CNT COMPUTERS NETWORK AND TELECOM INDIA PVT LTD vs JSG BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED

*HARERiT S-crrnrcnlu BEFORE TIIE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GIIRIICRAII4 D.reofderision: 13.05.2025 Complaint No.1717 of2023 and ANSALHOUSINC LIMITED SAMYAK PROIECTS PVT LTD.

I cofiputer Network& (eleconi lndia Pvt l.td v/s 1 ISC BuildersPi,vate LL rtred 2 Nac tjrba hrfrast.ucbrr I'vt Ltd I srmyrkProjech Pvt Ltd 4 An$ HousnBLtd fFomerrr o,,o!

AntuI Houilng & Cnnstrucdan Lrl ) aonrptrte6 Nesorks & telecom lrd,al'vr Lrd.V/s 1 lsc Buid.s Phvate Limltcd 2.

Ncc Urban l.franructure Pt.

Ltd 3 Strmyak P.oje.ts Pvt l.td cR/t714/2023 CORAM: Shn.Vijay Kumar Goyal l ORDER This order shaU dispose ofboth thecomplaints tiiled as above filed before th's :uthority in iorm CRA under sect,on 31 oi th€ Real Estate (Regulation and DevelopmentlAct 2016 (here,nafter referred as " the Act") readwith rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter .eierred as 'the rules") for violation of sect,on 11(4)(aJ ofth€ Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promotershall be respons'bte forall its obligatjons, responsibil,ties and functions to the allottees as per the agreement for sale executed inter se between parties PaEe 7 ol27 4 Ansal Housins l.td ardmrer,kdwn.r AnsolHousing & conitttian Ltd ) 2.

3.

HARERA Complarnt No.

1717 oi2023 and The core issues emanating from them are similar in nature and the complainant(sl in the above r€fe..ed matters are allottees of the project, namely, Ansal Heights 92" (group housin8 colonyl being developed by the same respondent/promoter i.e., M/s Ansal Housing Limited.

The terms and condjtjons ofthe buyert agreements, fulcrum of the issue involved in allthese cases pe.tains to failure on the partoithe promoter to deuvertimely possession of the units in question, seeking award oldelay possession cha.ges alonS with The details of the complaints, reply to status, unit no. , unit no., date of agreement, possession clause, due date of possession, total sale consideration, total paid amount, and relielsousht are given in the table below: '29 The Developet sholl aflet posse$ion ofthe unit any ttne, within a penod oI36 "A]\ISAL HEICHTS " nonths [ron the dote of exeeution ol Aer@hent or \|ithin 36nonths l@n the dote ol obtoining a the rtqulr.d flncaions on l opp.ovd ne.essary for connen nent of cohstruction, ehichever is later subject to tinel! pdydeht aloll dues bt the Buler ond subtect tt) farce nojeure circunstances os d.s..ibed in clouse 30 Furthe. therc sholl be o Aruce period of 5 nonths allowe.l ta devetope. over ond above the penod of 36 nohth\ os ahove in oflitno thc Dossession of the unit Occupation ce.tiffcater - Not obtained D,te ot.ommen..m.nt of constructiotrr 14.06,2012 aR/1711/2023 cA/1714/2023 D 807 admersunn8 1565 lpa 6l ofcomplaintl 03.72.2012 lps.

62 ofcomplaDll 1320 Rl, R2, Rl, n4 11042012 (wnh *HARERA $- eunuennu DuedateofdeliveBof 137 ,23,44A/.

Complaint No. l717of 2023 and 11102015 \32,27 ,aOO/ - Jpx.

52 of coEplai.d r36,51,933/- 1 41,74 *A/.

Sale Consideration (SC) t soA d,ied 24012019 3.

Compensation lor not and inte.tora.cordins t 4.

5.

6 The aforesaid conplaints were filed by the complainants aga,nst the promoter on sccount ofvrolation olthe builder buyer's ag.eement executed between the parties in respect of,said unit for not handing over the possession by the due date, seeking award oldelay possession charges alongwith inte.est 1t has been decided to treat the said complaints as an application for non_ compliance olstatutory obligations on the part ofthe promoter/ .espondent rn terms of section 34(l) oi the Act which mandates the authority to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottee(s) and the realestate agents under the Act, the rul€sand the regulations made thereunder The hcts of all the complaints filed by the complainant(sl/allottee(s)are also similar. o similar.

Out of the above mentioned case, the particulars of lead case cR/1717/2023 computers Netv/orks & telecom lndlo PvL L.d.' V/s JSG Butlders Privote Limiteil antl NCC Urban lnlrastructure PvL Lad- And SamyakProiects Pvt Ltl.

Atil Ansal llousing Ltd Formerlv known as Aasol Housing & Construction Lrd. are being taken into consideration ior deternrining the rights of the allotteets) qua delay possession charges along with interest and compensation.

Proiect and unit r€lated details I lsoAdared28.01.2019l T' Nd;rr.."a-] 7. *HARERH (S- ctrnrrcnnr,r The particulars ol the projec! the details of sale consideration, the amount paid by the complainant(s), date ol proposed handing over the possession, delay period, ifany, have been detailed in the tollowing tabular forml Cl/t717 /2023 Co,,Itptlrers Networks & telecom lndla Pyr Ltd., V/s JSc Bullders Prlvate Llrnlt€d ard ors.

1. c 2 Croup Housins Colony 76 0f2010 dared 0r.10.2010 Buzz Estate Pvr.

Ltd. &others.

Reeistered/not repistered 10. lpg.65 ofcomplaintl 03.10.2012 posesionofthe uniL" 29.

The devetope*hatl ofla. posse$,Di o/ .h. unir on! tine, within o petiorl oI 36 ,,onths fron the dote ol exe.ution oithe ogreemenror wl.hln 35 monthslron rhe date oI obtaining o the require.r sonc.ions and approvol necesery lor .ommenc.m.* ol consrtucdon, whlchevet ls ta@r tubje.t ro tinely poynent ol all dues by buye. ond subjert ro Iotce nojeurc circumstonces as desctibed in clouse 32.

