Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar | Bench-2 Present: Smt. Kalpana Mishra, Member | Sr. No. | Complaint No. | Complainants | |---|---|---| | 1 | NCRI45/07/78664/202 | Durga Shankar Prasad | | 2 | NCR45/09/82849/202 | Prachi Garg | | 3 | NCR45/09/8920/202 [?] | Puneet Gulati and Sampada Nagpal | v. Rise Projects [?] Along with complainant Durga Shankar Prasad, 2 other complainants have instituted complaints against the opposite party. The facts of all these complaints are the same and the evidence is common. Therefore they are being disposed of by a single order. Complaint NCR45/07/78664/202 [?] of Durga Shankar Prasad shall be the lead case. The complaint application has been instituted by the complainant for refund, with interest, of the deposited amount. In brief, the complainant's statement is that he booked unit no. 73-[?] in the opposite party's project "Rise Organic Homes Phase-l". The total price was Rs. 47,34,600/-, against which he has paid Rs. 44,69,360/- from time to time in instalments. The complainant says the opposite party's project is i7 months delayed. Therefore the complainant has requested refund of the deposited amount with interest. In support of his statement the complainant has filed photocopies of the agreement dated 40.02.20i6, account statement, letter for loan sanction, tripartite agreement, etc.

The opposite party, filing its counter-statement, has stated that the complainant had applied in its project "Rise Organic Homes [?]". Page 4 Accordingly, the agreement dated i0.02.20:6 was executed between the parties. As per the possession clause [?] of the agreement, the opposite party was to give possession of the unit with a grace period of 42 and 6 months.

The opposite party has stated that the project in question is registered with RERA and was started in the year 20i5 [?]. The project has a total of 05 towers and 764 units. According to the map sanctioned by the competent authority, the layout of the project was changed, and because the height of the towers was reduced, a total of 250 units were reduced, due to which they are facing financial loss. The project was delayed due to force majeure [?], which was beyond their control. Keeping in view rising pollution in Delhi NCR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the N.G.T. had stayed construction work from October 20:9 to January 2020. Due to COVID-49 and whenever construction was restricted from time to time by the National Green Tribunal, construction work remained affected. The opposite party has stated that possession of the unit will be given to the complainant by November 2022, and that they agree to pay the amount for the delayed period as per the [vee] provision in the agreement. On the basis of the above facts, the opposite party has requested that the complainant's complaint be dismissed and that the complainant be directed to take possession of the unit. The [cet] of both parties was heard and the file examined, on the basis of which the following points were framed:- 4. Whether the opposite party's project was delayed due to force majeure? If so, what is the effect? 2. Whether the complainant's deposited amount is to be refunded with interest? Disposal of point No. 4

Point No. 4 concerns the question whether the project was in fact delayed due to force majeure events. This point is framed on the opposite party's allegations, and the burden of proving it lies on the opposite party. The opposite party has stated that the delay in the project was caused by the order of the Hon'ble N.G.T. [?] and the restriction on construction imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The opposite party has neither stated which force majeure events caused the delay in the work of its project, nor has any evidence of force majeure been placed on the file from which it would be shown that work on the project land was obstructed. Page 2 In this regard it is necessary to quote the definition of force majeure mentioned in Section 6 of the RERA Act:- "force majeure" shall mean a case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project. It will also be important to mention the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 940/20:7, "[?] Chatterjee and others v. Union of India and others". In that judgment, at page 234 and paragraph 40, force majeure has been defined as follows:- "Force majeures hall 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 another natural calamity has occurred. In the matter in question no such circumstance arose, and in such a case the opposite party is not entitled to the benefit of this period. After consideration of all relevant facts, the U.P. RERA Authority, by its order dated 06.06.2020, due to the effect of COVID-49 (Corona Virus Disease), granted an additional period of 6 months from 25.03.2020, that is, up to 25.09.2020, for completing all projects, and this additional period shall be deemed to be on account of force majeure events. Having regard to this, no interest for the delay in the project during 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020 shall be paid by the promoter to the allottees, and no delay interest shall be charged from the complainant. Accordingly, point [?] is disposed of. Disposal of point No. 2 The complainant says the opposite party's project is 47 months delayed. Therefore the complainant has requested refund of the deposited amount with interest. On the other hand, the opposite party has stated that possession of the unit will be given to the complainant by November 2022, and that they agree to pay the amount for the delayed period as per the provision mentioned in the agreement. Page 3

