SANJAY GUPTA vs ADTV COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

iIARER ;,k'iGRAl,'1 BEFORE THE I i-.u*i ^". ,,*i.izoz,r HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM 3163 ol2023 7f).o7.21t24 Shri.

Saniay Cupta R/o: -tl.No B 27, Dev Nagra, Tonk Road, laipur, Lalkothi, Candhiu Nagar, Raiasthan.

Versus M/s AD]V Communications Pvt.

Ltd. omce atrS B Basement Floor, langpura, l\4ain Mathura Road, New Delhi-110014.

COnAM: Shri.Ashok Sangwan APPEARANCE: sh Siddhant Sharma O]IDER I 'l'hc present complaint has been filed by the comPlainant/allottcc under section 31 ofthe Real Estate [Regulation and DeveloPmentl A't, 2016 (iD short, the Actl read with rule 28 oidre llaryana Real [state lResulalion and Dev.lopmcntl Rulcs,2017 [n shor!, tlrc Rule, lor violation of scction 11(1)[a) ol the Act wh.rern it is inter aha prescribcd that thc promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities aDd functions under thc provision of lhe Act or the Ilules and rcgulatrons mndc there under or to the nllortcc.s p'r lhc rErc.ment lbr sale executed n)krre. *HARER S- cLrnirenll,t comDlarnrNo.3l63 ol 2023 Unit and pmiect related details 'lhe particulars of unit details, sale the complainants, date of ProPosed period, ifany, havebeen detailed in consideration, the amount Paid bY handing over the possession, d€laY dle following tabular rorrn: ] ,-,,*r"* Name ofthe project AtohJ',sedor 97,Curu8ram E :" EI I A t 0.03.

N 3 21.03.1996 valid upto (As on pas€ no.

9 of complaint) P'2,16', & 17sfloor, lower D 6 (As on pase no.ll oi.omplainll (Ason page no.ll ofcontl: trl) SCHEDULE FOR POSSESSiON OT THE '1he possesion ol the sdid prenises is ltkelr t be delivered by the Conpont to the Allo$ee wirhin 36 nonths lron the date oI stort of constuction ol the tNet in which the soid Jlot is locoted or lrom rhe doE of .xe.ution ol this asteehert whichever is later, bjed to lorce no)eue cncunstances, & on receipt ol oll pdrnqts punduollr os pet ogreed tems and oi recetpt of conptete poynent of the baic sate Ptice antL :l lr,n..r.x.. r,n..r.x..utionof BIIA Possession cla$e as per + IL f,.

15 17 GJRUGRAI,4 com.laint No.

3163 of 2023 Pov _ 31,082009 "p t; th;d"nil l I Rs.2,20,83,250/- (As on page 11 oI the conplaint) ll,aBr 47ortheconrplarnll opporrunity for payment rodorscmcnt rn ravorr.l 27.04.2017 rcmFllimrr _ - L B.

Facts ofthe complalnt 'lhe complainant has made the following submissrons in lhe l. 'lhat the complainant purchased a pent house bearing no.

2 in tower'D'6 at Aloha, Gurgaon, Sector_s7 from the original allottee i.e., Mr.

Rajesh lAeran. ll. lhat the respondent is a company register.d with the registrar of compan,es under the Companies Act, 1956 and is involved in the *HARERA S-eunuennu business oi construction and development of residential and conlmercialprojects.

111. 'lhat on 31.08.2006, the original allottee was issued an allotment lettcr by the conipany allottrng a penthouse in ]'ower D_6, I'loor 16d,and lTdibearinC no -P-2 havinga super-area of62us sq.flt. lV. 'lhat the nat buyer's aercement was registered wrth the initrll allottee ofthe property on 31.08.2006 wherein the Basic Sale lrrice was Rs.2,20,83,250/ V. 'lhat in (erms of clause 10 of the Flat lluyer Agrcement th. r.spondcnt were lo hand over the posscssion ol the snid unit within 36 nronths lrom the date ol start of construction of thc towcr or from the execution ot this agreement.

