U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddha Nagar. Order under Section 31, Bench-II Presence:- Smt. Kalpana Mishra, Member Sl. No. | Complaint Number | Complainants 1. NCRI45/I/75667/202] | Rahul Sen Gupta 2. NCR4570/83704/202 | Sunil Kumar Dubey vs. Rise Projects Pvt. Ltd. A complaint has been instituted against the respondent by 01 other complainant along with complainant Rahul Sen Gupta. The facts and evidence of both these complaints are identical. Both these complaints relate to the respondent's project Rise Organic Ghar Phase-I. Therefore, they are being disposed of by a single decision. Complaint No. NCRI45/I/75667/202] Rahul Sen Gupta shall be the lead case. The present complaint application has been instituted by the complainants against the respondent for refund of the deposited amount along with interest. In brief, the lead complainant states that unit no. T4-i209 was booked by them in the respondent's project Rise Organic Ghar Phase-I, total cost of which was Rs. 27,84,750/-, against which payment of Rs. 42,50,469/- has been made by them from time to time on installment basis. The complainant states that according to the allotment / agreement letter executed between both parties, possession of the unit was to be delivered by the respondent by 20.06.2020, but possession of the unit has not been delivered by the respondent so far. Therefore, request has been made by the complainant for refund of the deposited amount along with interest.

In support of their contention, copies of application form, allotment / agreement letter dated 26.2.2046, tripartite agreement dated 05.07.20I6, account statement, loan sanction letter, receipts of deposited amount etc. have been filed by the complainant.

In the written statement dated 44.03.2022 filed by the respondent, it has been stated that residential flat in the said project was booked by the complainant for investment purposes, in sequence whereof unit number 74-209 was allotted in favor of the complainant and agreement dated 26.42.2046 was executed between both parties. According to the possession related clause of the agreement, possession of the unit was to be delivered by the respondent according to 42 months and 6 months grace period. It has been stated by the respondent that the project in question is registered with RERA and was commenced in the year 20i5. In the project, there are a total of 05 towers and a total of 764 units. According to the layout map approved by the competent authority, alteration was made in the layout of the project, and due to reduction in height of towers, a total of 250 units were reduced, on account of which they have to face financial loss. The project was delayed due to force majeure events, which were not in their control. Keeping in view the rising pollution in Delhi NCR, construction work was stayed from October 209 to January 2020 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and N.G.T. Due to Covid-19 (Covid-49) and imposition of ban on construction work by the National Green Tribunal from time to time, construction work remained affected. It has been stated by the respondent that possession of the unit shall be delivered to the complainant by December 2022, and they are agreeable to make payment of the amount for the delayed period according to the provision mentioned in the agreement. On the basis of the above facts, request has been made to dismiss the complainant's complaint and direct the complainant to take possession of the unit.

Heard both parties and perused the file. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed for determination:— 1. Whether agreements entered prior to the advent of RERA do not come within the ambit of RERA? And whether provisions of RERA will not apply upon agreement being executed between parties prior to the commencement of RERA? 2. Whether the respondent's project was delayed due to force majeure events? If yes, its effect? 3. Whether it is proper for the complainant to claim refund of the deposited amount? 4. Whether the complainant is entitled to receive possession and interest for the delayed period? Disposal Point No. 1 Point No. 1 is considered on the fact whether agreements prior to the advent of RERA do not come within the ambit of RERA, and whether provisions of RERA will not apply upon agreement being executed between parties prior to the commencement of RERA? In this regard, the observation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6745-6749 /202 "M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others" is significant, in which it has been clearly mentioned that:—

"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 whichever agreements were signed prior to the enforcement of the RERA Act or projects prior to the enforcement of the Act, where completion certificate has not been obtained by the promoter, enforcement of the Act has retroactive effect. It is also clear in the RERA Act that "on-going" projects definitely come within the ambit of the RERA Act. From the observation of the Hon'ble High Court above, it is also clear that although agreements were executed between promoter and allottee prior to RERA registration, if the project is registered with RERA, the promoter cannot escape from the provisions of RERA. In this case, the respondent's project is registered with RERA and its registration number is UPRERAPRJ04403. Therefore, on the basis of the stated facts, this contention of the promoter that RERA Act is not applicable in this case is not acceptable. Point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Disposal Point No. 2

