AASHISH SEHGAL AND UMA SEHGAL vs APEX BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.

sHARERA & eunuennl,t BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Date ofde.ision: 11,09 2024 M/sap.x Buildwctt Pvt.

Ltd Conplarnt No.4869 oi 2023,4852 ol 2023, 4953 oI 2023, 485'{ of 2A23.

CORAMT Shn Ashok Sangwan Shri.

Sunil xumar Advocate shn. llarshtr lraira Advocate sh.L Sunil Kumar Advocate sh.i Harshit Batra Advocale Shn.

Sunil Kumar Advocate Shri llaBhit Batra Advocrtc Shri.

Sunil Kumar ?\dvocat€ shrr lla^hit lt{r d ,\dvo.Jrr 1.

This order shall dispos€ ot all the complaints titled as abovc filcd before the authority under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 [hereinafter referred as "the Acr") rcad with rule 28 ofthe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Dcvelopment) Rules,2OrT (hereinafter referred as "the rules") forviolation ofsection 11(4)(a) ofthe Act i{herein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter Mr.Ash$hSehgal&Mrs Uma M/s Apex Buildwell Pvt Ltd.

M/sApexBuildwell Pvt Lld Mr.

Ravikant & Mrs. liti MudBal M/s Ap8 Buildwell Pvt.

Lld Mr Surcnder(umar v/s M/sApexBuildwell Pv!.l,id ry HARER tr ounrcn,qnr shall be responsible for funcnons to th€ allottee as Complaint No.4869 of 2023,41152 of 2023, 48s3 ol 2023, 48s4 of all its obligations, responsibilities and per the agreement for sale executed inter se 2.

Thc core issues emanating hom them are similar in nature and the .omplainantG) in the above referred mattcrs nre allottecs ot thc projcct, namely, "Our Homes' bcinE developcd bv thc samc rcspond.nt/promoter i.e., !l/s Apex tsuildwell Pvt. t.td. 'lhe tcrnN and conditions of the Ruyer's Agreeme.t against thc allotment of units in thc projcct of thc respondent/buildcr and fulcrum of the rssues involvcd in allihc cases pertains to failtrrc on the part ofthc prcmoter !o delivcr trmely possession oithe units jn question and ccrtain other 3 Thc details of the complaints, replv to status, unit no, drtc oi agrc. c oi agrc.nrcnt, possession clause, due date of possession, total sale consideration, total paid amoun! and reliei sought are given in the apcx buildwelt Pvt Ltd at"Our tlomcs , scctors 37itl occupar&! ceni6c49i: 2e 1l!?!1e Ctause Stiii)(b) ofthe Afiordable Houslng Policv, 20r 1 ''All llats in o specili. prqect shall be ollorbd in ane so wiLhh Jout ,tp nn,p wnihever ,' toter ona oo'seston ol noL| tolt be otk'ed within the votidiry Pe/iod ol4 years oJ such tuncrion/d?aronce ' *TARER S- tltlRtlGRAlr/ 4069 al 2023, 4852 ) l t. ) I rrtle, 1 I .*.ri,l'sl v/s TARER GUiIIGRA[/ a. ) ailaa$/ ) - 1-L- rh..omDlaindnis rn the abo\. compl.lnBhrve !oughr rhe lollowlnS relicl\' t rtr r'l.,cD 'd.n' o, leHvedpos-n z lrLrrd rh. rc\po dctrr to b!a' lhe litisrtior.hlses rtrrutrn''s!) R\ "r,ror/ I l)',(r ihc 'rspotrdn b piy '.8istrrfotr.hJg.s J'd n:rr]) drrr $ rhr !r"n''11 L r.8 {' } \rh dr lBs lElnlaid hyl!9l9llllhr narlls .1. tt h* ;:;d".ided t" ti"ut tt-"..ia .n.pt"*ti as an application ror non compliance of statutory obligations on tbe pa( oi the pro'notcr/ respondcnt in terms of scction 34(0 of thc A'l which mandatcs lhe rurhorrLy to cnsure compliance of the obligatrons crsr upon lhc promoters, the allottee[s) and the real estate agents under the Act' the rules and the rcgulations madethereunder s.'lhc lacts of all thc ahovc mentioncd conrplaints likrd l)v thc .onrplainan(r/allottee(s) mentioned case, ihe particulars of lead case Cal4869/2023 tltled 6 Aashish Sehgal & Irma Sehgal V/S M/s Apex Bu ttwe M' Lrd are being takcn into consideration for determining the rights of the allottee(s) qua delayed possession charges after the execution of th€ are also simriar. out of the rbove_ complainl No, 4869 of 2023, 4052 ot 2023,4A53 oI 2023, 4854 of giARER.

S-eunuenRu complaint No.4869 of 2023,4852 oi 2023.

4853 of 2023, '1854 ol 2023, A.

Unltandpmrect r€lated detalls 6. detalls 6.

Ihe particulars of the project, the details of sale consideration, the amount paid by the complaiflant, date ol proposed handing over the possession and delayperiod, il any, have been detailed in the following s i 1 3. 'Our Homes", sector_37, curugram, 10.144 Jcres. l.ow cosl/Affoftlablc CrcuP rlousing Registered 40 o12019 datcd- 08.07.2019 vailable Floor-4r', Block/Tower-lasmine POSSESSTON (a) orer ofPossession Within a period ol thirtY (As on paee no.

