U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddha Nagar. Hearing Bench-04A Order under Section-31 Shri Rajeev Kumar, Hon'ble Chairman Serial No. | Complaint No. | Complainants 1 ] | NCR45/2/86205/202! | Harmeet Singh 2 | NCR45/0/8328/202 | Prabha Bansal 3 | NCR 45/2/87292/202]] | Mahesh Chandra Mahawar 4 | NCR45/0/84028/202 | Narendra Kumar Varshney versus Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Private Limited A suit has been instituted against the respondent by complainant Harmeet Singh along with 03 other complainants. The facts of all these complaints are similar and evidence is identical. All these complaints are related to UCHDPL- Sector-5 Wave Floors. Therefore, they are being disposed of through a single judgment. Complaint No. NCR45/2/86205/202!] Harmeet Singh shall be the leading case. The present complaint application has been instituted by the complainants for refund of deposited amount along with interest against the respondent.

In brief, the statement of the complainant is that unit WEN-A-I32/3, Block-A in respondent's project UCHDPL- Sector-5 Wave Floors was booked by them, total cost of which was Rs. 28,60,000/—, against which payment of Rs. 26,59,490/— has been made by the complainant. The complainant also states that construction work of respondent's project is stopped and no information regarding registration of project has been provided by the respondent to the complainant, nor have any certificates relating to the project been obtained, whereas more than 95% amount has been received by the respondent. The respondent did not permit the complainant to inspect the project in question, nor was the site plan made available. The respondent was obligated to deliver possession of the unit in question within 48 months, but possession was not delivered by the respondent within the said stipulated period. Hence, request has been made by the complainant for refund of deposited amount along with interest. In support of their statement, copies of account statements, copy of Apartment Allottee Arrangement dated 2:.08.20:4, detailed written complaint, etc., have been filed on behalf of the complainant.

Filing written statement, it was stated by the respondent that Flat No. &-32/3 Wave Executive Floors, Greenwood Enclave in Sector-5 of their named project Wave City was booked by the complainant under "Construction Linked Installment Plan", in which the layout was changed due to unforeseen circumstances. The same unit was re-allotted to the complainant. The total price of the unit (without taxes) is Rs. 27,79,694/- , out of which payment of Rs. 2484,22e/- was made by the complainant and payment of Rs. 2,98,867 //— remains outstanding from the complainant. The agreement between both parties was executed on date 2:.08.20:4, according to which possession of the unit was to be delivered on date 27.:4.20i8 + 90 days grace period. Citing the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2737/20:7 "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Union of India", the respondent stated that provisions of RERA are prospective, but under Section 4(2)(l)(C) of the RERA Act, they can fix a new time limit for handing over possession, and if they fail to deliver possession of the unit within the stipulated time limit, they cannot be held liable for the same. The project was delayed due to Force Majeure events, which was not under their control. Obstacles arose in carrying out work due to dharna/protests by local farmers. Taking into account the rising pollution in Delhi NCR, construction work was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from October 2049 to January 2020. Due to Covid-19 , no construction could take place at the project site from March 2020 to September 2020. Additionally, construction work was banned from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM , due to which construction work in the project was delayed. As per provisions of the Builder Buyer Agreement, which is not a subject matter of this Authority, the complainant has to invoke Arbitration or approach other forums for redressal of grievances. The project in question is registered with RERA. The respondent also states that the project in question is complete and completion certificate has been obtained on date 04.04.2022 and offer of possession of the unit was made to the complainant in March 2022. Hence, the respondent prayed for directions to the complainant to pay the remaining amount and take possession of the unit in question.

In support of its contention, the respondent filed copies of partial completion certificate dated 04.04.2022 issued by Ghaziabad Development Authority relating to the project in question, order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6239 // 209 "Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan & Ors. vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd.". Arguments of both parties were heard and the file perused, on the basis of which the following points for determination were framed: 1. Whether complaints arising prior to registration of the project under RERA are outside the jurisdiction of RERA? 2. Whether the respondent's project was delayed due to force majeure events such as orders of Hon'ble Courts, ban on construction activity by Hon'ble NGT, etc.? If yes, its effect? 3. Whether this Bench lacks jurisdiction to hear the case due to an arbitration clause in the agreement? 4. Whether the deposited amount of the complainants can be refunded along with interest? If not, what relief is admissible? Disposal of Point No. 1: Point No. 1 is framed on the issue whether complaints arising prior to registration of the project under RERA are outside the jurisdiction of RERA?

The respondent, citing the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2737/20:7 "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Union of India", stated that provisions of RERA are prospective, but under Section 4(2)(l)(C) of the RERA Act, they can fix a new time limit for providing possession, and if they fail to provide possession within the fixed time limit, they cannot be held liable. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6745-6749 /202 "M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P. & Ors." has clearly held: "54. From the scheme of the Act 206, its application is retroactive in character and it can safely be observed that the projects already completed or to which the completion certificate has been granted are not under its fold and therefore, vested or accrued rights, if any, in no manner are affected. At the same time, it will apply after getting the on-going projects and future projects registered under Section 3 to prospectively follow the mandate of the Act 206."

From the above legal position, it is clear that for all agreements signed prior to the enforcement of the RERA Act or projects existing prior to enforcement of the Act where completion certificate has not been obtained by the promoter, enforcement of the Act shall have retroactive effect. It is also clear in the RERA Act that "on-going" projects definitely fall within the purview of the RERA Act. 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, then all provisions of RERA will apply. The respondent has registered the project in question under RERA. Therefore, based on stated facts, it is clear that respondent's project presently falls under the category of "ongoing project". In such situation, all provisions of RERA will apply. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is disposed of. Disposal of Point No. 2: Point No. 2 has been framed with the intent whether the respondent's project was delayed due to force majeure events such as orders of Hon'ble Courts, ban on construction activity by Hon'ble NGT, etc.? If yes, its effect? This point has been framed on the averments of the respondent, burden of proving which lies on the respondent.

The respondent stated that work was obstructed due to dharna/protests by local farmers, and the project was delayed due to stay orders on land acquisition by Hon'ble Courts. Considering rising pollution in Delhi NCR, construction work was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from October 20:9 to January 2020. Additionally, construction work was banned from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM , due to which construction work in the project was delayed. Due to Covid-19 , no construction could take place at the project site from March 2020 to September 2020. S.No. | Reason | Time Period 1 ] | Stay on project by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India | January 20i2-January 207 2 | As per NGT order Ban on Construction Activity in Delhi NCR to curb pollution. | November 20]7- January 2087- January 208] 3 | As per NGT order Ban on Construction Activity in Delhi NCR to curb pollution. | October 20l8- December 208 4. | As per NGT order Ban on Construction Activity in Delhi NCR to curb pollution. | October 209- January 2020 5 | Ban on Construction due to the Pandemic (Covid-19) | March 2020-September 2020 The respondent has not submitted any evidence/record in support of their claim regarding stay by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, this ground is not acceptable.