Point No. 2 relates to the fact whether the project was delayed due to force majeure events, and if yes, its effect? In this regard, it is noteworthy that in Civil Appeal No. 43029 / 4985 "M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the following order on dated 04.44.2049 regarding pollution:- "With respect to demolition and construction activities wedirect that no demolition and construction activities take place inDelhi and NCR region. In case it is found that such activity isdone, the local administration as well as the municipalauthoritiesincluding the Zonal Commissioners, Deputy Zonal Commissionersshallbe personally held responsible for all such activities. They haveto act in furtherance of the Court’s order and to ensure that nosuch activity takes place. We direct that construction, demolition and activities bestopped forthwith as well as garbage burning. In case, any personis found in construction and demolition activity and garbageburning in Delhi and NCR region, he/she shall be penalized. Anyperson is doing construction and demolition activity in violationof this order, shall be penalized with Rs.l Lac for such activity.For garbage burning he/she shall be penalized with Rs.5,000/- andbesides liable for violation of theorder passed by this Court tobe dealt with in accordance with law." In addition to this, in the order dated 09.42.2049 passed in the aforesaid Civil Appeal No. 43029 // 4985, 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 stay was imposed on construction work by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the period (from dated 04.44.2049 to dated 44.02.2020), in which total ban was lifted and partial ban was imposed in the order dated 09.42.2049 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In such circumstance, ban on construction work was imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for a period of 35 days (from dated 04.44.2049 to dated 09.42.2049) and 33 days (6652) (from dated 40.42.2049 to dated 74.02.2020 from 6.00 pm to 6.00 am). In such a situation, the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of a total of 35+33 = 68 days due to construction work being affected. After consideration of all relevant facts, an additional period of 6 months from dated 25.03.2020, i.e., up to dated 25.09.2020, has been granted by the U.P. RERA Authority on dated 06.06.2020 for completion of all projects due to the impact of Covid-49 (Corona Virus Disease), and this additional period shall be considered due to force majeure events. Keeping this in view, no interest shall be given by the promoter to the allottees for the delay occurred in the project from dated 25.03.2020 to dated 25.09.2020, nor shall any delay interest be charged from the complainant. Point No. 2 is decided accordingly. Disposal Point No. 3

The complainant states that according to the allotment / agreement letter executed between both parties, possession of the unit was to be delivered by the respondent by 20.06.2020, but possession of the unit has not been delivered by the respondent so far. Therefore, request has been made by the complainant for refund of the deposited amount along with interest. On this, the respondent, while filing reply, has stated that construction work of the project is nearing completion and possession of the unit shall be delivered to the complainant by December 2022, and they are agreeable to pay the amount for the delayed period according to the provision mentioned in the agreement. So far as the question of the buyer's request for refund is concerned, it is necessary to read the provisions of the RERA Act in totality in this regard, so that a balanced decision can be taken keeping in view the viewpoints of all parties. Section 728 (7) of the RERA Act provides that:—

Section 728 (7) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.” Thus, the buyer has the right that if they do not receive possession according to the agreement, they can claim refund of their deposited amount along with interest or remain in the project while receiving interest at monthly rate. In Section 34 of the RERA Act, along with other functions of RERA, "to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder" is also mentioned.

Similarly, in Section 32, among the responsibilities of the Authority for the development of real estate sector, the following is also included:— “32. The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a)protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent;....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” From the said provisions, it is clear that to ensure healthy development of the "real estate sector", it is the responsibility of this Authority to take appropriate decisions considering the interests of all its stakeholders holistically. In this sequence, in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, in which judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court regarding the validity of the RERA Act, the Hon'ble High Court in paragraph 424 made the following observation:—

“424. 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, 76 and /9, A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work.”

From the above, it is clear that after hearing all parties, although in the event of not receiving the unit on time, the allottee has the right to claim their amount along with interest, nevertheless, in view of the examination described above, the Authority can pass orders 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’ on the basis of all facts of the case. In the context of balancing the interests of allottees seeking refund of money and allottees staying in the project, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of "Chitra Sharma vs. Union of India" (744,/20:7 made the following observation in paragraph 40 of the judgment:—