19 ofcomplaintl 516.67 sq ft. (As on pase no 19 oicomplsintl 2o.o2.2073 (As on page no 25 ofcomPlaint) (s6) Naturc of the project Date of execution of buyer's months, with a gruce 5 tJ .ryTARER dh eunuennu No 4869 af 202:t, 41152 4853 of 2023, 4854 of ol 2023, 2023. the Complex upon the receipt ol oll project reloted opprovols including sancnon of buildins plans/revised plan and approval of all concerned authonies including the Fire SeNice Deparlment, Civil Aviotion Department, TroJtrc Departnent" pollution Control Departmert etc., os nay be required ........ tron the da.e ol cement ol construcaion ol IEmphasis suppliedl (As on page no.

39 olcomplaint) 12.

26.06.20t7 lcalculated 4 years from date )nviro nmental clearancc I 16,00,000/ [As on page no.

33 olcomplain0 0ccupation certificate 30.11.2019 [As on pase no.82 Date of grant linvironmental Clearance Due date of possession Bas,c sale considerat,on 30.11.2019 (As on page no.

19 ofcomplaint) 10 ARER URiJGRA[/ IInit ha.dover lelter n G of 2023, 4853 of 2023. t3.07 -2023 [As per annexurc 2 arguments submitted respondent) -", ,;3. *;l 2023, aSsa of I by the tt.

B.

7 24.05.2023 Facts ofthe complaintl lhc complainant has made the following submissions rn the l. lhat lh. .cspondenl launched an atfordabl.

Sroup housing project called "Our Homes" at Sector 37C, Gurugram, under the liccnsc no.

13 of 2012 dated 22.02-2012 issuad by thc l)l'c|, llaryana, Chandigarh. ll Th.t the complainant is a law abiding citizcn. g citizcn.

Thc rcspondcnt advertiscd about the project and painted a rosy picture of the t,r.,r,1 t rn rrs Jdve(iscmenls mrkrng ldll .1J'm '.

Ill ln 2012, thc rcspondent issucd rn :rdvcrtiscmcnt and thcrcbv rnvitcd applications f.om prospeclive buyers lbr th' purchJ!c oi unit in the said project.

The respondent confirmed that the building plan approvals have been oblained l'on1 lhc conc'med IV 'l hc conrplainant while searching tor a flat/acconrmodalioD was lurcd by such advertisements and calls irom the brokcrs of the rcspondcn!.

Rclying on the representalions aDd issur'rnccs Sivcn by thc rcspondcnt 3nd on bclicl of $r'h issuranccs the .onrplxjn.rnt bookccl a unit in thc proj.ct toua j thc bookrng of .&'IARER P* GURUGRAI,/ the unit bearing no.

1102 on 1 1th lloor in'l owcr lasminc having dn .rca admeasurinB 516.67 sq.tt lor a total salc consrdcration of Its la),00,000/ . v That a Buye.'s Agreement was ex.cuted between the complainant and the respondent on 20.02.2013.

As per annexurc of lhe buycr s agreement thc salc price ol thc said .rparlmcnt was 1is.16,00,000/- inclusive of basic salc price, lallC, lDC, Prcttr.nnal location charges.

VL As pe.

Clause-3(al of the ApartmeDt Buyer's Agreement, the rcspondent agrecd to delive. the posscsshn of thc uni! within pclod :16 nronths plus 6 months lrom the dar. or .onrmcnccmcnt ot construction upon receipt of all project related approval.

Due datc of poss.ssion is calculated fiom the date oi agrcemcnt re llcncc, lhc.lue dat. olpossessron comcs out to b. (12 06.2017 VII s pcr thc dcmands raiscd by thc respondcnt thc comPlxi"nt has paid a total sum of Rs.16,00,00, towards thc said unit against rot,l sale consideration of Rs.16,00,000 /_.'l'hat thc pavment plan wns dcsigned in such a way to extract maximum payment from thc buy.rs viz a viz or done/completed. completed.

Vlll That lhe complainant approached the responden( and asked about lhe status of construction and also rarsed obj'ctrons towards non comPlclion ollhe prolcct In tcr ms of (llause 3(al ol thc lluyc.s Agrc.mcnL lhe rcspondcnt was undcr an obli8luotr to completc the const.uction and to offer the possession on or before 02.06.2017.

That the complainant approached the respondent in Pcrson to know thc late ot the constructron and oftcr possessron in tcnns of the Iluyer's Agrccmcnl, respondcnt Complaint No 4869 o12023, 41,52 ol 2023, 4A53 ol 2023, 4gS4 of 2023_ -ADED I compldrnr No' rsbq or 2021' 4852 I I or 1023 4853 ol 1023 4854 or .

CLr?uGRAV I ,0,r. -- -- misrepresented to the complainant that the constructio' would be completed soon.

X.

That the respondent is guitty of deficiency in services widin the purview of provisions ol the Act, 2016 and the provisions of llaryanaReal Estate(RegulationandDevelopment) Rules,20l7' Rellefsought bY the complainants: 'lhe complai nants have sought lollowing relief(s): C.

4 t) l)ircct the respondentto paydelayed posscssion charges alongwith l)rrect the rcspond.ni to pav litigation chargcs nn)ounl'ng to Rs.21,000/.