Paragraph-4.2 of the agreement mentions as follows: "4.2 For the purpose of this Agreement "Force Majeure" shall mean any event or circumstances or a combination of events and circumstances, whether occured or likely to occur, which satisfies all the follwing conditions: i) Materially and adversely affecting the Said Project and/or the performance of an obligation of the Developer; and are beyond the control of the Developers; and includes(without limitation), subject to satisfaction of the above conditions, the following events and/or circumstances; a) war (whether declared or undeclared), invasion, armed conflict or act of foreign enemy; b) revolution, riot, insurrection or other civil commotion, act of terrorism or sabotage; c) strikes, industrial disputes, and/or lockouts and/or interrupting supplies and services to the Project. d) Non-payment of sums due from the Allottee(s) including payment of installment/applicalble interest and levies as mentioned herein above on time by any Allottee(s) of the said Apartment. e) change in govermental policy, laws (including any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, judgment, notification, order, decree, permission, licence or approval), including but not limited to expropriation or compulsory acquisition by any Government of any part of the Project or rights therein; f) acts of God or events beyond the reasonable control of the affected party which could not reasonably have been expected, including any effect of the natural elements, including lighting, fire, earthquake, unprecedented rains, landslide, subsidence, flood, storm, cyclone, epidemics or plagues or any other similar effect; g) any dispute between the Developers and Allottee(s) and/or between the Developer and the peron, persons, association of persons obstructing and creating and creating hurdle in the progress of the Development in any Proceeding; h) judgement or order of any court of competent jurisdiction or Government in India made against the Company in any proceedings. (i) any other reason which can be constructed to be beyond the control of the normal human being."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 43029 / 985 "M.C. Mehta vs Union of India" vide order dated 04.44.2049 issued the following directions: "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.1 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."

In addition, in the order dated 09.42.2049 passed in the aforesaid Civil Appeal No. 43029 / 985, the following directions were given: "In the affidavit dated 05.2.209, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has stated as under:- "12. That it is respectfully submitted that it is normally experienced that in month of December depending upon Climatic Condition the AQI category varies. As a matter of fact, last year (208) 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 lifted 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 Ambient AIR quality levels persist in severe+/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."

A ban on construction activities was imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the period (from date 04.44.2049 to date 24.02.2020), wherein by order dated 09.42.2049 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, total ban was lifted and partial ban was imposed. In this manner, construction activity was banned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for a period of 35 days (from date 04.44.2049 to date 09.42.2049) and 33 days (5652) (from date 40.42. 2049 to date 74.02.2020 from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM ). In such circumstance, the respondent is entitled to the benefit of construction work being affected for a total of 35+33 = 68 days. After consideration of all relevant facts, an additional period of 6 months from date 25.03.2020, i.e., up to date 25.09.2020, was granted by U.P. RERA Authority on date 06.06.2020 for completing all projects due to the impact of Covid-19 (Corona Virus Disease), and this additional period shall be treated due to Force Majeure events. In view thereof, no interest shall be payable by the promoter to the allottees for the delay in the project from date 25.03.2020 to date 25.09.2020, nor shall any delay interest be charged from the complainant. Accordingly, Point No. 2 is disposed of.

Disposal of Point No. 3: It was also contended on behalf of the respondent that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, due to which any dispute between the complainants and respondent can be resolved only through an arbitrator and this Bench does not possess jurisdiction to hear this complaint. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited vs Aftab Singh", 20i8 SCC Online SC 277, held 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. For all disputes for which special bodies have been created by law and jurisdiction has been conferred, an arbitrator is not competent to resolve such disputes. In light of the above legal principles, it is clear that Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 shall override the Arbitration Act. The Hon'ble NCDRC, applying the reasoning given in "A. Ayyasamy vs A. Paramasivam & Ors.", (20I6) 0 SCC 386, concluded that the same principle applies to said cases under the Real Estate Act, because this Act provides a specialized mechanism for resolving disputes between homebuyers and builders. In view of the principles laid down above, the question of reference to arbitration by the respondent is automatically extinguished. Accordingly, Point No. 3 is disposed of.

Disposal of Point No. 4: Point No. 4 for determination has been framed with the intent whether the deposited amount of the complainants can be refunded along with interest? If not, what relief is admissible? This issue has been framed on the basis of pleadings of the complainants, burden of proving which lies on the complainants. The complainant stated that construction work of respondent's project is stopped and no information regarding registration of project has been provided by the respondent to the complainant, nor have any certificates relating to the project been obtained, whereas more than 95% amount has been received by the respondent. The respondent did not permit the complainant to inspect the project in question, nor was the site plan made available. The respondent was obligated to deliver possession of the unit in question within 48 months, but possession was not delivered by the respondent within the said stipulated period. Hence, request has been made by the complainant for refund of deposited amount along with interest. On this, the respondent, filing written statement, stated that the project in question is complete and completion certificate has been obtained on date 04.04.2022, and offer of possession of the unit was made to the complainant in March 2022. Hence, the respondent prayed for directions to the complainant to pay the remaining amount and take possession of the unit in question.

As far as the question of buyer's request for refund is concerned, it is necessary to read the provisions of the RERA Act holistically so that a balanced decision can be taken keeping in view the viewpoints of all parties. Section 18(1) of the RERA Act provides: "Section 18(1) "If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building,- (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed."

Thus, the buyer has the right that if they do not receive possession as per the agreement, they can seek refund of their deposited money with interest or remain in the project while receiving interest for every month of delay. In Section 34 of the RERA Act, along with other functions of RERA, sub-clause (f) also mentions "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, in Section 32, among the responsibilities of the Authority for development of the real estate sector, the following is also included: "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,....... (f)any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector." From the said provisions, it is clear that in order to ensure healthy growth of the "real estate sector", it is the responsibility of this Authority to take appropriate decisions by viewing the interests of all stakeholders holistically.

In this sequence, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2737/20:7 "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Union of India", wherein judgment was rendered regarding constitutional validity of the RERA Act, in paragraph 424, observed as follows: "The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth. Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section 77 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections 72, 74, 48 and 49. A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work."

From the above, it is clear that after hearing all parties, although in case of not getting the unit in time the allottee has a right to demand their money along with interest, nevertheless in view of the aforesaid observations, orders can be passed by the Authority based on all 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'. Regarding constitution of RERA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 940 // 2047 "Bikram Chatterjee & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors." in order dated 23.07.2049 at paragraph-420 of page noted as follows: "It is apparent that RERA intends protection of home-buyers and aims at completion of the buildings. The buildings have to be completed, for that, we are required to pass orders. We have already assigned the task to NBCC for completion of 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 10 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 1 year."

