MS LUSH HOSPITALITY LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE DIRECTOR NAVEEN SHARMA vs IREO PRIVATE LIMITED

HARER GURJGRAN4 BEFORE THE Versus M/S IREO Pvr.

Lrd, Registered omce at A_11, First Floor, Niti llrgh, Ncw Dclhl 110049 and corporatc olflce al5th Floor, Orchid Centcr, GollCourse Road, Sector53, GurugranL122002.

M/s Nucleus Conbuild Pvt.

Ltd Registered office at 304, Xa,rchan House, Krr.rnrtura Conrnrcrcral Complex, New l)elhi 15 coRAM: APPEARANCE: Sh Ashish Budhiraia l\4s.

ShivaniDane L, mplc nr No Lb5cullul2 HARYANA REAL ESTATE RECULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM 6659 of 2O2Z t3.10.2022 02.05.2025 comPlalntDo.

Fistdate ofhearingr Dateofdeclsion I M/s Lush Hospitaltty Ltd.

R€gistered oflIce at 10, Homi lvlodj Street, S€cond Floor, Above KapolBank, Fort Mumbai-400023 through its authorized representative Naveen Sharma, Director ofthe Chairman Counsel tor Complainant Counsel for Respond€nt l.

ORDIR The present complaint dated 13.102022 has been filed bv the complainant/allottee under section 31 oi the Real Estate (Regulation and Developnent) Act,2016 (in short, the Act) read with rule 28 ofthe Haryana Real Estate (Resulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (in short, the Rules) 2 aor v,olation olsection 11(4)(al ofrhe Acr wherein ir is in,er o/ia prescrjbed that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilitjes and lunctions under the provisions of the Acr or the Rules and regutar,ons madc there undcr or to th. allotrees as per rheagreement fo. sale executed Unit and proiect related detalls The particulars oi unir details, sale cons,deration, the amounr paid by the complainant, date oiproposed handjng over the possession, delay p€riod, ir ,ny. have been derailed in lhe tollowiDgtabutar form: *HARER & eunucnnur Complaint No 6659 of2022 ''lreo Cureaon Hrlls' seLror Z, CuruErrh Croup H,,us,n8S.hemc DTCP li.ense 36 ot 2Ot1 dated 26.04_20t1 25.04.2026 03 01.2012 a RERA M/s Nudeus conbu,ld l,vr Ltd.

27.04.2012 L *HARER #crrnrrCmr,,r comph nr No b65q or2022 24.tt.2012 [page no.

33 of complaino 11 13 L 14.

1 13 L 14.I Date ot approval of building 805_41oh sth Floor, Tower B 19.01.2013 [pase no.

22 of complaino ft. t7.45.2072 .eply) 26.06.20t3 replyl Date orfire s.heme approval 26.t2.2A73 [annexure R- 44 on page no 14s of undq the term and conditions ol this Agreenent ond not hovins defdulte.l under ony prceision(s) ol this Agreenent including but not linite.l to the tinety poymeht ol oll dues ond cha,ges including the total Sole Cansiderotioh, registration cho,ges, stanp dutt and othe. chotges dnd abo subject to the 14.3 Possession ond Hol.ling Chorges sublect Lo rorce Majeute, as delined herein atu1 lurthet subject to the A1onee holing complied wh ult tts obtigations t2. fff{RERe S-Gunrnmvr HARERA oJler the pa"ession oJ fii I Pool Serwced Apartnent to withih a periad of42 nonths te of approval ol the Buildi ng d/or luntment ol the hs inposed there uhd ent Period ).

The Allottee s and understontls thdt the oll add nonatl! be en ttetl to 180 days ( Croce period"), Piry af the sdid Cotunntuent ttow for unforeseen detoys teasonable contrct of the Due dare olpossession from the dare ofapprovaloi 5 on page no.

146 of Tot.l sale consideration 4/ ,75,17, Rs.5,24,21, las per s e8/- A oD page no.

126 oi Occupation ceftittcate 29.06.2022 (annexure R- s6 on page no.

237 of '11.o7.2022 pHARER S* GLtarcmrl [I- I complaintNo.

6659 of 2022 L B, :4U Facts ofthe comptaint The complainant has made rhe foltow,ng submjssions in the complaiDrl i l'hat an apartment bLryets agrecmenr dared 28.11.2012 was executed at cu.ugram berweeD rhe respondent lreo pvt.

Ltd. and above said Krishan Kumir KhulLxr and tt4ls Nuclerrs Conbuild pvt.

Lrd. (Confirmjng Partyl. t.he confirmjng party was enntled to devetop, setl and deal with semi turnish residential ap:rrtments p.oposed ro be const.ucted on the land menrioned in rhe Apartmenrs Buyers ii.

The said apartmentwas tor a basic sate price ofRs.

7950/_ per sq. feet olsuperarea i.e. total ot Rs.

5,07,94,998/ hereinatter referred to as basi. o as basi. sale price and orher charges such as development cha.ges, pLC and Club Nlembcrthip charges .the altotree had opted tor rhe payment plan annexed as Annexur€ IV ofthe agreemenr which is a construction l,nked paymenrplan.

As per clause 7.4, the allortee shaltbe tiabletopay simple interest on every detayed paymentar rhe rate of 20% perannum from the date that jt is due ro payment titl the dare ofactual payment th ereol As pe.

Clause 14.2, the allonee agreed thar ii it fails, ignores or neglccts to rake the possession ot said apanment in accordance wrth notice oipossession sent by the Company rhe altottee shallbe tiabte ro pay additional charges .quivat.nr ro Rs.