Furthe. there shol be o groce perlod ol 6 moaths dlloved ao the .levelope. over on.l obove rhe N,lod ol 36 months as above in olf.nns the I ComplaintNo 1717 o12023 and D-807 Date ol ex-"cutn)n ofBBA GURUGRAI\,4 Date of commencement of Complaiit No.

1717 of2023 and lPage no.

71 of complaintl HARERA l1 12 14.06.2012 Due dare orposseseon 43.o4.20t6 (Note:36 months from date i.e., 03.10.2012 being later. allowed bei ng unquali 6ed) 13 Brsi. srl. .onsideration as a)7.23. as a)7.23.444/ per payment plan annexed with BBA at page 65 of Total amount paid by 1+1,?45111/ as per SOA dared 28.01.2019 lrr o..L)t).r.,in..rtLliLaLe Facts ofthe complaint The complainants have made the following subm issions in the complaint: _ a.

That the complainants came jnto contact with Mr' Sandeep Kumar who inlormed the complainant that respondent companies are developing a project ANSAL HElGHTS" afiordable group housing society situated at Sector 92, Curugram.

Mr.

Sandeep Kumar also informed the complainant that he has booked a unit/flat bearing no.

D_807, havinS super built_up area of 1565 sq. ft. situated at Sector92, Gurugram, in the above said proiectand the respondent company h:salso issued an allotment letter rn his hvor.

N4 r.

Sandeep Kumar told the complainantthat he has already paid an amount o1i14.86,265l'to the companv 14 r.

Sandeep Xu mar requested to the complainant to get transfer ofthis flat / unit in their name as he is in dire need of money and he cannot afford this unit anymo.e.

On going through the attractive brochure, the payment plan and assurancegiven by the omcials ol the .espondent companies and Mr.

Sandeep Kumar trfor", "tp"'**." B. *HARERA 4!- sunuennv b. d.

Complaint No, t717of 2023.nd regarding constructing of various projects in Curugram and other Districts ofHaryana within the stipulated period.

It was intjmated, the rates ofthe properties would soar to the great high's and by the reputat,on of the respondent's company, the complainant decided to buv the said booked residential unit rrom Mr.

Sandeep Kumar.

The said unit was duly transierred in the name olcomplsinant vide transfer letter duly siSned by the authorized person ofthe respondent company and an agreementto sell between Sdndeep Kumar and complainant was also executed Copy of transfer letter and agreement to sell is annexed herew'th The complainants duly paid ihe settled anount to Mr. unt to Mr.

SandeeP Kumar as meniloned in theagreementto sell executed between Mr' Sandeep Kumar and complainant havepaid the settled amountto Mr' Sandeep Kumar' That apa( lrom issuing a payment receipts on different dates' acknowledBing the.eceipt ofamount, the respondent companv also issued an allotment letter dated 27.11 2012 carrying the details of unit allotted and also the details olamount to b€ deposited bv the complainant s t'me to time as per payment plan opted by the complainants as per annexure' That the complainant deposited the required amount as per the payment plan opted by the complainani according to the apartment buyer agreement, which was executed between the complainant and the respondent company on 03.10 2012 admitting all the details olterms and condrtions ot the said agreement as and when it was required by the respondent company.

That as per one of the terms and conditions of the said agreement dated 03.10.2012, it was ag.eed and settled betwee' the complainant and the respondent company that the possession of the sard unrt/flat shall be haDded ove. to the complainant within the period ot' '**;,ffil!i ITHARERA S- crnrcnnr,r t H, date of approval of building plan or on or belore 03.03.2016.

Hence, from the above said clause as mentioned in apartment buyer agreement, the respondentcompany was dutybound tohandov€rthe physical possession olthe above said unit/flat to the complainants positively up to 03.03.2016 but tilldate noth,ng has been done in that context.

That the complainant without making any kind ofdelay always deposited the amount required as per the payment plan/schedule opted by the complainants immediately on receipt of letters from the .espondent company and in total the complainants paid an amount of Rs.31,01,580/' in the following manners which has also been admitted and acknowledged by the respondentt company officials.

The stamp duty + registration cha.Bes & administrative cha. ative cha.ges as mentioned in the payment plan is liable ro be payable by the complainant and that too at the time of registration ofsaledeed and possession ofthe flat.

That from the above said trmelypayments made by the complainant in the respondent companyleaves noiotaof doubtthatthecomplainanthas been very sincers and honest while complying with the terms and conditions ol the letter ol allotment dated 27.11.2072 as well as of apartment buyer agreementas the samewas ag.eed and settled to be payable at the time of ofer of peacefu I physical possession complete,n allrespectofthe said Un't by the respondent company.

That instead ofadmittingtheir fault/negligeDce on account ofnot offering the possession ol the said Unit to the complainant w,thout being lit for living, respondents kept on issuing reminders ior illegal demand ol payment regularly.

That the respondent rathe. had crossed allthe limits by keeping aside allthe provisions oflaw ofthe land and without bothering u HARERA Complaint No.1717 of2023 and GUllUGRAM havlng any fear of natural iustice of law, th demands to the complainant regularly. ey kept on sending their illegal That on account of issuance of the above illegal demands regularly, lollowed by reminders and rlaiming huge amount without thei. being any justification leaves no doubt in the minds of the complainants that the respondent beingsuch a type of co mpany which firstlytrapped the seve.al innocent home buyer customers like the complainants by showing attractive brochures boosting about the reputation oi the respondent company and once rhe customers ukethe complainant are trapped in their net, the builder company without having fea. ollaw oaland continuoudy carried on its demands ofamount without having any norms leaving the customers, like the complainants to run from pillar to post without their being any fault on their part. heir part.

Thaton account ol not co mpleting the ronstructio n ofthe above said Unit allotted to thc complainant within the stipulaled period ol42 months, the complainant had suffered a huge moneiary loss.