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

In view of the observations quoted in the said paragraphs by the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court and the overall scheme of the RERA Act, it is also clear that if in every case of delay a decision to return the money is taken, it would certainly not be in accordance with the objective and scheme of the Act. At the time of taking decision on refund, it would be in the interest of justice to consider the uniqueness of each case, all facts of the case such as condition of construction, timeline of completion, status of commitment of offer of possession by promoters, effect on other stakeholders, especially on allottees staying with the project, consensus regarding proposed possession date etc. In view of the core objective of constitution of RERA and all circumstances, it would be appropriate to take a proper decision and pass order. Regarding the constitution of RERA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 940 /20:7 "Bikram Chatterjee and others vs. Union of India and others", in the order passed on dated 23.07.2049, mentioned as follows in paragraph 420 of page number 244:-

"420 It is apparent that RERA intends protection of home-buyers and aims at completion of the buildings. The buildings have to be completed, for that,we are required to pass orders. We have already assigned the task to NBCC for completion of buildings as the promoters/builders have failed to complete the building within the time fixed and the time which could have been extended. Now, more than 0 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the’ promoter/builder.The maximum time fixed in RERA has also expired and extension could not have been beyond | year." As per the above, it has been clarified that RERA is meant to protect the interests of allottees and its goal is that home buyers can get their house / flat after getting all development works of the building completed by the promoters. Accordingly, in paragraph 437 of page number 255 of the order, it was mentioned as follows:-

"437 The provisions of RERA are beneficial to the home buyers and are intended to insulate them from fraudulent action, ensures completion of the building and it is the duty of the court to protect and ensure the home buyers’interest and at the same time to hold them responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under the said statute. We are not absolving the home buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At the same time, they have the right of enforcement of their right for compensation due to undue delay in completion of the project." In the said observation, it has also been clarified that provisions of RERA are beneficial to home buyers and are meant to protect the interests of allottees from any kind of breach of trust, and monitoring to complete the building is the task of RERA, and duties and liabilities of parties have been determined in the Act. This benefit has also been granted that in case of delay in project, home buyers shall have the right to receive interest as per rules for the delay until completion of project. Thereafter, again regarding RERA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 43 /2049 "Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited and others vs. Union of India and others", in the order dated 09.08.20I9, mentioned as follows in paragraph 29 of page number 86:-

"29. The object of RERA is to see that real estate projects come to fruition within the stated period and to see that allottees of such projects are not left in the lurch and are finally able to realise their dream of a home, or be paid compensation if such dream is shattered, or at least get back monies that they had advanced towards the project with interest. At the same time, recalcitrant allottees are not to be tolerated, as they must also perform their part of the bargain, namely, to pay instalments as and when they become due and payable." In the said order, important observation has been given that the goal of RERA is that under its monitoring and supervision, the real estate project is completed by promoters within a specified period, so that allottees are not deprived of getting their flats and can get their dream home; at the same time, recalcitrant allottees are also held responsible for not cooperating in completing the project. It has also been stated that allottees should duly perform their duties, primarily such as ensuring payment of installments on time, so that the project can be completed.

It has been stated by the respondent that possession of the flat allotted to the complainant in the project shall be delivered by December 2022. In such a situation, it would be appropriate that the complainant take possession upon completion of the project by 34.42.2022. Thereafter, if they are not satisfied with the unit themselves, they can sell the unit. In such a situation, at this stage, it does not seem justified to order refund of the deposited amount. Point No. 3 is decided accordingly. Disposal Point No. 4 The complainant states that according to the allotment / agreement letter executed between both parties, possession of the unit was to be delivered by the respondent by 20.06.2020, but possession of the unit has not been delivered by the respondent so far. Therefore, request has been made by the complainant for refund of the deposited amount along with interest. On this, the respondent, while filing reply, has stated that construction work of the project is nearing completion and possession of the unit shall be delivered to the complainant by December 2022, and they are agreeable to make payment of the amount for the delayed period according to the provision mentioned in the agreement.

In clause #0) of the agreement letter dated 26.2.2046 filed on the file, it has been mentioned that possession of the unit was to be delivered by the respondent within 42 months and 6 months grace period under force majeure, i.e., by dated 26.2.2020, but possession has not been delivered by the respondent within the stipulated period. In addition, under the head of force majeure, the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of a total period of 68 days (as described in Disposal Point No. 2). In this regard, it is noteworthy that in the petition of "Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Union of India" of the Maharashtra High Court, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that:—

"Section 8()(0) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does 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 U.P. RERA, interest on delay and principal amount shall be payable according to the agreement executed between promoter and buyer, because the said amount has been utilized by the respondent. So far as the question of up to which period interest is to be awarded is concerned, in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50 /2048 "Supertech Limited vs. Rajni Goyal", it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 20I6. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 20I6 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, the complainant shall be entitled to receive delay interest up to the date of receipt of O.C./C.C. or offer of possession, whichever is later. In such a situation, it appears justified to award interest for the delayed period to the complainant from dated 26.42.2020 + 68 days, i.e., 05.03.202 until the date of obtaining O.C./C.C. or the date of offer of possession, whichever is later.