The verbntim of thc said clause is mentioned below: ''the t.sse$ion of the said prchise: is Lkely ta be dehve.ett by the con|aqv to ttre atlotLu wxhih 36 nonths tan the date ol the *on of ttte LannruLtrur al the to*et in which the sod llot is locoted or lran the execution ol n s og.eeneht whichever is latet, subject to krce neosure .ircuhnonces ona on eeipt ol.onpkte poyment afthe bostc sole p.n. ohd othet.horyes.luc untt r.\oblc upb the lot.fDositnn o.cal1ing tothe po! ent plor upplieaht. t) Llv alhure 1h. contpany wauhl pa! penalt! to its Lustonet at lls 5 Pet stluutc fc.r pd tnonth fo. honding overthelot beloh. lot beloh.l the cannitka penotl os ttuLed hercn abave subjecr n Nn.tuol paynentofinstolnent afthe ollouee VL That subsequently, the origlnal allottee sold the said property to the conrplarnant on 26.1142017 lt is lu(h(Y bmittcd thrl! on 27.A4.2017, the respondent also confirmed the same by Issu'n8 a letter confirming the transfer of the ownership from the ori8inal allottee to the complainant.

VIL 'lhat vide agreenrcnt to sell. the complainant pnid thc cnti.c snle conrideration (o the initial allottee and be.ame the sole owncr ol thc said property.

That this Authority in complaint no.4031/2019 comblaintNo.

3163 of 2023 titl€d as Varun Gupta vs.

Enaar MGF Land Ltd held that in cases where subsequent allottee had stepped into the shoes of original allottee after the expiry of due date of handing over possession before the coming into force ofthe act, the subsequent allottee shall be entitled to delayed possession charges with effect ofthe date of entering into shoes oi original allottee-.." The respondent sent a last and nnal opportunity letter on 14.11.2019. c.

R€lief sought by the complainantl 'lhe complainant has sousht following relietlsl L Directthe respondent to paydelaved possession charges ll Dle.l lhe respondent lo handover phvsicJ) posseseon ofdr' unil and cxccute conveyancc deed h lavor oi the complainant' 'Ihe respondent failed to comply the ordcrs of the Authority dated 22 11.2023 and did not file reply rn the present compldint' Thus drc dciencc of the respondcnt was struck oft vide order dated 22 11'2023 and was proceeded ex'Parte.

Copies of all the relevant docum€nts have been filed and pla'ed oD record.'l he authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can be dccrdcd orl thc basis ofthes. uDdisputcd docunrents lurisdiction of the authority 'lhc Aulhoriiy obscrves that it has terntorial as well as subject nutter turisdiction to adjudicatc thc prescnt complaint lbr lhe rcasons Eiven *HARERA -&-.cunuennv I 5 n.drDLarnt No.:1163 of 2023 D.

D.

2023 D.

D.l Terrltoriallurisdicaion 8.

As per notification n o.

1/92/2O17'1TCP dated 1412'2017 issued bv Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana the jurisdiction of Ilaryana Real Estate Regulatory Authoritv, Curugram shall be entire ,+ .RER GURUGRAIV (iurugram district for aLl purposes.

In thc prcscnt case, lhc prolcd Ln question is srtuated within the planning area of Gurugram distnct. 'lherefore, tbis authority has complete territorial iurisdiction to deal \rith the present complaint.

D.tI subject-m.ttcriurisdiction 9.

S.crion 1i[4][a) oftheAct,20l6 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as pcr agreement for sale.