The act and conduct of the respondents have also snatched the mental peace ofthe compla,nants.

The following are the details olmonetary losses which had been suffered by the complainanton account of rotal .egligence/carelessness on the part That, the complainant approached the respondent many times and requested him with folded hands to hand over the physical possession ot the said unit/flat.

8ut the respondent did not even bother to respond the buyer and paid no heed to his request.

That as the respondent has lajled to discharge his liabilities to complete the project and handover the peaceful physical possession ofthe allotted unit / space to the complainant within the stipulated time and thus the Pageaol27 k t.

ITHARERA t$- eunuennur Complaint No.

1717 of2023 and respondenr has cheated the complainant ro invest their hard-ea.ned money on believing upon their iatse assurances.

The respondent in a master minded and sr.ipted way succeeded to thejr ulrerior motive and caused w.ongful losses to the cornpla,nant for rheir wrongful gains.

Thus, the respondent has nor only breached the trust otthe complainanr but also in a planned and rhoughtlulway cheated/defrauded the comptainant.

The complainant due to their said illegal acts, conduct and nisdeeds, suffered mentalagony, sorrow, trauma and apathy.

The.espondent rnvolved in rhe swindling and embezzlement offunds of nor only ofthe comptainant but sjmilarly situated innocent people at large.

Thar due to illegal acts and conducts ol the respondent, thecomplainant had suffered to grear mental agony, physical harassment, financial loss, humilianon, hence the respondent is liabl€ to pay the delay possession charges and handover the phy.rcrl pos'e*ron to rhc compla.nrnt.

C.

Reliefsought by the complalnantsl 9. lnantsl 9.

The complainants have sought following relief(s) a.

Direct the respondent to handoverthe physical possession along with the delayed possession charges along with compound interest @ 24% per annum to the complainant. b.

Drrect the respondentto pay thecompensation fornot providing entrance and interior according to the layout plans as was shown to complainant.

10.

On the date of hearing, the authority explained to the respondent/ promoter about the contraventions as alleged to have been committed in relation to section l1(41 (a) ofthe act to plead guilty or not to plead guilty.

D.

Reply by the respondent oo.4, 11.

The respo nden t has contested thecomplarnton thefollowinggrounds: THARERA S-GURrcnArt/ d The answering respondentis a developer and has built multipl€ residential and commercial build,ngs within Delhi/NCR with a well-established reputation earned overyea.s of consistent custoner satislaction.

That the complainants had approached theanswer,ng r€spond€nt for booking a flat no.

D 807 in an upcoming project Ansal Heights, Sector 92, Gurugram.

Upon the satisfact,on of the complainant regarding inspection ofthe site, title,location plans, etc. an agreement to selldated 03-10.2012 was signed between the parties.

That the curr€nt dispute cannot be governed by the RERA Act, 2016 because of the fact that the builder buyer agreement signed between the complainant and th€ answ€ring respondent was in the year 2012. lt is submitted that the regulations at the concerned time period would regulate the projectand not a subsequent legislation i.e.

RERA Act,2016.It is lurther submitted that parliament would not make the operat,on of a statute retrospectiv€ in efect.

That the complaint specifically admits to not payingnecessary dues or the full payment as agreed upor under the builder buyer agreement. agreement. lt is submitted that the complainant cannot be allowed to take advantag€ ofhis That even iffor the sake ofargument, the averments and the pl€adings in the complaint are taken to be true, the said complaint has been preferred by the complainant belatedly.

The complainant has admittedly filed the complaint in the yea.

2023 and the cause of action accrue on 03 10.2012 as per the complaint itself.

Therefore, it is submitted that the complaint cannot be filed beiore the HRERA Gurugram as the same is barred bv €omplat No.

1717 of2023 and *HARERA lis- crnucnnv t. g h.

Complarnt No 1717 oi2023 and That even if the complaint is admitted to be true and correct, the :greement which was signed in the yea.2012 without co€rcjon or any duress cannot be called in question today. lt is submitted that the builder buyer agreement provides for a penalty in the event ola delay in giving possession.

It is submitted that clause 37 of the said agreement provides for 15/- sq. ft. permonth on superareaforanydelayin offering possessjon oi the unit as mentioned in Clause 3t of the agreement.

Therefore, the complainant will be entitled to ,nvoke the said clause and r barred hom approaching the Hon'ble Commission iD order to ake. the pen:lty clause byvirtue ofthis complaintmore than l0years after itwas agreed upon by That th. complaint itself discloses that the said proiect does not have a RERA approval and is not registered.

It is submitted that if the said averment in the complaint is taken to be tru€, the Hon'ble Authority does 1or lrve rhp lur rsdictron to decide $e complarnl. 'fhdt the respondent had in due course of time obtained all necessary approvals from the concerned authorities. lt is submitted that the permit for environmental clearances for proposed group housing p.oject for Sector 103 Curugram, Haryana on 20.02.2015.

Siftilarly, the approvalfo. digging foundation and basement was obtained and sanctions from the department of mines and geolory were obtained in 2012. d in 2012.

Thus, the rcspondents have in a timely and prompt manner ensured that the req u isjte conrpliances be obtained and cannot be laulted ongivingdelayed possession to the complainant. 'lhat the answering respondent has adequately explained the delav.

It is submitted that thedelay has been occasioned on account ofthings bevond the control oithe answ€ring resPondent. lt is further submitted that the Page 1l ol27 *HARERA S-eunuennv Complaint No, 1717 of 2023 and bujlderbuyer agreement provides for such eventualities and the cause for delay is completely covered in the sajd clause.

The respondent ought to have complied with the orders of the Hon'ble H,gh Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chand,garh in CWP No.

20032 of 2008, dated 16.07.2012, 3l-07 -20t2, 21.08-2012.'l he said orders banned the extraction of water which is thebackbone of the constructio n process.

