possession of the unit by March 2049, but possession has still not been given, and no construction work is being carried out at the project site. The complainants have therefore requested that the deposited amount be refunded with interest. In support of their statement, the complainants have filed a copy of the agreement dated 02.03.206, receipts of the deposited amounts, and photocopies of the account statement.

The opposite party, filing its reply, has stated that the complainant booked unit T4-2A09 in its project "RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE-i" [TL — OCR noise], against which an apartment buyer agreement dated 02.03.2046 was signed by both parties. According to clause [?] of the agreement, the opposite party was to give possession within 48 months, namely 42 months with a grace period of 6 months. The complainant booked the unit in the opposite party's project under the construction linked plan. The opposite party says that the delay in the project, including due to the COVID-49 pandemic and the bans imposed by the Hon'ble NGT, also affected the construction work of the project. The opposite party has further noted in its written reply that possession of the complainant's unit will be given by December 2022, or, alternatively, an alternative unit will be provided in its developed project within 3 months. The arguments of both parties were heard and the file was perused. On the basis of the parties' pleadings, the following issues were considered: 1. Is it proper for the complainants to demand refund of the deposited amount with interest? 2. Are the complainants entitled to possession and to interest for the delayed period? Disposal of Point No. 4

The complainants' statement is that the opposite party was to give possession of the unit as per the agreement by [?] 20:9, but possession has still not been given, and no construction work of any kind is being carried out at the project site. On the other hand, the opposite party says that it will give possession of the complainants' unit by December 2022, or, within the next 3 months, an alternative unit in its developed project will be provided within 3 months. As regards the buyers' request for refund, the provisions of the 'RERA' Act must be read as a whole, so that a balanced decision can be taken keeping in view the views of all parties. The provision of Section ia (4) ¥ of the 'RERA' Act is that:

Section 78 (7): "If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed." Page 3 Thus the buyer has the right that, if possession is not received in accordance with the agreement, they may demand return of their deposited amount with interest, or remain in the project and receive interest at a monthly rate.

Section 34 of the RERA Act also mentions, along with the other "functions" of RERA, "to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder". Similarly, Section 32 includes among the Authority's responsibilities for the development of the real estate sector the following: "32. The Authority shall, in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector, make recommendations to the appropriate Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a) protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent, ....... (b) any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector." It is clear from the above provisions that it is this Authority's responsibility to take appropriate decisions, after viewing the interests of all its stakeholders as a whole, in order to ensure the healthy development of the "real estate sector". In this sequence, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in "Neelkamal Realtors [?] v. Union of India", in which a decision was given on the constitutional validity of the 'RERA' Act, made the following observation at paragraph 424: Page 4

"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 77 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections /2, /4, 468 and /9. A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work."

From the above it is clear that, after hearing all parties, although the allottee has the right to claim their money back with interest if the unit is not received on time, nevertheless, in view of the observation described above, the Authority may pass orders on the basis of all the facts of the case, in accordance with "by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth". Page 5 In the context of balancing the refund of money by allottees with the interests of allottees who remain in the project, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its judgment in "Chitra Sharma v. Union of India" (744 ,“ 2047), made the following observation at paragraph 40:

"40. As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is lying in deposit before this Court pursuant to the interim directions, on which interest has accrued. The home buyers have earnestly sought the issuance of interim directions to facilitate a pro-rata disbursement of this amount to those of the home buyers who seek a refund. "We are keenly conscious of the fact that the claim of the home buyers who seek a refund of monies deserves to be considered with empathy. Yet, having given our anxious consideration to the plea and on the balance, we are not inclined to accede to it for more than one reason. Firstly ............... Secondly, the figures which have been made available presently, following the opening of the Web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be unmindful of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund."