10/ per sq. teet on the super a.ea per nronth olthe said apartment (hotding charges) as per clause 14.3, the respondenr p.oposes ro oiter the possession of the said apartment to the allottee within a period of42 months trom rhe dare of approval oi bu,lding ptans and/or tutfilment oi the pre conditions of replyl PJCe 5 ul28 *HARER' 1S- eLrnLrcnlr,,r rii. iv approval of building plan and / or fulfilment oipre conditions imposed thereunder [commhent penod] and the allottee iurther agrees and understands that the company shall additionally be entitled to period o1180 days (grace period) after the cxpiry olsaid commitment pe.iod to allotfor a unloreseen delaysbeyond the controlofthe company.

As per clause 14.4 subject to clause 14.3, ilthe company iails to offer the possession of the said apartment to the auottee by the end ofgrace period, it shall be liable to pay Ihe allottee a compensationcalculated @ 10 per sq. feet oathe super area (Delay Compensationl fo. every month ofdelay until rhe aclual dnte fixed by the company lor handing over the said possession of the apartment to the allottee.

As per clause 14.5, subtect to clause, 14. lause, 14.3 in the event oidelay by the company in oliering the possession of the said apartment beyond a period of 12 months rrom the end of grace period lsuch 12 months period hereinafter referred to as extended delay period) then the allottee shall become entitled to opt for teunination oithe sllotm€nt/ agreenr.nt and refund ofthe actualpaid up instalments paid by it against the said apartment after adjusting the inte.est or delayed payments along w,th delay compensation for 12 months.

Such refund shall be made by the Company wrthrn 90 days ol.eceipt ofintimation lo this effect from the alloitee without any interest thereon.

That some of the clauses in the buyer agre€ment that the complainants/buyers were made to sign by the respondent are one sided.

The complainanis had signed alr.ady prepared documents and that some oi the clauses contained therein were totallv unr€asonable and rn favor olrhe .espondent only. 'lhnt the nbove said thrce receipts and apartment buyers agreement was endoNed rn favou. oI complainant by thc respondent as the romplr nt No.665c of 2022 IARER GURUGRAIV ComplarnrNo 6659of 20Z2 complainant has purchased the said apartment from Krishan (umar Khullar.

In terms of apptication/ affidavir dated 19.1.2013 filed by Xr,shan Kumar Khultar, the said documents i.e. three receipts and apartment buyerd agreemenr were endorsed in favour of the complainant.

On 28.1.2013 the respondent sent a lene. bearing no.

IREO Ggn/CRN/CHIB05-41 by which rhe respondent informed the complainant rhat onwards rights/ obligations with respecr to Unit no.

805-41 are here,nafter being assigned to the complainant as nominee of Mr.

Krishan Xumar Khultar in t€rms of ctause 1S of rhe apa(ment The paymenr made by Xrishan Kumar Khullar to the respondent was paid to him by rhe €omplainanr with premium on the apartment.

Thus, the respondent has received an amount of prs.

S,24,21,gs /.ti today.

No dues a.e to be paid by him as per annexure 4 lV i.e.

4 lV i.e. payment plan annexed with the Aparrment Buyers Agreement Certain amount is to be paid by the complainant ro the respondent on filing of OC by the respondent with the concerned auttlority and cerrain amount is to be paid by the complainant to the respondent on receipt of occuparion certificate/ oller ofpossession.

There is no default jn payment byrhe complainant to the respondent as per payment plan.

The complainant has already fulfilled irs obligation ofApanmenr Buyers agreement but the respondent has milerably taited ro fulfi its obligarion as per sajd agreement.

Neither occupation certiflcate has been appt,ed by the respondent nor rhe same has been received from the appropriate authority.

No notice of offer of possession has been gjven by the respondent to rhe complainant til roday.

There is an unreasonabte delay in offering possession otthe apartment by the respondent ro the compla,nant.

Complainant cannol be forced by the respondent to take D.

4 c. *HARER &- ounucnavr possession otthe apartment as per whims ofthe respondent.

Iltherejs delay in hand,ng ove. the possession of the apartmenr then the complainanthas liberry eitherro takepossessjon oitheapartment orto seek relund ofirs amount with interest and delayed compensarion. vii That despire recoiving oi a payment ot the d.mnnds raised by the .espondenrs tor rhe said Ftat and despire .epeated requssts and reminders ovcr phone ca s and personat visjts oi th. conrptainants, rhe respondents have f.il.d ro detive. rhe possessron ot the a otted apa.rment to the comptainants withjn stiputated period which ctearty shows that utrerior motjve of the respondents to extract monev lrom rhe rrnocent people fraudutently.

Reliefsought by th€ complainant: Tl'F ' ompldrnarr \d. .ousht to oh ing rpiie,!,1 i.

Dlrect the respondent to retu.d rhe payment mads by rhe complanrant along with rnterest at rh. prescribed rate from the date oi such On the dnrc olh. dnrc olh.aring, rhe ruthority expjained ro the respondent/promorer about thc conbaventions as alleged to have been committed jn retation to section 11(4) (al ofthe act to plead guilry or not to plead guilry.

Reply by the respoodent ]-he respondeDrno I hasconrened rhecomptainton the ioltowj ng grou nds.

That the present comptaint is neither mainrainable nor tenable and is liable ro be out rightly dismissed.

The buyer,s agreement was executed between the originat allortee and the respondents and endorsement were done in the name of the comptainanr prior to the enactment of rhe ITHARERA & eun,rc,nml Complaint No 6659 oI2O22 RERA Act 2016 and the provisions laid down in rhe said Act cannot be enforced rerrospectivety. 'lhat the complarnt is nor maintajnabte as the marte. rs preierable to arbitrarlon as per rhe Arbirration and ConcrliarioD Acr, 1996 in view of the aaftthat the buyer's agreementcontains an arbitration clause wh,ch relersto thedispute resolution mechantsn to beadopted by rhepart,es in the event ofany dispute thar rhe Ctause 36 olrhe agreemeni That the complainant has not approached rhis Authority wirh ctean hands and has intenlionalty suppressed and conceated rhe material iacts The conduct of rhe complainant has been mala ii.le and ir is not entilled ro any retietar all.