Simi larly, the co m pla'nt itself reveals that the correspondence from the answering respondent speciries aorce majeure, demonetization and the orders ofthe Hon'ble NCT prohibiting construction in and around Delhiand the COVID -19 pandemic among others as the causes which co ntributed to the stalling ofthe project at c.ucial iunctures for considerable spells. i.

That the answering respondent and the complainant adm,ttedly have entered ,nto a builder buyer agreement which provides for the event of delayed possession. lt is submitted that clause 32 ol the builder buyer agreement,s clear that there is no compensation to be sought by the complainant/prospective owner in the event ofdelay in possess,on. i.

That the answering respondent has clearly provided in clause 37 the consequences that lollow lrom delayed possession. lt is submitted that the complainant cannot alter the terms of the contract by preferring a complaint beforethe Hon ble HRERA Gurugram. k.

That admttedly, the complajnant had signed and agreed on bu,lderbuyer agreement dated 11.04.2012.

1.04.2012.

That perusal ol the said agreement would show that it is a tripartite agreement wherein M/s Samyak Projects Pvt.

Ltd is also a party to the sa,d agr€ement.

That the perusalofthe builder buyer agreement at page 3 would showthat the proposed party to be impleaded i.e., M/s Samyak Projects Pvt.

Ltd not only possesses all the rights and unfettered ownershrp oi thera,d la.d *HARERA S-cunuennv Complaint No.171? of2023 and whereupon the project namely Ansal Heights, Sector 92 is beins developed, but also is a developer in the said project. m.

That, while liling the prese.t complaint, the complainant has not a.rayed M/s Samyak Project Pvt.

Ltd. having its Registered office at 153,0kh1a Industrial Estate, Phase-lll, New Delhi'110020 as a party to the complaint.

That M/s Samyak Proiects Pvt.

Ltd is a verynecessaryand proper partv to be arrayed to the complaint for proper, fairand transparent dlsposal ofthe The said M/s Samyak Project PvL Ltd. in terms olits arrangement with the respondent could not develop the said project well with'n time as was ag.eed and given to the respondent, thedelay, ifanv, is on the part ofM/s Samyak Project Pvt.

Ltd. not on the part of respondent, because the construction and development ofthe said project was undertaken by 14ls S:myak P.oiect Pvt.

Ltd E.

Reply by the respondentno.3 12.

The respondent has contested the complaint on thefollowing grounds: a.

That the present complai.t with .espect unit/flat bearing no' D'807' having super built_up area of 1565 sq. fi sltuated at sector 92' Gurugram is pending adjudication belorethis Ld.

Authority and listed for hearing on 22--tl -2024.

That the complaint filed by the complai.ant is a misuse ofprocess oflaw and is misco nceived, h ence it ,s liable to be dismissed out righdy That the .espondent no.

3 i.e. no.

3 i.e.

Samyak Projects Private Limited, havin8 acquired the rights to develop the land on which the present project was to be constructed, entered into a memorandum of und€rstanding 'MOU" with respondent no.1 i.e.

Ansal Housing Limited,n respect ofconsku€tion and development olthe project und€rthe name and style frHARERA l* eunucnav Compla nr No I717or2023and on the scheduled la.d.

As per the clauses ofthe MOU, the entire scheme or development oithe proposed project on the said scheduled properry was to be carried out by respondent no.4 i.e.Ansalar its own cost and expense including development of internal developmenr services, commercial areas and other related developments, afterrakinB all necessary approvals, sanctions/ permissionsetc. ofthe MoU dared 18.04.2011 entered between the respondent no.4 and respondenr no.3.

As per the clauses ol the IVA, the entire scheme of development of rhe proposed project on the said scheduled property was to be carried our by respondent no.4 j.e.

Ansal Housing Limited, at its own cost and expense including developm€nt of internal development serv,ces, commercial areas and other relat€d developments, aft€r taldng all necessary approvals, sanctions/ permissions etc.

That as per the MoU it was rhe sole responsibiliB, ofthe respondenlno.4 to develop th€ project and handover the possession to the allottees.

It js also submitted that it was the respondent no.4 who received the consideration amount irom all the That there are no speciflc allegations in the complaint against the respondent no.3.

That there is an ongo,ng arbitration p roceedjng betlveen the respondent no.

3 and respondent no.4 thereby a status quo on the project nanely "Ansal Heights 92" has been imposed by the Arbitral Tribunalvide order dated 31.10.2021 in o.M.P (l) (coMM) 59 oF 2021.

That the Hon'ble RERA Authority rhrough Hon'ble memb€rs Sh.

Sanjeev Arora and Sh.

Ashok Sangwan in the matter olArun Kumar Singh v. r Singh v.

Ansal [4391/2021] vide its ordet dared \2/12/2023 wirh tespect to the present pro)ect nanrely "Ansal Heights 92'clea.ly stated that stated that the paymen ts agai nst the auotted units were received by M/sAnsal Housing & PaEe 14 ot 27 lrHARERA l$- cunuennv Constructlons Ltd. and therefore Samyak Projects Pvt.

Ltd. cannot be held I That the Hon'ble Authority in various cases pertainingto the sam€ project has already decided that it is the responsibility of the respondent no 1 towards the allottees.

That it is also submitted that the Hon'ble RERA Authority in 73 cases has decided thatthe so)e respo nsibility to retu.n the smount paid by the allottees lies upon the respondent no.4 i.e.

Ansal' Moreove., the Authority through Hon'ble members Sh.

Sanieev Arora, Sh Ashok Sangwan and Sh.

Vijay Kumar Coyal in the matter of MR XRISHNENDU CHOSH DASTIDAR AND MRS ANANYA CHOSH DASTIDAR V/S I'4S ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LII\4ITED" I2O3Z/2014) vide its order dated 13.09.2022 which disposed of 42 other cases with respect to the project namely "Ansal Heights_86', clearly stated that the p.ryments against theallotted unitswere received by M/sAnsalHousing & Constructions t,td. and Samyak Projects Pvt.

Ltd' was not party to the BBA's and therefore Samyak Proiects PvL Ltd. cannot be held responsible' Also' it was held that tbe sole responsibility to return the amount paid by the allottees lies upon the Respondent no.4 i.e Ansal' g. that this Hon'ble Authority has obserired and passed detailed orders with respect to the paymenlofrefund and inte'eston delaved possession' h. 'lheALrthority has in its various decisions have observed that M/s Samvak Proiects rs not the primary Party, neither has direct nexus in respect ofthe consideration otthe unit with the decree holder Moreover' it is imporhnt to mention that it is the obligation ofthe party who has been benefrted by the amount of consideration.

Hence, it shall prejudice the interest Respondent No 3 i.e.

M/s Samvak P.

Samvak P.ojects Pvt Ltd who has not received Complaint No.

1717of 2023.nd 15.

Thepresent.omplaintwas tiled Complaint No,1717 of20Z3 and on 09.05.2023,n theAuthorrty.The nohce for THARERA S- ernuennr,r any amount toward the €ompletion ofthe said project by the respond€nt That there is no privity of contract betlveen the respondent no.3 and complainant as it was the sole responsibility of th€ r€spondent no.4 to del,verthe units to the allottees.

Moreover, a status quo has been imposed by the learned Arbitratoron the proleclthe unjtcannotbehanded overto That respondent no.4 is liable to pay the delay possession charSes to the complainant as ,t was the sole responsibility of the R 4 to complete the 13.

Copies ofallthe relevant documents have been filed and placed on record.

Their authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence, thecomplaintcan bedecided on the basis oithese undisputed documents and submission made bythe parti€s.

14.

On 13.0s.2025, learned counsel for Respondent No 4 in Case No 1718/2023 submiited before the Hon'ble Authority that the comPlaint has been erroneously instituted againstAnsal Housing Ltd., asseiling that the Builder BuyerAsreement IBBA) was, rn fact, executed with AnsalPhalak lnfrastructure Pvt.

Ltd.

Upon due l/eriflcation, the Authority llnds the aforesaid contention raised by Respondent No.

4 to be devoid of merlt and accordingly rejects the hearing was duly served to respondent no.

1 & 2.

However, despite providing enough opportunity ior filing the reply, no written .eply has been nled by the respondent no.

I & 2.

Thus, keeping in view the opportunitv given to the respondent no.

1 & 2, have la,led to file the reply in the registrv' Thereiore, in view of the above-mentioned fact, the delence of the respondent no 1 & 2 is hereby struck off by the Authority.

Further, respond"., ," , ' ' t?l;:rTjli ltHARERA t$- cLrnLrennv Complaint No.

1717 of 2023.nd in appearance before theAuthority and have also lailed to nle reply. nle reply.ln view of the same, the matter is proceeded ex'parte against respondent no.

16.

The respondent no.3 has filed the written submissions on 06.05.2025 respectively which is taken on record.

The authorty has cons,dered the same while d elibe rating u pon the relief so ught by the complainants. r.

Iurisdiction ofthe authority 17.

The authority observes that ,t has territorial as well as sub)ect matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the p resent complaint for the reasonsgiven below F.

I Territorial iurisdlction 18.

As per notification no. | /92/2017-1TCP dated1,4.12.2017 issued bv Town and Country Planning Depa(ment the iurisdiction oi Real Estate Regulatorv Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Curugram District for all purpose with offices situated in Gu.ugram. ln the present case, the project,n question is stuated within the planning area of Gurugram District.

Therefore, this authority has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present F.ll Subiect matter jurisdiction 19.

Section 11(4)(al of the Act, 2016 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement fo. sale Section 11(4)tal is reproduced as hereunder: (a) be retponsible lot o obligations,rcsponsibihti.,and lunn'on\ lndet rhe prcvteons ol ha Ad ot the tulet ond rpo\toL'on\ ode thereundet ot @ rh. allott*< at per rhc a; eenert to, sdte. o. @ the ostianon ol ottode5. o' the .;'e nov b;. ntt he .onvevon P ol alt th" opaftdenL'. ptols o, but;ine'. a\ th. cov noy be. to the o otEPs- ot th. to the a$ocioti@ ol ollottees or the conpetent authotiry, 6 ke coe f,ot be) il Section 34.Functions oJ the AuthoriE: 34(l) ol the Ad prorides to ensure coaplionce ol the obhgotions cast Lpon the pramote$, the ollottees ond the rcal estote asehts under this Act ahd the .ules ohd rcqu la tian s hod e th e.eu n det 20. n det 20.

So, in view olthe provis,ons ofthe Actquoted above, the authority has complete ju risd iction to decide th e complaint reearding non -co m pliance of obligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicatinE ofiice. ifpu.sued by thecomplainants at a later stage.

G. tindings onobiections rais€d by the respond€nt.

G.l.

Ob,ection regardlng delay due to force maieure circumsta nc€s 21.

The respondent no.3 i.e., lvlls.

Samyak Proiects Pvt Ltd has raised an objection that there ,s no privity of conEact betwe€n the complainant and respondenl no.3 as it was the sole r€sponsibllity of respondent no.

4 to construct and handover the units to the allottees.

The respondent no.3 further submitted that as per clause 9.2 oi the MOU executed between the respondent no.3 and respondent no.4, it was the sole responsibility/obligation of the respondent no.4 towards the allottees to d€velop the proj€ct and handover the possession and all the consideration amount has been received by respondent no.4 lrom 22.

The Authority observes that the flat buyer agre€ment dated 03.10 2012 was duly executed between the complainantsand respondent no.4, with respondent no.3, M/s Samyak Projects Pvt.

Ltd., being a confirm,ng partv to the said agreement.lt is further observed, based on the submissions ofrespondent no.3, thatithad e:rlier entered into a Memo.andum oi U nderstanding { l4ou) dated 06.09.2011 with respondent no.4, which was subsequentlv superseded bv a Joint ventur.

Asreement []VAl dated 24.0s.2013.

As per the terms ofthe IvA the entrre development olthe project, including internal development wo.ks, commercial areas, and other ancillary developments, was to be undertaken bv Page 13 or27 HABEIA GURUGRA[/ Complaint No 1717 of2023 and SHARERA $-euninnrnr .espondent no.4 at irs own cos! and after obtaining a requisite approvah, sanctjons, and permissions.

23. sions.

23.

Importantly, both the MoU and the JVA were agreements executed exclusively between respondent no.3 and respondenr no.4 and the complainants were neither a pafty ro these aSreements nor was the arrangement djsclosed to the complainants, nor did the compla,nants have any role in its execution.

The document establishing the legal retationship between the complainanr and the respondents remains the flat buyer agreement dated 03.10.2012, to which .espondent no3 is a confirming parry.

Therefore, the objection raised by respondent no.3 regard,ng the absence of priviry of contract with the complainants is without merirand is accordingly reiected.

G.ll.

Obiection raised by rhe respoDdent no.

3 iD rts wrlnen submtssions regarding status quo beibg lmposed by rhe Leanr€d Arbftrator on tbe 24.

The respondent no.2 has raised an obj€ction thar since the a.bitration proceedings are going on between the respondenr no.3 and respondent no.4, status quo has been imposed bythe Learned Arbitratoron rhe proiect and rhus the unit cannot be handed over to the complainant.

25.

The Authority observes that the respondent no.3 terminated rhe MOU and the IVA that was executed between the respondents vide notice dared 02.02.2021 and issued a public notice,n respect olthe termination oithe MOU.

The marte. pursuant to the dispute was referred to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

1995 and vide order dated 22.01.2021, Hon'ble lustice A.

K.

Sikri, former iudge oi th€ Hon'ble Supreme Court ollndia has been appointed as a sole arbikator ofrhe Arbit.alTribunal by the Hon'ble Delhi H,gh Court.

As perthe orde. dated 31.08.2021, the Hon'ble Tribunal observcd that the constructron oathe project is almost complete and ComplaintNo 1717 of2023 and *HARERT. $-crrnLrcnlv Complaint No.1h7 ofZ023 and the respondent no. ondent no.4 has applied for occupancy cert,ficate As per the present status oithe project, it would be aptthatthe respondent no 3 also does notdeal withrhe projectby entering intoany arrangement with third parti€s du.in8 the pendency ofthese proceedings and/or till further orders.

26.

The Authority is olthe view that the order dated 31.08.2021 is limited to the extent ofthe dispute interse the respondents and does notbar the jurisdiction ofthis Authority to grant reliefto the complainant under the provisions ofthe A.t.2016.

H. ' rind ings on rhe relief sought by the complainants H,l, Dir;ct the resPondent to handover the physical possession alon8 with the delayed possession charges along with compoutrd interest @ 2490 per annum to the comPlainadL 27. ln the present matter the complainant was allott€d unii no D_807, ad measu ring 1565 sq. ii in the project Ansal Heights 92" Sector 92 by the respondent builder for a sale consideration ol137,23,448/ and thev have paid a sum of 1+1,74,53A1 .

A buyefs agreement was executed with the complainant on 0310.2012.

As per the BBA, landown€rs assigned their entire rights' entitlenentsand interest in the landandth€ resultant FSIofthe entire prolect to respondent no 3 i.e., Samyak Projects Pvt Ltd' Further, respondent no 3 entered into an arrangement with respondent no.4 to jointly develop and market the said project.

28.

The nuthority is ot the view that the builder buyer agreement dated 03'10'2012 lvas signed by the complainants and the respondent no' 4 1'he respondent no l.

2 & 3 are the confirming partv to that BBA' In the builder buver agreement dated 03.10.2012 it was specifically ment,oned that respondent no 3 and respondent no.

4 entered into an agreement whereby the developmeot and marketins ofthe proiect was to be done jointly by the respondent no 3&4in terms olthe license/permissions granted bv the DTCP, Haryana Although the f HARER: #-cLrnLcnlv Complaint No.1717 of2023 a!d respondent no.3 i.e. no.3 i.e., Samyak Proiects Pvt Ltd cancelled the agreement vide termination notice dated 02.02.2021 and th€ matter is subjudice before the arbitral tribu nal appo inted by Delhi High Court vide ordet dated 22-01-2027- lt is relevant to refer the definition ol the term 'Promoter' under the section 2[zkJofthe Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

2 Defnitions.

Ak)'prehotet neB (i) o peBan who cohttruct o. couses to be constucted an hdepentlent buttding or o building conesttng oI oportnets o' cohverts on existns building d d paft thereol inta u ponnents far the pu.pase al tellinlt all or nne ol the oportnenLt t other personsond includs his ossbne6; or (ii) o person who develops lond into o projec, whether ot not the peBon aka consrructt sttuctur$ ononvolthe plots,lor the putpase olsetting tn other persons all or so e oJ the ptots tn the said prclecawhethet with or witlout st.uctu6 theteon: or (hi) xxNxnxx 29.

The authoriry observes that landowner is covered bythe definition ofpromoter u nder sub clause (,) o r (ii) ot section 2 (zk).

A person who constructs o r 'auses to be constructed a buildlng or apartments is a promoter jf such building or ap:rtm ents are meant fo r the purpose of sellin8 to othe' p€rsons Sinilarly, a person who develops land into a proiect ie., land into plots is a promoter in respectofthe fact thatwhetheror not the person also constructs structures on any of the plots. lt is clear thata person develops land into plots or constructs build ing o r apartmen t for the purpote of sale is a promoter' Th€ words' "causes to be constructed" in deiinition of promoter is capable of covering the landowner, in respect of€onstruction ofapartments and buildings There may be a situation where the landowner may not himselfdevelops land into plots or constructs building or apa. ng or apa.tment himsell but he causes it to be constructed or developed through someone else Hence, the landowner is expresslv covered under the definition ofpromoter undersection 2 (zk) sub clause (iland (ii)' fiHARERA {!- euntnnrv Compiaint No.