Direct the respondent to pay the registration charges and stamp duty in the concerDed registry wbich has bccn paid by thc Reply by resPondent: 'lhc respondcnt has made following submissio ns bv wavolrcplv: I Ihat the complainants approached the respondent and ctpressed hcr intcrcsl in booking an apartment in the l'ow cost/AlIordable Croup Housing Proiect developed bv respondent known as "our llomca' situated in Sector 37C, Gurgaon, llaryana hnx to thc booking, the compl:inants havc ronduct'd e'tcnsivc and in(lcpcndcnt cnqurries with rcgard to thc prolccl and onlv 'rltcr bcing fully satisficd on all aspects, thcy took an ind'pendcnt and lntormcd dccision, uninfluenced in any manner by thr rcspondtnt. to book thc unitin question.

Complarnr No.4869 of 2023,4052 of 2023, 4853 ot 2023, 4854 ot 2023.

I GURUGRAN/ l.

RUGRAN/ l.

Thereafter, the complainants applied to the rcspondcnt for provisional allohent oi the unit. l']ursuant thcrelo, unit bearinB no l102,located on the 11th Floor, Tower_ lasminc admcasuring 516.67 sq. ft. [tentative area) was allotted to the complainants.

The respondent had no reason to suspect thc bonolde ot rhc of 2023, 43aJ9 o12023, 41,52 4353 L cornplainants and proceeded to allot the unit. lll.

Thcrcafter, a Buyer's Agreement dated 20.02.20 bctwcen the complarnanrs and the respondcnt. nr.nlion that thc iluyer's Agrecment was cols.ioosly rt(l volunranly cxccutcd betwecn the partics and llir rcms.rn(] .onditions of thc samc arc binding on bofi th. pr(irs lV. l'hat as per Clause S(iii)(bl of the Affordablc Ilousins r'olicv, 2013, the due date ot possession ol the unit rrr rn qucstiorr rs I ycars f.om the date ot sanction of llujldiDg l'hr o| rcc.rpr ol cnvrronmcntal clearancc, whichevc. is lat.r.'Ihc b.ncht or Srrcc pcriod mal also be given to the respondent as pcr thc ternrs and conditions oi the ASreement dated 05.02.2013.

A1 this s!a8c, rt rs subnriucd rhat thc benclit ol gra.e has lo bc Eivet rs h,s 'lso br:cn considcred by the llon'ble Appellate l ribunal, Chnn.liSal h rd thc case titled as Emaar MGF Land Ltd. vs Laddi I'.aramjit Singh Appcal no.

122 of 2022 that ifthc grace pcriod rs nn nrron[l r' th' .lausc thchenefilotthcsanrcisdlk)wcd.

V That the due date/possPssion clause provided undcr the Builder Buyer Agreement was subjective in nature shalldepend on the Allottee/Complainant complving all and conditions ot the Aereement.

Thus, thc duc dalc poss,rssion was subjected to thc tcrms of cltusc 3 (lrorce 10 or 25 NAljE&.

GURUGRAIU nf 2023, 2023. o12023,4852 2023, 1AS4 ol I4aieure) and the complainant having comphed with all thc terms and conditions oi the Iluilder Iluyer Agreemcnt. rloucvcr, thc complalnant failed to fulfilled his obligation and had delaulted in making thc outstanding PaYments.

PaYments. l\4orcover, it is to be noted that the devclopm'nt 3nd imlrcmcntalion ot thc Proiect hav. becn hindercd on accoutt ol scveral orders passed by various aulhoritics/torums/'ourts, bcfore nd\!rne ol th. duedrl, olouerofpo'\e\!on Vl. 'lhat a period of 377 days was consumcd on account of cncumstances hcyond the power and control ol lhe r'spondcnt' owing to the passing oforders ofvarious statutory authorities and thc Covid_19 pandemic lt is well recognized that one dav of hin.lran.e in the construction industrv leads to a gigantic delav and has a d.cp elJcc! on the ovcrall constructron Pro(ss ol i rcal cstalc projcct All the .ircumstances stated hercinabove 'ome within the meaning oflorce maieure, as statcd abovc' llowcver' dcspite all odds, the resPondent was able to carry out construction/development at thc proi'ct srtc and oblain thc ncccssary approvals and sanctions and has ensured compliance under thc Agreement,laws, and, rulesaDd rcgulations' Vll. l hat dcspite such del3y, earnestly fulfilled its obliSalion under the lluyers AgrccnrenL and complcrcd the lrolcct as cxpcdrlrouslv rs possiblc. 'lh. various circumslances beyond thc 'ontrol of the rcspondcnt are thc factors responsible for thc dclaycd devclopment of the projcct The respondent cannot bc penalized .rnd held responsrblc tor the dcfault ot its custonlLts or due ro lorce majeur. circumstan.es.

Thus, rt is most rcspecttullv -DED [i'.rr.' , t' Isba "r ro- 4s'r ] 'l'':-).

I ,r rol1.4b-r or / -'.48'i o ? "l]qt.t n23 .unnirted rha, Ihe pn $ rr .".p|, nr d.*-."c' it;' dr'rr""l dr 'Ihat the respondent has complied with all ol its obligations, not only with respect to the Buyer's Agreement wilh thc compla'nant but also as per the concerned laws, rulcs, and reeulations !hcreunder and the local authorities. 'lhat dcspitc innuncrablc bardships bcing faced by the rcspondeDt, the r'sponde't complcted the construction of the project and applicd tor thc occupation certificate before thc concerned Authority and su ity and successfully attaincd the Occupatio.