That respondents a.e repured real estare developers having immense goodwjll, .omprised oflaw abiding and peace-loving persons and have always believed in rendering best services ro thetrcustomers inctuding the complarnant.

Respondents along with their associate companies have developed aDd detivered several prestigious projects such as 'Cr.rnd Arch','The Corrjdors,,,Vjctory Va ey,, Skyon,, Uptown,,,treo Ciry'. lreo Crty C.ntral, etc. and in most ofthese projects ta.ge number ol allottees hrve already shttted and havjn8 taken possession and Resident Welfare Associations have been fornred which are rakinB care oi the d ay to-day need s ot the aitottees ot rhe respective p rotects. p rotects.

Thatthe o.iginal allotree Mr.

Krishan Kumar Xhulla r, after checking the veracity of the projed namety, ,treo Curugram Hills, had appUed ior :llotmenr of an apartmenr vide Bookjng Application Form dated 03 01.2012 That respondenr no.

1 rarsed paymenr demand from the oflginal rllottee in accord.rncc wirh the .rgrecd lernrs and conditioDs of the *HARERI &,eunuennnr Complain!No.6659012022 \ il. allorment.

Ir is submitted that vide paymenr demand dated 23.05.2012. respondenr no. t had sent fi.sr instalment demand for the net payable anrount ofRs.

59,47,676l . owever, the o.iginat altortee faited ro remir the demanded amouDr despre.emindcrs dared 18.06.2012 and 04_07 20t2. 'Ihat vide tetrer dared 16.07.20r2, the originat a ottee requesred respondenr no I lbr rhc exrension othme period rill 2008.2012 tor making arrangements to clear the payment otrhe fi.st instatment and as a customer-oriented company, respondenr no.

1 vid. jrs email dared 17.07.2012, granred the extension ofrjme as requested by the original That based on rhe said Application, respo.denr no.

1 vide Atlorment Oiier Lcrter dared 27.08 2012 altotted to rhe originataltottee apartment no 805 41, h:virg tentarive super area of 6388.05 sq. ft. for sale consideranon of Rs.

5,74,65,706/ .

This consideration was exclusive oi the regjstrarion charges, stamp duty, service tax and other charges which are stillpayable.

Accordingly, theApartment Buyer,s Agreemen r was executed berween rhe originat a oftee and respondenrs on 24.r1_2A12 That vide General power ot Attorney dated 17.12 2012, the originat allottce conlcrred upon his son and artornsy t\4r.

Xanishk Khutlar rhe power to to do various acrs, deeds and things on his behalt Thereafter, the o.iginrl allottee th.ough h's CpA hotder 14r Kanishk Khulta.. enlercd inro an agreemsnt to selt dated 17.12.2012 with the complainanr to selt rhe unir jn quesrion tor a totat sale conside.ation of Rs.6,35,85,842.

That the original allottee through his GpA hotder Mr. hotder Mr.

Kanishk Khullar and the complainanr ro whon the origjnala ottee wanted ro sellhis PJg.10 of28 {THARER * eunLrcmH,l Conplarnr No 6b59 of2022 sakl unitapproached respondent no.

I witha requestto rransier/assign the allotment ofthe said Unit in tavour of the complainant.

The original allottee through hisGPAholderand the complaina nt executed requisjte documents in this behalt I.he complainant executed aafidavir, indenrnity bond-cum-underraking and Transier Agreemenr dated :19 01.2013 The complarnant had turnished the lndenrD[y Bond Cum- llndertaking speciltcalty admirting thcrein that the cornplainanr shalt keep thedeveloper indcnrniiied againsrany ctainrs, tosscs, damages erc. olrny kind ivhatsocv.r. l herefore, the present .omplainr is not at a Daintainable as rhe complainant is estopped hom filing the present That upon fulfilnenr ofthe reqirisire formalities by the originata otree as wel1as the complainant, the responden t e ndorsed atlthe documenrs with .espect to the said rransfer in favour of the complainant.

The conphrrnnr wnh irs eyes wide open aDd afro rnspecting alt rhe documents and being torally satjsfied, purchased the said Unit from the original allottee.

Thc complainanr agreed ro be bound by th. ternrs and conditions ol rhe Booking Application lionn and Aparrment Buyer,s AErc.nrent and the same hns bceD duty endorsed in favouroft.

That respondenr no.

I company afte. scrutinizing the apptication and the docunrents mentjoned above, assigDed the .ighrs oi rhe unit in question to the complainantand jntimated the same to irvide its letter datcd 2U.01.2013.

It is submirted rhat a hesh booking applicatjon form was signed by the conrplajnanr and the Apartnrent Buyer's Agreenrent was endorscd in rhe name olrhe complainaDt on account otassignmenr olthe rights in rhe allotred unir.

Hcnce. ir.

Hcnce. rhe conrptnjnanr rs bound by the ternN ol thc bookrng applicJrion form as welt ns of rhe Asreement:nd Pagc I I !r2a HARERA GIJRUGRAIV canoot wrigSle out ot its contraduat false and frivolous pleas.

CompdLnrNo 6659 of2(]2Z obligations by raising baseless, That respondent no.

1 kept on raising payme.t denrands fronr the conrplainant in accordance wrth the agreed tenns and condirions oithe allotmentas well aspayment plan.

Thecomptajnanr is bound to payrhe .emaining amount rowa.ds the rotatsale conside.ation ofrhe unit along with applicable registration charges, stanrp dury, service rax as welt as other charges payablc along with it at the applicable stage.

That vide paynent denrand dared 13.|.2014, rcspondcnt no.