As stated above, it is clarified that RERA is meant to protect the interests of allottees and its aim is that homebuyers get their home/flat upon completion of all development works of building by promoters. In sequence thereof, at paragraph-437 of page number 255 of the order, it was noted 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." In the said observation, it was also clarified that provisions of RERA are beneficial to homebuyers and are meant to protect allottees' interests against breach of trust, and monitoring to get buildings completed is the task of RERA, and duties and liabilities of parties are defined in the Act. Benefit has also been granted that upon project delay, homebuyers shall have the right to receive interest as per rules till completion of project for the delay.

Subsequent thereto, regarding RERA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 43 /2049 "Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors." in order dated 09.08.2049 at paragraph-29 of page number 86 noted as follows: "The object of RERA is to see that real estate projects come to fruition within the stated period and to see that allottees of such projects are not left in the lurch and are finally able to realise their dream of a home, or be paid compensation if such dream is shattered, or at least get back monies that they had advanced towards the project with interest. At the same time, recalcitrant allottees are not to be tolerated, as they must also perform their part of the bargain, namely, to pay instalments as and when they become due and payable." In the said order, significant observation was made that RERA's goal is that under its monitoring and supervision, real estate projects are completed by promoters within a stipulated period, so that allottees are not deprived of getting their flats and can realize their dream home; simultaneously, recalcitrant allottees have also been held liable for not cooperating in completing the project. It is also stated that allottees must duly discharge their duties, primarily ensuring payment of instalments on time, so that the project can be completed.

In this context, according to the legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court above, it is clear that primary objective of RERA is completion of project by promoters and ensuring due payment of instalments by allottees so that the project can be completed within the stipulated period. To protect allottees' interests, benefit of interest will also be payable to allottees upon project delay; however, prior to this, it shall also be the responsibility of complainant to pay their instalments on time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 44.04.2024 passed in "Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs Abhishek Khanna & Ors.", where OC of project has been obtained, observed as follows: "21.1. The issue which now arrives is whether the apartment buyers are bound to accept the offer of possession made by the Developer where the Occupation Certificate has been issued, along with the payment of Delay Compensation, or are entitled to terminate the Agreement. (i) We are of the view that allottees at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 in Chart A are obligated to take possession of the apartments, since the construction was completed, and possession offered on 28,06.2079, after the issuance of Occupation Certificate on 37.05.2079. The Developer is however obligated to pay Delay Compensation for the period of delay which has occurred from 27.77.2078 till the date of offer of possession was made to the allottees."

In view of observations quoted above by the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court and the overall scheme of RERA Act, it is also clear that if in every case of delay a decision is taken only to refund money, it would certainly not be in accordance 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, all facts of the case such as construction status, completion timeline, status of offer of possession by promoters, impact on other stakeholders especially allottees remaining with the project, consensus regarding proposed possession date, etc. Since it has been stated in the written statement filed by the respondent that the project in question is complete and completion certificate has been obtained on date 04.04.2022 and offer of possession of unit was made to complainant in March 2022, in such circumstance it will be appropriate that complainants consider taking possession of their unit, after which they can take decision themselves regarding future use of the unit. Moreover, funds were invested by the complainants for possession of unit in the project, which have been utilized in construction of the project. Certainly, upon remaining with the project, delay interest as per rules shall be payable by promoters to allottee.

In the case of complainant (Harmeet Singh), copy of Apartment Allottees Arrangement dated 2:.08.20:4 is available on record, under paragraph-4.1 of which possession was to be delivered by respondent to complainant within 48 months and 90 days (grace period) from the date of executing the agreement. The Apartment Allottee Arrangement was executed on date 2:.08.20:4. In such circumstance, the date of possession as aforesaid becomes 49.44.2048, but possession was not delivered by respondent within said stipulated period. In addition, under the head of Force Majeure, the respondent is entitled to benefit for a total period of 68 days (as described in disposal of Point No. 2). As far as the question up to what period interest should be granted is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6649-50 // 2048 "Supertech Limited vs Rajni Goyal" held that: "the period of Interest should close on April 206 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 position, complainant shall be entitled to receive delay interest up to the date of obtaining OC/CC or the date of offer of possession, whichever is later. In the stated circumstance, it appears just and proper that delay period interest be awarded to the complainant from date 49.:.20:8 + 68 days, i.e., from date 27.0:.20:9 up to the date of obtaining OC/CC or the date of offer of possession, whichever is later.

As far as the question of liability of interest is concerned, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Union of India" held that: "Section 18(1)(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 aforesaid judgment, it is clear that under provisions of U.P. RERA, interest on delay and principal amount shall be payable in accordance with the agreement entered into between promoter and buyer, because the said funds were utilized by promoters.

Section 2(za) of RERA Act provides: "(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;"

As far as the question of rate of interest payable is concerned, U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2048 were notified by the State Government under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 on date 7.:0.20i8. In the draft agreement for sale/lease annexed thereto, clause 9 defines promoter's default (Events of default), wherein clause 9.2(ii) provides in the event of default by promoter for 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 + 1% 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 the event of default by allottees. In view of the said provision, it appears just and proper to award interest for the delayed period to the allottee at the interest rate of MCLR+1% . It is also clarified that if any amount of the complainant is overdue, the respondent can also receive interest on it only at the rate of MCLR+1%. The same definition of interest is given in Section 2(za)(i) of RERA.

This determination of interest rate has also been held proper by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 42238 /20i8 "Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan" on date 02.04.2049 held that: "5.3. The Respondent further submitted that the National Commission had ordered payment of Interest as per the statutory Rules i.e. Rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 207 @l0.7% S.I. p.a. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser submitted that he had obtained a loan for Rs. 3,30,00,000/- from Standard Chartered Bank to purchase the flat in question, and had entered into a Tripartite Loan Agreement with the Bank and the Builder. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser had to pay Interest @0% p.a. for servicing the loan for the entire period. Hence, Interest @0.7% S.I. p.a. awarded by the National Commission was just and fair."

As per above, it is clear that under Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 207, annual interest rate was fixed at MCLR+2% (Interest @0.7% S.I. p.a.), which was awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in the concerned case, and was also held just and fair by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; also in paragraph 8.4 of the same order, it is mentioned that: "The National Commission has rightly awarded Interest @0.7% S.I. p.a. by applying Rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Rules, 207 from the date of each installment till 05.02.207 i.e. till the date after which the Order of stay of cancellation of the allotment was passed; and thereafter, from the date of the Commission’s final Order till the date on which the amount is refunded with Interest." Therefore, it is clear that the interest rate of 10.7% (MCLR+2%) fixed by Haryana RERA has also been held as correct interest rate by the Supreme Court.

