DEEP CHAND AND OTHERS vs VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP
Party Details
- DEEP CHAND AND OTHERS
- VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP
Case Summary
DEEP CHAND AND OTHERS filed Case No. RERA-GRG-5364-2022 in the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP. The case has undergone 7 hearings over 1 year and 5 months. The case is currently pending. 11 orders have been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (7)
- 15MAY 2024Hearing
Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN
Proceedings-cum-order 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant/allottee under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short, the Act) read with Rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (in short, the Rules) for violation of Section 11(4)(a) of the Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provision of the Act or the Rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale executed inter se. Unit and Project related details- S.No. Particulars Details 1. Name and location of the project 83 Avenue, Sector 83, Gurugram. 2. Nature of the project Commercial 3. DTCP license no. 12 of 2013 dated 15.03.2013 4. RERA Registered/ not registered Lapsed project Registered vide registration no. 310/42/2019 dated 16.01.2019 valid upto 30.09.2020 5. Unit no. Virtual space on 2nd floor 6. Unit admeasuring area 250 Sq. Ft. 7. Date of MOU 15.07.2014 (Page no. 9 of complaint) 8. Due date of possession 15.07.2017 (Deemed to be 3 years from the date of execution of MOU) 9. Assured return Article 3. “Till the notice of offer of possession is issued, the developer shall pay to the allottee an assured return at rate of Rs. 80/- per sq. ft. per month of super area of premises per month. After completion of construction, till tenant is inducted possession is delivered to tenant and lease commences and rental is received by the allottee from the allottee, the developer shall pay to the allottee an assured return @ Rs. 66.65/- per sq. ft. per month of super area of premises per month. For a period of 3 years.” (Page no. 15 of complaint) 10. Total sale consideration (BSP) 15,00,000/- (Page no. 13 of complaint) 11. Total amount paid by the complainant 15,55,620/- (Page no. 14 of complaint) 12. Occupation certificate Not obtained 13. Offer of possession Not offered 14. Date of final judgement in previous complaint no. 174/2018 – Relief of Refund, assured returns and possession(in alternative) being sought 27.11.2018 (Direction to complainant to approach the appropriate forum as Authority had no jurisdiction to deal with relief of assured returns with a direction to the respondent to complete construction as per MOU being executed between the parties and fulfil its committed liability) (Page no. 26 of complaint) Relief sought by the complainant – Direct the respondent to refund entire paid-up amount along with prescribed rate of interest. 2. An application dated 29.03.2023 has been filed by the respondent challenging the maintainability of present complaint on the ground of res judicata wherein it is alleged by the respondent that it is an admitted fact by the complainants that a complaint bearing no. CR/174/2018 had been previously filed by the complainant before this Authority seeking the relief of refund, assured return and possession (in alternative to refund). It is stated that the Authority vide its order dated 27.11.2018 directed the respondent/builder to complete the construction work within the time frame as per MOU and fulfil his committed liability. It is further stated that withdrawing from the project and continuing in the project are two distinct reliefs and after direction for completion of the project was made in the previous case, under no circumstance can refund be sought in the present complaint. Also, the order dated 27.11.2018 was not a conditional order giving liberty to the complainant to seek refund. Therefore, it is pleaded by the respondent that no cause of action whatsoever persists in favor of the complainant to file the present case. 3. A reply to the said application has been filed by the complainant dated 18.07.2023 wherein it is stated by the complainant that the issue raised in the previous complaint was to recover the assured return amount from the respondent but the issue in the present complaint is to get refund of the entire sale consideration amount along with interest from the respondent. It is further stated that both the complaints have been filed with a different cause of action and moreover in previous complaint, the Authority had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant had waited for 5 long years to get the delivery of the said unit but the respondent had not fulfilled its committed liability as per MOU and did not comply with the order of this Authority. Therefore, the application filed by the respondent is liable to be dismissed and present complaint should be proceeded further in the interest of justice. 4. Issue involved- Whether the present complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable or not? On 10.04.2024, the arguments of both the parties were heard and order was reserved on the point of maintainability. thereafter, the matter was listed on 15.05.2024 for pronouncement of order on maintainability. 5. Findings of the Authority- After going through the written as well as verbal submissions of both the parties, the Authority observes that a complaint vide CR No. 174 of 2018 had earlier been filed between the same parties and the relief sought in the complaint was as under- i. Amount paid for 150 sq. ft. virtual space, i.e., Rs.15,55,620/- ii. Assured return amount from January 17 to 15.07.2017 @ Rs.10,000/- for each month amounting to Rs,1,30,000/-. iii. TDS not deposited to IT department for financial year 2016-17, i.e., Rs.18,000/- iv. Interest @ 12% for 16 days for the month of July, 2017, i.e., Rs.9,086/-. v. Interest @ 12% from August 2017 to March 2018, i.e., Rs.1,36,920/-. vi. Rs. 11,06,172/- due to the petitioner as on March 31, 2018. OR vii. To provide possession of the said unit having super area of 250 sq. ft. in the said complex to the complainants and a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony, harassment and loss suffered. Also to award the costs. 6. The operating part of the order passed by the Authority on 27.11.2018 is as under: “18. The complainant entered into an assured return scheme + plan for prospective owning of the area (not specified in MOU). However, no specific date for grant of possession has been placed on record, it is only MOU which cannot be treated to be a contractual agreement between the parties. 19. As already decided by the Authority in complaint no. 141 of 2018 titled as Brhimjeet versus M/s Landmark Apartments Pvt. Ltd. no case is made out by the complainant. Counsel for respondent has placed on record a Supreme Court judgment dated 25.7.1997 vide which he has pleaded the doctrine of precedent. Since the authority has taken a view much earlier as stated above, the authority cannot go beyond the view already taken. 20. In such type of assured return schemes, the authority has no jurisdiction, as such the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum to seek remedy. ……………………………. . i. At the instance of the complainant, a direction is issued to the respondent/builder to complete the construction work within the time framed as per MOU and fulfil his committed liability. 22. The order is pronounced. 23. Case file be consigned to the registry.” 7. The Authority observes that a detailed order on merits has already been passed on 27.11.2018 between the same parties on same subject matter litigating under same title after considering facts of the case. Further, the relief of refund was already pressed by the complainant in the former case. While deciding the former complaint case no. 174 of 2018, the Authority gave liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances. In case the complainant was dissatisfied with the order of the Authority, he was free to file an appeal against the said order before the appropriate forum. 8. The Authority is of the view that it cannot re-examine a case that has already been conclusively decided by the same forum, involving the same parties, subject matter, and under the same title. The Authority lacks the jurisdiction to review its own order as the matter in issue between the same parties has been heard and finally decided by this Authority in the former complaint case no. 174 of 2018. No doubt, one of the purposes behind the enactment of the Act was to protect the interest of consumers. However, this cannot be fetched to an extent that basic principles of jurisprudence are to be ignored. 9. It is also observed that a subsequent complaint on same cause of action is barred by the principle of res-judicata as provided under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Section 11 CPC is reproduced as under for ready reference: “11. Res judicata.—No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. ………………………………..” (Emphasis supplied) 10. Although the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) are, strictly not applicable to the proceedings under the Act, save and except certain provisions of the CPC, which have been specifically incorporated in the Act, yet the principles provided therein are the important guiding factors and the authority being bound by the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience has to consider and adopt such established principles of CPC as may be necessary for it to do complete justice. Moreover, there is no bar in applying provisions of CPC to the proceedings under the act if such provision is based upon justice, equity and good conscience. Thus, in view of the factual as well as legal provisions, the present complaint stands dismissed being not maintainable. File be consigned to the registry.
Stage: DISMISSED
- 10APR 2024Hearing
Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN
The present complaint was filed on 22.08.2022 and the reply on behalf of respondent was received on 26.12.2023. The respondent has challenge the maintainability of the complaint on the grounds of res judicata stating that the matter was earlier decided by this Authority in CR No.174/2018. Reply has been statedly submitted by the complainant. However, the same is not available on record. The complainant is directed to file a copy of reply in the registry within a week and also provide the same to the respondent. Arguments heard. Order reserved on the point of maintainability. Matter to come up on 15.05.2024 for pronouncement of order on maintainability.
Stage: RESERVED
- 3JAN 2024Hearing
Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN
The present complaint was filed on 22.08.2022 and the reply on behalf of respondent was received on 26.12.2023. Matter to come up on 10.04.2024 for further proceedings.
Stage: PENDING
Orders (11)
- 15MAY 2024orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 15MAY 2024judgementView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 10APR 2024orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗
ffiHARERi:\ ffi, GURUGRAM HARYANA REAT ESTATE REGUTAIORY AUIHORITY GURUGRAM ERqruTr T-riq{r frftqrro v1ftqan, UFTrq New PWD Rest House, Civil Lines, Gurugram, Haryana aur fr.r"eq.fr. frsrfl frfta n6s PROCEEDINGS OF THE DAY Day and Date Wednesday and 15.05.2024 Complaint No.
CR/5364/2022 Case titled as VS Venetian Ldf Projects Llp Deep Chand Complainant Deep Chand Represented through Shri Akash Gupta Advocate Respondent Venetian Ldf Projects Llp Respondent Ilepresented through Ms.
Tanya Advocate Last date of hearing Proceeding Recorded by Naresh Kumari and HR Mehta Procee$ings-cum-order 1.
The present complaint has be(n filed by the complainant/allottee under Section 31 of the Real Estate (fegulation and Development) Act, 201,6 (in short, the Act) read with Rule 2$ of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 20L7 (in short, the Rules) for violation of Section 11t )ta) of the Act wherein it is inter alic prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligatio{rs, responsibilities and functions under the provision of the Act or the Rule$ and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per the agreement fQr sale executed inter se.
Unit and Pro t related details- Particulars Details Nzrme and location of the B3 Avenue, Sector 83, Gurugram. iect Nerture of the prc ect Commercial DTCP license no.
1.2 of 2013 dated 15.03.2013 =--l -t no.
I alid I RIiRA Registered/ not registered Unit no.
Lapsed proiect Registered vide 31.0/42/201,9 dated upto 30.09.2020 Virtual space on 2nd floor registration 16.01.2019 v 1.0.04.2024 @ndersection20tltreRealEstate(RegulationandDevelopment)Act,2016 - ryira (Efrara rt{ ffi 3IfuJfr{{, 2016*l qro 20t'rf,Td aftra clfufi-(Ur HAREBE GURUGRAM EfuqlurT T-Hq-fl tltBo-{ut, {FTIq HARYANA REAT ESTATE REGUTATORY AUTHORITY GURUGRAM New PWD Rest House, Civil Lines, G u8ram, Haryana b.
Unit admeasuring area _ ffi 7.
Date of MOU 1,5,07.201.4 fPage no.
9 of complaint) B.
Due date of possession 1,5.07. on 1,5.07.201,7 [Deemed to be 3 years from the date of execution of MOU) 9.
Assured return Article 3. "Till the notice of offer of possession is issued, the developer shall pay to the allottee an assured return at rate of Rs, 80/- per sq. ft. per month of super area of premises per month.
After completion of construction, till tenant is inducted possession is delivered to tenant and lease commences and rental is received by the allottee from the allottee, the developer shall pay to the allottee an assured return @ Rs.
66,65/- per sq. ft. per month of super area of prernises per month.
For a period of 3 years." fPage no.
15 of complaint') 10.
Total sale consideratioh rBSPI 15,00,000/- fPage no.
13 of complaint) 1-1..
Total amount paid by the complainant 15,55,620 /- fPage no.14 of complaint) 1.2.
0c:cupati on certifi cate Not obtained 13.
Offer of possession Not offered 14.
Date of final iudgement in previous complaint no.174/ZOLB - Relief of Refund, assured returns and possession[in alternative) being sought 27,LL.20L9 (Direction to complainant to approach the appropriate forum as Authority had no jurisdiction to deal with relief of assured returns with a direction to the respondent to complete construction as per MOU being executed between the parties and fulfil its committed liability) fPaee no.26 of complaint] Relief sought by the complainant - Direct the respondent to refund entire paid-up amount along with prescribed rate of interest.
An Authority constituted under section 20 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 r1-iva 1Bfr<zra ritr furrs) m'har, 2010f,r qm zot r*rrc rrera qrfufirr rqr fr.ceF{.S.
B,;ET frO fuB-a a€s {tr;ra 6tgorun HARER,E HARYANA REAt ESTATE REGUTATORY AUTHORITY GURUGRAM GURUGRAM ERqrqT T-mu-<r New PWD Rest House, Civil Lines, Gurugram, Haryl1l___aqr j.gcF{. qr j.gcF{.q Eanq'rr6 Rf{fi app y-the-TeSpondent challenging the maintainability of present complaini on the ground of res iudicata wherein it is alleged by the respondent that it is an admitted fact by the complainants that a complaint bearing no.
CR/lT4/ZOIB had been previously filed by the complainant before this Authority seeking the relief of refund, assured return and possession (in alternative to refund), It is stated that the Authority vide its order dated 27.1.I.20I8 directed the respondent/builder to complete the construction work within the time frame as per MOU and fulfil his committed liability.
It is further stated rhar withdrawing from the project and continuing in the project are two distinct reliefs and after direction for completion of the project was made in the previous case, under no circumstance can refund be sought in the present complaint.
Also, the order dated 27.11.2018 was not a conditional order giving liberty to the complainant to seek refund.
Therefore, it is pleaded by the respondent that no cause of action whatsoever persists in favor of the complainant to file the present case.
A reply to the said application has been filed by the complainant dated L8.07.2023 wherein it is stated by the complainant that the issue raised in the previous complaint was to recover the assured return amount from the respondent but the issue in the pfesent complaint is to get refund of the entire sale consideration amount along with interest from the respondent.
It is further stated that both the complaints have been filed with a different cause of action and moreover in pfevious complaint, the Authority had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sonrght by the complainant.
It is further stated that the complainant had waited for 5 long years to get the delivery of the said unit but the respondent had not fulfilled its committed liability as per M0U and did not comply with the ordef of this Authority.
Authority.
Therefore, the application filed by the respondent is liable to be dismissed and present complaint should be proceeded further in the interest of justice.
4.
Issue involved- Whether the present complaint filed is maintainable or not?
0n 10,04.2024, the arguntents of both the parties were reserved on the point of rnaintainability. thereafter, the by the complainant heard and order was matter was listed on 15.05.2024 for pronouncement o[ order on maintainability.
5.
Findings of the Authority- After going through the written as well as verbal I submissions of both the parties, the Authority observes that a complaint vide An Authority constituted under section 20 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 q-,frcr 1frB-ara 3if{ EFrO rfuftrq, 2016f,r qrr 20* rr+rra zrf6-d crn-m'{ur New PWD Rest House, Civil Lines, Gurugram, Haryana ffiHARERA ffi-GURGRntv relief sought in the complaint was as under- Amount paid for 150 sq. ft. virtual space, i.e., Rs.15 ,55,620 /- Assured return amount from January IT to LS.\T.ZO|T @ Rs.10,000 /- for each month amounting to Rs,1,30,000/-. iii.
TDS not deposited to IT department for financial year 201.6-1.7, i,e., Rs.18,000/- iv.
Interest @ L20/o for 16 days for the month of f uly, 201.7, i.e,, Rs.9,086/-.
Interest @ \20/o from August 201,7 to March 2018, i.e., Rs,1,36,920 /-.
Rs, 11,06,1,72/- due to the petitioner as on March 31,201,8.
OR To provide possession of the said unit having super area of 250 sq. ft. in the said complex to the complainants and a cornpensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony, harassment and loss suffered.
Also to award the costs.
6.
The operating part of the order passed by the Authority on27.1.1.2018 is as under: "L8.
The complainont entered into an assured return scheme + plan for prospective owning of the area (not specified in M)U). d in M)U).
However, no specific date for grant of possessron hqs been placed on record, it is only M)Ll which cannot be treated to be a contractual agreement between the parties.
L9.
As ai'ready decided b.y the Authority in complaint no, 141 of 2018 titled as Brhimjeetversus M/s LandmarkApartments Pvt.
Ltd. no case is made out by the complainant.
Counsel for respondent has placed on record a Supreme Court judgment dated 25.7.L997 vide which he has pleaded the doctrine of precedent.
Since the authority has taken a view much earlier as stated obove, the authority cannot go beyond the view already taken.
20, ln such type of ossured return schemes, the authority has no jurisdiction, as such the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum to serck remedy. i. ii.
HARYANA REAI ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY GURUGRAM ao eanler same pa es and the issued to the within the time V. vi. vii. , i, At the instance of the colnplainant, a direction is respondent/builder to comp\ete the construction work framed as per MOU and fulfil his committed liability.
An Authority constituted under section 20 tho Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20 16 r1-dra (Ffrora 3if{ fr6rs) rrfrftnr, 2016f,I qro 20t'3rf,rrd zlfud clfuoTur EfrqrurT T-Tirrqr HARYANA REAT ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY GURUGRAM ERqrql T-mrer New PWD Rest House, Civil Lines, Gurugram, Haryana drfs .
I ne orcler 6 pronou 23.
Case file be consigned to the registry." 7.
The Authority observes that a detailed order on merits has already been passed on 27.1,1,.201,8 between the same parties on same subject matter litigating under same titler after considering facts of the case.
Further, the relief of refund was already pressed by the complainant in the former case, While deciding the former complaint case no.
1.7 4 of 20L8, the Authority gave liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances. rievances.
In case the complainant was dissatisfied with the order of the Authority, he was free to file an appeal against the said order before the appropriate forum.
B.
The Authority is of the view tha it cannot re-examine a case that has already e same forum, involving the same parties, been conclusively decided by subject matter, and under the r to review its own order as the title.
The Authority lacks the jurisdiction tter in issue between the same parties has been heard and finally decided b this Authority in the former complaint case no.
17 4 of 2018.
No doullt, one Act was to protect the interest o f the purposes behind the enactment of the to an extent that basic principl consumers.
However, this cannot be fetched of jurisprudence are to be ignored. ffiHARERA ffi olnuoRnrvt 9.
It is also observed that barred by the principle Code of Civil Procedure, for ready reference: Jq* 1.O il su uent complaint on rrf res-j 1e0B I icata as provided same cause of action is under Section 11 of the is reproduced as under PC).
Section 11 CPC "77.
Res judicata.-No Court ll try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in rssu has been directly and substantially in issue e parties, or between parties under whom in a former suit between the sa they or any of them claim, It' ting under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subseq t suit or the suit in which such issue has s been heard and finally decided by such been subsequently raisetd, and Court. (Emphosis supplied) 0.
Although the provisions of the e of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) are, strictly not applicable to the proceedi under the Act, save and except certain provisions of the CPC, which ha been specifically incorporated in the Act, yet An Authority constituted under section 20 Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 q-rro 1frhvra 3rt{ fu+.
3rt{ fu+.rq) , 2o16fl qr{r 2o+'rd-rrd ?rftrd clfufi-{sl 6tlqmT ffiHARERE ffieunuenAM New PWD Rest House, Civil Lines, Gurugram, An Authority constituted under section 20 HARYA REAI ESTATE REGUI.ATORY AUTHORITY GUR 6Rq[UIT xFTrq are the rmportant guidin$ nciples of natural justice, equity and good dopt such established principles of CPC as plete justice.
Moreover, there is no bar in proceedings under the act if such provision conscience.
Thus, in view of the factual nt complaint stands dismissed being not e principles p authority being bound by the p conscience has to consider and may be necessary for it to do applying provisions of CPC to th is based upon justice, equity and as well as legal provisions, the p maintainable.
File be consigned r1.dro 1frBvra 3it{ funrq) le (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 qm 2ot'llC?rd ?rfud crfu6''{ur Rfrd dd.F and the Ashbk M 1