I had senl totrrrh inslalmenl denrand for the ner payabte amount ot Rs.

61.56,801.96.

However, the complainanr taitcd to .cmifthe demanded amouDt despite remjnders dated 09_72.2014,30.12.2A14 aod rtnal notice daied 20.01.2015 and the sri.l demanded amounr was accordingly adjustcd in the next instalment denand as arrears.

That vide payment demand dated 03.03.2015, respondent no. t had sent fifth instalment demand for the net payabte amount oi Rs.

1,03,75,498.70.

However, the comptainanr tailed ro.emrt the demanded amount despir. reminders dared 2903.2015 & 19.04.2015 and respondeDr no. t was ultimatelyconskained to terminare the a otment vide Cancellarion lerrer dated 0 t 05.201S. 'lhat the conrplarnant requcsred rcspondcnt no.

I ro restore the allotment of thc unit in quesrion.

Respondcnt no.

1 being a cusromer- oriented developer acceded to the sajd requesr ofthe comptainant and intinrated the comptainant vide its letrer dared 11.06.2015 about rhe restoration ofallotn)ent after receiving alt rhe ourstanding installments due till rlrat date.

That vide paynent denland dat.d 25.09.2018 respondent no.

I had srn! tou.teenrh instaltment denrand tor the ner PaCe t2 rl2A Complaint No.

6659of 2022 *HARER S-eunLcmnr p.tyable amount oiRs. s6,87,924l_. ,87,924l_.

However, the complainant faited to remit the dema.ded amountdespite reminder dared 2S.10.2018.

That the possession of the unit was supposed to be otiered ro the complainant in accordaDce wirh rhe agreed terms and condirions ofthe ApartmentBuyer sAgroemenr The complainantvide CIause 14.5 otrhe lluy.ls ASreenlent and Clause 55 oirhe Bookjng Apptjcation Form had Iurtheragreed for.rn.xtend.d delayper,od of12 monrhs trom rheend olgrace period.

Iirom rhe aforesaid rerms ofthe buyer,s agreement, ir is evidentthat tirne was to becomputed fronr the dare ofreceipt ota rhe requjsite approvals.

Even otherwise, construction cannot be raised in the absence ol necessary approvals.

It is pe.rinent to menhon he.ein that it has been specified in sub-clause tvl otclause 17 ofrhe Butlding Pian Approvat dared 17.05.2012 of the said projecr that the clearance issued by the Ministry oitjnvironmentand Forest, Covernment of India had to be obtajned bcto.e stnrrjng the construcrion otthc projecr.

That the envj.onment clearance for construction ofthe said projecr was granted on 26.06.2013.

Furrhermo.e, in Clause 22 otthe parr A ofthe EnviroDmenr Ctearance dated 26.06_ZOt3, it was stated rhat the iire safety plan was to be duly approved by the tire department berbre the start olany const.uction, at site. 'lhat the last oI rhc stalutory approvats whrch forms a par ot the precondition lvas the fire scbene approval which was granted on 26.12.2013 and rhe ttme pcriod tor offering the possession, according to the agreed t.rms woutd have expired on 26.:12.2018.

However, the s,rjd period is subj.ct to rhc occurrence otthe torce majeu.e condirion which is beyond the reasonable conrrot ot respondent no.

1 and rhe complainant also complyjng wirh irs contractual obtigations.

IARER c.)J6)q"' ,""",,.-,;;;;tl 'I-hat respondent no. t had intrmated the consrrucrion status ro thp complainant and as pcr Clause 13 ofrhe Apartment Buyer,s agreement invired the complainant, vide its email dated 18.04. ted 18.04.2016 ro starr the interior works ot the unit a]lo$ed by taking physical nreasurements along with archite.rs and by dojngdesign manasement.

Respondenr no.

1 vide emaildated 22.02 2017 had remindcd the comptainant regarding rtsconr.rctual obligation ro complere rhe interiorworks in the said unit wjthin a period ol9 nonths from the granr ofpermission tor rnte.ior works IIowever, the complainant hiled ro adhere ro its obtigations.

Th;rt thc con)plainanr tailcd to adhere ro irs conrractuat obligations ot complenng dre i n ierior design managenrenr and respondent no 1 coutd not have waited endlessly and accordingly had applied aor the grant oi occupation cerrifi cate on 24.09.2018.

That it ls pertinentto menrion hereinthat DTCP, Ha.yanavide irs letter datcd 14.02.2019 inrimared to respondent no_ 1 thar the buildjng was not completed as perrhe approved buitding ptans and that tt woutd not havc any obtections in gettjng the tigments and fixtures/remajning interior work ol the flat complered with either bv the colonrzer or through thc allottees- 1t is reasserted thar the obligatjon ofcomplering the interjo. work and design management was otthe conplainant and not of respondent no.

1.

Ilowever, respondenr no.

1 being a cusromer-oriented developer conrpleted the construction ot the unit as per Section 7.15 oi the Haryana Building Codc,2017 which deals with the nrinimum provisions with regard to th. dwelling unir, although rhe same was rtre tjabitiry ot the complainant as per the rerms oi rhe buyer's ag..emenr and respondent no. t again applied tor rbe granr of occupation certificare *& HARERA GUtlUGRAIU Complarnt No.

6659 of 2022 vide its le$er dated 13.08.2019.

This fact was complainant vide letter dared 22.08.2019 That it is pertinenr to menrion here that the jmplementarion of rhe projecr was affected due to the non-payment of installmenrs by rhe allottees including the complainant on time and also due ro events and conditions which were beyond the control oa respo l oa respondenr no.

1 and which affected the imptementar,on ofthe project in quesrjon.

Some of the aorce majeure events/conditjons which were beyond the control oi respondent no.