Additionally, the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad in Writ Petition No. C-3289/2020 "Radhey Buildwell Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Poonam Sood & Ors." in judgment passed on date 06.02.2020 noted that: "Coming to the next ground of challenge to the impugned order by the petitioner's counsel that the interest awarded by respondent no.1 (MCLR+1) is excessive, is also without any merit. It is an admitted fact to the petitioner that respondent no.1 had booked a flat and till the filing of the writ petition, the possession of the flat has not been given to him. The interest had been awarded in terms of Clause 9.2(ii) of the form of agreement contained in the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 208. The respondent no.2 has given cogent reasons in the impugned order. Respondent no.2 has rightly placed reliance on Clause 9 sub-clause(ii) of the Rules, 20i8 which provides that in the event of default on the part of the promotor, 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 flat at the rate of MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India + 1% unless provided otherwise under the Rules within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to bring to our notice any Rule in the Rules, 206, providing otherwise."

Thereafter, in Writ Petition No. C-de-vi-oi20/2020 "Habitech Infrastructure Ltd. vs State of U.P. & Ors." on date 06.07.2020, making a significant observation, it was noted: "On 2.09.20l9 the respondent authority directed the petitioner to refund the entire amount alongwith interest @ MCLR + 1%] from the date of deposit till the date of order. Thereafter, recovery certificate and citation was issued on 07.02.2020. .................................................... and only on complaint under Section 18 authority proceeded to direct for the refund of the money alongwith payment of interest @ MCLR + 1%, which was in view of Real Estate (Regulation & Development) (Agreement to Sale) Regulations, 20]88]......... Thus power of refund of amount along with interest which has been provided under Section 18, with the authority was rightly exercised by it in the interest of justice." The Hon'ble High Court has also held proper and correct the order passed by the Bench of RERA Authority awarding annual interest rate of MCLR+1% under the Rules. Therefore, according to the above, from the decisions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court, it can be determined that the interest rate fixed by the State Government under the Rules is just and proper. The principle of linking the interest rate to State Bank of India's MCLR+1% has also been accepted and held justified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In such situation, annual interest rate of MCLR+1% fixed under U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2048, which is 1% higher than State Bank of India's marginal cost lending rate, is just and proper. Accordingly, Point No. 4 is disposed of. (b) Disposing of the aforesaid points, following orders are passed: Order

1. The relief for refund of deposited amount in the present cases is rejected. 2. If the complainants decide to take possession, then in such circumstance: (a) The respondent shall hand over possession of flats to complainants by date 3.052022 and ensure execution of registry as per rules upon receiving due stamp duty. (b) The respondent shall ensure payment of interest at MCLR+1% as delay interest on the amount deposited by complainant (Harmeet Singh) from date 27.0:.20:9 up to the date of obtaining OC/CC or date of offer of possession, whichever is later. This interest amount shall be adjusted in the amount due for final payment. If interest amount exceeds the amount due, it shall be refunded to the complainant. In view of Force Majeure period due to Covid-19 , interest shall not be calculated for delay in project from date 25.03.2020 to date 25.09.2020. Simultaneously, if there are any overdues of the complainant during this period, no interest shall be payable for this period on that either. In the cases of other complainants, delay interest shall be calculated as above in accordance with the agreement. (c) The respondent is directed that as per Section 2(za)(i) of RERA Act, 206, if any interest rate is charged from allottee upon default by promoter after enforcement of RERA, interest at the same rate shall also be paid to allottee upon default by promoter. Therefore, on delayed payments, interest shall also be payable by complainants at interest rate of MCLR+1% . If any amount at higher rate has been charged from allottee for delay after enforcement of RERA, interest amount for delayed period shall also be calculated at the same rate. 3. One copy each of this order be placed on concerned files and calculation of amount and interest shall be made in each case in accordance with the principle propounded in this order. 4. Non-compliance of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 and other relevant provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2076. The order be uploaded on portal. 5. If this order is not complied with by the respondent, the complainants shall have the right to get their order executed through RERA Authority.

Date 4 0/02/2022. (Rajeev Kumar) (Chairman) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | सुनवाई पीठ-04ए आदेश अन्तर्गत aMI-34 श्री राजीव कुमार, माननीय अध्यक्ष कम संख्या शिकायत संख्या | ठिकायतकर्ताण | ] NCR45/2/86205/202! हरमीत सिंह 2 4 टारा45॥0/8328/202 प्रभा बंसल | 3 NCR 45/2/87292/202] महेश चन्द्र महावर _ 4 NCR45/0/84028/202 नरेन्द्र कुमार वार्ष्णेय बनाम उप्पल चड्ढा हाई-टेक डेवलपर्स प्राईवेट लिमिटेड शिकायतकर्ता हरमीत सिंह के साथ 03 अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध वाद योजित किया गया है। इन सभी शिकायतों के तथ्य समान है और एक समान साक्ष्य हैं। यह सभी शिकायतें UCHDPL- Sector-5 Wave Floors से सम्बन्धित है। अतः एक ही निर्णय से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत संख्या — NCRI45/2/86205/202] हरमीत सिंह अग्रणी वाद रहेगा। प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्द जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना UCHDPL- Sector-5 Wave Floors # यूनिट WEN-A-I32/3, Block-A बुक करायी गयी थी, जिसकी कुल कीमत 28,60,000/— रूपये थी, जिसके सापेक्ष शिकायतकर्ता ERT 26,59,490/— रूपये का भुगतान किया जा चुका है। शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य बन्द है और विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना के पंजीकरण के सम्बन्ध कोई भी जानी शिकायतकर्ता को उपलब्ध नहीं py 2

करायी गयी और न ही परियोजना से सम्बन्धित कोई भी प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त किये गये हैं, जबकि विपक्षी द्वारा 95 से अधिक की धनराशि प्राप्त की जा चुकी है। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रश्नगत परियोजना में शिकायतकर्ता को निरीक्षण करने की अनुमति नहीं दी गयी और न ही साईट प्लॉन उपलब्ध कराया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा 48 माह में दिये जाने का दायित्व था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा उक्त निर्धारित अवधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता की ओर से अपने कथन के समर्थन में खाता विवरण की प्रतियाँ अपार्टमेन्ट एलॉटी अरेन्जमेन्ट दिनांकित 2:.08.20:4 की प्रति, विस्तृत लिखित शिकायत पत्र आदि अभिलेखों की छायाप्रतियाँ दाखिल की गयी हैं।

विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवादपत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी नामित परियोजना Wave City के सेक्टर-5 में “Haga लिंक्ड इन्स्टॉलमेन्ट प्लॉन” के अन्तर्गत फ्लैट संख्या-&-32/3 Wave Executive Floors, Greenwood Enclave बुक किया गया, जिसमें ले-आऊट unforeseen circumstances के कारणों से परिवर्तित कर दिया गया। शिकायतकर्ता को पुनः वही यूनिट आवंटित कर दी गयी। यूनिट की कुल कीमत (बिना कर के) रू. 27,79,694/- है, जिसमें से शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा 2484,22e/- रूपये का भुगतान किया गया था और शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा 2,98,867 //- रूपये की धनराशि का भुगतान किया जाना अवशेष है। उभय पक्ष के मध्य अनुबन्ध दिनांक 2.082004 को निष्पादित हुआ, जिसके अनुसार यूनिट का कब्जा दिनांक 27.:4.20i8 + 90 दिन ग्रेस पीरियड सहित दिया जाना था। विपक्षी द्वारा माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या-2737 / 2047 “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्राणलि0 एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया” में पारित निर्णय का उल्लेख करते हुए कहा गया है कि रेरा के प्राविधान प्रोस्पेक्टिव हैं, परन्तु रेश अधिनियम की धारा-4(2)0)(0) के अनुसार वे कब्जा प्रदान किये जाने की एक नयी समय-सीमा निर्धारित कर सकते हैं और यदि निर्धारित समय-सीमा में यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान करने में असफल रहते हैं, तो उसके लिए उन्हें उत्तरदायी नहीं ठहराया जा सकता। परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण विलम्बित हुई, जो कि wad 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 द्वारा अक्टूबर 2049 से जनवरी 2020 तक निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगा दी गयी थी। कोविड-49 के कारण भी परियोजना स्थल पर मार्च 2020 से सितम्बर 2020 तक किसी प्रकार का निर्माण नहीं हो सका। इसके अतिरिक्त सांय 6 बजे से प्रातः 6 बजे तक के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगा दी गयी थी, जिसके कारण भी परियोजना में निर्माण कार्य

जो 3 विलम्बित हुआ है। बिल्डर बायर Ure के प्रावधानों के अनुसार, जो इस प्राधिकरण का विषय नहीं है, शिकायतकर्णा को Arbirration का आह्वान करना होगा या शिकायतों के निवारण के लिए अन्य फोरम में जाना होगा। प्रश्नगत परियोजना रेरा में पंजीकृत है। विपक्षी का यह भी कहना है कि प्रश्नगत परियोजना पूर्ण है और पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र दिनांक 04.04.2022 et wrt fear जा चुका है और शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा ऑफर मार्च 2022 में किया जा चुका है। अतः विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्णा को अवशेष धनराशि का भुगतान करते हुए, प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा प्राप्त किये जाने हेतु निर्देशित किये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। विपक्षी द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में प्रश्नगत परियोजना से संम्बन्धित गाजियाबाद विकास प्राधिकरण द्वारा जारी आंशिक पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र दिनांक 04.04.2022, माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-6239 // 209 “विंग कमांडर अरिफुर रहमान खान एंव आदि बनाम डी.एल.एफ. सर्दन होम्स प्रा0 feo” में पारित आदेश की छायाप्रतियाँ दाखिल की गयी है। उभयपक्ष के cet को सुना गया व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया, जिसके आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचरित किये गये :- 4. क्या परियोजना के रेरा में पंजीकरण से पूर्व उत्पन्न हुई शिकायतें रेरा के क्षेत्राधिकार से बाहर हैं ? 2. क्या force majeure events यथा मा. न्यायालय के WTA, मा. एन.जी. टी. आदि के निर्माण कार्य पर प्रतिबन्ध आदि के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलम्बित हुई? यदि हाँ तो प्रभाव ? 3. क्या अनुबन्ध में आरबिट्रैशन aio होने के कारण वाद की सुनवाई का क्षेत्राधिकार इस पीठ को नही है? 4. क्या शिकायतकर्तांगण की जमा धनराशि aa ब्याज वापस दिलायी जा

सकती है? यदि नहीं तो क्या अनुतोष अनुमन्य होगा ? निस्तारण बिन्दु Wea बिन्दु We- इस तथ्य पर विचरित है कि क्‍या परियोजना के रेरा में पंजीकरण से पूर्व उत्पन्न हुई शिकायतें रेरा के क्षेत्राधिकार से बाहर हैं ? ४ विपक्षी द्वारा अपने प्रतिवाद पत्र में माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या-2737 /20:7 “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन wofeio एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया“ में पारित निर्णय का उल्लेख करते हुए कहा गया है कि रेरा के प्राविधान weed हैं, परन्तु रेश अधिनियम की धारा-4(2)0)(0) के अनुसार वे कब्जा प्रदान किये जाने की एक नयी समय-सीमा निर्धारित कर सकते हैं और यदि निर्धारित समय-सीमा में यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान करने में असफल रहते हैं, तो उसके लिए उन्हें उत्तरदायी नहीं ठहराया जा सकता। इस सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-6745-6749 /202 “मैसर्स wea प्रोमोटर्स एंड डेवलपर्स wo feo बनाम उ0प्र0 राज्य व अन्य” में दिये गये निर्णय में स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लिखित किया गया है कि :- 54. From the scheme of the Act 206, its application is retroactive in character and it can safely be observed that the projects already completed or to which the completion certificate has been granted are not under its fold and therefore, vested or accrued rights, if any, in no manner are affected. At the same time, it will apply after getting the on-going projects and future projects registered under Section 3 to prospectively follow the mandate of the Act 206."

उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था से यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा अधिनियम लागू होने से पूर्व जो भी अनुबन्ध हस्ताक्षरित हुए या अधिनियम लागू होने से पूर्व की परियोजनाओं, जहाँ पर पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र सम्प्रवर्तक द्वारा प्राप्त नहीं किया गया है, वहाँ पर अधिनियम का प्रवर्तन पूर्वव्यापी प्रभाव रहेगा। यह भी रेरा अधिनियम में स्पष्ट है कि “ऑन TT" 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 परियोजन। को Qa में पंजीकरण कराया जाता है, तो ऐेरा के ae) wildest लागू होगें। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रश्नगत परियोजना को रेरा में पंजीकृत कराया गया है। अतः वर्णित तथ्यों के आधार पर यह स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना वर्तमान में “ऑनगोइईग प्रोजेक्ट” की श्रेणी में आती है। ऐसी दशा में रेरा के सभी प्राविधान लागू होगें। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-4 Peake किया जाता है। ०६ निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 बिन्दु संख्या-2 इस आशय से विचरित किया गया है कि कया force majeure events यथा मा. न्यायालय के WHT, मा. एन.जी.टी. आदि के निर्माण कार्य पर प्रतिबन्ध आदि के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलम्बित हुई? यदि हाँ तो प्रभाव? 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 स्थानीय किसानों द्वारा धरना प्रदर्शन के कारण कार्यों में बाधा उत्पन्न हुई, माननीय न्यायालयों के भूमि अधिग्रहण के err आदेश के कारण परियोजना विलम्बित हुई। दिल्ली NCR में बढ़ते हुए west को ध्यान में रखते हुए माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अक्टूबर 20:9 से जनवरी 2020 तक निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगा दी गयी थी। इसके अतिरिक्त सांय 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। कोविड-49 के कारण भी परियोजना स्थल पर मार्च 2020 से सितम्बर 2020 तक किसी प्रकार का निर्माण नहीं हो सका। S.No. Reason Time Period ] Stay on project by Hon'ble January 20i2-January 207 Supreme Court of India 2 As per NGT order Ban on| November 20]7- January 208 Construction Activity in Delhi NCR to curb pollution. 3 As per NGT order Ban on| October 20l8- December 208 Construction Activity in Delhi NCK to curb pollution. |] As per NGT order Ban on October 209- January 2020 Construction Activity in Delhi NCR to curb pollution. 5 Ban on Construction due to the | March 2020-September 2020 Pandemic (Covid-9) माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दिए गये wees सम्बन्धी अपने दावे के समर्थन में विपक्षी द्वारा कोई साक्ष्य,/अभिलेख प्रस्तुत नहीं किये गये हैं। अतः यह आधार ग्राह्य नहीं है। अनुबन्ध के प्रस्तर-4.2 निम्नलिखित उललेखित हैः-