1717 of2023 and 30.

In view ofthe above, the liability under provisions ofSecrion 18(11ofthe Act & Rules read with b uilder buyer agreement shall be borne by the respondenr.

The complainant intends ro conrinue wirh the projed and are seeking delay possession charges interest on the amount paid.

Proviso ro section 18 provides that where an allottee does nor intend ro withdraw lrom the p.ojecr, he shatlbe paid, by the promoter, inte.est for every month ofdelay, till rhe handing over of possession, at such rate as may be p.escribed and it has been prescribed under rule t5 ofthe rules: ,Section 1A: - Retum oladounadnd@mpenso oa 134) U the p.onoEr foils to colaplete or is unoble to give possession ol on oportnqt, plot, or buildhg. - in o.carttohce wtth the tehs althe asreenent lor sah oL os the cae na! be dLly conpleted by the date tpeciled theteihl due to discontinronce olhisbusinessato deeeloper an oc.aunr al s u spe h ian o. /evocatio h aI the rcg lst/a ti on ! nde. th ts A ct o. lot on!otht reotun he shollbe lnblean denond to the ollottees, incase rhe allattee qahe\ to withdrow lron the ptojecr,vnhartpreiudi.e ta ony othet rcncdy avotloble to rctutn the onount rcceived by hin tn respe.t ofthutopoftneht, plat, buildt^g, asthe.ose nor be, qtth inrerest ot such raD os no! be predbed in thi\ beholl tncluding conpenntion in the onner os provided under thls Pravided thatwh* on ollottee des not irtend to withdrow fron the ptojecq he shott be poid, bt the [otnoteL interen fo. every n.nth aldela!, till the hondingover olthe posse$ian, u. such rateasno! be pta.tib.A ' 31. ib.A ' 31.

Clause 29 ofthe BBA provides ior handing over ofpossession and is reproduced The developet shalt aller possesion olthe unn any time, eithin o period ol i5 honths Itum the .tote ol decution oI the dgr.enent or virhin 36 nonths hon th. tlote oJobtdiaine al the required tunc ons dn.l opprovol necessory Ior .o [email protected] ol .onstru.aion, whichevef is laEr suuect ta tinel! paynent ololl dues b, burer ond subje.l to lorce n a ieu te c i.cu msta hces os desni bed in cl o u se 3 2 Fu tthe. there *HARERA s-eunuennv Complaint No.1717 of2023 and sholl be a gmce ptiod ol 6 months a owed to the developer over and obore the period oI36 months os obove in alJenns the pasestoh ol the unit' 32.

Due date otpossession and admissibility ofgrace period: As per clause 29 ofthe BBA, the possession oathe allotted unitwas supposed to be oilered within a stipulated timeframe of within a period of 36 months f,rom the date of execution ofthe agreement orwithin 36 months from the date ofobtaining al1 the required sanctions and approval necessary for commencement oi construction, whichever is later.

The period of35 months is calculated from the date ofagreement i.e.,03.10 2012 beinglater.

As iaras grace period of6 months is concerned the same is allowed being unqualified.

The occupation certificate forthe project has notyet been obtained from the competen t authority.

33.

Payment of delay possession charges at prescribed rate of interest: The complainants are seeking delay possession charges al the pr€scribed rate of interest.

Proviso to section 18 providesthat where an allottee does not intend to w,thdraw lrom the proiect, he shall be paid, by th€ promoter, interest for every month ofdelay, tillthe handing over ofpossession, at such rate as may be prescribed and it has been prescribed under rule 15 ofthe rules.

Rule 15 has been reproduced as under: Rule ls, Prcs.ribe.l rute o, int rest' [Provko to secnon 12, ecnoh lsondtub e. sondtub e.trcn (4) ond subsecttan (7)olsection 1el Fot the pury$e al pravisa tosection 12)sectior 18)ond sub sections (a) on.1 t7) ol sechon 19, the intetest ot the .ate presnibe,t" sholl be the Stote Bonk oltndia htghest naroinol cost of I e ndi ng rote + 2%. : Prcvided thotincdse the Stote Bankoflhdia morgtnol cost al tending rcE (MCLR) is nat m us., itshollbe rcploced b, such benchnorklending rdtes whlch thestok Bank ollndn nov lx tron tine to tme lot lendins ta the s.nerul Pubhc 34.

The legislature in its wisdom in the subordinate legislation under the provisio n of rule 15 of the rules, has determined the prescribed rate of interest.

The rate 1}HARERA S-ounuenntr,t of interest so determined by the legislature, is reasonable and ifthe said rule is f,ollowed toaward the interest, itwillensure uniform practice in allrhe cases.

35.

Consequently, as per website oithe State Bankoilndia i.e., https://sbi.co.in, rhe marginal cost oi lending rare (in short, MCLR) as on date i.e., 13.05.2025 is 9.10ol0.

Accordingly, the prescribed rate of interest will be marginal cosr of lending rate +270 i.e., 11.10olo.

36.

The definition of term 'interest' as defined under section 2(zal of the Acr providesthatthe rate ofinterest chargeable from the allottee by rhe promoter, in case ofdefault, shall be equalto the rate ofinterest which the promote. shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default.

The relevant section is reproduced below: 'tzo) 'inte.ert' dens the rates of ihterest payobte b, the p ron ote r ar t he o I lattee, a t t h e.a e no! be. txplonatton lor the pu.posealthttcloute the nte ol intewt chorseable fion the o ottee br the prohote. in case oldelouk shatt be eqmt to the rcte al intercst whirh the ptanatet shall be liable ta pay the alloue, tncoseaf defautt) the inErest poloble b! the Uonotq to the ollottee shall be lrcn the dote the p noter received the adount ot o^J port thercol til the aoE the dnouht or paft thereolond interest therean 6 refuhded, and the inle d the inlerest poyoble b! the ollottee to the ptanoter tholl be ton the dote the ollotE. deluutts in polnent ra the ptu oretti theddt2itispoid;' 37.