In view of the observations quoted above by the Hon'ble High Court and the Supreme Court, and the overall scheme of the RERA Act, it is also clear that if it were decided in every case of [?] to return the money, that would certainly not be in line with the "objective" and "scheme" of the Act. While deciding refund, it will be in the interest of justice to consider the "uniqueness" of each case, Page 6 all its facts, such as the state of "construction", the "timeline" of completion, the status of the promoters' "commitment" to offer possession, the impact on "stakeholders", especially on "allottees" who remain with the project, the "consensus" regarding the "proposed [?] date", and so on. Having regard to the basic objectives of the constitution of [?], it would be lawful to pass an order after taking an appropriate decision. In relation to the constitution of [?], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its order dated 23.07.209 passed in Civil Appeal No. 940,/ 2047, "Bikram Chatterjee and others v. Union of India and others", at page [?]—24, paragraph 420, has stated as follows:

"20 It is apparent that RERA intends protection of home-buyers and aims at completion of the buildings. The buildings have to be completed, for that, we are required to pass orders. We have already assigned the task to NBCC for completion of buildings as the promoters/builders have failed to complete the building within the time fixed and the time which could have been extended. Now, more than 0 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the promoter/builder. The maximum time fixed in RERA has also expired and extension could not have been beyond [?] year." As stated above, it is made clear that RERA is meant to protect the interests of allottees, and its aim is that promoters complete all the development work of the building, so that home buyers get their residence / flat. Also, at page 255, paragraph 437 of the order, it has stated as follows: "The provisions of RERA are beneficial to the home buyers and are intended to insulate them from fraudulent action, ensures completion of the building and it is the duty of the court to protect and ensure the home buyers' interest and at the same time to hold them responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under the said statute. We are not absolving the home buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At the same time, they have the right of enforcement of their right for compensation due to undue delay in completion of the project."

The said observation also makes clear that the provisions of 'RERA' are beneficial to home buyers and are meant to protect the interests of allottees against any kind of betrayal; that supervising the completion of the building is RERA's work; and that the duties and responsibilities of the parties are fixed in the Act. It has also been given as a benefit that, if the project is delayed, home buyers shall have the right to receive interest as per the rules for the delay until the project is completed. Thereafter, again in relation to 'RERA', the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 43,/2049, "Pioneer ada chs & Infrastructure Limited and others v. Union of India and others", in its order dated 09.08.2049, at page 86, paragraph 29, has stated as follows: Page 8 "The object of RERA is to see that real estate projects come to fruition within the stated period and to see that allottees of such projects are not left in the lurch and are finally able to realise their dream of a home, or be paid compensation if such dream is shattered, or at least get back monies that they had advanced towards the project with interest. At the same time, recalcitrant allottees are not to be tolerated, as they must also perform their part of the bargain, namely, to pay instalments as and when they become due and payable."

The important observation given in that order is that RERA's aim is that, under its supervision and oversight, the promoter completes the real estate project within a fixed period, so that allottees do not lose their flats and can get the home of their dreams; and that recalcitrant allottees are also held responsible for not cooperating in completing the project. It is also said that allottees should duly perform their duties, mainly by ensuring timely payment of instalments, so that the project can be completed. Accordingly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that RERA's main objective is that the project is completed by the promoters, and that allottees ensure timely payment of their instalments, so that the project can be completed within the fixed period. To protect the interests of allottees, the benefit of interest for project delay is also payable to allottees; but before that, it shall also be the complainant's responsibility to pay their instalments on time. Page 9

Since the opposite party has stated that the original unit's possession will be given by December 2022, or, within the next 3 months, an alternative unit in its developed project will be provided, and that the project will be completed and possession given, it appears that the project is moving towards completion. In such a situation, the opposite party has given an assurance to give the complainants possession of the alternative unit within 3 months. It would be appropriate for the complainants to consider taking possession of the alternative unit provided by the opposite party. Thereafter they may decide for themselves on the future use of the unit. In any case, the investment made by the complainants in the project for possession has been used by the opposite party in the construction of the project. Certainly, if the allottees remain in the project, interest for the delay shall be payable by the promoters as per the rules. If the opposite party does not give possession to the complainants within 3 months from the date of uploading of the order on the RERA portal, then thereafter it would be appropriate that the complainants' deposited amount be refunded with interest. Point No. 4 is accordingly disposed of. Disposal of Point No. 2