4.2 For the purpose of this Agreement "Force Majeure" shall mean any event or circumstances or a combination of events and circumstances, whether occured or likely to occur, which satisfies all the follwing conditions: i) Materially and adversely affecting the Said Project and/or the performance of an obligation of the Developer; and are beyond the control of the Developers; and includes(without limitation), subject to satisfaction of the above conditions, the following events and/or circumstances; a) war (whether declared or undeclared), invasion, armed conflict or act of foreign enemy; b) revolution, riot, insurrection or other civil commotion, act of terrorism or sabotage; c) strikes, industrial disputes, and/or lockouts and/or interrupting supplies and services to the Project. d) Non-payment of sums due from the Allottee(s) including payment of installment/applicalble interest and levies as mentioned herein above on time by any Allottee(s) of the said Apartment. e) change in govermental policy, laws (including any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, judgment, notification, order, decree, permission, licence or approval), including but not limited to expropriation or compulsory acquisition by any Government of any part of the Project or rights therein; J) acts of God or events beyond the reasonable control of the affected party which could not reasonably have been expected, including any effect of the natural elements, — \ है

including lighting, fire, earthquake, unprecedented rains, landslide, subsidence, flood, storm, cyclone, epidemics or plagues or any other similar effect; g) any dispute between the Developers and Allottee(s) and/or between the Developer and the peron, persons, association of persons obstructing and creating and creating hurdle in the progress of the Development in any Proceeding; h) judgement or order of any court of competent jurisdiction or Government in India made against the Company in any proceedings. (i) any other reason which can be constructed to be beyond the control of the normal human being. माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-43029 ,/ 985 “एम. सी. मेहता बनाम भारत सरकार“ में पारित आदेश दिनांक 04.44.2049 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. 2) vo इसके अतिरिक्त उपरोक्त सिविल अपील संख्या-3029 //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 Climatic Condition the AQI category varies. As a matter of fact, last year (208) 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 lifted 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 Ambient AIR quality levels persist in severe+/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 04.4.20I9 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 04.4.2049 से दिनांक 09.42.2049) एवं 33 दिन 5652) (दिनांक 40.42. 2049 से दिनांक 74.02.2020 तक dia 6 बजे से सुबह 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। >: \ 9 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 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। तदनुसार बिन्दु संख्या-2 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-3 विपक्षी की ओर से यह भी तर्क प्रस्तुत किया गया है कि अनुबन्ध में आरबिट्रेशन का deat है, जिस कारण शिकायतकर्तागण व विपक्षी के मध्य किसी भी विवाद को केवल आरिंट्रेटर के माध्यम से ही निस्तारित किया जा सकता है और इस पीठ को इस शिकायत को सुने जाने की क्षेत्राधिकारिता प्राप्त नही है।

इस सम्बन्ध में उल्लेखनीय है माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा “मैसर्स एमआर एम.जी.एफ. लैन्ड लिमिटेड बनाम आफताब सिंह” 20i8 SCC Online SC 277 में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया 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 stor के आवरण से बेदखल नही 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”, (20I6) 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 लागू होता है, क्योंकि यह अधिनियम गृहकेताओं एवं ब्रिल्डरों 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। 0 निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-4 इस आशय से विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या शिकायतकर्तागण की जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलायी जा सकती है? यदि नहीं तो क्या अनुतोष apa होगा ? यह वाद बिन्दु शिकायतकर्तागण के अभिकथनों के आधार पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार शिकायतकर्तागण पर है।

शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कथन किया गया है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य बन्द है और विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना के पंजीकरण के सम्बन्ध कोई भी जानी शिकायतकर्ता को उपलब्ध नहीं करायी गयी और न ही परियोजना से सम्बन्धित कोई भी प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त किये गये हैं, जबकि विपक्षी द्वारा 955 से अधिक की धनराशि प्राप्त की जा चुकी है। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रश्नगत परियोजना में शिकायतकर्ता को निरीक्षण करने की अनुमति नहीं दी गयी और न ही साईट प्लॉन उपलब्ध कराया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रश्नगत यूनिट का कब्जा 48 माह में दिये जाने का दायित्व था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा उक्त निर्धारित अवधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया। अत: शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। इस पर विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवादपत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि प्रश्नगत परियोजना पूर्ण है और पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र दिनांक 04.04.2022 को प्राप्त किया जा चुका है और शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा ऑफर मार्च 2022 में किया जा चुका है। अतः विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को अवशेष धनराशि का भुगतान करते हुए, प्रश्ननत यूनिट का कब्जा प्राप्त किये जाने हेतु निर्देशित किये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। जहाँ तक केता द्वारा रिफण्ड के अनुरोध का प्रश्न है, इस विषय में रेरा अधिनियम के प्राविधानों को समग्र रूप से पढा जाना आवश्यक है ताकि सभी पक्षों के मत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए एक संतुलित निर्णय लिया जा ae | रेरा एक्ट की धारा 48 (4) F प्राविधान है कि :- Section 268 (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 aN 44 (0) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the Promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed. इस प्रकार केता 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 प्रत्येक माह के विलम्ब हेतु ब्याज प्राप्त करते हुए परियोजना में बने रहें। रेरा अधिनियम की धारा 34 में रेरा के अन्य “फंग्शन्स” के साथ-साथ सब-क्लॉज (0) में "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 F |