In support of his statement the complainant has filed a copy of the allotment letter / apartment buyer agreement dated 40.02.2046. On perusal of sub-clause 6) of clause (7) relating to possession, it appears that the opposite party was to give possession within 48 months, with a grace period of 42 months and 6 months, from the date of execution of the apartment buyer agreement. The apartment buyer agreement dated t0.02.20:6 was executed by both parties. In such a case, as above, the date of possession comes to t0.02.2020. It is clear that the project is delayed, and in such a case the complainant is entitled to interest on the delayed period from 44.02.2020 up to the date of OC/CC or offer of possession, whichever is later. Up to the said possession period, the opposite party has failed to give possession to the complainant. In this regard, Section 48() of the [?] Act clearly mentions:- "]8, (]) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building,- (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or

(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed." As stated above, if the promoter fails to complete any apartment, plot or building within the time stipulated in the terms of the agreement, or is unable to give possession, then, without prejudice to any other available remedy, on the allottee's demand, if the allottee wishes to come out of the project, the promoter shall be liable to return, with interest, the amount received by it in respect of that apartment, plot or building, as the case may be.

It is also clear that the opposite party was to give the complainant possession of the unit by 40.02.2020, which it was obliged to complete. The complainant has said that the deposited amount should be refunded with interest. It is clear that possession was not given to the complainant within the stipulated period, and the opposite party has also not obtained the OC/CC for this project. Therefore the complainant is entitled to come out of the project under Section 48(0)(a) of the RERA Act. Page 5 Further, in this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held in Civil Appeal No. 3482 /20i9, Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. v. Devashish [?], that:

"It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By 20I6, nearly seven years had elapsed from the date of the agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 206. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the orders passed by the SCDRC and by the NCDRC for refund of moneys were justified." Likewise, in the same sequence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in Civil Appeal No. 42238 /208, Pioneer Urban [?] and Infrastructure Limited v. Govind Raghavan, that:

"We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.0.208 passed by the National Commission. The Appellant - Builder failed to fulfill his contractual obligation of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent - Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Respondent - Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired. During this period, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser had to service a loan that he had obtained for purchasing the flat, by paying Interest @l0% to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest." In view of the legal position laid down above, a home buyer can be made to wait for a reasonable time. Even after receipt of the completion certificate, the complainant is entitled to receive the deposited amount, because possession was not given to the complainant within the period given in the agreement, and the matter has suffered extreme delay. Since the project has not been completed on time, in such a situation the complainant is entitled to get back his deposited amount with interest.

As regards refund of the complainant's deposited amount with interest, it is noteworthy that in the petition of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that: "Section 8(l)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an 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 [?] Page 6 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 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 [?] amount.

As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 20i6, notified on 47.40.208 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale) Rules 20i8. In the sale / lease deed format annexed to these Rules, in paragraph 9 the events of default of promoters (Events of default) are defined, in which [?] 9.2(ii) A provides for the allottee, in case the promoter is in default, that:- "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +l% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:" The same rate is also prescribed in paragraph 9.30) for default by allottees. Having regard to the said provision, refunding the amount to the allottee with interest at the rate of MCLRtH [?] percent appears justified. Accordingly, point No. 2 is disposed of. While disposing of the above points, the following orders are passed:- Order