Ccrtificatc dnred 29 ll2019 It is submitted that once an appli.ation for Srant of occupation certificate is submitted to the concerned statulory authorit-v thc respondent ceasesto have any controlover the same' The grant ot occupation ccrtificate is thc prerogativc or rh' concern"l ndruLo,y dJrhoritv ano rhe r"5ponderrt docs nor cter'rn dnv influcncc in any manner whatso€ver over thc samc"lhcrcibrc it is rcspcctfully submitted that thc time pcriod utiliscd bv the .onc$ncd statuto.y authorrty lbr Sranting (\e ot(upirron ccrtificate is liable to be excluded from the time pcriod utilised lor thc implcnlentation oithe proiect.

Tha( atter rccelving of thc Occupalion Certificatc the posscssion ol thc unit was lawlully olfered to the compl'rnrnr vl(lc Olrrr ol t,osscssion dated 30.11.2019.

That the pbysical possession was r.rkcn by thc complainant without any demur 'rnd hcn'e i posscssron ccrtificatc was thereby issued in tavour of the conrplarnnflbythercspondeot lt is now, aftcr ovcr :Jyc!rsollhr olfcr of posscssion tha! th. complainant has approached the n G VIII t\ X nARER,*, GURUGRA[/ Authority as an afte.thought sccking delay possessron charges wirh thc solc intcnl of gctting wrongiul g:rins and causing wrongful loss to thc respondent Without preludicc to the contents ot the respondent, it is submittcd that thc prcs.nt complaint is barred by limitation as the cause olaction if any, only arose lillthc rcccipt otoccupancy c$lificatc and not thcrcalier Xl. 'l-hat after giving the lawiul Possession of the unit to the complainanl, the conveyance Deed dated 28.062021 was also cxccutcd between the complainant and the respondcnt.

It is sul)nuit.d th:rt nticr execution ol (hc Convcvan.c llccd the con!ractual rclalionship between thc parlies stands fLrlly satislied and comcs to an end.

That there rcmains no claim/ gricvan.c of the complainant with rcspect to thc Agreement or any obliSation ol thc partics thereunder.

XI1. nder.

XI1. lhat after thc execution of the Conveyance Deed, the partics a'e cstopped from mahng any claims at this instance. ln ligh( oi thc bona lde condnct of the respondent, the peaceful possession hlvrng bccn takcn by the complainant, non cxist.ncc oi causc of action and the frivolous complainl filed bv the 'omplainant, this complaint is bound be dismissed with costs in iavor of thc 6 (lopics oi aU rhc rclcvant documcnrs havc bccn fil.d rnd pliccd on rccord.

Thcir authenticity is not in dispute. llencc, the complaint can bc dccid.d on th. basis of these undisputcd documcnts a'd submission made bY thc Parties.

Complaint No.4869 of 2023,4E52 ot 2023- 4A53 of 2023, 4A54 ol U. lurisdiction ofthe autboritY: tl ll 'hREi?

GURUGRA]\4 ot 2023, No.

4869 o12023,4852 4353 of 2023 4854 oI observes that it has territorial ction to adjudicate the Present Tcrritorial iurisdiction As pc. notilicalion no 1/92l2017 lT(ll'da(cd 14 12'2017 issu'd bv 'li)wf in(l Country lrlanninE DepJrtmcnt, th. iurisdiclion ol ll''rl listatc Rcgulalory Authority, Curugram shall be enlrre Curugram !)rstrict tor all puryose with offices situated in (;urugrarrr' ln lhc prcs.nt casc, thc proiect rn question is situatcd wirhin thc plrnninS nrc,r oi Grrugr:rm district.

Therefore, this Authoritv has cr)niplcl( rerritorial)urisdiction to deal with the present complaint' }- ll Suhiect mattcr iurisdictlon 9 Section 11[4](a) of th.

Acl, 2016 providet thal thc Pronrotcr shall bc rcsponsiblc to the allottee as per agreement to' salc' Section 1 I talta) is reproduced as hereunder: t, tc u. ibn t t att obtto rr'r' '|e'.@n tbtt c altt tb\'t't "" tlt o -i...- a,n" p. mi 'ur" an'tt"guto Dn' 'nad" 'n- "btoq o t"h ittii. i.i* L',. "s,*.*, pt nte. orto he osutona, ot ottottet o' L\c ,"'i i", ie rat tni o.*voi* ol ott the oporuhenL\' pt'ts or buitdtna' o: th. as; nov be. to the uttottee ar the connon orcos ta the o$odotbn al dllatLee at the conpetent outhanq,asthe cote tnov be) Ill.

So. ) Ill.

So. rD view oi thc provisions of thc Act quoted abovc thc Aulhority has complet. jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non compliance ol oblig:tions by the promoter lcavnrS as'de .ompcnsation which is to bc dccidcd by the adjudrcaring oihcer if purmcd by the complarnant ata latcrstag€' complaLnl No 4369 oi 2023,4352 of 2023, 4353 ol 2a23, 4a54 ol --DED '^'1P,'..r l\u 43^-or r0r' 4312 I I or -01.. as'' or 1ol '.

43,1 'r : r-';.1' n/. - _ l tindingsonobiectlons rais€d bytherespondent obicctjon resardinsdelay duc to forc. maicurc tir.umstances The respondent_p.omoter has r:ised a contention that the construction of the proiect was delayed due to for.e majeure conditions such as various orders passcd bv thc National (irccn 1'ribunal, Environment Pollution lPrevention & Control] Authority, shortagc ol labour and stoppage of work due to lock down duc to outbrcak of Covid l9 pandemic Sincc therc werc circunrstan.es bcyond thc control of rcspondent, so taking into consideration thc above-mentioned hcts, the respondent be allowed the period during which his construction activities came to stand still, and the said penod be excluded whrle calculating the due datc. lhc plca of thc respondent regarding various orders ofthe authorities, allthe pleas advanced in this regard are devoid of mcrit.