Section 11(4)(aJ is reproduced as hcrcunde.: seetion 11(4)(o) tlc rcsponnhte l;r ott abligations, respontbntue. and lnn.uans undet rhc ptorsons of this Act or Lhe tLl.t an.l rcsuhttons tnode the.eun.let at to the ollouees os per the o!.eement fat \ok, at r. thc osoctotian ofo o$ees, osthe case moy he, bll the .anvelohce olott the oparrnents, plots orbuitdings, asthc case nn! be, ta the allotteet atthe camn)an arcas ta the u\\ot\ rn1 ol ulbLLees at the cont pctent uuthoritr as rhe.ae nar be, 10 So, in vrcw ol the p.ovisions ofthe Act quoted above, thc Authorily has complele junsdiction to decide the cotuplaint regarding noD conrpliance olobligations by the promoter leaving as c compensrtion whlch is to bc dccided by the,rd)udrcating olficcr rr pursu.d l)y th. .onrplainants at a later stage. [. lindings on the reliefsought by th€ comPlainant li. l.Directtherespondetrttopaydelayed posscssioncharS€s.

I l.'lhc complainant, b€ing a subsequent allottee, trcqu'red th. unit Irorn lhc oriSiral allottee, Mr.

Raiesh J Aeran. lhe original allottee purchascd a duplex penthouse witb terrace and servant roo,n nunrbered 2 on Toivcr D 6, spanning the 16th and 17th floors, in the ]\lohr" projcc! locatcd at Scc(or 57, Gurugr!nl, lliryana, lor ! roL.rl s l. .onsnicration ot lts 2,20,U3,250.

20,U3,250.

A flat buyer's agrcement lvas cntcrcd into betwten the respondenl and the original allottc. on 31.0:J.200(r.

According to this agreement, the oriSinalallottcc m.td. rn C.m.laint No 3163 oI2023 HARERA GI]RUGRAI/ rnirial payment of Rs.

59,79,088, approximalely 27% oi the tot.l sal. consideration, at the time oi booking the penthouse. 'Ihe remaining payments were scheduled as pe.

Annexure_l of the agreement: Rs.

1,50,00,000 was to be paid within 45 days of booking, and Rs I I,0l.l02 wd: duc dr rhe l,m ololrcro[Por\e,\ron.

12.

As pcr clause 10 of the flat buyer's agreement, the respondent was obligated to deliver possession of the unit to the allottee within 36 nronths hom either the commencement date of const.uction of rh. lowcr or thc cxecution date olthe agrcemenl, whrchcvcr is later.

Srncc thc commeDcement date ofconstruction is unspecified, the due dar. is computed from the agreement execution dat(!, i.e, 36 months from 31.08.2006, resulting in 31.08.2009 as the due dat. of handing ovcr Posscssion of thc Penthouse. l3 Subsequently, the originalallottee sold the unit to thc complainani on 26.04-2}17and the transaction was confirmed by the rcspondcnt through a confirmation of ownertbip letler dated 27.04.2017. lhis l.ucr cxplicitly staled that there wererlo pending dues aganrt the unit at that time.

As per the endorsement letter dated27-a42017,th. respondent cndorsed the subiect unit in the favour of the complninant on thc payment of administrctive charges of Rs NIL.... and all othct pcnding dues, ot Rs.

NIL till dat€, by thc complainant io the respondent.

The relevant podon of the said endorsement lettcr is rcproduced below: aomoL,Lnr No.

3163 of 20?:l " the Atlotee of the unit NoP 2, oreo 6205 sqJeet ., on t5 & 16 laor tn .esidentiol conplPx colleA "Aloho', P 2, Tower'D'6, 16tr ond 176 Floar,Sectar s7, V lage-Tigro, tehsil ona Disttict Curgoon, Horvono do herebv tanskt /ussisn thk adwnce rcgisttotion lrcn M.

Raish I Aercn to sh. soniav cupto ./. cupto ./. t yoa Lhon AqoNdt P.,/o 8.,!?- Dev Nogdr 1'ant' Rood lotpLt.

UL Ko tt.