4. The opposite party is directed to ensure payment, within 45 days from the date of uploading of this order on the portal, of the amount deposited by the complainant, together with interest at the annual rate of 58,21+] [?] percent. In the cases of the other complainants, calculation shall be made as above, in accordance with the allotment letter / agreement. 2. The opposite party is directed to ensure that the amount obtained by it through a loan from the bank is repaid to the bank. 2. A copy of this order shall be placed on each of the relevant files, and the amount and interest shall be calculated in each case in accordance with the principles laid down in this order. 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: [?]/05/2022 (Kalpana Mishra) (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Page 8

[ese theme er te ge भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | पीठ-॥ उपस्थिति:- श्रीमती कल्पना मिश्रा, सदस्य क्रम सं0 शिकायत संख्या शिकायतकर्तागण् न = NCRI45/07/78664/202 दुर्गा शंकर प्रसाद 2. NCR45/09/82849/202 प्राची गर्ग [3 एटरा45/09/8920/202 | पुनीत गुलाटी एवं सम्पदा नागपाल बनाम राइज़ प्रोजेक्ट्स wo feo शिकायतकर्ता दुर्गा शंकर प्रसाद के साथ 2 अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध वाद योजित किया गया है। इन सभी शिकायतों के तथ्य समान और साक्ष्य एक समान हैं। अतः एक ही निर्णय से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत Wo टार45/07/78664/202 दुर्गा शंकर प्रसाद अग्रणी वाद रहेगा। प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना Rise Organic Homes Phase-l में यूनिट सं०-73- बुक की गई थी। जिसकी कल कीमत 47,34,600/- रूपये थी, जिसके सापेक्ष उनके -द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 44,69,360 /- रूपये का भुगतान किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना i7 माह विलम्बित है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांकित 40.02. 20i6, खाता विवरण, ऋण स्वीकृति हेतु पत्र, त्रिपक्षी अनुबन्ध-पत्र आदि की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवाद पत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी परियोजना Rise Organic Homes ?॥७४९-। में आवेदन किया गया था, wo a TE. Page 4

ee अनुक्रम में उभयपक्षों के मध्य अनुबंध-पत्र दिनांक i0.02.20:6 को निष्पादित किया गया। अनुबन्ध के कब्जा सम्बन्धी wee के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा यूनिट का कब्जा 42 एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि के अनुसार प्रदान किया जाना था। था। विपक्षी द्वारा अंकित किया गया है की प्रश्नगत परियोजना रेरा मे पंजीकृत है और वर्ष 20i5 4 प्रारम्भ की गई थी परियोजना मे कुल 05 टावर कुल 764 यूनिट्स है, सक्षम प्राधिकरण द्वारा स्वीकृत मानचित्र के अनुसार परियोजना के ले आउट में परिवर्तन किया गया और टावर्स की हाइट कम होने के कारण कुल 250 यूनिट्स कम हो गई जिसके कारण उन्हे आर्थिक हानि का सामना करना पड़ रहा है। परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर grey के कारण विलम्बित हुई, जो कि उनके नियंत्रण में नहीं था। दिल्ली NCR में बढ़ते हुए प्रदूषण को ध्यान में रखते हुए माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय एवं एन. जी.टी. द्वारा अक्टूबर 20:9 से जनवरी 2020 तक निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगा दी गयी थी। कोविड--49 के कारण एवं समय-समय पर राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण द्वारा निर्माण कार्य पर प्रतिबन्ध लगाये जाने पर निर्माण कार्य प्रभावी रहा। विपक्षी द्वारा अंकित किया गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा नवम्बर 2022 तक प्रदान कर दिया जाएगा और वे अनुबंध पत्र मे vee प्राविधान के अनुसार विलम्बित अवधि की धनराशि का भगतन करने हेतु सहमत है। उपरोक्त तथ्यों के आधार पर शिकायतकर्ता की शिकायत खारिज किये जाने औरयूनिट का कब्जा प्राप्त किये जाने हेतु शिकायतकर्ता को निर्देशित किये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। उभयपक्ष के cet को सुना गया व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया, जिसके आधार पर निम्न बिन्दु विचरित किये गये हैं :-