So far as the question of payable interest rate is concerned, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale / Lease) Rules 2078 have been notified by the State Government under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2046 on dated 47.40.208. In clause 9 of the model form of sale / lease deed given as an annexure therein, events of default of promoters are defined, in which under clause 9.2(0), in the event of the promoter being a defaulter, it is provided for the allottee that:- "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:" The same rate is also prescribed in clause 9.30) in case of default by allottees. Keeping in view the said provision, it appears justified to award interest for the delayed period to the allottee at the interest rate of MCLR+1 percent. Disposal Point No. 4 is decided accordingly. Disposing of the above points, the following orders are passed:— Order

1. The respondent is ordered to complete all facilities of the complainants as per the allotment letter / agreement and ensure delivery of possession along with O.C. / C.C. by dated 34.42.2022, and execute registry as per rules after receiving payable stamp duty. 2. The respondent shall ensure payment of interest at MCLR+1 percent to the complainant on the amount deposited by the complainant themselves from dated 05.03.2024 to the date of O.C. / C.C. or offer of possession. This interest amount shall be adjusted in the amount of final payment. If the interest amount is more than the payable amount, it shall be refunded to the complainant. Keeping in view the force majeure period, interest shall not be calculated for delay in the project from dated 25.03.2020 to dated 25.09.2020. Also, if there are any overdue dues of the complainant, interest shall not be payable for this period on that as well. In the cases of other complainants, calculation shall be made as above according to the allotment letter / agreement.

3. The respondent is also directed that according to Section 2(za)(i) of the RERA Act, 2046, if any interest rate is charged by the promoter upon default of the allottee after the enforcement of RERA, then interest at the same rate shall also be given to the allottee upon default by the promoter. Therefore, on delayed payment, interest at the rate of MCLR+1 percent shall also be payable by the complainant. If any amount has been charged from the allottee for delay at a higher rate after the enforcement of RERA, then the interest amount for the delayed period shall also be calculated at the same rate. 4. If the respondent fails to deliver possession to the complainants by dated 34.:2.2022, then after dated 342.2022, they shall ensure refund of the amount deposited by the complainants along with annual interest at the rate of MCLR+1 percent. It shall also be the responsibility of the respondent to repay the bank loan amount taken against the said unit back to the bank and ensure obtaining NOC from the bank against the said amount. 5. One copy each of this order shall be placed on the concerned files, and calculation of amount and interest in each case shall be made according to the principle laid down in this order. 6. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 and other relevant provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046. The order be uploaded on the portal.

7. If this order is not complied with by the respondent, the complainants shall have the right to get their order executed through the RERA Authority. Dated: 40 / 2022 5... 04500 - (Kalpana Mishra) (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर। आदेश अन्तर्गत oi—3, पीठ-॥ उपस्थिति:- श्रीमती कल्पना मिश्रा, सदस्य क्रम सं0 शिकायत संख्या शिकायतकर्तागण हि पिटार45/ /75667/202] राहुल सेन गुप्ता 2. पटरा4570/83704/202 सुनील कुमार दुबे बनाम राइज प्रोजेक्ट्स प्रा0 लि0 शिकायतकर्ता राहुल सेन गुप्ता के साथ 04 अन्य शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध वाद योजित किया गया है। इन दोनों शिकायतों के तथ्य और साक्ष्य एक समान हैं। यह दोनों शिकायतें विपक्षी की परियोजना Rise Organic Ghar Phase-I से सम्बंधित है। अतः एक ही निर्णय से इनका निस्तारण किया जा रहा है। शिकायत सं0- NCRI45/I/75667/202] राहुल सेन गुप्ता अग्रणी वाद रहेगा। प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा विपक्षी के विरूद्ध जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में अग्रणी शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना Rise Organic Ghar Phase-l में यूनिट Ho-T4-i209 बुक की गई थी। जिसकी कुल कीमत 27,84,750/- रूपये थी, जिसके सापेक्ष उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 42,50,469//- रूपये का भुगतान किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि उभयपक्षों के मध्य निष्पादित आवंटन / अनुबंध पत्र के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा यूनिट का कब्जा 20.06.2020 तक प्रदान किया जाना था, परन्तु अभी तक विपक्षी द्वारा यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान नहीं किया गया है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है।

शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवेदन पत्र, आवंटन / अनुबंध पत्र दिनांक 26.2.2046, त्रिपक्षी अनुबन्ध-पत्र दिनांक 05.07.20I6, खाता विवरण, ऋण स्वीकृति हेतु पत्र, जमा धनराशि की रसीदों आदि की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं। Nae / Ne Page

विपक्षी द्वारा जवाब दिनांकित 44.03.2022 दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी परियोजना Rise Organic Ghar में यूनिट हेतु आवेदन किया गया था, जिसके अनुक्रम में यूनिट संख्या-74-209 का आवंटन शिकायतकर्ता के पक्ष में किया गया और उभयपक्षों के मध्य अनुबंध-पत्र दिनांक 26.42.2046 को निष्पादित किया गया। अनुबन्ध पत्र के कब्जा सम्बन्धी प्रस्तर 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 में 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 इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण विलम्बित हुई, जो कि उनके नियंत्रण में नहीं था। दिल्ली ८४ में बढ़ते हुए प्रदूषण को ध्यान में रखते हुए माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय एवं एन.जी.टी. द्वारा अक्टूबर 209 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 दिसम्बर 2022 तक प्रदान कर दिया जाएगा और वे अनुबंध पत्र मे उल्लेखित 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 को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। पक्षकारों के अभिवचनों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचारणीय किये गये हैं — 4... क्या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध ws दायरे में नहीं आते हैं ? व क्‍या पक्षकारों के मध्य रेरा लागू होने से पूर्व अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किये जाने पर रेरा के प्राविधान लागू नहीं होगें ? 2. क्या force majeure events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हाँ तो प्रभाव? 3. क्या शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि वापस दिलाये जाने की मांग करना उचित है ? 4. क्या शिकायतकर्ता कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है ? Ye निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-॥ बिन्दु संख्या-+ इस तथ्य पर विचरित है कि क्‍या रेरा आने से पूर्व के अनुबन्ध रेरा के दायरे में नहीं आते है तथा क्या पक्षकारों के मध्य रेरा लागू होने से पूर्व अनुबन्ध निष्पादित किये जाने पर रेरा के प्राविधान लागू नहीं होगें ? इस सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-6745-6749 /202 “ef wea प्रोमोटर्स एंड डेवलपर्स wo fo बनाम उ0प्र0 राज्य व अन्य” में दिया गया आब्जर्वेशन महत्वपूर्ण है, जिसमें 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 age 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 wr) यह भी रेरा अधिनियम में स्पष्ट है कि “ऑन गोईंग” परियोजनायें निश्चित रूप से रेरा अधिनियम की परिधि में आते हैं उपरोक्त माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आर्ब्जेवेशन से यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यद्यपि रेरा पंजीकरण से पूर्व प्रोमोटर एवं आवंटी के मध्य अनुबन्ध निष्पादित हुए हैं, परन्तु यदि परियोजना को रेरा में पंजीकरण कराया जाता है, तो रेरा के सभी प्राविधान लागू होगें। विपक्षी द्वारा प्रश्नगत परियोजना को रेरा में पंजीकृत कराया गया है, जिसका पंजीकरण क्रमांक संख्या-एशराप्र&णशर०4403 है | अत: वर्णित तथ्यों के आधार पर यह स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी की परियोजना वर्तमान में “ऑनगोईंग प्रोजेक्ट” की श्रेणी में आती है। ऐसी दशा में रेरा के सभी प्राविधान लागू होगें। तद्नुसार बिन्दु Pert निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 बिन्दु संख्या-2 इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि क्‍या force majeure events होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हाँ तो प्रभाव? यह वाद बिन्दु विपक्षी के अभिकथनों पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार विपक्षी पर है। "आय

विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्टस्‌ के कारण विलम्बित हुई, जो कि उनके नियंत्रण में नहीं था। माननीय एन.जी.टी. एवं माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा लगाये गये प्रतिबन्ध vd aifas—i9 महामारी फैलने के कारण परियोजना के निर्माण कार्य पर विपरीत प्रभाव पड़ा है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-43029 / 4985 “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 wedirect that no demolition and construction activities take place inDelhi and NCR region. In case it is found that such activity isdone, the local administration as well as the municipalauthoritiesincluding the Zonal Commissioners, Deputy Zonal Commissionersshallbe personally held responsible for all such activities. They haveto act in furtherance of the Court’s order and to ensure that nosuch activity takes place. We direct that construction, demolition and activities bestopped forthwith as well as garbage burning. In case, any personis found in construction and demolition activity and garbageburning in Delhi and NCR region, he/she shall be penalized. Anyperson is doing construction and demolition activity in violationof this order, shall be penalized with Rs.l Lac for such activity.For garbage burning he/she shall be penalized with Rs.5,000/- andbesides liable for violation of theorder passed by this Court tobe dealt with in accordance with law.

इसके अतिरिक्त उपरोक्त सिविल अपील संख्या-43029 // 4985 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 09.42.2049 में निम्नलिखित निर्देश दिये है :- In the affidavit dated 05.2.209, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has stated as under:- "]2. That it is respectfully submitted that it is normally experienced that in month of December depending upon 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." al 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 04.44.2049 से दिनांक 44.02.2020)

की अवधि के लिए निर्माण कार्य पर रोक लगायी गयी है, जिसमें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 09.42.2049 में पूर्ण प्रतिबन्ध को हटाते हुए आंशिक प्रतिबन्ध लगाया गया। ऐसे में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा 35 दिन (दिनांक 04.44.2049 से दिनांक 09.42.2049) एवं 33 दिन (6652) (दिनांक 40.42. 2049 से दिनांक 74.02.2020 तक Ua 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। 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 दिनाक 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 seq 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 rene किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु Ho 3

शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि उभयपक्षों के मध्य निष्पादित आवंटन / अनुबंध पत्र के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा यूनिट का कब्जा 20.06.2020 तक प्रदान किया जाना था, परन्तु अभी तक विपक्षी द्वारा यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान नहीं किया गया है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। इस पर विपक्षी द्वारा जवाब दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य पूर्णता की ओर है और शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा दिसम्बर 2022 तक प्रदान कर दिया जाएगा और वे अनुबंध पत्र मे उल्लेखित प्राविधान के अनुसार विलम्बित अवधि की धनराशि का भगतन करने हेतु सहमत है। जहाँ तक क्रेता द्वारा रिफण्ड के अनुरोध का प्रश्न है, इस विषय में रेरा अधिनियम के प्राविधानों को समग्र रूप से पढ़ा जाना आवश्यक है, ताकि सभी पक्षों के मत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए एक संतुलित निर्णय लिया जा सकें। रेरा एक्ट की धारा 48 () में प्राविधान है कि :- Section 728 (7) “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, i © Page 5

in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed. इस प्रकार 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 मासिक दर से ब्याज प्राप्त करते हुए परियोजना में बने रहें। रेरा अधिनियम की धारा 34 में रेरा के अन्य “फंग्शन्स” के साथ-साथ "to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder ” का भी उल्लेख है।

इसी प्रकार धारा 32 में रियल gee सेक्टर के विकास हेतु अथॉरिटी के उत्तरदायित्यों में निम्न भी सम्मिलित हैं :- “32. The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a)protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent;....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” उक्त प्राविधानों से यह we है कि “रियल एस्टेट सेक्टर” के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके सभी ee seed के हितों को समग्र रूप से देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेने का उत्तरदायित्व इस अथॉरिटी का है। इस क्रम में मा. मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा नीलकमल Raced सबअर्बन प्रालि. बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया, जिसमें रेरा अधिनियम की वैद्यानिकता के सम्बंध में निर्णय दिया गया था, के RR 424 में मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निम्न संवीक्षण किया :- +]24, The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in al Page 6

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

allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth during completion of project, so_on_and so forth’ के अनुरूप आदेश पारित किए जा सकते हैं। एलोटीज़ द्वारा धनराशि वापस किए जाने व परियोजना में बने रहने वाले एलोटीज के हितों में सन्तुलन के प्रसंग में “चित्रा शर्मा बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया” (744,/20:7) & निर्णय में मा. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने निर्णय के प्रस्तर 40 में निम्न ऑबजरवेशन किया है :-

40. As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is lying in deposit before this Court pursuant to the interim directions, on which interest has accrued. The home buyers have earnestly sought the issuance of interim directions to facilitate a pro-rata disbursement of this amount to those of the home buyers who seek a refund. "We are keenly conscious of the fact that the claim of the home buyers who seek a refund of monies deserves to be considered with empathy. Yet, having given our anxious consideration to the plea and on the balance, we are not inclined to accede to it for more than one reason. Firstly .. .. Secondly, the figures which have been made available presently, following the opening of the Web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be unmindful of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a न बा ca grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores Page 7 (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund."