Therefore, interest on ihe delay paym€nts from the complainants shall be charged at the prescribed rate i.e., 11.10% by the respondent/promoter which is the same as is being granted to them in case ofdelayed possession charges.

38.

On consideration olthe documents available on record and submissions made by the pa.ties regarding contravention as pe. prov,sions of the Act, the authority is satisfied that the respondent is in contravention of the section 11(4)(al ol the Act by not handing over possession by the due date as per the agreement.

By virtue of claus€ 29 ofthe buye.'s aereement, the possession of Compiaint No.

1717 oI2023 and *HARERA # eunuonev Complaint No.1717 of2023 and the subject unit was to be delivered within stipulated time However' no occupat,on certificate has been received by respondents and possession has been handed over to the allottee tilldate' 39.

The Authority is oi considered view that there is delay on the part of the respondents to offer ol possession ol the allotted unit to the complainants as per the terms and co nditions of the allotment letter Accordinglv' it is th e ia'lu re ofthe respondent/promote. to fulfilits obligations and responsibilities as per th€ agreement to hand over the possession within the stipulated period' 40.

Accordin8ly, the non_comPliance of the mandate contained in section 11(41(al read with section 18[1] of the Act on the part ol the respondent/promoter is established.

As such, the allottee shallbepatdbythe promoter interest lorevery month of delay from the due date of possession till the date of valid ofier of possessron plus 2 months after obtaining occupation certificate from the competent authority or actualhanding over ofpossession whichever is earlieri at prescribed rate i e.' 11. i e.' 11.10%P'a' as perp'oviso to sectlon 18(11oftheAct read with rule 15 of the rules The following Eble concludes the time pe'iod for which the complainants_allottees are entitled to delayed possession char8es in term\ ol pro! r\o ro <eclior 18(11 ol the Acr .-;,,.

Periodlorwhich th' complain'ntr are 'ntiiled ro DPC -t LRILII'tto21 1i-., **o'o t'' "''o offer or po$e$ion p'us 2 month\ drq obraining oc'uprton 'en rc e rrlm fi' (ompete 'uthoritv or ".t*r l-aingi'"' "ipo*"ssion' whichever is earlier' os'e$ion Prus 2 monrhs afrer cR/l7ru,ro21 We.l ll.lo.lolq l'll vdl'd ^oflt :1 p -"^ -^-^-,--.,,,."".-.. .ii","- ";, "r,,." , *,i,.ate rrom the competenr authoriry or actualh;drnsoverof po$e$ion.whichev€rrsea Er ns per *ctron t ztz) or tt,e A; ot 20lb' the promotet is under;n=n oblr8atron to handove. th€ physical possession of the said unit to the complainant ln view of ?are2s ol27 rill date 41. {}HARERA 1,""", ^" '',- 'o,,dnJ s-l;-i;,v [" "i*",,i" *+-a""is directed to handover possession orthe flat/unitto the complainant in terms ofsection 17[2) ofthe Act of 2016' wrthin a period oi 2 months after obtaining occupation certificate from the competent authoritv' H.u, Dlrectthe respondentto pay thecompensation for not providing eDtrance '' una fnt".fo. **"Aln8 to the layout plans as was shown to the rhe conrplainant is also seeking relief w'r't compensation for not providing entrance and intenor according to the lavout plans lt is observed that the Hon'ble Suprem.

Court of India in civil apPeal nos' 6745_6749 of 2021 tided as[/s Newtech Prcmoters anil Developers Pvt Ltd v/s Stote ol Up & ors.zo2t'2A22(1') RCR(.),3s7 has held that an allottee is entitled to cl:inr compensation under sections 12,14,18 and section l9 which is to be decided bv the adjudicating officer as per section 71 and the quantum ot compensation shall be adludged bv the adjudicating omc€r having due resard to the iactors mentioned in section 72. ection 72.

The adjudicating officer has exclusive lurisdiction to deal with the complaints ln respect ofcompensatlon' Directions of the authoritY: Hence the authoritv hereby passes rhis order and issues the following directions under section 37 ofthe Act to ensure compliance ofobligations cast upon the promoteras per the function entrusted to theauthoritv undersection 3a(t): a.

The respondents/promoters jointly and severallv are directed to pav interest at the prescribed 'ate of 11'10% p'a' for every month oidelav from due date of possession till the date of valid offer oi possession plus 2 monihs after obtaining occupation certificate from the competent authorty or actual handing over of possession' whichever is eadier; at 42. t.

43.

Cohplaint No 1717 oi2023 and *HARERA torocn'No r-rro rorrd d I prescribed rate i.e., 11.100/o p.a. as per proviso to section 18[1] of the Act rerd with rule 15 ofthe rules. b.

The respondents are dnect€d to hand overthe actual physicalpossession ofthe unit to the complainants within 2 months after obtaining occupation c.

The rate olinterest chargeable from the allottees by the promoter' in case oi delault shall be charged at the prescribed rate ie', 1110% bv the respondent/promoter which is the same rate of interest whi'h the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottees, in case of default i'e'' the delayed possession charsesas pei siiiion z(zal ofthe ect' d.

The complainants are directed to pay outstanding dues' ii anv' after adlustment ofinterest forthe delayed period' e.

The respondeDts are directed to pav arrears ofinterestaccrued within 90 days from the date oforder ofthis order as per rule 16[2] olthe rules t The respondents shall notcharge anythingwhich is not the part ofBBA' This decisron shall mutatis mutandis apply to cases mentioned in par: 3 ofthrs The complaints stand disPosed oI Files beconsigned to reglstry. .1.1 45.

Haryana Real Estate Datedr 13.O5.2025 v"t.>> (vllay Kumar Goyal) an) I w. ) an) I w. (Arun Kumar) Chairperson Regulatory Authonly, Gurugram -