4... क्या force majeure होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? 2... क्या शिकायतकर्ता की जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलायी जाये? निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या- बिन्दु do 4 इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या वास्तव में परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्ट्स होने कारण विलम्बित हुई? यह बिन्दु विपक्षी के अभिकथनों पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार विपक्षी पर है। विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि परियोजना में विलम्ब माननीय ६.७. के आदेश एवं माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्माण कार्य पर लगाए गये प्रतिबन्ध के कारण हुआ। विपक्षी की ओर से न तो यह कथन किया गया कि किन फोर्स मैज्योर की बाबत उसकी परियोजना के कार्यों में विलम्ब हुआ और न ही फोर्स मैज्योर की बाबत कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर दाखिल किया गया है, जिससे की विदित हो कि परियोजना की भूमि पर कार्य बाधित था | / see Page 2 बनाओ के सम्बन्ध में रेश अधिनियम की धारा-6 में उल्लेखित फोर्स मैज्योर की परिभाषा को उद्धरत करना आवश्यक होगाः- "force majeure" shall mean a case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project. mo माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 /20:7 “Req चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य” का उल्लेख करना महत्वपूर्ण होगा उक्त निर्णय के पृष्ठ संख्या-234 एवं प्रस्तर 40 में फोर्स मैज्योर को निम्नवत्‌ परिभाषित किया है:- "Force majeures hall mean a case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature."

उपरोक्त फोर्स मैज्योर के परिभाषा से यह स्पष्ट है कि फोर्स मैज्योर वह स्थिति है, जिसमें की युद्ध, बाढ़, सूखा, आग, तूफान, भूकम्प या अन्य प्रकृतिक आपदा आई हो, प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में ऐसी कोई परिस्थिति उत्पन्न नहीं हुई और विपक्षी ऐसी दशा में वह इस अवधि का लाभ पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है। समस्त सुसंगत तथ्यों पर विचारोपरान्त उ0प्र0 रेरा अथॉरिटी द्वारा दिनांक 06.06.2020 को कोविड-49 (Corona Virus Disease) के प्रभाव के कारण सभी परियोजनाओं को पूर्ण करने हेतु दिनोक 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 Wer निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु do 2 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना 47 माह विलम्बित है। अत: शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। दूसरी ओर विपक्षी द्वारा अंकित किया गया है शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्ज़ा नवम्बर 2022 तक प्रदान कर दिया जाएगा और वे अनुबंध पत्र में उल्लेखित प्राविधान के अनुसार विलम्बित अवधि की धनराशि का भगतन करने हेतु सहमत है। ६ oo NS SS SSS SS Page 3

शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटन पत्र अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 40.02.2046 के कब्जे वाले प्रस्तर-(७) के उप-प्रस्तर-6) 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 t0.02.20:6 को उभयपक्षों द्वारा निष्पादित किया गया था। ऐसे में उपरोक्तानुसार कब्जे की तिथि t0.02.2020 होती है। यह स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना विलम्बित है और ऐसे में शिकायतकर्ता दिनांक 44.02.2020 से ओ.सी. /सी.सी. अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो तक की अवधि पर विलंबित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है। उक्त कब्जे की अवधि तक विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा देने में असफल रहा है। इस सबंध में Wa अधिनियम के धारा-48() में स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लेखित है कि :- "]8, (]) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building,— (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or

(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed." उपरोक्तानुसार यदि प्रोमोटर करार के निबन्धों के अनुसार उसमें दिये गये अवधि तक समय से किसी अपार्टमेन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन को पूरा करने में असफल रहता है या कब्जा देने में असमर्थ रहता है, तो वह उपलब्ध किसी Page 4 REMESESSELS | उपचार पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव डाले बिना आवंटी की मांग पर यदि आवंटी परियोजना से बाहर होना चाहता है, तो प्रकरण के अनुसार, उस अपार्टमिन्ट, भू-खण्ड या भवन के सम्बन्ध में उसके प्राप्त धनराशि ब्याज सहित लौटाने का दायी होगा।