1 and arected the imptementation of rhe proiect rre as intimated to the : - In lasr 4 years Le. i.

201s- 2018, Hon'ble Green Tribunal has been passing orders to protect rhe envjronment ot rhe country and specjally rhe NCR rcgion.

The Hon'ble NGT has passed orde.s governing rhe en try and exit o lvehictes in NCR region.

Atso, the Hon,ble NGT has passed orders with rega.d ro phasing out the to_yearotd dieselvehicles trom NCR.

The conrracto. of respondenr no.1 could not underrake construction ior several monihs in co mpliance ot the orders ofthe Hon bte NCT.

Due to the same, there was a delay as tabour wenr back ro rherr homerowns whi.h resulted in shonage of tabour as we .

In vrew ot rhe sanre, construcnon lvork rem.rincd very badty affected io.6 12 months aDd the same was beyond the reasonabte conkot ofrespondent no.

I andthesaid period isrequired tobeadded for calculating rhe d etrvery of possession. allottees were in default ofthe agreed payment payment olthe constructjon linked instalmenrs Several other Page 15of2a IARER GURUGRAN4 Compldrnr No b65c of2022 or were not made resuhing in badly impacting and delaying the implementat,on ofrhe entjre proiect. :- Due h€avy rainfallin Gurgaon in theYear Z016 and unfavorable weather conditions, the construction activjties were badly afected as tbe whole town was weather logged as a resuk ofwhjch rhe implementation of the project jn question was detayed for many weeks.

Even various institutions were ordered ro be shut down/closed for many days during the year due to adverse/severe weather conditjons.

I Respondent no.

I had awarded the constructioD the project ro one of the teadirg consEuction conrpan,es of India.

The sajd conrractor/company could not 'nrplenr.nt tbe enti.. project lor approx.

7 8 monrhs w.e. onrhs w.e.f irom 9l0 November, 2016 the day when rhe Ccntrat Government issued notificarion wjth regard to demonetization.

During rhis period, rhe conrractor could nor make payment to the labour in cash.

It is submitted rhar majority of the casual labour engaged in construction a.tivities do not hav. b.nk accounts and dre paid in cash on a daily basis.

During Demonetizarion. rhe cash wjthdrawallimit Ior compani.s w<rs c<rpped at Rs.24,000 per week inirialy whe.cas cash paym.Dts to labou. on .r sire olthe magnitude ol tle project in quesrion are Rs 3-4 takhs per day and the work at site got almost haked for 7 I nronths as butk of rhe labour beine u n paid went to rheir h ometown s, wh ich resu lted IPHARER] #, eunuennu Complaint No.

6659of 2022 into shortage ol labour.

Hence, the inrplementation of the project in qr'csrion got delayed on accounr oiissues laced by the contractor due ro the notification of the Central Government.

Furth.rmore, the.e are srudies otReserve Bank ollndia and even independentsrudies undertaken by scholars of different institutes/universiries and also newspaper reports ol Reuters ol the .elevant perjod oi 2015-17 on the issue olinrpact of denionetizanon on real estar. industry and construction labour.

The Reserve Bank of India has also publidred reporrs on impact on demonerjzation ln this report, it has been observed and mentjoned by Reserve Bank ot India at page 42 that the construction indusky was in ncgative during Q3 and Q4 o12016-17 and sta.ted showing improvement only in April,2017.

That it is pertinent to mention here rhat as per clause 6 ot the DTCP order datcd 02.08.2021 clearly mentions that DTP Curugram, after inspccting the site, vide his rcporr dated 16.11.2018 informed that the internalwalls ofthe roonrs, tojlets, kitchens and orher.rpproved in the units are not constructed at site and are bare,shellas on date.0uter |n9ade ol all the towers is finished.

Thus as per Repo. per Repo.t of DTP, Curugram, respondent has completed all its obligarions under rhe Apartm..t Buyer's Agreement as on 16.11.2018 and there s,as no deiault on the part of respondents.

The internal work which ,s shown ns incomplete is the obligation of the complainant itself and conrpliinant lailcd to do the same despite being invir.d by respondent no.

I various trmes.

Despite complete non complidnce ofobligations by the complainant and other similar allotte.s, respondent no. t has already completed its part olthe oblisarions.

PiEc l7 uf28 HARERA GURUGRAM That furrbermore, during the pendency of rhe present complaint, the Diredor, Town Country and plannin& Haryana Chandjgarh has been pleased to grant occupation certif,cate bearing Me no No.Zp-./22/lD (RM) /2022 /tB11O dated29.06.2022 after completion orrhe proj€ct by respondenr no.

I had apptied for the grant of rhe Occupation Ceriificate way backon 24.09.2018.

Upon receipt ofthe said Occupation Certificare, respondenr no.

1 vi.le irs e-mail dated 11.07.2022 has duly intimated the complainant in this regard and has also simultaneously invited thecomplaina[t to.Take the possession of its unit to stan the inter,or workr, as per the agreed terms and conditions oithe apartmenr buyer,s agreement so that the unit ofthe complainantrnay be ready for occupation. lhrt it is respecttufly subnltred that rhere rs no liabiliry oi the respondents to refund the amount paid by the complajnnnt along with interest as lalselyclaimed by the complainanr.

Rather, rhe complainanr is required ro be directed by thisAurhoriry to adhere to its conr.actual obligations set out in the Allormenr as well as the Apartmenr Buyer,s Agreement at the time ofoffer ofpossession oi rhe unit tn quesrion by respondent Do 1.

Thcre js no ground whatsoever tor retunding the amount paid by the complaina.ras rhe complainant itself rs rhe w. rs rhe w.ong That the conrptainant is a realestate invcstorwho had booked the unir In quesrion with a vrew to carn qujcl proiit in short span ot rime.