इसी प्रकार धारा 32 में रियल gece सेक्टर के विकास हेतु अथॉरिटी के उत्तरदायित्यों में निम्न भी सम्मिलित हैं :- “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,....... (@Jany other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” » 2 उक्त प्राविधानों से यह स्पष्ट है कि “रियल एस्टेट सेक्टर” के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके सभी wee होल्डर्स के हितों को समग्र रूप से देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेने का उत्तरदायित्व इस ऑथरिटी का है। इस कम में मा. बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या- 2737 / 2047 “नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्राए्लि0 एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया” जिसमें रेरा अधिनियम की वैद्यानिकता के सम्बंध में निर्णय दिया गया था, के प्रस्तर 424 में मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निम्न संवीक्षण किया :-

“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 72, 74, 46 and 49. 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। क्र 3 रेरा के गठन के सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 // 2047 “बिकम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य” में दिनांक 23.07.2049 को परित आदेश के पृष्ठ Gwe के प्रस्तर-420 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है:- "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 l0 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the promoter/builder. The maximum time fixed in RERA has also expired and extension could not have been beyond | year."

उक्तानुसार यह स्पष्ट किया गया है कि रेरा आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए है और उसका लक्ष्य यह है कि प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा बिल्डिंग के समस्त विकास कार्यो को पूर्ण कराते हुए गृहकेताओं को उनका आवास, फ्लैट मिल सके। तत्कमानुसार 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 we किया गया है कि रेरा के प्राविधान गृहकेताओं के लिए लाभकारी हैं और किसी प्रकार के विश्वासघात होने से आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए हैं एवं बिल्डिंग को पूर्ण कराने हेतु निगरानी का कार्य रेरा का है और पक्षकारों के कर्तव्यों एवं उत्तरदायित्व अधिनियम में तय किये 0४ 4 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 सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-43 /2049 “पायनियर ada लैन्ड एंड इन्फास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य” में दिनांक 09.08.2049 को आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-86 के प्रस्तर-29 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया हैः- "The object of RERA is to see that real estate projects come to fruition within the stated period and to see that allottees of such projects are not left in the lurch and are finally able to realise their dream of a home, or be paid compensation if such dream is shattered, or at least get back monies that they had advanced towards the project with interest. At the same time, recalcitrant allottees are not to be tolerated, as they must also perform their part of the bargain, namely, to pay instalments as and when they become due and payable." उक्त आदेश में महत्वपूर्ण आब्जर्वेशन यह दिया गया है कि रेरा का लक्ष्य है कि वह अपनी निगरानी एवं देखरेख में प्रोमोटर्स 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 होगा, परन्तु इससे पूर्व शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी उत्तरदायित्व होगा कि वह अपनी किश्तों का समय से भुगतान करें। | i5 माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा “ईरियो ta रियलटेक wo fio बनाम अभिषेक खन्‍ना एवं आदि” में दिनांक 44.04.2024 को पारित आदेश में जहाँ परियोजना का ओ.सी. प्राप्त किया जा चुका है, उसके सम्बन्ध में निम्न आर्ब्जेवेशन दिया है कि :- 2.l. The issue which now arises is whether the apartment buyers are bound to accept the offer of possession made by the Developer where the Occupation Certificate has been issued, along with the payment of Delay Compensation, or are entitled to terminate the Agreement. (i) We are of the view that allottees at Serial Nos. । and 2 in Chart A are obligated to take possession of the apartments, since the construction was completed, and Possession offered on 28,06.2079, after the issuance of Occupation Certificate on 37.05.2079, The Developer is however obligated to pay Delay Compensation for the period of delay which has occurred from 27.77.2078 ॥॥/ the date of offer of possession was made to the allottees.

मा. उच्च न्यायालय एवं सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा vat went में उद्धरत “ऑबजरवेशनस्‌” एवं रेरा एक्ट की समग्र व्यवस्था को देखते हुए यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यदि विलम्ब के प्रत्येक मामले में धनराशि लौटाने का ही निर्णय लिया जाये तो निश्चय ही यह अधिनियम के “ऑबजेक्टिव” तथा “स्कीम” के अनुरूप न होगा। रिफण्ड का निर्णय लेते समय प्रत्येक मामले की “यूनीकनेस” प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों यथा “कन्सट्रक्शन” की स्थिति, कम्पलीशन की “टाईम लाईन“ प्रोमोटर्स के द्वारा ऑफर ऑफ पजेशन के “oct” की स्थिति, अन्य “we होल्डर्स”, विशेष रूप से परियोजना के साथ बने रहने वाले “एलॉटीज” पर प्रभाव, “प्रस्तावित पज़ेशन डेट” के विषय में “कन्सेन्सस्‌” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। चूंकि विपक्षी द्वारा दाखिल प्रतिवाद पत्र में कहा गया है कि प्रश्नगत परियोजना पूर्ण है और पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र दिनांक 04.0:.2022 को प्राप्त किया जा चुका है और शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा ऑफर मार्च 2022 में किया जा चुका है। अतः ऐसे में यह उचित होगा कि शिकायतकर्तागण अपनी यूनिट का कब्जा लेने पर विचार करें, उसके बाद यूनिट के भविष्य में उपयोग के सम्बन्ध में वे स्वयं निर्णय ले सकते है। वैसे भी शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा परियोजना में यूनिट के कब्जे हेतु धनराशि का निवेश किया गया था, जिसका उपयोग परियोजना के निर्माण में किया गया है। निश्चय ही ys 46 परियोजना में बने रहने की दशा में एलॉटी को विलम्ब हेतु नियमानुसार ब्याज प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा देय होगा।

शिकायतकर्ता (हरमीत सिंह) के प्रकरण में पत्रावली पर अपार्टमेन्ट एलॉटीज़ अरेन्जमेन्ट दिनांक 24.08.2044 की प्रति उपलब्ध है, जिसके प्रस्तर-4.4 में विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को अनुबन्ध निष्पादित करने की तिथि से 48 माह एवं 90 दिन (ग्रेस पीरियड) में कब्जा दिया जाना था। अपार्टमेन्ट एलॉटी अरेन्जमेन्ट दिनांक 24.08.2044 को निष्पादित किया गया। ऐसे में उपरोक्तानुसार कब्जे की तिथि 49.44.2048 होती है, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा उक्त निर्धारित अवधि में कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। इसके अतिरिक्त फोर्स मैज्योर के 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 // 2048 "सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल" में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि:- "the period of Interest should close on April 206 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 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। वर्णित स्थिति में शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 49.:.20:8 + 68 दिन अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 27.04.2049 से ओ.सी /सी.सी. 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। "५ ' ogo 47 जहाँ तक ब्याज देयता का प्रश्न है, माननीय बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा “नीलकमल Raced सबअर्बन प्रालि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया“ के वाद में अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :-