यह भी स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 40.02.2020 तक यूनिट का कब्जा देना था, जिसको विपक्षी द्वारा पूर्ण करने का दायित्व था। शिकायकर्ता द्वारा कहा गया कि जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाये। स्पष्ट है कि शिकायतकर्ता को निर्धारित अवधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया और न ही विपक्षी को इस परियोजना का ओ.सी./सी.सी. प्राप्त हुआ है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता रेरा अधिनियम की धारा-48(0)(ए) के अन्तर्गत वह परियोजना से बाहर आने का अधिकारी है। इसके अतिरिक्त इस सम्बंध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के सिविल अपील संख्या-3482 /20i9 कोलकाता बेस्ट इंटरनेशनल सिटी प्राणलि0 बनाम देवाशीष war में स्पष्ट रूप से अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- "It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By 20I6, nearly seven years had elapsed from the date of the agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 206. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the orders passed by the SCDRC and by the NCDRC for refund of moneys were justified."

साथ ही इसी क्रम में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के सिविल अपील संख्या--42238 /208 पायनियर अर्बन aes एवं इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड बनाम गोविन्द राघवन में भी अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- ee a Page 5 "We see no illegality in the Impugned Order dated 23.0.208 passed by the National Commission. The Appellant - Builder failed to fulfill his contractual obligation of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent - Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Respondent - Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired. During this period, the Respondent — Flat Purchaser had to service a loan that he had obtained for purchasing the flat, by paying Interest @l0% to the Bank. In the meanwhile, the Respondent — Flat Purchaser also located an alternate property in Gurugram. In these circumstances, the Respondent - Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest."

उपरोक्तानुसार दी गयी विधि व्यवस्था में गृहक्रेता को एक उचित समय तक प्रतीक्षा कराया जा सकता है। पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त होने के उपरान्त भी शिकायतकर्ता जमा धनराशि पाने का अधिकारी क्‍योंकि अनुबन्ध में दी गयी अवधि के अनुसार शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा नहीं मिला है व प्रकरण में अत्यधिक विलम्ब हुआ है। चूंकि परियोजना समय से पूर्ण नहीं की गयी है। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता अपनी जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज सहित वापस पाने का अधिकारी है। जहां तक शिकायतकर्ता को जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है, तो इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय के नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया की याचिका में माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- "Section 8(l)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to alt / ~ Page 6 ro

from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable. " अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व क्रेता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा ved धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 20i6 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.208 को भू-सम्पदा (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 डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें wee 9.2(ii) A प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है कि:-

"The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +l% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:" यही दर आवंटियों के द्वारा डिफॉल्ट की स्थिति में भी प्रस्तर 9.30) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को MCLRtH oe Page 7 प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर धनराशि वापस दिलाये जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। तदानुसार बिन्दु संख्या-2 निस्तारित किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते हैं :- आदेश 4. विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड होने की तिथि से 45 दिनों के अंदर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि ५८,२१+] प्रतिशत की वार्षिक ब्याज दर सहित अदा करना सुनिश्चित oe | अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण के प्रकरणों में आवंटन पत्र/अनुबन्ध के अनुरूप उपरोकतानुसार गणना की जायेगी। 2. विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि बैंक द्वारा ऋण के माध्यम से प्राप्त की गयी धनराशि बैंक को वापस अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। 2. इस आदेश की एक-एक प्रति सम्बंधित पत्रावलियों पर रखी जाये एवं इस आदेश में प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्तों के अनुरूप धनराशि व ब्याज की प्रत्येक मामले में गणना की जायेगी।

इस आदेश का उल्लघंन भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। दिनांक:- |] /05 / 2022 ८ की SAS \W\S (ee (कल्पना मिश्रा) (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण Page 8