Landh Nooa,, looLr, Rota:tho4 to2015. ond t4" De\etopet ADIV ,aMMUNICITIONS PR|VATE t,tMlTtD tF1rnel! knofu os AEZ InLoLc.h HARERA GURUGRAIV romDla nrNo ll63otro23 Privdte Linired) herbe! endorses the soid oportnent in the noneolobove tatd A$tgnee/ltonsfetee oh the poynent of the adninistotive choryes ol Rs NtL ond ott oth.r pendins d@' oI Rt NtL (Rs. tL) ttt d e, b! the Asisnee/Transferee to th.

Devetaper.

14.

As per the payment plan annexed with the Flat Buyer Agreement dated 31.03.2006, the unit was purchased on "Down Payment Plan" and the complainant had to pay to the respondent in three stages The said paymentplan is reproduced below: Ptan (a) : DoM Palnent Ptan Atthe Ltme ol.eginntlan 27% - Rss9,79,41]tt/', Wnhn 45 dovs of reetstratbn 6a%'Rs L54,00,000/' At the tine ofaffet lor Posvston.0504'Rs.11,04,162/ IEmphasissupplicdl 15. lt is anrply clear from the perusal of th. payment plan that the payDr.nt !!ar to be released iD three jnstalnrents i.e.,:t the time ol registration, within 45 days of r€gistration and on the offer oi posscssion.

On the date olendorsement ofthe unil in the favour oI the complainant, it's becn clearly mcntioned in the cndorsemcnt lct(cr th.r! no outstanding dues are pending till the tinlc of the said endorsement i.e., 27.04.20U.

Thus, the complainant has paid I1s.2,09,79,088 to the respondent dll date 16. ln the present complaint, the €omplainant intends to continuewith the project and is seeking possession and delay possession charges along with interest on the amount paid.

Proviso to section 1a provides that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, inter€st for every month of delay, till the handing over ofpossession, at such rate as mav be prescribed and it hasbeen prescribed under rule 15 ofthe rules HARER I GURUGRAl\4 "sedion 1A: . dion 1A: .

Retum olonountohd conpentution 18{1) 1l the pronoter lals ta conPlete or k unohte ta give po$e$ian olon dpotttuent,plot, ot builtling, P.av ed thatwhcrc an ollottee does nat intend b wnhdlow frcn) Lhe prcje.ahe shall be puid,b! the prcnater,intetesLlotevct! anth aJ tleld!, till Lhe huhtlihg ovet ofthe pos.ssion at such.ate o\ ntuy be 17 Admissibility of delay possession charges at prescribed rate ot interestr The complainant is seeking delay posscssbn chargcs horlcver, proviso !o scction l8 provides that wherc an illott.c docs not inten(l !o withdrar! lrorn the protect, he shall b.

Paid, by (he promorcr, interest for every month of delay, till the haDding over oi possessjon, at such rate as may be prescribcd and it has bccn prcscribed underrule 15 ofth€ rules.

Rule 15 hasb.cn r.produccd,ls fco,"l,i",,,",:163 "r,oz:l ]H RuIe 1s, Prescrlbed mte ol interest' lPtoviso to section 12, section 18 ond sub-section (4) ond subsectton (7) ot section 191 11) Lar the pwPav aI ptovisa to secton 12; section 13; and suh' sdLbns La) ond (7) ol v.tion 19, the interesl ot ae rck rtrnibed thrll be ntr/dte Bankal tndn huhe\1nrutttr tl..n al lcndhlt rate +2%: ttortdetl thot nt cose the Stote tsonk ol tI)dia ntd4ttnul cost.l lendin! rote (MCLR) is not k use, it sholl be replace.l bv su.h benchnark lending rotes which the Stote Bank oJ hldia nta! ,{ fra tihe to tine [a. lehrlino ta the seneroI public. -lhe lcgislature in iis wrsdom in the subordinate legislalion undcr thc provision of rule 15 of the rulcs, has determined the prescribed rate ol intcrest. lhe rate ot interest so determiDed by the lcgislature, is reasonable and ifthe said rule is iollowed to awa.d the interest, it will rfsure unilbrn practice in all lhe cascs. llonscquently, as per website ol lhe Statc Eank ol lndia i.c. hu!s://sbi.eo.i!, the marsinal cost of lending mte [in short, NlCLR] as 20. 'lhe delinjtion or term 'interest' as deftned under section 2(zal of the Act provides that the rate of inte. e of inte.est chargeable from the allotlee by the promotcr, in casc ofdetault, shall bc cqual lo (Ic rnlc of int.rcst whi.h thc promoter shall be liable to pay lhe allottee, in case ol d.iauk.

The relevant section is reproduced below; ''(zol intercst' neans the rores afinte.est payoble b!

Lhe p,onotet at the olhnt.e, otthe case noy be 1"t:at ot,ar lo t\. pr.po.eaJthi.laL-p (i) the tuLe ol i,terest choryeoble fton the allattee by the ptonotet, n cdse of delouta shottbe equot to the tote olintercst whtch the ptohotcr sholl be hoble Lo po!theollattee, rl Luse ol.tulrrh, lr) the ntercn polabh by the pronotet to the allouee \hottbeJranl the,lo|e the prcholet received the dnountaran, Pottthc.eulttt the dote the onount ar port thercol and intetst thet@n ts refuntled, ond the interest poydble by the ollottee to the pt onoLet \holl be lran the dote the ollottee defuult! t1 Pdl,ttnt ta the prctnoter till the date it k Paidi' 21 lhcreforc, interest on the delay payments from the complainant shall bc charged at the prescribed rate i.c., 10.950/0 by the r.spondcnt/promoter which is the samc as is bcing granted lo Ur. .onrplainant in casc oldelayed possession charges.

22 On consideration ol the documents availablc on record and submissions made rc8arding contravention oi provisions ol thc A.t. lhcAuthority is satisncdthat thercspondcnt is in contravcntion oIllr. scclion 11[4]ta) of the Act by not handing ovcr possession by the due date ns per the flat buyer' agreement Due date of possession is a.h.lrinr No.:1163 of 20?3 is 8.95ol0.

Accordingly, the prescribed rate of cost oflending rate +2% i.e., 10.95%.

HARERA GURUGRA]\I on date i.e., 10.07.2024 interestwill be marginal comDlaint No.

3163 oi2023 mcntioned specifically in clause 10 of thc ag.eement datcd 31.08.2006 .

As per the said clause, the respondent was to handover the possession of the unit to the complainant within 36 months fronr the date of start oi conskuction of the tower in which lhe said flat is located or from the from the execution ofthe agreement whichever is later' The rgr.cnrent was cxccutcd on 31.08.2006, il we calculatc 36 mo.!hs tiom:r1.{1u.2006. it comes out to be 31.08.2009.

Therefore, the due d.rte of banding over possession is 31 08.2009.'l he resPondent has not offercd posscssbn ot lhc unit to the complainant till dltc lhc Prol.ct is not r.gistcred with the Authority and therc is no updatc rcgardinS the status olthe occupation certilicate.

23. 'lhe Authority has already taken a view in Varun Gupta Vs tmaar llGF Land Ltd.. that in cases wherc the complainant/subsequent rllouec h.rd purchased the unit aiter expiry ofthe dLte datc ofhandiDg ovcr possession, the authority is of the view thai the subsequcnl allottec cannot be expccted to wait lor any unccrtain length oftinrc lo t.rkc posscssron Ilven ch allottees ar€ waiting tor lheir pftrnis.d flals .rrd surcly,lhey would be enhtled to all the rcli.fs under $is Act. lr would no doubt be fair to assume that the subsequcnt allottee had knowledge oi delay, however, to attribute knowledge tbat such dclay nould continue indefinitely, based on prioriassumprion. would not h€ rusrific{1. 'lherefore, in lisht ol Laureate Buildwell judgment (supra)' lhc Authority holds that in cases where subsequcnt allottec had s(eppeil into the shocs oloriginal allotiee after the expiry ol due dnie ol h.rnding ovcr possessrcn and hefor. the conrinS inlo 1or.. of thc r\cl rh. subscquent allo(lee shall be entilled to dclayed l)osscssion chdrgcs !!.e.t. thc dnte of cntering into the shoes ol original allottec i0 : RER 25.

GURUGRAttl f c"'"r'i"' N"r163 "rt'zt nomination letter or date of endorsem€nt on the builder buyer's agrcement, whichever is earlier.

24.

Accordingly, the non-compliance ofthe mandate contaired in section 11(4)(a) read with proviso to section 18(1) of the Act on the pan ol the respondent is established. tablished.

As such the allottee, shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay from date of endorsement letter issued in favour of the complalnanri/e27 O4-2O17 till offer of possession plus two months or actual handovet after obtainins the occupation certificate from the competent autho.ities, whichever is earlier, as per section 18(1) ofthe Act of2016 read with n,lP 15 dfthe rules.

E.ll.

Direct the respondent to handover possession ofthc unit io rhe complalnant after obtalning the occupation certificate and execute conv€yance deed.

As per section 11(a)[0 and section 17(1) oa the Act of 2016, the promoter is under an obligation to get the conveyance dced execulcd rn hvo(r of thc complainant.

Whereas as per sectiorr 19(111 oithe Ac! ol 2016, the allottee is aho obligated to parlicipate towards registration of the conveyance deed of the unit in qucstion.

Howevcr, lhcrc is nolhing on the record to show lhat the resPonder)t bas applicd lbr o.cupation certiiicate o. what is thc stalus of thc dcvelopNent oi thc above-mentioned project.

Itence, the respondent is directed to deliver the possession on payment of outstanding dues if any and to cxecutc the sale deed in favour of the complainant on paym.nl oi stanrp dury .rnd registration charges within 60 days :ftcr obtaLninB occupanon certificate from the competent authority HARERA Gi]RI]GRAI\,4 H.

Directtons of the authorlty 11.

Hence, theAuthority hereby passes this order ard issues the following directions under section 37 ol the Act to ensure complianc€ of ohligations cast upon the promoter as per the function cntrusted to !he authority under section 34(0: i.

The respondent is directed to pay interest for every month of delay lrom date ol endorsement letter issued in favour of thc conrplainant i/e 27.04.20L7 ti,ll offer oi possesshn plus two nronths or a.tual handover whichever is earher, ailer obtaining the occupation certificate from thc compelent il. lhc . il. lhc .rrears of ch intercst accrued iiom 27 0'1 2017 till thr datc olorder by the Authority shallbe pald by thc promoter to the allottee within a period of 90 days from date ot this order aDd interest for every month of delay shall bc paid bv the promoter to the allottee before 1oth olthe subscqucnt month rs per rulc 16[2) ofthe rules. rir. 'lhe respondent is directed to deliver the possession on payment ol outstanding dues if any and to exccute the sal. dccd in tavour of the complainant on payment oi stamp \-lrtv and registrahon charges within 60 davs after obtaining occupation certificate lrom the competent authority. iv lhe complainant is directed to pay outstaDding dues, 'f anv, alicr rdiustmcnt oI intercst for the delayed period v 'lhc rate ol interest chargeable irom the auottees/conrplainant by the promoter, in case of deiauk shall be charged at thc prescribed rate i.e.,10.95% by the respo ndent/pro moter {'h ich Com.laini No 3163 of2023 't2.

13.

A p the same rate of interest which the promoters shall be li pay the allottees, in case of deiault ie., the ssession charges as per section z(za) ofthe Act. he respondeDt shall not charge anything from mplainantwhich is notthe partolthe agreement olsalc t stands disposed ol nsigned to registry.

H C ARERA R,A.l ComDlaint No.3163 ot20 (^sh thority, Cu Datedr10.07.2024