Thc ordcrs passcd by authoritrcs banninS construction in thc NCR region was ibr a verv short pcriod oa time and thns, cannot be said lo impact the rcspondent_build€r l€ading to such a delav in thc completion In thc prescnt case, according to clause 5liii)(b) ofthe AlTordabl' llousjnS Policy, 2013, the stipulated tineline for handing ovcr posscssion oi the unit in question is four years from either the date of sanction of building plans or the r€ceipt ot environmental clearance, whichever occurs lalcr ln lhis instance, thc .nvironmental clcarancc was Srantcd on 26.06 2013.

Calculating lour vears hom this date results fl& F. r.t 11 gFIARER 4869 0l 2a23, 4AS2 6f 2023.

2 6f 2023.

4854 of ) GUiUGRAN/ in 26.06.2017.'lhc argumcnt relatcd to Covid_19 lacks merit sin'e ([c pandcnrrc began in March 2020, whrch is wcll 3ftcr lhc due posscssion date.

Therelore, leniencv cannot be extended to thc promoter/rcspondent based on thcse grounds.

1! is a fundamental principlc that onc cannot bcncfit liom thcir own wroDgdr'ng Consequently, thc Authority concludcs that no reli.fcan be granted to thc respondent in this.egard. f.ll.

Obiection regarding th€ Gomplainant cannol claim delay poss.ssion charges aftcr executlon ofthe conveyancc deed' 12. lt had becn contended by th€ respondent that on exccution of the .onvcyarcc decd, thc rclationship belwecn bolh thc pa'tics s(ands concludcd and no right or liabili(ics can bc assc(ed bv the rcspon.lort or lhe complainant aBainst thc othcr Ibcrclorc, rhc complainants are stopped from claiminBany intcrest in thefacts rnd circunrstanccs of th€ case.

11. l! is nnportant to look at thc definrtron ol the tcrm dccd' itself in ordcr to undcrstand the extent of the relatronshrp betwecn the alloltce and thc promote..

A deed is a written documcnt or an instrument that is sealed, signed, delivered by allthe parlies to the contr.rct i.e., buycr rnd scller' It is a contrdctllal do'lnr'nt that rn.ludcs lc8ally valid lcnls and is cniorc'ablc in a court ol law lt is mandatory that a sale deed should be in writing and bolh thc parties involved must sign the document.

Thus, a convevance deed is csscntially onc wherch rhe tellcr transfcrs all righls lo legallv own' k.cp and enjoy a partrcular asset, immov:hle or movablc ln dris casc, the assets under conside.ation are ,mmovable property 0n ol 2023, 4853 # t]ARER GURUGRA]\4 signing a conveyance deed, riehts over the property in consideration usually monet "sale deed" implies that the authority and ownershrP o t.ansfcrrcd to the buyer. fc..pr.*n..e6r"rjr;ilss I .r 202t assl of 2021. l of 2021.

4311 0r I,rr---- l the original owner transfers all legal question to the buyer, against a valid ary.

Therefore, a "conveyance deed" or seller siSns a document stating that all f the property in question has been Irom thc above rt is clear that on executron ol a sale/convevance dee.l, only lhc tltlc and interesi in thc $id immovrblc propeny (h.rcin thc allort.d unrt) is kansfe.rcd. llowcvcr. lh. tunvcy.rncc decd docs not conclude the relationship or marks an cnd to the liabilities and obligations of the promoter towards lhe said unit $,hereby the right, title and interest has been translerred in the nanrc of thc allottecs on cxccution oi the coDveyancc dccd 'lhe allottees have invested their had earncd moncy and there is no doubt thJl thc promoter has been enjoying bcnclits ol and th' n'\L ncp rs lo ge! their titlc perfected bv executing thc conlevan(e d"d s,hich rs thc slalutory right of the allottccs.

Also, thc obligrtron of the developcr_promoter does not end with rhe execution of a conveyancc deed.

Thercfore, in furtherance to thc rlon'blr Alc\ Courr judgement and the law laid down in casc titled 'rs Wg Cdr Ariln Rah.nan Khan and Atevo Sultona ond ors vs- DLF Southern Homes PvL Ltd. (now knovrn as BEGUR OMR ttones Pvt.

Ltd) ottd ors. (Ctvil appeal no' 6239 ol2019) dated 24.08.2020,1h. rcl.vant paras arc I cproduccd hercir bclow t t t Lt l.tttrptt ho, noL tl:?utPtl Lhtt.'ormur)'a'nh t trrjt) Ll tn ttt )tr) .an nunnd.iar\ 6sutd ty tht deretoper, ttt app'llan\\Lbn|erlLhol Lh'! orc noL uaa"a oteuaxr aui [,t nto the poten rhe deletopet dae\ not iot? ttrt I wr nt tr tu ollt the ltd puchaas pot\e\\iar al th lat antt n)' n]ht rJ *HARERA #ounuennn e,ecut? .anveran.e.l the l1os flhite rcsetuns their.tam lot conpensdnn Iot dela!

On the contoa!, Lhe Lenor ol th? connunnottnn' indieotes Lhot ||hite de; s the D@ds al corv?tona, the Itat burqt @re irlorned thot no Jarn ol pruksti, reeNotio, wattd be occePtobte- The ltor buveB weft 's@'iollv preented wth on mlon . on mlon .hone of eithet fttoininr rheil tishtt to pu6,. 'n'n doins tin which event they oould not set posesnon or ttle in the eontide)atto rc^o\r h.

Jom.'n odt ta p?* th.r ute\ to 'he loB lo' 'hth t\er hov? @d Atroote ' aand?tutton r thi bot t\dt ar- the lnDle ou?,'an oht r?^P"dto addrcs is whethet o Jtot buyet *ho espause\ o rtdin agointt the deyetoryt fot tletdted pa$esion an os o ca$eqtene ol dahs \o be .onpAbd b delt ke risht to ittoii " *n "ton," a pn,fut theh tut.. k Nutd in orr vrcw be nontlesd! untatuhobte b exp.d rhat in o et to pu6ue o ctdin lot cohp'notion Ior detotEd hon.tins owr ol po$Nio, rh. purchoser nrs kdelniblt defer obtoinks o irvevond oI ke pE nd pwhoted or, iJ .he! eek to obtoin o Deed oJ convetnne to Ja5oke the raht to cloth .anpensotkn.

This bancollv is o paetion j5. t h? lut purchoseB hlesea th.t hard eotned nonev lt E ohl! totutobte ta presun; rho. the ndt tosicot s\p is lor the puihoser to Ntect the title k the 'nrcnjes which hoye be.n ollott d und the teths p[rhe ABA.

But rhe su}r$ion oJ thp de@toper b thdt tt1. purchov lomk6 the ftn dr befort the 'oEun{ fotun b! iedng a DAd ol eonveyonc.

To ocept such o conttru'aon would l@d 'o on itnra ionseq,ena ol,equ,ins rh. purchoset eth.t to obondon o iust ttntn os o .ondtiot for Lh.dini;s the anverance ot Lo indelnxetv deto! the exe'!'iDn olke Deed of conveonce pendng ptotucEd consunet titigotion 17.

Ihe Authonty has already taken a view h Cr.

No.

4031/2019 and others titled as yorun GuW y/s Eno GF Ldt,d Umir'd ond oarrers and observed that the executioo ofa conveyance deed does not roncludc thc relat,onship or marks an end to the liabilities and obligatio.s of the promoter towards the subiect unit and upon taking posscssion, and/or executing conveyance deed, the corflplaint nevereave up his statutory right to seekdelayed possession charges as per the provisions ofthe sa,d Act. ra. d Act. ra.

Aiter consideration of all the facts and circumstances, the Authority ho)ds that even after exeotion of the conveyancc dccd, &e complaina.ts/allottees cannot be prectuded from the right to seek dclay posscssion charges lrom the respondent-Promoter' Complaint No, ,1869 of 2023, 4852 ot 2023, 4853 of 2023, 4854 oI 2023.

PJgc la nl25 FlARER ot 2023, 2t)23 of 2023, 4452 2023, 4354 oI F.lIl.

Obiection regarding complaint beingbarred bv limitation 19 so llr ,s the issue of Iimitation is conccrned, the Authority is cogniTsnt of the view that the law ol limitation does not nri'dy apply to thc Real Flstate Regulation and Development Authoritv Act ol20l6. llowcvcr, thc Authorily undcr s.ction :i8 ol thc Act of 2016 is ro bc gurdcd by thc principle of nalural iusticc.

11 is univ$sallv accepted maxim and the law assists those who arevigilant, not those who slecp over their rights.

Theretore, to avoid opportunrstrc and fflvolous litiSatron a rc.rsonable penod oltim. nccds to bc arrived al lbr a Lrtrgant lo agitate his right This Authority ofthc view that three ycars is a rcasonahlc time period fora litiSant to initi:tc litiSation to prcss his riShts undcr no rmal circumstances 20 lt is ,rlso obs.rvc.l thn! lhc llon'bl.

Supronre Cour! rn its o(i'r drtcd 10.01.2022 in MA NO 21 of 2022 ofSuo Moto Writ Petition Civil No.3 of 2O2O have held that the period lrom l5'03 2{)20 to 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded ibr purpose ot limitatbn as mav be pr.scrib.d under any gcncralor spccial laws in rcrp'ct ol rll ludici'rl or quasr-judicial proceedings.

21 ln thc t)r.scnt matt€r thc cause ofaction arosc on 30 I l '2019 !!h'n thc posscssion was handed over to thc complainants bv the ,.sponrlen!.

Ih. conrplainrnt has lLlcd the prcn t conNltrnl on 02.06.2023 which is 3 ycars 6 months and 3 days from the date of c.rrsc of a.tioD.

In thc present case thc thr'c vcrr pcriod of d'lrv ii' fihnE ot thc case also alter taking into account the cxchsbn pcriod rhnr 15.0:l2020 ro 28.02.2022.

8.02.2022.

In vrew otlhc 'bovc. the Anrhorit) -ADED I I orpr,,nr \o 4dbq or "o- i' 4P<2 ., ru r ld5t '" rj ' ) GDA:/ I "", rs ol rhc view thit th. prcscnt;omplaint has bccn filed wlthin a rcJsonable tlne pcriod and is not barred by the limnauon tindings on the rellef sought by the complainant: Direct the respondent to pav delaved poss€ssion charges alongwith interest. 'l hc complainanls booked a unit in th. pro)cct (lur llorrc" localld nl Sector 37C, Gurugram, being developed bv the respondc't' lhey wcrc alloltc.l unit nunrber 1102 on thc I1th floor o1 Tower-Jasnrinc' wrth a supcr area ol 51667 sq.ft, lhc Iluv.fs Agrc'm'nt lvas .rccuLd bctwecn thc parties on 20.02.201:l Acconlrg (o (ll]!se s(iiil(bl of the Affordable Ilousing Policv 2013, posscssion or the unit was to bc provided to the complainants withrn four vcJrs lron' cithcr the datc of obtainrng buildine plan approvals or the grant of cnv iro n mcntal clearance from the conccmed au!hoIiucr' whlchcv'r was later.

The respontlent obtained the eDvironmental clearance on 26 06.2013.

Calculating four years from this datc, lhc duc datc lor possession comcs oui to bc 26.06.2017 Thc respondcnt obtajncd th. o.crprrLon ccrtificatc on 29.11.2019, and tlr' unrl wxs hrfdcd ovcr to thc complainants on 13.07'2023 However' thc offer of poss.ssioD tlas madc on 30.11.2019 Thc convevanc' d'cd wJs .x..utcd on 24.05.2023.

6.

G.l 22 23. tD thc prcsent complain! the complainants ibtends to connnuc with thc proiect and are seeking delay possession charges along with intercst on the amount paid Proviso lo section 18 provides that whcre an allottec does not intend to withdraw lrom the projed' he shallbo paid, by the p.omoter, interest for every month ofdclay' till l'ag!

20 L{ 25 GURUGRAl\4 thc handing over of possession, and it has becn prescribedunder €omplaint No.

4869 of 2023,,1852 of 2023, 4a33 ol 2023, 4454 of 2023. l\.tnlcd tlnt ||hi)t lr olhntt d..s n.t lnt.nd t. nrthdt.r lianl rhe pnrecr, hc shall be paid, by the prond. the prond.t, intercst lbt erery tnonth oltlclor, tttt the hohding over olthe passestnn, ut !!.h 4 eo\ n\t!bePrc\.nbed.

24.

Admissibility of d€lay possesston charges at prescrihed rate of int.rcst: P.ovrso Lo s..tion lSprovidcs that whcrc rn illott.c docs nor jrrcnd !o lv(hdraw trom the proJect, hc shall bc paid, by the fronrorcr, intcrcs! lor evcry month of delay, till thc handinS ovff of poss.ssion, at such rat. as may bc prescribed and it has been proscrihcd !nd.r rul. l5 ol(hc rulcs l{ulc 15 has bri,n rcprcduccd "Rute ls- Pres.tlbed rote ol int rest lPrciso to section 12, seetion 1a on lsub-se.tioa (4)andrubse.tion (7) oJsectn,'19l ''Section 1A: - Retun ol onount ond conpedtution 1a(1). l.hc prcnater faik to cohPtete or is unable to gtve posetsian oluh aponnenL plot, otbuntlns, Fot rn" puqe ot pt@ro to y' tion 12 <edton tR.ond \ub at such ratc as may bc prcscribed sodnns (41and (7) olsection 19, the thtetest ot the rate pra{nbed ' sltoll be the SLote Ronk ol tndto hshest naryinol cosL ol tt4tdin! toLt Pturidetl thot in cose the Stote Bonk allndia norginol cost oflendlng ratc lMct,R) is nor in 6e, it shdll be rePlaced bv su.h benrhnotk lcn.lns tot.s which the State Ronk oftndn nu,li\ ton utne to Ltne fut te nding ta the senetut public." 25. 'l hc lcgislaturc in its wisdom in th. subordinatc lcgrslation urder the provjsion orrule 15 of,the rules, has determined the prescribed rate ofinterest.

The rate ofinterestso determined by thc legislature, is reasonable and ifthe said rule is followed to award the interest it rlr i.n\urc unrrorm prJctrrc rn dll Ih, , dses l'dBr 21 !i25 IV tly, as HARER GURUGRA per websrle ol lhe Slrre l,ank uf Indid ie.. the marginal cost of lending rate (in short, MCLR) as on darc i.c., 11.09.2024 is 9.10 70.

Accordingly, thc prcscribcd .ar. ol intcrcst will bc marBinal cost ollcndrng ratc +2'1,{, i.c., 11.10%.

27.

1.10%.

Thc dcfinition oftcrnr 'intcrcst'as defincd undcr scction 2{7a)of lhe Act provides that the ratc olintercst chargcable from the allottee by lh. pronolcr, rn casc ofdefault, shall be cqual to thc rate ol interest which thc pronrotcr shall be liable !o pay thc allott.c, rn casc of delult.l hc rclevant section is reproduccd bclow: ''aa) 'int ren means the rctesofhterest palobte b! the Pronatet ot the ollortee osthe coe noy bc. hptono an. t:atthepurpo*olthisclause 0) thc rate ol intete*.horseobte ton) thc attattee by Lhe r)ronot!. tr uN tl d.lnutt, slldll bc eqtlol b tha .ote nJ thteten rht.h Lle D.n1.n s)loll be Lablc b poythe uthnkc, in.osc of.lck llt Ltl rhc intetesL palobte b! the pratnoter to the ollottee shott he lratn thc aate the pronotetieceived the onount or any part th.reolttl the dtte .he anoLnt at port thet.of ahd ihteresL thcrcon k ,eJunded, ond the xerest paroble b! rhe ollorte. to Lhe ptunotet sholl be ton the dote the ollonce deloultt nj polnent to tte u.ntoLct rllLhedote t ttpotd; 211.