"Section 8(])(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable. " अतः sated निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व केता 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। RI एक्ट की धारा 2(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—

(a 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 eis 38 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; जहाँ तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, तो राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 7.:0.20i8 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विकय,/पटटा के लिए करार) नियमावली 208 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 प्रस्तर 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 MCLRH प्रतिशत की दर से ही ब्याज प्राप्त कर सकता है। रेरा की धारा-2(2४)0) में भी यही ब्याज की परिभाषा दी गयी है। इस ब्याज दर के निर्धारण को माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भी उचित Hal गया है। इस सम्बंध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-42238 /20i8 “पायनियर ada लैन्ड एवं इन्फास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड बनाम गोविन्दन राघवन” में दिनांक 02.04.2049 को अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- 5.3. The Respondent further submitted that the National Commission had ordered payment of Interest as per the statutory Rules i.e. Rule l5 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 207 @l0.7% S.I. 2S 9 p.a. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser submitted that he had obtained a loan for Rs. 3,30,00,000/- from Standard Chartered Bank to purchase the flat in question, and had entered into a Tripartite Loan Agreement with the Bank and the Builder. The Respondent — Flat Purchaser had to pay Interest @0% p.a. for servicing the loan for the entire period. Hence, Interest @0.7% S.IL. p.a. awarded by the National Commission was just and fair.

उपरोक्तानुसार यह स्पष्ट है कि हरियाणा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) नियमावली, 207 & err वार्षिक ब्याज दर MCLR+2 प्रतिशत (Interest @0.7% SLpa) की दर से निर्धारित की गयी थी, जो सम्बन्धित मामले में राष्ट्रीय उपभोक्ता विवाद निवारण आयोग (NCDRC) द्वारा ara किया गया है, जिसको माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भी उचित एवं सही माना गया है, साथ ही इसी आदेश के WER 8.4 में यह उललेखित है कि :- The National Commission has rightly awarded Interest @0.7% S.I. p.a. by applying Rule 5 of the Haryana Real. 2 Estate (Regulation And Development) Rules, 207 from the date of each installment till 05.02.207 i.e. till the date after which the Order of stay of cancellation of the allotment was passed; and thereafter, from the date of the Commission’s final Order till the date on which the amount is refunded with Interest. अतः यह स्पष्ट है कि ब्याज दर जो कि 40.7 प्रतिशत (MCLR+2%) हरियाणा रेरा द्वारा निर्धारित किया गया है, वह सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भी सही ब्याज दर माना गया है। इसके अतिरिक्त माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद द्वारा Re याचिका संख्या-सी-3289 / 2020 “wat बिल्डवेल कस्ट्रक्शन्स प्रा.लि. बनाम पूनम सूद एवं अन्य” में दिनांक 06.02.2020 को पारित निर्णय में यह उल्लेखित किया गया है कि:-

Coming to the next ground of challenge to the impugned order by the petitioner's counsel that the interest awarded by respondent no.l (MCLR+I) is excessive, is also without any merit. It is an admitted fact to the petitioner that respondent no.| had booked a flat and till the filing of the writ petition, the possession of the flat has not been given to him. The interest had been awarded in terms of Clause 9.2(ii) of the form of agreement contained in the au 20 U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 208. The respondent no.2 has given cogent reasons in the impugned order. Respondent no.2 has rightly placed reliance on Clause 9 sub-clause(ii) of the Rules, 20i8 which provides that in the event of default on the part of the promotor, 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 flat at the rate of 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to bring to our notice any Rule in the Rules, 206, providing otherwise. तत्पश्चात्‌ Re याचिका de-vi-oi20/2020 “हैबीटेक इंफास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड बनाम उ0प्र0 राज्य सरकार एवं अन्य” में दिनांक 06.07.2020 को महत्वपूर्ण ऑब्जर्वेशन देते हुए यह उललेखित किया है कि:-

On 2.09.20l9 the respondent authority directed the petitioner to refund the entire amount alongwith interest @ MCLR + [% from the date of deposit till the date of order. Thereafter, recovery certificate and citation was issued on 07.02.2020. sscssssssssstscaassanensavesas and only on complaint under Section 8 authority proceeded to direct for the refund of the money alongwith payment of interest @ MCLR + %, which was in view of Real Estate (Regulation & Development) (Agreement to Sale) Regulations, 20]8.........cceessesesseeees Thus power of refund of amount along with interest which has been provided under Section 8, with the authority was rightly exercised by it in the interest of justice. माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भी रेरा प्राधिकरण के पीठ द्वारा नियमावली के अन्तर्गत MCLR+% की वार्षिक ब्याज दर से दिये गये आदेश को उचित एवं सही माना है। अतः उपरोकतानुसार माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय एवं माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दिये गये निर्णय से यह अवधारित किया जा सकता है कि राज्य सरकार द्वारा Os 24 नियमावली के अन्तर्गत निर्धारित की गयी ब्याज दर उचित एवं सही है। ब्याज दर को स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के MCLR+ प्रतिशत से सम्बद्ध करने के सिद्धान्त को माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा भी Morr गया है और न्यायोचित ठहराया है। ऐसे में उ0प्र0 राज्य सरकार द्वारा अधिसूचित की गयी भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन

एवं विकास), (विकय पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली, 2048 के अन्तर्गत निर्धारित की गयी वार्षिक ब्याज दर MCLR+ प्रतिशत, जो कि स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया की अधिकतम ब्याज दर 8 प्रतिशत ज्यादा है, उचित एवं wet है। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। (ख) उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते है। आदेश प्रस्तुत प्रकरणों में दी गयी धनराशि के रिफण्ड का अनुतोष निरस्त किया जाता है। शिकायतकर्तागण यदि कब्जा लेने का निर्णय लेते हैं, तो ऐसी स्थिति में :-- विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्तागण को दिनांक 3.052022 तक फ्लैटस्‌ का कब्जा दें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री निष्पादित कराना सुनिश्चित करें। विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता (हरमीत सिंह) को दिनांक 27.0:.2079 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 MCLR+ प्रतिशत ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की देय धनराशि में समायोजित की जायेगी। ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक होने पर शिकायतकर्ता को वापस की जायेगी। कोविड-49 के कारण 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 के अनुरूप उपरोक्‍तानुसार विलम्ब ब्याज की गणना की जायेगी। nly 22

(ग) विपक्षी को यह निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम, 206 की धारा 2(2४)0) 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 शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा भी MCLR+H 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। 3. 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। 4. इस आदेश का soos भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 2076 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। 5. यदि विपक्षी द्वारा 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 4 0/02/2022. ५ w , (राजीव कुमार) (अध्यक्ष) Boro भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण