ARCHANA GAUTAM AND ADESH KUMAR vs AGRANTE REALTY LTD

HARERTt GURUGRAI/ Complaint No.

471 of 2024, 472 of 2024 & 474 of 2024 THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORYAUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Date of Decision: 09.05.202 5 CORAM: Shri Arun Kumar Chairman ORDER 1.

This order shall dispose ofallthe complaints titled as above filed before the authority under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development] Act,2016 (hereinafter referred as "the Acf'l read with rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred as "the rules") for violation of section 11(a) (a) of the NAME OF THF] AUILDER M/s Agrante R(:ality Limited PROIECT NAME "Kavyam" s.

No.

Case No.

Case title APPEARANCE l. cR/477 /2024 Mr.

Yogender Punia v/s M/s Agrante Reality Privare Limited.

Shri.

Sunil Kumar Advocate Ms.

Ankur Berry Advocate (R 1) Shri.

Mayank Advocate (R2) 2. cR/ 47 2 /2024 Mr. lisrasa Nayak V/S M/s Agrante Reality Private Limited. & HDFC Limited Shri.

Ankur Berry Advocate (R1) Shri.

N4ayank Advocate (R2) 3. cR/ 47 4 /2024 Mr.

Archana Gautam v/s M/s Agrante Reality Private Limited. & HDFC Limited Shri.

Ankur Berry Advocate IR1) Shri.

Mayank Advocate (R2) Page 1 ol19 t ______r * HARER., #*eunuennHl Complaint No.

471 of 2024, 472 of 2024 & 474 of 2024 Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all its obligations, responsibilities and functions to the allottee as per the agreement for sale executed inter se between parties.

2.

The core issues emanating from them are similar in nature and the complainant(s) in the above referred matters are allottees of the project, namely, " Kavyam" being developed by the same respondent/promoter i.e., M/s Agrante Reality Limited.

The terms and conditions of the Buyer's Agreement against the allotment of units in the project of the respondent/builder and fulcrum of the issues involved in all the cases pertains to failure on the part of the promoter to deliver timely possession ofthe ion ofthe units in question and certain other issues.

3.

The details of the complaints, reply to statlrs, unit no., date of agreement, possession clause, due date of possession, total sale consideration, total paid amount, and relief sought are given in the table below: Proiect Name and Location Agrante Reality Limited. at "Kavyam" Gurugram.

Occupation Certificate; - Not obtained Buildi lan approval: 06.07.201.8 Environment clearancel 20.08.2019 Possession Clause: - Clause 5(iii)(b) of the Alfordable Housing Policy, 2013 "All such projects sholl be required to be necessarily completed within 4 years from the date oI approval oI building plons or grant of environmentql clearance, whichever is loter.

This date sholl be rcferred to as the "dote of commencenent of project" for the purpose of the policy" , Sectors 10 Complaint No., Case Titte, and Date offiling ofcomplaint Status Unit No. and Date of builderbuyer agreement PaEe 2 of 79 Sr, of I Total amount paid sale and HARERA GURUGI?AI/ E"rplrir, t{".,4?1 "f ,0tl | +zz or zoz+ a qz+ or zozq I 7. cR/471./ 2024 Yogender Punia V/S M/s Agrante Realty Limited & HDFC Limited DOF: 29.02.2024 Replyl 22.07.2024 20.09.2024 A TA4-304, Floor-3rd, Tower-A4 Area: 512,50 sq. ft.

26.07.2027 TPA: 1,3.08.2027 Demand Lettersi 05.'12.2022, 26.07.2023, 08.08.2023, 02.09.2023 24.17.2023 Cancellatio 20.02.2024 INote: - calculated 4 years from the date of Environmen talclearance i.e 20.08.2079) TSC: - Rs.21,00,000/.

AP: - Rs.

15,90,750l- , cR/472/ 2024 ligyasa Nayak v/s M/s Agrante Realty Limited & HDFC Lim ited DOF: 29.02.2024 Reply: 22.07.2024 20.09.2024 TA2- 101, Floor-1st 29.10.2021 TPAI 04.02.2022 18.7r.2023 Publication in newspaper: 24.71.2023 3, 20.02.2024 (Note: - calculated 4 years from the date of Environmen tal clearance i.e 2 0.08.2019) TSC: - Rs.21,00,000/- AP: - Rs.

16,35 ,822 / - Page 3 of 19 Publication in TA4-104, Floor-1st, Tower-44 Area: 512.50 sq. ft. t6.09.202!

TPAI 22.09.2021 Demand Letters: 29.07.2023, 28.07.2023, 08. .2023, 08.08.2023, 02.09.2023 Cancellatio n Letteri 30.70.2023 ,'::L Publication 24.11.2023 20.02.2024 (Note: - calculated 4 years from the date of Enyironmen talclearance i.e 20.08.2019) Abbreviation DOF TPA TSC AP *HARER #-euRuennt',r Complaint No.

471 of 2024, 472 of 2024 & 474 of 2024 TSC: - Rs.21,00,000/- AP: - Rs, 15,95,965/- cR/474/ 2024 Archana Gautam & Adesh Kumar v/s M/s Agrante Realty Limited & HDFC Limited DOF 29.02.2024 Reply: 22.07.2024 os.07.202r The complainants in the above complaints have soughithi fo owffieliefs, - 1.

Revoke the cancellation letter and resume the allotted unit in the favour of the complainants.

Direct the respondent to pay Delayed Possession Interest, if any, complainants and against the respondent.

Direct the respondent to make a legalLy valid offer of possession complainants after taking the necessary approvals from authorities.

Direct the respondent to not charge anything else from the complainants whjch is not part of the BBA. in favour of the in favour of the the concerned Note: In the table referred a are elaborated as follows: , certain abbreviations have been used.

They Full form Date of filing complaint Tripartite Agreement Total Sale consideration Amount paid by the allottee 4.

It has been decided to treat the said complaints as an application for non- compliance ofstatutory obligations on the part of the promoter/ respondent in terms of section 34(! of the Act which mandates the authority to ensure Page 4 of 19 HARERi W" GURUGRAM Complaint No.

471 of 2024, 472 of 2024 &474 of 2024 compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottee(s) and the real estate agents under the Act, the rules and the regulations made thereunder.

5 The facts of all the above mentioned complaints liled by the complainant(s]/allottee[sJ are also similar. o similar.

Out of the above_mentionecl case, the particulars of lead case CR/471/2024 titled as yogender punia V/5 M/s Agrante Realty Limited & HDFC Limited are being taken inro consideration for determining the rights of the allottee(s) qua delayed possession charges.

A.

Unit and proiect related details 6.

The particulars of the project, the details of sale consideration, the amount paid by the complainants, date ofproposed handing over the possession and delay period, if any, have been detailed in the following tabular form: S.

N, Particulars Details 1.

Name of the project "Kavyam", Sector- 108, Curugram 2.

Nature of proiect Affordable group housing 3.

RERA registered/not registered Registered vide registration no.23 of 20 1 8 dated 22.\ 1..20 1,8 Validity status 31.11.2022 registered area 5 acres 4.

DTPC License no.

707 0f 201.7 dated 30.11.2017 Validity status 29.77.2022 Name of licensee Arvinder Singh & others Licensed area 5 acres 5.

Unit no.

TA4-304, in Tower 44, 3.d floor [page 36 of complaint] Page 5 of 19 * HARER.., #- eunuennvr Complaint No.

471 of 2024, 472 of 2024 & 474 of 2024 6.

Unit area admeasuring 512.50 lq. ft. (carpet areaJ riO.:o {0. rt.

Balcony area Ipage 3( of complaint] 7.

Provisional Allotment 2s.06.2d21 [page 3{ of complaint] B, Agreement to sale 26.07.2027 (page no.38 of complaint) 9.

Building plan approved on 06.07.2018 [as per data available at DTCP official websitel 10.

Environment clearance 20.08.20L9 fas per data (A-H) available in the website of the authority] 11.

Date of start of construction Not available 72.

Tripartite agreement '13.08.2021 (page no.

70 of complaint) 13.

Possession clause 7.

Possession ofthe apartment 7.1 Schedule for possession of the said apartment The Promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery ofpossession ofthe Apartment is the essence of the Agreement.

Agreement.

The Promoter, based on the approved plans and specifications, assures to hand over possession of the Apartment within 4 years from the start of construction, unless there is delay or failure due to Court Order, Government Policy/guidelines, decisions, war, &od,...........

74.

Possession clause as per Affordable Housing Policy, 2073 1 (iv) All such projects shall be required to be necessarily completed within 4 years Irom the date of approval of buildins Page 6 of 19 * HARER,: s*eunuennnr Complaint No.

471 of 2024, 472 ot 2024 & 474 of 2024 plans or grant of environmental clearance, whichever rls loter.

This date shall be referred to as the "date of commencement of project" for the purpose of the policy.

15.

Due date of possession 20.02.2024 [Calculated as 4 years from date of environmental clearance i.e., 20.08.2019 as the same is later + 6 months as per HARERA notification no.

9 /3-2020 dated 26.05.2020 for the projects having completion date on or after 25.03.20201 L6.

Total sale consideration Rs.21,00[000/- IPage lSlofcomplaint] 17.

Amount paid by the complainants Rs.15,90,750/- [As per demand letter dated 02.09.202 3 at pg.

17 of replyl 18.

Demand letters 05.12.2022, 26.07.2023, 08.08.2023, 02.09.2023 79.

Cancellation letter 3 0.10.2 02 3 [page 24 of reply] 20.

Publication in newspaper 24.71.2023 [page no.

25 of reply] 2L.

Occupation certificate Not obtained 22.

Offer of possession Not offered B.

Facts ofthe complaint: 7.

The complainants made the following submissions in the complaint.

I.

That the complainants booked a unit no.

TA4-304 for allotment of a residential apartment in the affordable housing project of the respondent Page 7 of 19 * HARER, S-eunuennnr Complaint No.

471 of 2024, 472 of 2024 &474 of 2024 II. called "Kavyam, situated at Sector 10!, Gurugram, Haryana and a provisional allotment letter d ated ZS.OO.ZdZtwas issued in favour ofthe complainants.

As per the allotment t"tt".,ltn" total sale consideration of the unit was Rs. it was Rs.21,00,000/-.

The total amount paid by the complainants till date is Rs.15,90,750/-.

That for the balance payment, the complainants applied for a housing loan and accordingly the respondent arranged the loan from their end by introducing complainants with the bank officials i.e.

Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC) and a tripartite agreement was signed on 13.0A.2021.

That the complainants completed all the formalities for availing housing loan as per the requirements o?

HDFC Limited.

As per the agreement, the bank, had to pay the amount as per the payment schedule i.e. completion of the towers as well as the entire project.

Vlde an e-m ail dated 1,S.I2.2OZZ the complainants were informed that the payments were rejected by the respondent no.

2 by giving reason that RERA Certification/Registration of said project has expired.

Further, the complainants wrote an email regarding denying of paymenr by the respondent no.

2 in favour of respondent no.

1 and asked the reason for stopping the payment by respondent no.2 and requested to respondent no.

1 to share the RERA Registration/Extension Certification but respondent no.

1 did not respond to the said email and once again raised demand letter.

Due to this, respondent no.2 didn,t release payment in favour of respondent no.

1.

That the respondent no.

2 used to release the part payments as per the agreement/payment plan to respondent no.

1, but it is revealed by respondent no.

2 that the respondent no.

1 did not construct the project as III, IV.

Page I of19 Complaint No.

471 of 2024, 47 2 of 2024 & 47 4 ot 2024 per the plans approved by the competent {uthority and respondent no.

1 also took further approval from the {uthority for construction of additional towers in the project along with high rise building.

VI.

That, when it came into notice of the respondent no. ondent no.

2 that due to above mentioned delay in the construction as well as the expiration of RERA registration of the said project and non-extension of the registration thc respondent no.2, stopped making payments to respondent no.

1 against the home loan availed by the complainants.

VII.

That non-payment/release ofpayments on time was by respondent no.

2 to respondent no.

L and the complainants had no role in same, whereas the complainants used to pay the interest to respondent no.

2 from time to time.

VIII.

That that respondent no.1 issued a demand letter and p re-cancellatio n notice 05.12.2023, further arbitrary termination followed by reminder lerter vide dated 02.11,.2023 wherein he has demanded Rs.4,76,798/_ including delayed interest by referring the payment of Rs.15,90,750/- already received to him. lX.

That a letter for "Permission to Mortgage" was issued by respondent no.

1 to in favour of respondent no.

2 in which respondent no.

1 mentioned and agreed that the total sale consideration is Rs.21,00,000/-.

X.

That after receiving of above letter dated OS.12.ZOZ3, the complainants immediately contacted officials of respondent no.2 for release of the payment but they refused to do so on the ground of ,Kavyam,, recelving notices from the Authority on the complaints made by several allottees and RERA Registration has expired. lt was also apprised to the complainants that they have stopped making payments due to non- completion of the project by respondent no.1.

The complainants had also *HARER' $h eunuennnr Pase 9 of19 mHARER^ HS" eunuennt,,t Complaint No.

471 of 2024, 472 of 2024 &474 of 2024 apprised about same to respondent no.

1 but respondent no.

1 instead of approaching HDFC Limited, extended threats for cancellation of units on account of non-payment of balance.

Xl.

That the complainants are always willing to retain the unit and never asked respondent no.

1 either for cancellation of the allotment or refund of the amount already paid to respondent no. ondent no.1.

The complainants arc further ready to complete all formalities for the bank transfer for the balance payment provided the delayed interest be waived off and completion ofconstruction ofthe project as per approval.

C.

Reliefsought by the complainants: 8.

The complainants have filed the present complaint for seeking following reliefs: i.

Revoke the cancellation letter and resume the allotted unit in the favour of the complainants. ii.

Direct the respondent to pay Delayed possession Interest, if any, in favour of the complainants and against the respondent. iii.

Direct the respondent to make a legally valid offer of possession in favour of the complainants after taking the necessary approvals from the concerned authorities. iv.

Direct the respondent to not charge anything else from the complainants which is not part of the BBA.

9.

0n the date ofhearing, the Authority explained to the respondent /promoter about the contravention as alleged to have been committed in relation to section 11(4)(a) ofthe Act to plead guilty or not to plead guilry.

D.

Reply by respondent no, 1: 10.

The respondent no.1 has contested the present complaint on the following grounds: I.

1 is developing an affordable housing project 'Ka,uyam' under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (pMAy) at Sector 108 Page 10 of 19 III, HARER Complaint No.

471 of 2024, 472 of 2024 & 474 of 2024 II. situated at Curugram.

The project got duly registered under the affordable housing policy, 2013, issued by the Government of Haryana.

That the complainant's strong accusations against respondent no.l regarding the cancellation letter are inaccurate and deceptive.

Evidence from emails sent to the complainants, particularly the final one dated 08.08.2023, clearly shows that the complainants owes a total of Rs.4,7 6,798.22 /- which includes an interest of 150/0.

That the answering respondent sent continuous demand letters dated 11.09.2021, 16.11.2021, 10.L2.2021,, 5.12.2022 and 02.09. and 02.09.2023 and subsequent reminder letters to each of the demand letters dated 16.'10.2021, 02.12.202t, 1,7.10.2022, 02.02.2022, 28.07.2023 and 08.08.2023 respectively.

That on consistent failure of the complainants to make the payment, a pre- cancellation notice dated 12.10.2023 was issued, following which a newspaper advertisement dated 24.17.2023 was also published.

In view of the continuous default, a final cancellation letter dated 30.10.2023 was sent to the complainants.

That the complainants have claimed the reinstatement of their unit, asserting that the responsibility for timely payments rested solely with the banking institution, thereby absolving themselves ofany Iiability.

However, it is imperative to note that while clause 5 of the agreement, places an obligation on the promoter to complete the project and hand it over to the allottees, it simultaneously emphasises that the allottees shall make timely payments of the instalments.

Further, the demand notices dated 2O.7Z.ZOZZ and 05.07.2023, rhe subsequent reminder corresponden ces of 29.07 .2023 and 09.0g.2023, and the pre cancellation letter establish that the complainants have persistently IV.

Page 11 of19 mHARER. flF- eunuenRv Complaint No.

471 of 20?4, 472 of 2024 & 474 of 2024 and systematically breached the stipulated payment schedules.

The complainants have consistently failed to remit the requisite amounts within the prescribed timeframes.

Consequently, the cancellation of the unit in question is both lawful and justified.

That it would be improper for the answering respondent to restore unit no.

TA4-304, which was previously allotted to the complainants but subsequently cancelled due to payment failures on the part of the complainants.

In this context, it should be of relevance for this Authority to consider clause 6 of the tripartite agreement which makes it unambiguously clear that the only requirement of the borrower was to make a request to the bank seeking disbursement of insta t of instalments in pursuance of the demand notice issued by the respondent.

The request would suffice for the bank to make disbursements accordingly.

The e_mail from the complainants dated lS.l2.ZOZ2 clearly establishes that the request was made in pursuance ofclause 6 ofthe tripartite agreement.

That the proiect falls within the purview of the affordable housing policy, the respondent is constrained by stringent time limits for proiect completion and cannot indefinitely await payments. ln response to the complainant's persistent failure to remit payments, the builder adhered to the prescribed procedural guidelines.

Subsequent to the complainant,s continued non-compliance, the unit was alienated to a third party, thereby creating a bona fide third-party interest in the subiect property.

11.

Copies of all the relevant documents have been filed and placed on record.

Their authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can be decided on the basis of these undisputed documents and submission made by the parties.

Page 12 ol 19 tr HARER \ #, eunuennvr Complaint No.

471 of 2024, 472 of 2024 & 474 of 2024 E.

Reply by respondent no.2 12.

The respondent no.

2 has contested the present complaint on the following grounds: I.

That by and under an order dated 17 .03.2023 passed by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Company Scheme petition no.243/2022 connected with company scheme application no.2O0/ZO2Z, HDFC Ltd. has been amalgamated into'HDFC Bank Limited', as a going concern and consequently all assets and liabilities of HDFC Ltd. now stand vested in 'HDFC Bank Limited'. ll.

That since HDFC Ltd. ceases to istic entity in its own name and stands amalgamated into HDFC Bank Ltd. with effuct from 0L.07.2023, therefore it is humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Court that complainants be directed to amend the cause title of the present case fror.n HDFC Limited to HDFC Bank Limited.

IIl. ited.

IIl.

The cause of action of the present complaint has arisen due to the alleged default on part of respondent no.

1 in timely construction and handover of the project.

However, the complainants have wrongly arrayed HDFC Ltd (presently HDFC Bank Ltd) as respondent no,2.

The complainants have chosen to ignore the fact that the relarionship of HDFC Ltd (presently HDFC Bank Ltd) and the complainants have arisen out of a loan agreement which has no correlation whatsoever with the builder.

IV.

That this Authority lacks jurisdiction to issue any directions or orders to any other person or entity who is not a promoter, real estate agent or ollotee ard respondent no.2 being the lender, does not fall under any of the aforementioned categories.

The instant complaint is liable to be dismissed on account of mis-joinder of parties qua the respondent no.

The domain of services provided by the respondent no.2 is completely separate and Page 13 of 19 ff HARERJ. #- eunuennv Complaint No.

471 of 2024, 472 of 2024 & 474 of 2024 F. independent of respondent no.

1 and henfe the complaint ought to be dismissed as against respondent no.2 on account of lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action.

Also, the scope of fu nctio ning of the respondent no.

2 falls outside the doma in of this Authority.

In addition to this, the complainants have failed to disclose any separate cause of action against the respondent no.

0n the grounds as stated, the Authority may be pleased to delete the respondent no.2 from array of parties and/or dismiss the instant compliant as against respondent no.2.

Jurisdiction of the authority: 13.

The Authority observes that it has territorial as well as subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint for the reasons given below.

F.

I Territorial iurisdiction 14.

As per notification no.

1/92/2077-7TCP dated 74.1,2. ed 74.1,2.201,7 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, the iurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose with offices situated in Gurugram.

In the present case, the project in question is situated within the planning area of Gurugram district.

Therefore, this authority has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint.

F. ll Subiect matter iurisdiction 15.

Section 11(a)(al of the Act, 2016 provides rhat the promoter shall be responsible to the allottees as per agreement for sale.

Section 11(4)(a) is reproduced as hereunder: Section 11(4)(o) Be responsible for all obligotions, responsibilities and functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules ond regulotions mode thereunder or to the Page 14 of 19 HARER Complaint No.

471 of 2024, 472 of 2024 & 474 of 2024 ollottee as per the agreement lbr sale, or to the ossociotion ofallottee, os the cose moy be, till the conveyInce of all the op0rtmenta plots or buildings, as the case moy be, to the ollottee, or the common oreqs to the ossociotion olallottee or the competent authority, os the cose may be; 16.

So, in view of the provisions of the Act quoted above, the Authority has complete iurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non-compliance of obligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer if pursued by the complainants at a later stage.

P- GURUGRAIV G.

Findings on the reliefs sought by the complainants iii.

Direct the respondent to pay,Delayed Possgssion Interest, ifany, in favour of the complainants and against the respondent.

Direct the respondent to make a legally valid offer ofpossession in favour of the complainants after taking the necessary approvals from the concerned authorities. thorities.

Direct the respondent to not charge anything else from the complainants which is not partofthe BBA.

The above mentioned relief no. (0, (iil,(iir) and (iv) are inrerrelated to each other.

Accordingly, the same are being taken up together for adjudication.

In the present complaint, the complainants booked a unit in the project of respondent namely, Kavyam, situated at sector 108, Gurugram.

The complainants were allotted a unit bearing no.304, 3,d floor in Tower 44 admeasuring 512.50 sq. ft. carpet area and 130.30 sq. ft. balcony area vide allotment letter dated 25.06.2021.

Thereafter, the agreement to sell was executed between the complainants and the responden t no. -l on26.O7.Z0Z1.

The tripartite agreement was executed between the complainants, respondent no.

1 and the bank on 13.08.2021.

The total sale consideration of 77.

18.

Page 15 of 19 79.

20. mHARER! flF- eunuennv Complaint No.

471 of 2024, 472 of 2024 & 474 of 2024 the unit was Rs.

21,00,000/- and the complainants have made a payment of Rs.

15,90,750/- against the same in all.

The complainants in the present complaint has stated that the respondent no. t has cancelled its unit vide letter dated 30.10.2023 which is invalid as the payments were to be raised as per construction linked payment plan mentioned in the agreement to sale dated 26.07.2027.

The plea of the respondent no.

1 is otherwise and stated that the complainants had booked a unit in its proiect titled 'Kalyam, located at Sector-108, Gurugram, which is an affordable group housing pro,ect governed and regulated under the Affordable Housing policy, 2013.

It is further averred that all demands raised by the respondent no.

1 were in accordance with the provisions ofthe said Affordable Housing policy, 2013.

However, various reminder letters were issued but despite repeated follow ups the complainants failed to act further and comply with their contractual obligations and therefore the unit of the complainants were finally terminated vide let d vide letter dated 30.10.2023.

Now the question before the authority is whether the cancellation issued vide letter dated 30.10.2023 is valid or not.

21.

On consideration of documents available on record and submissions made by both the parties, the authority is ofthe view that the agreement to sell was executed between the complainants and respondent no.

I on 26.07.2021.

The project in question falls within the category of an ,Affordable Group Housing Project' and is therefore governed by the provisions of the Affordable Group Housing policy,2013, as notified by the competent authority.

In accordance with the said policy, the financial demands raised upon the allottee(s) are to be paid in equated instalments over a span of six months.

The complainants failed to adhere to the prescribed payment Page 16 of 19 22. *HARER; $h, eunuennn,l Complaint No.

471 of 2024, 472 of 2024 & 474 of 2024 schedule and did not remit the demanded amounts within the stipulated period of six months, as required under the said policy.

Such non-compliance constitutes a breach of the terms and conditions of the governing policy.

The complainants have contended that due to the alleged non-completion of construction by the respondent no.

1, they are not under an obligation to make further payments.

However, the Quarterly Progress Reports (QpRs) duly submitted before the authority, indicates that the sub-structure of the project has been completed to the extent of 1o0o/o.

These reports, being official submissions, carry evidentiary value and demonstrate that substantial progress in construction has been achieved in accordance with the sanctioned plan.

In view ofthe above, the complainants cannot,unilaterally withhold payment on the mere ground of alleged construction delay, especially when the respondent has complied with its reporting obligations under the regulatory framework and there is no contrary evidence to disprove the progress reflected in the QPRs. the QPRs.

Accordingly, the complainants remains under a continuing obligation to make payments as per the policy framework, and failure to do so amounts to a breach ofcontractual and statutory obligations.

24.

Moreover, Clause 5(iii) (i) ofthe Affordable Group Housing policy, 2013 talks about the cancellation.

The relevant part of the clause is reproduced below:- "lfany successfu I applicont fails to deposit the instollments within the time period os prescribed in the ollotment letter issued by the colonizer, q reminder moy be issued to him for depositing the due instollments within o pertod of 75 doys lrom the dote oJ issue of such notice. lfthe ollottee stilldeloults in moking the poyment, the list of such defoulters mqy be published in one regional Hindi newspoper hoving circulation oI more thon ten thousond in the Stote for poyment of due omount within 15 doys from the dote of publication of such notice, foiling which allotment moy be concelled.

In such cases also an omount ol Rs 2S,OO0/. moy be deducted by the coloniser and the bolance amount shall be PaEe 17 of 19 25.

26.

27. *HARER #b eunuennv Complaint No.

471 of 2024, 472 ot 2024 & 47 4 of 2024 refunded to the applicant.

Such llots moy be considered by the committee for offer to those oppliconts lalling in the waiting list".

However, in the present case, it is evident from the material placed on record that the respondent company has issued demand cum reminder letters dated 05.72.2022, 26.07.2023, 08.08.2023, 02.09.2023.

Thereafter, the respondent no, 1 issued notice for cancellation dated 30.10.2023.

The respondent no. t has also published a list of defaulters of payments in the daily newspaper on 24.11.2023.

The authority is of the considered view that the respondent/builder has followed the prescribed procedure as per clause 5(iii)(i) ofthe Policy, 2013 and in view of the same, the cancellation letter dated 30.10.2023 is held to be valid. be valid.

As per cancellation clause of the affordablb housing policy of 2013 the respondent can deduct the amount of Rs.25,000/- only and the balance amount shall be refunded back to the complainants.

Till date no amount has been refunded back by the respondent-builder to the complainants/allottee.

Thus, it has been using the funds of the complainants.

In view of aforesaid circumstances, the respondent no.

L is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainants after deduction of Rs.25,000/- as per clause 5(iii)(i) of the Policy 2013 along with interest from date of cancellation of unit i.e., 30.70.2023 till the actual realization of the amount.

H.

Directions ofthe authority Hence, the authority hereby passes this order and issues the following directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the promoter as per the function entrusted to the authority under section 34(0: The respondent no.

1/promoter is directed refund the paid-up amount in all the cases after deduction of Rs.

25,000/- as per clause 5(iii)(i) ot ')o Page 18 of 19 * HARER.' ffieunuennu ll. would follow. iii.

Out of the total amount so amount along with inte Further, the resp Certificate to institution.

29.

This decision shall mutatis mu 31.

File be consigned to Complaint No.

471 of 2024, 472 of 2024 & 47 4 of 2024 the Affordable Housing Policy 2013, alo g with interest @11.10% per annum on such balance amount as Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and the date ofcancellation of unit till the A period of 90 days is given to the bed under rule 15 of the lopment) Rules, 2017 from pondent to comply with the directions given in this order and fail which legal consequences the amount paid by the bank/financial institution e nded first and the balance be nded to the complainant. to provide the No Objection ng it from the bank/financial al realization of the amount. mentioned in para 3 of 4,_, (Arun Kumar) Chairman Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram f. urugram f. 'v.

Page 19 of 19 Dated: 09.05.202 5