0f consideration oi the documents availablc on rc.ord .rnd submissions made regarding contravention ot provisions ofthe Act, rhc Authority is sathfi€d that the respondcnt is iD contravcntion of thc scction I1(41(a) oi the Act by not handing ovcr posscssion by thc duc datc as per th. agre.ment.

As pcr Clirusc s (iii)(b) oi the Aflordablc tlousing Policy 2013, thc due date of possession of the unrl rn qucstion is 4 years lrom thc date ot srnction oI btrildinS Plans or rcccipt of cnvironmcntal clcarancc. whichcvc. is lntcr Thc 0rvironnrcnral clcaranc. of the proiect was obhrncd h-v thc respondent on 26.06-2013.

Therelore, the due date of handing over posscssion is 26.06.2017.

Cooplaint No.4869 of 2023,4{152 of 2023, 4853 of 2023, 485t of t'a1J 22 n 25 DED ''morJ.a\' rFro" 1/1 u'( I r uz.. rrs ' lh, (o.rpctent iuthoritics Eranred lhc occupalion certilrc.!0 to lh. rcspondcnt on 29.11.2019, and thc unit was subscqucntly handed ovcr Lo lhc conplainantson 13.07 2023.

3.07 2023.1hc oflcrolposscssio I wrs nrrdc by thc rcspondcnt on 30.112019 Thc dcadlinc lor hrndlng ovcr posscssion oI thc unit was 25.06.2017, and thc dclrv on thc pa11 ol thc respondent is evidcnt. \(.oiirnBly, lhe non compliancc of thc mandalc .onrrin.d if s..tion I llrllxJ rc.rd with ptuviso lo scction 18(1) oi th.

Act on lh. pirt oi 1 r. r.\t)ofdcnl is esl.rbhshed.

As such thc rllott(\rs, shxll br PrLd bv rhr pron,oL.r, intcrcst lor cvery monrh of dclay lionr dLre da(c of r,or\rssio,, .., 26.06.201? till otfer of posscssion Pl(rs t!!. frt!rtIs rlr.r obtxininq occup:rtion .ertificat. from the .oml)ctcirl rrthority ,,, .r.rrr1 h.rtdine ovcr ol posscssion whichcver rs.irrlio, rs p'- r..rion 18(1) ofthe Act of 2016 read with rule 15 ot thc rulcs ii.ll.

Dir..t thc rcspondent to pay litiSation charges anrouDtitra lo Rs 21,000/-. . ,,,,,rPl.rL r rnls ,rrc sccking thc .bo!c nxrn!ronrd 'Li'r tr I ( ( ri fp.nsariotr. 'lhe Ilon'ble Supremc court of lndra rn civil 4ppcals , i) rr:',11t5 679 oi 2021 litlcd as M/s Newtech Promoters 'rrd l)ovclopcrs Ltd v/s Stat€ ofUP (supra) has hcld thrl 'rt rllott" . .nrLtlcd to clainl conrpcnsation and litiSation chJrScs und'r S..tidn 12, 14, l8 and Scction 19 which is to be dccidcd by the ldtrdrc:rting Officcr as per Scction 71 and thc quantuIr or (onpensrtion rnd liligatbn charg.s shall bc adjuditJ(cd hv thc rl u.l (iLing olTrccr ha!rtr8.1uc rcgards to thc fac()rs nrcn(iond in S.crion 72. 'lhcrclo.e, th. complainants may approach the .rlludrartinB olliccr fbr scckrng the relief ot compcnsrl'on' .TARER G.lll.

Dircct the respondentto to payregistration charges and stamp duty in the concerned r€gistry whtch has be€n paid by th€ comPlainants.

33.'lhc complainants are seeking reli.fw.r.t stamp duty and rcgistration ch.trgcs paid by them in the executiorr oithc conveyancc dccd.

Thc Authority is olthe view that th€ complainants had to pay the above mcntioncd charges and the same have been paid by them.

No direction w.r. ction w.r.tthe same needsto b€ given to the respondent. ll t)ir..rtuns ofthc authorirv 34 llcncc, thc Authority hereby passes this ord.r and issue the lollowing dirccnons under section 37 of lhe Act to cnsure .onrpliance of obli8ations casted upon thc promotcrs as pcr the junclrons cntfusled to lh. authorrty under scction 34[l], i. 'lhe respondent is directed to paythe interest at the prescribed rate i.e., 11.10% pcr snnurn for every month ot delay on the .nDount paid by the complainanl from duc dalc of posscssion R..26.06.2017 tiU offer of possession plus !t!o monlhs after obtaining occupation certlficate from the competent authoritv or actunl handover, whichever is carlier, as per scction 1u(11 or th.

A.t ot 2016 read with rulc 15 of thc rules. l5 ll,,s d.cision shall mutatis mutandls aPply to cascs mcntioned in parn:i ofthis order.

36.

Complaints st:nds disposed of.

37 Truccc(ificd copyofthis order shallbe placcd in thcc.rs. frlcoitach Complaint No.

4869 oI 2023, 4852 oI 2023, 4853 0t 2023, '1854 0f IAR GURUl ER 3RA]\4 T.-,"r"* I a zbz:.

Requlatory No 4a69 of 2023, 41152 4853 of 2023.

4854 ol Ashoksans+an tMember)' Authority, CuruSram Dered: 11.09.2024