The complainants' statement is that the opposite party was to give possession of the unit by March 209 as per the agreement, but possession has still not been given, and no construction work is being carried out at the project site, for which reason they want their deposited amount back with interest. The opposite party has also noted in its written reply that possession of the complainants' unit will be given by December 2022, or, within the next 3 months, an alternative unit in its developed project will be provided within 3 months. Page 0 The opposite party's reply on the file records the date on which the apartment buyer agreement dated 02.03.20i6 was signed, to which the complainants have raised no objection. On a perusal of the possession clause, it is evident that the opposite party was to give possession within 48 months from the date of execution of the apartment buyer agreement, namely 42 months with a 6 month grace period. The said apartment buyer agreement dated 02.03.206 was executed by both parties. Accordingly, the possession date as above is 02.03.2020. It is clear that the project is delayed, and accordingly the complainants are entitled to interest for the delayed period from 03.03.2020 until the OC/CC is received or possession is offered, whichever is later. In this regard it is noteworthy that, in the petition "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India" of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the Hon'ble High Court has held that:

"Section 8()0) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." Therefore, in the light of the above judgment, it is clear that under the provisions of RERA, interest on the delay and on the principal amount shall be payable in accordance with the agreement between the promoter and the buyer, because the promoters have used the said amount.

As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 206, notified on 47.40.2048 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale / Lease) Rules 20i8. In clause 9 of the format of sale / lease deed given as an annexure therein, the promoters' [?] cases (Events of default) are defined, in which clause 9.2 (4) provides for the allottee, in case of the promoter's default, that: "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, Page 2 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 also fixed in clause 9.30) for default by allottees. Keeping in view the said provision, it appears justified that interest for the delayed period be awarded to the allottee at MCLR+ per cent. As regards the question up to what period interest is to be awarded, in this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50 /20:8, "Supertech Limited v. Rajni Goyal", has held that:

"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 40) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant — Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 206. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 20 6 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." Page 3 Under the above legal position, the complainants shall be entitled to delay interest up to the date on which the OC/CC is received or possession is offered, whichever is later. In such a case the complainants shall be entitled to interest for the delay up to the period until the OC/CC is received or possession is offered, whichever is later. By notification No. 4740 /8-3—48-65 Vividh / 46 of the U.P. Government's Housing and Urban Planning Department, Section-3, dated (7.020i8, it has been stated in clause 7 of the model agreement rules regarding force majeure as follows:

"74 Schedule for possession of the said [Apartment/Plot] — The Promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot] to the Allottee and the Common Areas to the association of Allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, is the essence of the Agreement. The Promoter assures to hand over possession of the [Apartment/Plot] along with ready and complete Common Areas with all specifications, amenities and facilities of the Project in place on ____, unless there is delay or failure due to war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the Page 4 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 considering all relevant facts and circumstances, the U.P. RERA Authority, because of the effect of COVID--49 (Corona Virus Disease), has granted a period of 6 months from 25.03.2020, that is up to 25.09.2020, to complete all projects, and this period shall be treated as the force majeure period. Keeping this in view, no interest for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020 shall be paid by the promoter to the allottees, nor shall any delay interest be taken from the allottees. Accordingly, Point No. 2 is disposed of. Disposing of the above points, the following orders are passed: Order 4. The opposite party is directed to ensure that, in any of its developed projects, it completes all facilities of the complainants as per the allotment / agreement letter and gives possession of the alternative unit with OC/CC from the date the order is uploaded on the RERA portal, and that, on receiving the payable stamp duty, it registers the unit as per the rules.

2. The opposite party is directed to ensure that it pays delay interest at the annual rate of MCLR+ per cent on the amount deposited by the complainants from 03.03.2020 until receipt of OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. It is also clarified that this interest amount shall be adjusted against the final payment amount, and if the interest amount exceeds the amount due, the excess shall be returned to the complainants as per rules. In view of the lockdown imposed in the country for the prevention and control of COVID-49, and force majeure, interest for the delay in the project from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020 shall not be calculated. [?]. The opposite party is directed that, under Section 2 (ai) of the RERA Act, 20:6, after RERA came into force, if any rate of interest is charged by the promoter from the allottee upon the allottee's default, the same rate shall also be paid by the promoter to the allottee upon the promoter's default. The interest rate notified by the State Government is MCLR+ per cent. [?]. If the opposite party fails to give possession to the complainants by 34.05.2022, then within 45 days after 34.05.2022 it shall ensure that the amount deposited by the complainants is refunded with interest at the annual rate of MCLRH per cent. 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. Date: 07/02/2022