मा. उच्च न्यायालय एवं सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा उक्त प्रस्तरों में उद्धरत “ऑबजरवेशनस्‌” एवं रेरा एक्ट की समग्र व्यवस्था को देखते हुए यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यदि विलम्ब के प्रत्येक मामले में धनराशि लौटाने का ही निर्णय लिया जाये तो निश्चय ही यह अधिनियम के “ऑबजेक्टिव” तथा “स्कीम” के अनुरूप न होगा। रिफण्ड का निर्णय लेते समय प्रत्येक मामले की “यूनीकनेस” प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों यथा “कन्सट्रक्शन” की स्थिति, कम्पलीशन की “टाईम लाईन”, प्रोमोटर्स के द्वारा ऑफर ऑफ पजेशन के “कमिटमेन्ट” की स्थिति, अन्य “स्टेक होल्डर्स”, विशेष रूप से परियोजना के साथ बने रहने वाले “एलॉटीज” पर प्रभाव, “प्रस्तावित पज़ेशन डेट” के विषय में “कन्सेन्सस्‌” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। ww के गठन के मूल उद्देश्य एवं समस्त परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेकर आदेश पारित किया जाना arated A होगा। ww के गठन के सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 /20:7 बिक्रम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में दिनांक 23.07.2049 को परित आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-244 के प्रस्तर-420 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया हैः-

20 It is apparent that RERA intends protection of home-buyers and aims at completion of the buildings. The buildings have to be completed, for that,we are required to pass orders. We have already assigned the task to NBCC for completion of buildings as the promoters/builders have failed to complete the building within the time fixed and the time which could have been extended. Now, more than 0 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the’ promoter/builder.The maximum time fixed in RERA has also expired and extension could not have been beyond | year. उक्तानुसार यह स्पष्ट किया गया है कि रेरा आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए है और उसका लक्ष्य यह है कि प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा बिल्डिंग के समस्त विकास कार्यों को पूर्ण कराते हुए गृहकेताओं को उनका आवास ,/ फ्लैट मिल सके। तत्कमानुसार आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या--255 के प्रस्तर-437 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया a The provisions of RERA are beneficial to the home buyers and are intended to insulate ee | from fraudulent action, ensures Page 8

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 गृहक्रेताओं के लिए लाभकारी हैं और किसी प्रकार के विश्वासघात होने से आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए हैं एवं बिल्डिंग को पूर्ण कराने हेतु निगरानी का कार्य रेरा का है और पक्षकारों के कर्तव्यों एवं उत्तरदायित्व अधिनियम में तय किये गये हैं। यह भी लाभ दिया गया है कि परियोजना विलम्ब होने पर गृहकेताओं का यह अधिकार होगा कि वह विलम्ब के लिए परियोजना पूर्ण होने तक नियमानुसार ब्याज पा सके। इसी के पश्चात्‌ पुनः रेरा के सम्बंध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-43,/2049 पायनियर ada as एंड इन्फास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में दिनांक 09.08.20I9 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. vat 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। — Page 9

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। विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना में शिकायतकर्ता को आवंटित फ्लैट का दिसम्बर 2022 में कब्जा दिये जाने की बात कही गयी है, जोकि निकट की अवधि है। समस्त परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए यह उचित होगा कि शिकायतकर्तागण दिनांक 34.42.2022 तक परियोजना पूर्ण होने पर कब्जा लें। उसके बाद वे स्वयं यूनिट के भविष्य हेतु उपयोग के सम्बन्ध में निर्णय ले सकते हैं। वैसे भी शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा परियोजना में धनराशि का निवेश कब्जे हेतु किया गया था, जिसका उपयोग विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना के निर्माण में किया गया है। निश्चय ही परियोजना में बने रहने की दशा में एलॉटीज़ को विलम्ब हेतु नियमानुसार ब्याज प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा देय होगा। निस्तारण बिन्दु सं०-3 Taga निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु to 4

शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि उभयपक्षों के मध्य निष्पादित आवंटन / अनुबंध पत्र के अनुसार विपक्षी द्वारा यूनिट का कब्जा 20.06.2020 तक प्रदान किया जाना था, परन्तु अभी तक विपक्षी द्वारा यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान नहीं किया गया है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। इस पर विपक्षी द्वारा जवाब दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य पूर्णता की ओर है और शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट का कब्जा दिसम्बर 2022 तक प्रदान कर दिया जाएगा और वे अनुबंध पत्र मे उल्लेखित प्राविधान के अनुसार विलम्बित अवधि की धनराशि का भगतन करने हेतु सहमत है। पत्रावली पर पत्रावली पर अग्रणी शिकायतकर्तागण (राहुल सेन गुप्ता) द्वारा दाखिल अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांक 26.2.2046 के प्रस्तर-#0) में उल्लेख किया गया है कि विपक्षी द्वारा फोर्स मैज्योर के अधीन 42 एवं 6 माह की अनुग्रह अवधि अर्थात्‌ दिनांक 26.2.2020 तक यूनिट का कब्जा प्रदान किया जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा 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 |) er Page 0 इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि महाराष्ट्र उच्च न्यायालय के नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन wife. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया की याचिका में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि:-

Section 8()(0) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable. अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व केता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, wife wed द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। जहां तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बंध 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 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant — Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 20I6. The Respondent — Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 20I6 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 siete. मिलने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो की तिथि तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। ~ Page 4 ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 26.42.2020 + 68 दिन अर्थात्‌ 05.03.202 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। जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 47.40.208 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विक्रय /पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 2078 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विक्रय ,/ पट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.2(0) 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 ]४८॥₹+ प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु सं0-4 तद्नुसार निस्तारित किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते है:- आदेश 4. विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह शिकायतकर्तागण की ace समस्त सुविधाओं को आवंटन-पत्र /अनुबन्ध के अनुसार पूर्ण कराकर दिनांक 3.42.2022 तक ओ.सी. /सी.सी. सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय ery शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें। 2. विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 05.03.2024 से ओ.सी /सी.सी अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने की तिथि तक शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा स्वयं जमा धनराशि पर MCLR+I प्रतिशत ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की धनराशि में समायोजित की जायेगी। ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक होने पर शिकायतकर्ता को वापस की जायेगी। फोर्स मैज्योर पीरियड को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 25.03.2020 से दिनांक 25.09. ee, ee Page 2

2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु ब्याज की गणना नहीं की जायेगी। साथ ही यदि शिकायतकर्ता का कोई अतिदेय (Over Dues) है, तो उस पर भी इस अवधि का ब्याज देय न होगा। अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण के प्रकरणों में आवंटन पत्र/अनुबन्ध के अनुरूप उपरोक्‍तानुसार गणना की जायेगी। , विपक्षी को यह भी निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा 2(za)(i) के अनुसार यदि रेरा लागू होने के बाद कोई ब्याज दर आवंटी के डिफॉल्ट से प्रोमोटर द्वारा लिया जाता है, तो उसी दर से ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा डिफॉल्ट किये जाने पर भी आवंटी को दिया जायेगा। अतः विलम्बित भुगतान पर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा भी MCLR+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। . विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्तागण को दिनांक 34.:2.2022 तक कब्जा देने में असफल रहता है, तो दिनांक 342.2022 के पश्चात्‌ शिकायतकर्तागण द्वारा जमा घनराशि MCLR+ प्रतिशत की वार्षिक ब्याज दर सहित वापस अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। विपक्षी का यह भी दायित्व होगा कि उक्त यूनिट के सापेक्ष ली गयी बैंक ऋण की धनराशि बैंक को वापस अदा करते हुए, उक्त धनराशि के सापेक्ष बैंक से एन.ओ.सी. प्राप्त करना सुनिश्चित करें। . 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। . इस आदेश का उल्लघंन भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 2046 की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये।

. 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 :-।५/ 40 / 2022 ५... ०४५०० - (कल्यना मिश्रा) AV (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण Page 3