Holreve., it appea.s that jts calcutatjons have gonewrong and jt is now trying to somehow unilaterally wriggle our ofirs obligarions by raisins bdscle\s "nd rdlse c.rrm, beror e thi\ Aurhor iry.

Ihecomptdrndnr c.nnor bc nllowed to succ.ed in rts matafide motives {T HARER: s- eunuc,nu,,,r 8 7 Copies oiall the retevanr documents have been f,ted and placed on record.

Their authenticiry is nor in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can be decjded on the basis of these undisputed documenrs and submission made by the An application was filed by rhe complarnant on 07.04.2025 seeking an amendment in rhe .etiet origrna y ctainred, inodifyiDg the prayer irom retund to possession. owcver, nr view ofthe fact that rhe said application was filed afrer the nratrer was reserved ior orders, it is hcld ro be not majntainable, having been filed at a belated stage.

Accordingly, rhe applicatjon stands dismissed sotety on this ground. lurisdiction of the authorityl The authority has terr,ro.iat as welt as subtect matter iurisdiction ro adjudicate the presenr cornplainr tor rhe reasons gjven betow.

E,I Territorial iurisdictior 10.

As pcr norilicarron no. t/92/20t7 I.tCp dateLt l4.t2.2017 issued by.town and Counrry Planning Deparrment, thejurkdiction ofReat Estate Regularory Authority, Cu.ugram shall b€ entire Curugram District for all purpose with offices situared in Curugram.

In rhe present case, the projecr in question is situated within the ptanning area oi Curugram djsrrict. therefore. this authority has conrplete tcrritorjat jurisdiction ro deat wrth the present E.lt subje.rmatt.rjurisdiction E, Complaint No.

6659 of 2022 IPHARER] S- eunuenev Cotoplaint No.6659 oi2O22 1l Section 11(4)ta) of the Act, 2016 provides that the respons,ble to the altonee as per a8reement for sale. for sale. r€produced as hereunder: promoter shall be Section 11(4)(a) is 12 Sectioall(4)(o) Bp.e.oor tDF tot uh abl,grhn-.e.oa,t -bttrF, o1t1 tua.uaa, Ln Jet thr otatDn\ at t\t.

4,t d t\e,Lb,,nd relutot.ai, nad. thereun.letat to the alot1esasper the asrcehent far sote ar to thc o--?.. -aa t atnt . ,"1t1p ,,,t,o" " ototl a, ^,rd.rg ". tt. ,r.. aa) op ,a,\. olo ec_ t- t ,t.,. r\\o,.ot-. nto_1.tt. r 1 L\p 41pcta|. outhat nt osrhe ,\etro, be, sedion j4-Functiods ofthe Aut ontr: t_,n re,or,o..o4 a atoa abt.!d. a1\\u\t ur, - ,h p.onrt..\ th o\a.tpe\ oht t\p ,ed . ,d. aq-t, u,lq th4 ^(tond the.ulesond reguloions nd.le thereunder So, in view ol the provisions ot the Act quoted above, the authoriry has complete ju.isdiction to decide rhe compla,nt regarding non-compliance of obligations by rhe promoter leaving aside compeDsahon which is ro be decided by the adjudicating ofjcer if pursued by rhe conrplainants at a tater stage.

Findingonobiectionsralsed byth€respondent.

F.l Obiection regardhg force mar€ure condltioos: ll.

The respondent-promoler djleg€d rhat lhe connrufiion ot rhe projecr was delayed due to force majeure conditions such as orders ofHon,ble Supreme Courroflndia ro curb polution in NC& various orders passed by NCT, EPCA and non-paymenr of instalmenr by different allonees of rhe projectbut all the pleas advanced ,n this regard are devoid otmerit.

As per the flat buy€r,s ag.eement, the due date of handing over of possession come! out to be 17.05.2016.The events such as Hon,bte Supreme Court of rndia to curb pollution in NCR, varjous orders passed by NGT, EPCA were for a sho(er ffHARERA !P- GURLGRAI/ F".d"", r-i6silr,rrl durarion of time and were not continuous as there is a delay ofmore than three years and even some happeningafter du€ date of handing over of possession.

Thus, the promoter_respondenrcannot be given any leniency on based ofaforesaid reasons and ptea taken byrespondentis devoidofmerits , , I.ll Obje(rion regarding comptainanr beiog inveslor. inveslor. l!llc'P.pojld.nt,LbmlltF,Jlhd|rheronrplain:nr consumer/allottee, rhus, the conrplainant rs not entitted to rhe prote.tion ot theAct and rhus, rhe present complaint is nor maintainable.

15.

The authoriry observes that rhe Act is enacted to protecr the interest of consumers ofthe reatestate sector.

Ir is pertin enr to note thar under section 3l ottheAcr, anyaggri.ved person can fite a comptaintrgainsrthepromoter ifthe p.omoter contravenes or viotates any provrsrons of rhe Act or rules or regulanons made thereunder.

Upon caretut pe.usal of alt the rerms and conditions ofrhe buyert ag.eement, ir h reveated that the comptainanrs a.e an allottee/buyer aDd they havc paid totat price of Rs .5,2+,Zl,Z9A/_ h the promoter towards purchase oathe said unjt in the proiect oithe promoter.

At this stage, ir is important to stress irpon rhe deainirion of term atlottee underthe Act, thesame is reproduced belowfor.eady refe.ence: ''2(dl ,Qllnttee, ih relotion ta o rcol estote protect heons the persan to ||hDh a pn,t, upott ent or buldng, a, the ese nol he hat hcpD ttusletre.t br the prcnatcr, und na,ae, o., p-so, *i. sLhtequenttr ocqrne\ the soid olktmmt throtgh sot;, tuh*t ar n.\p\r. btt tlop. .a, F hde n pt.a4 tw tkoq .r.n Dtot .t?t4- r .1..o.. rb. r1 vrnh vJ {bove m, nlroned rl.trnrIlo vr r Lr.e-..d. u.,t J\ r the rerms irnd condltions ofthe buyers agreement executed between respondent and compliinants, u is crysrat ctear that the comptainants are allottees as rhe subject un,t was alotred to them by the promoter.

The concept ofinvestor js not defined o. reierred in the Acr As per the definition given under section 2 of the Acr, rhere wilt be .promoref,and .,alottce,,and there cannot be a PJg( 2r or2B *HARER. #* clrnLrcn,cM Complarnr Nu b6s9 of2022 party having a sratus of investo.,.

The I\4aharashtra Real Estate Appe ate Tribunal in its o.der dated 29.01.2019,n appeal no.0006000000010557 titled as Mr .trusrti Jon, om Developers pvL Ltd.

Vs.

Sarvapriyo Leasing (P) Lts. g (P) Lts.

And anr.has also hetd rha he concept otinvesto. is not defined or referred in theAct.

Thus, rha conrenrion ofpromoterthat the complainanrs- allottees being investors are not enritlcd ro p.otection ot this Act stands F.lll Obiection .egarding complainanr is in breach ot agreement for non Jnvocation of arbitration claus€ 17.

The respondent subnrjtted rhat the complainr is not maintanrabte for the reason that the agreement contains an arbitranon clause which refe.s to rhe dispute resolution mechanism to be adopred by rhe parries jn rhe event of any dispute and rhe same is reproduced below tor the ready reterence: '36 DISPUT[ RUSOLT]TION: 'Att.r onr .lisputes .rkng out o. toLchns upan in.eladon to the tenn: ol thr )9teeqent .r n\ b.nmoti)n tnclutlnjlt the nt.ryretutnn ond vohdt! al the tcrnts the.eofand the.espcchre .shts dntl objiaoti.n\ at the bortres sh;t be \ekLr q-_!b^ br,rbLdot d,\r\!on,10rh9 aht 4 t\? .o4" \4a4 be ,, ,"d thtoulth tclbrch.e to a tole A.bnron r b be oppanted by a esotution at the h4- ,r . t ute\tat. o ne-unpary,,h-:? de,,.o1 holt \e \1vlo\o btarng upon the patties, The o ouee herebycanljrmsthat it sholl hove no abtection;a the oppointnent olsuch sote Arbttutar eeen iI the pereh so oppoiit"a, i, nn .hployee ot Advocote oI the Canpon! at B athe,ise connecte,t io *" Conpo,y and the Allottee hereb! occepB ond ogte$ thot this alone sholt*t*^t,nt", srcLnd lat cholehse to the independen.e or inpo iatity at the said sote Arhitrutar b .onr1u.t the orbttation t,he otbina on ptuceedmgs \hol be lave id bt the A.bnro.nn ond Con.ntuton A.t, j996 at .hy statutot! ahendn)ents/ natl|XaLon\ thcrcta und,holt be hel.t at the Cunpon!\ olfi.;s ar utt la.aonh detltnak.t by thesolJ,ne tl.bittotor n cugooh fhe knguage olthe arbt adoh praLocdt)ss(ntt ttn twoat shol he tn L;otsn rne aipiy an.l the ullottce wttshore the jees aJthe Arbtrototn equujp.aportion..

18.

The authority is olthe opinion that rhejurisdiction otrhe aurhoritycannot bef. annot bef.ttered by the exisrence otan arbitration ctause in the buyer,s agreemenr as it nlay be noted that secrion 79 of the Act bars the iurisdictjon of.ivit {}HARERA '-db- GLrrucnlH,r Conplaint No.6659 of 2022 cou.ts about any matter which falls within the purview oirhis aurhority, or the Real Estare Appe ate Tnbunat.

1.hus, the intention to render such disputes as non-arbirrable seems to be clear.

Also, section 88 ofthe Act says thafthe provisions otrhis Acr shall be in addjtion ro and not jn derogation ot the p.ovisions of any other law for the time being in force.

Further, rhe authority puts retiance on catena of judgments of the Hon,bte Supreme Court, particutarty in Nationot Seeits Corpomtion Limtted v, M. ttadhusudhan Reddy & Anr. (2012) 2 scc 506,wherein it has been het.t that the remedies provided under the CoDsumer prorection Afi are in addition toand norin derogation oftheothertaws in force, consequenrty the authority would not be bound to refer parties ro nrbibatjon even if rhe agreenrcnr between rhe parties had an arbirration clause.

19.

Further, in,4/rab Singh and ors. v.

Emaor McF Land Ltd rlnd ors., Consumef case no.

701 ol 2015 decided on 13.07.2077, the National Consumer Dispures Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRCJ has hetd that the arbitration clause in agreements between the comptainant and builder could not cjrcumscribe the jurisdiction ofa consumer.

The relevant paras are reproduced below: ''19.

Suppa to the above vlew 6 oha te br sedon 7s ol the re.ently enadetl Reot Enok [Re!]utotion ond Develaphent) Act,z016 (t'or sha;t .\- tt.J,l ,at- , . \\,t01-a-ttn"._.dt t,.rd,o,tot,o., t k,,vult..dt t,,t \o,.r., ar4,\rltho.. tut *r o, ptdeedno h t^pp t ut ory qa|.r Eh\h the Auho,tt at .ne adtntlt onno att.rt o,tht ADpdttp r,.buaat ^eqpoAet"d bJ; Lnd th. _ A_ t to upt",atne and ao it ,n,tto" ,not, te a"nn y it oaa othe.adthanN n .e,pp_ t ataq, o.rio",o,en. to ne to*", _" pu,,uo.," alon! powet confered by ar und* thbAct.. * thbAct.. tt nn thus, be reen thot thesotd p.avtsioh expressl, oLststhe)Lrisdictjon of the Citit Caurt h respet ol onr koxet firh the iteol Estote Reguloto4, ALthoriq), estoblish"a,,a",s,t,"*ion 1t I o1 s",tion zo o, ttte Arljtdi.attns olli.et. apponte.t utuletsrhs{tih i);/sectrcn 7I ar the Reot [iate App.ttont Ttibunatstubl6he,t unde;;e;on a3 altie Real L:stote Act, h enpaweted to a"1"""., Unnr, in."* o1tn" aiia.g dt.tLn ol the lanbte sr2/enle caua n 1 Ayra,wony (s,p.d,;; noue^/dt\putct, ehrh the ),Lnu"a", ,,a", tn" a"nt r:siot" t,t *. *HARERT.