(Balvinder Kumar) (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Page 6

= भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | पीठ-2 उपस्थिति :— श्री बलविन्दर कुमार, सदस्य शिकायत संख्या:-- NCRI45/09/80982/202 चितरंजन कुमार एवं रिंकू देवी बनाम राईज प्रोजेक्ट्स प्रा.लि. प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज की दर से वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में अग्रणी शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना Rise Organic Ghar 0॥858९- में यूनिट संख्या- T4-2A09 बुक किया गया था, जिसकी कुल कीमत 24,47,250,//- जिसके लिए उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 8,60,450/— रूपये का भुगतान किया गया। शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अनुबन्ध पत्र के अनुसार मार्च 2049 तक यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान किया जाना था, परन्तु अभी तक कब्जा उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया है एवं परियोजना स्थल पर किसी भी प्रकार का निर्माण कार्य नहीं किया जा रहा है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में अनुबन्धपत्र दिनांकित 02.03.206, जमा धनराशि की रसीदें, खाता विवरण की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयीं। विपक्षी द्वारा जवाब दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी परियोजना "RISE ORGANIC GHAR PHASE-i" में TL Page = T4-2A09 बुक किया गया था, जिसके सापेक्ष उभयपक्षों के मध्य

अपार्टमेंट बायर अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांक 02.03.2046 को हतस्ताक्षरित किया गया। अनुबन्ध पत्र के प्रस्तर- के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा 42 माह एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के राथ 48 माह में कब्णा दिया जाना था। शिकायतकर्ता ar विपक्षी की परियोजना में कंस्ट्रक्शन लिंक्ट प्लान के अन्तर्गत बुक किया गया था। विपक्षी का कहना है कि परियोजना में विलम्ब कोविड-49 महामारी एवं | माननीय एन.जी.टी द्वारा लगाये प्रतिबंध के कारण भी परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य प्रभावित हुआ। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवाद पत्र में यह भी अंकित किया गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता की यूनिट का कब्जा दिसम्बर 2022 तक प्रदान कर दिया जायेगा अथवा आगामी 3 माह में अपनी विकसित परियोजना में वैकल्पिक यूनिट 3 माह के अन्दर प्रदान कर दी जायेगी। उभयपक्ष को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। पक्षकारों के अभिवचनों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचारणीय किये गये :- t. कया शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि वापस Rad जाने की मांग करना उचित है ? | 2 क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है? निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अनुबन्ध पत्र के अनुसार | ard 20:9 तक यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान किया जाना था, परन्तु अभी तक कब्जा उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया है एवं परियोजना स्थल पर किसी भी प्रकार का निर्माण कार्य नहीं किया जा रहा ह | दूसरी ओर विपक्षी का कहना है कि वह शिकायतकर्ता की यूनिट का कब्जा दिसम्बर 2022 तक प्रदान कर दिया जायेगा अथवा आगामी 3 aL Page 2 = विकसित परियोजना में वैकल्पिक यूनिट 3 माह के अन्दर प्रदान कर दी जायेगी |

जहाँ तक क्रेता द्वारा रिफण्ड के अनुरोध का प्रश्न है, इस विषय में 'रेरा' अधिनियम के प्राविधानों को समग्र रूप से पढ़ा जाना आवश्यक है, ताकि सभी पक्षों के मत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए एक संतुलित निर्णय लिया जा सकें | 'रेरा' एक्ट की धारा ia (4) ¥ प्राविधान है कि :- "Section 78 (7) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed" fl Page 3 इस प्रकार Gal 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 be, on,— (a)protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent,....... (pany other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” उक्त प्राविधानों से यह स्पष्ट है कि “रियल wee सेक्टर” के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके सभी स्टेक eed के हितों को समग्र रूप से देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेने का उत्तरदायित्व इस अथॉरिटी का है। इस क्रम में मा. मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा 'नीलकमल रियलटर्स wads uife. बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया, जिसमें 'रेरा' अधिनियम की वैद्यानिकता के सम्बंध में निर्णय दिया गया था, के प्रस्तर 424 में मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निम्न संवीक्षण किया :- | Page 4

“]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 77 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections /2, /4, 468 and /9, A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work.” उक्त से स्पष्ट है कि सभी पक्षों को सुनने के बाद, यद्यपि समय से इकाई न मिलने की दशा में आवंटी का अपनी धनराशि ब्याज सहित मांगने का अधिकार है, तथापि उक्त वर्णित संवीक्षा को देखते हुए अथॉरिटी, प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों, के आधार पर ‘by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and_issuing directions for timely

completion of project, transit, accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth’ के अनुरूप आदेश पारित किए जा सकते हैं। Jc Page 5 B द्वारा धनराशि वापस किए जाने व परियोजना में बने रहने वाले एलोटीज के हितों में wget के प्रसंग में “चित्रा शर्मा बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया” (744 ,“ 2047) 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 vat WERT में उद्धरत “ऑबजरवेशनस्‌” एवं रेरा एक्ट की समग्र व्यवस्था को देखते हुए यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यदि fara 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” RY Page 6 = समस्त तथ्यों यथा “कन्सट्रक्शन” 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 use डेट” के विषय में “कन्सेन्सस्‌” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। ww के गठन के मूल उद्देश्यों को देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेकर आदेश पारित किया जाना विधि संगत होगा। RW 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 We—24 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 wr 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। & आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-255 के प्रस्तर-437 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है:- "The provisions of RERA are beneficial to the home buyers and are intended to insulate them from fraudulent action, ensures completion of the building and it is the duty of the court to protect and ensure the home buyers’ interest and at the same time to hold them responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under the said statute. We are not absolving the home buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At the same time, they have the right of enforcement of their right for compensation due to undue delay in completion of the project."

उक्त आब्जर्वेशन में यह भी स्पष्ट किया गया है कि 'रेरा' के प्राविधान गृहक्रेताओं 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 Re 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 गृहकेताओं 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 chs 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 हयात, Page 8 = 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 किश्तों का समय से भुगतान करना सुनिश्चित कर लें, जिससे कि परियोजना को पूर्ण किया जा सके। ऐसे में उपरोक्त माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्धारित की गयी विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा का मुख्य उद्देश्य, परियोजना को फलस्वरूप प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा पूर्ण कराना और आवंटियों द्वारा सम्यक रूप से अपनी किश्तों का भुगतान सुनिश्चित कर लिया जाना, जिससे कि परियोजना को निर्धारित अवधि में पूर्ण कराया जा सके। आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए परियोजना विलम्ब होने पर ब्याज का लाभ भी आवंटियों को देय 4) Page 9 । परन्तु इससे पूर्व शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी उत्तरदायित्व होगा कि वह अपनी | किश्तों का समय से भुगतान करें |

चूंकि विपक्षी द्वारा मूल यूनिट का कब्जा दिसम्बर 2022 अथवा आगामी 3 | माह के अन्दर अपनी विकसित परियोजना में वैकल्पिक यूनिट प्रदान कर दी जायेगी और परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिये जाने की बात कही गयी है, जिससे विदित होता है कि परियोजना पूर्णता की ओर है। ऐसी स्थिति में । विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को वैकल्पिक यूनिट का कब्जा 3 माह के अन्दर प्रदान करने हेतु आश्वासन दिया गया है। उचित होगा कि शिकायतकर्ता, विपक्षी द्वारा उपलब्ध करायी जाने वाली वैकल्पिक यूनिट पर कब्जा लेने का विचार करें| 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 आदेश रेरा पोर्टल पर अपलोड होने की तिथि से 3 माह के अन्दर शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है, तो उसके उपरान्त शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस किया जाना उपयुक्त होगा। निस्तारण बिन्दु सं०-4 Prana किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या--2 | | | | शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अनुबन्ध पत्र के अनुसार | मार्च 209 तक यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान किया जाना था, परन्तु अभी तक कब्जा ॥ उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया है एवं परियोजना स्थल पर किसी भी प्रकार का | निर्माण कार्य नहीं किया जा रहा है, जिस कारण वह अपनी जमा धनराशि ब्याज । सहित वापस चाहते है। | | | |

विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवाद पत्र में यह भी अंकित किया गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता की यूनिट का कब्जा दिसम्बर 2022 तक प्रदान कर दिया aay, Page 0 = आगामी 3 माह में अपनी विकसित परियोजना में वैकल्पिक यूनिट 3 माह के अन्दर प्रदान कर दी जायेगी। पत्रावली पर विपक्षी द्वारा दाखिल प्रतिवाद पत्र में अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांक 02.03.20i6 को हतस्ताक्षरित होने की तिथि अंकित है, जिस पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कोई आपत्ति दर्ज नहीं करायी गयी है, जिसके कब्जे वाले प्रस्तर के अवलोकन से विदित है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध निष्पादन की तिथि से 42 माह एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के साथ 48 माह में कब्जा दिया जाना था। उक्त अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 02.03.206 को उभयपक्षों द्वारा निष्पादित किया गया था। ऐसे में उपरोक्तानुसार कब्जे की तिथि 02.03.2020 होती है। यह स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना विलम्बित है और ऐसे में शिकायतकर्ता दिनांक 03.03.2020 से ओ.सी /सी.सी प्राप्त होने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो, तक की अवधि पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है। इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय के "नीलकमल Raced सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया" की याचिका में माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है किः-

"Section 8()0) 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 VL ही 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 allottec who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह we है कि रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व करता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा उक्त. धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है।

जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 206 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.2048 को Tarra (विनियमन और विकास) (विक्रय /पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 20i8 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विक्रय / पट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के Bere प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें wea 9.2 (४) में प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है किः-- "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which ease the Promoter shall be liable to- refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, fv Page 2 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 प्रस्तर 9.30) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को MCLR+ 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 Ho 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 40) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant —Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 206. The Respondent - Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 20 6 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent — Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the 72. Page 3 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./ री.री. मिलने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो, तक की अवधि तक विलम्ब के लिए ब्याज पाने के अधिकारी होगें। दिनांक (7.020i8 को उ0प्र० शासन आवास एवं शहरी नियोजन अनुभाग-3 की अधिसूचना संख्या-4740 /8-3—48-65 विविध / 46 के द्वारा मॉडल एग्रीमेन्ट की नियमावली के प्रस्तर-7 में फोर्स मैज्योर के सम्बन्ध में निम्न उल्लेख किया गया है :- 7. POSSESSION OF THE APARTMENT/PLOT:

"74 Schedule for possession of the said [Apartment/Plot] - The Promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot] to the Allottee and the Common Areas to the association of Allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, is the essence of the Agreement. The Promoter assures to hand over possession of the [Apartment/Plot] along with ready and complete Common Areas with all specifications, amenities and facilities of the Project in place on , unless there is delay or failure due to war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the (Vv Page —s— S] aeererrererew Page 4 = estate project ("Force Majeure"). If, however, the completion of the Project is delayed due to the Force Majeure conditions then the Allottee agrees that the Promoter shall be entitled to the extension of time for delivery of possession of the [Apartment/Plot]:"

इसी क्रम में समस्त सुसंगत तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों के बाद उ0प्र0 रेरा अथॉरिटी द्वारा कोविड--49 (Corona Virus Disease) के प्रभाव के कारण सभी परियोजनाओं को पूर्ण करने हेतु दिनांक 25.03.2020 से 6 माह की अवधि अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक की अवधि दे दी गयी है और यह अवधि फोर्स मैज्योर की अवधि मानी जायेगी। इसको दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03.2020 से दिनांक 25.09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु कोई ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा आवंटियों को नहीं दिया जाएगा और न ही आवंटियों से कोई विलम्ब ब्याज लिया जायेगा। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-2 निस्तारित किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते = आदेश 4. विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह अपनी किसी विकसित परियोजना में शिकायतकर्ता को समस्त सुविधाओं को आवंटन / अनुबन्ध पत्र के अनुसार पूर्ण कराकर वैकल्पिक यूनिट आदेश रेरा पोर्टल पर अपलोड होने की तिथि से ओ.सी.,//सी.सी. सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री कराएं। 2... विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 03.03.2020 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 ४॥ ५ ए०98९१5

साथ ही यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की धनराशि में समायोजित की जायेगी और यदि ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक है, तो नियमानुसार शिकायतकर्ता को वापस की जाये। 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 को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम 20:6 की धारा 2 (ai) के अन्तर्गत 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+ प्रतिशत है। . विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 34.05.2022 तक कब्जा देने में असफल रहता है, तो दिनांक 34.05.2022 के पश्चात्‌ 45 दिनों के अन्दर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि MCLRH प्रतिशत की वार्षिक ब्याज दर सहित वापस अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें| इस आदेश का Goods 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 — 07/02/2022 (बलविन्‍न्दर कुमार) (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण Page 6