S- eunuen,qrtl Complarnt No b65,1 ,l ZO22 enpovered to decide, are non-otbitable, natwjthsmnding an Arbito|o4 Asrcentut DeNeer th? ponEr o :uch noLt?r\ hici. ta o dnptb, Jothns lor t$otunan u4d?t the 5o .ar.poLenttv we ah4 nol, tct?,t .\p a.A,nen( oq bendh at th. lldttd! ond hatd Lhot on A.bt,^"" ,r*" ,i ,* a_.".,.a *ii .t Asrcenents between the conplaihont ona the Auib* connit .,r,uh\,.bp the ulrttdon ot a ron\ua"t Foto, rcr\,th_toadno the onendn.rt. nadp ta Settior I al the Atb ro an A,L.

20 While con\idering the r5sue or mdrnrainrbitrty ot a complainl before a cons'rmer iorum/commission in the fadoian ex,sting arbitration clause in the builder buyer agreement, the Hon,bte Supreme Cou( in case ritted as M/s EmaarMCF Land Lrd.

V.

Aftab Singh tn r€vlsion petition no.2629- 30/2018 incivil appeat no.

23512-23s13 of 2017 decided on 10.12.2018 has uphetd the afo.esa,d judgement ofNCDRC and as provjded in Article 141 ofthe Constitution oftnd,a, rhe law decjared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on alt courts within the terrtrory of tndia and accordingly, the authoriry is bound bytheaforesaid view.

The relevant para olthejudgement passed by the Supreme Courtis reproduced below: 25.

This Cout in the seris ol judgnents os notked above considercd thp provinont oJ Consuner protectim Act, $A6 as wet qs Afiinodoh A.] 1996 ond_totd dowa thot codptaint undo Consuner h okttioa A. okttioa A.1 bon; a rpatol renedy, dp\p e therc beng on arbitrcnon ag@nent Lh"e prc(?cdiass belore ch,uner Forun hove ro go oo ina no a,or annitted bt Co$unet Forun on rcj&ting the oppti@tion_ Iherc b oown Iot 4ot tntetie.ths pto.eedng, uodet ConsLher prctetlton A.t an the \t,prg.h un orb,ttutbn ogtencnt br A, L I egb. fhe rcne.lv Lndet Con\Lnet Pt o'e.tbn Ad D o t p^eay p-.aea to o .onsu^", *tti, tt e,e is a delect in dn! goo<B ot seNies. fhe @nplaint neons onr oltelotioh in |9nting nod. by o cmplainant hos oln been eqlotned in Sedi;a Zk) olthe AcL The rehed, unde. the an*.n erot",tion tct x annn"i a conptaint bt coBunq 6 delned hder the Acr lor delqt or defcien.i$ eused by o tervice provitle. the cheop ond a quick renedy h6 been provtded to the consuner which b the obled dnrl putpoe oj the A.t os rcriced obove." 21.

Therefor€, in view ofthe above iudgements and considering the provisions of the Act, the authority is ofthe view that complainant is well within right to seek a special remedy availabte in a beneffciat Act such as the Consumer Protection Act and RERA Act, 2016 instead of going i. for an arbirrarion. l'rgc 24 ol28 *HARERT, !$-eun,rcnml tornp d nr No b65qofl0l2 llcnce, ive have no hesitatjon in hotding that rhis aurhority has the requisite jurisdicrion to cntertain rhe conrplajnt and tha he dispute does not require to be relerred ro arbirrarion necossarily. tn the tight o f rh e above,mentioned reasons, rhe authority is of rhe view rhat rhe objection of the .espondent stands reiecred.

G Findings on the retiefsought by rhe comptainant.

G.l Direct rhe respond€nt to refund the paid-up amount along with interesrat prcscribed rate.

22.

In the p.ssent complainr, the complai.anrs inrend to withdraw trom the projecr.nd arescckinS rcturn oftheamount paid by it in respectofsubie.r unit along with interest at rhe prescribed rate as provided under section l8(1) or the Act.

S.c.

18[1) ot the Act is reproduced be]ow for r€adv 'Seetion rc: . tion rc: .

Return ol dnount ond @mpensotion 13[ 1) llil). pratnate, Jotl\ to conlptete or k u\abletogive pose$ion of -- ,....t. ,.a- l.ut , , a-J I t g Io) 1r an.t torLt w h the tc, n), aJ Lhc ot!

4rnentJu \1te or, os Lhe tuft q, bc..tutt tonlptttet) by tht dutespedlietl thercD ot lb) due todis.ontn@nce alh6 busihessos o devetapet on dc.ouhtol \Lspenean nr reva.otjan ofthe regisnotion under ths Act or lar anrot11c...d\.n he shall he |iobleon denand to the a o ees n.ose nEah ee \|L h 6 ta w nhd ro w ho h the praj eca ||t h., t pretr.t 1ce b u n! orh e r t.nEdt, dlaitubtc, to retutu the ahount re.eived hv him in rp.pect olthot qatlnqnt. ptot_ buil.thg, a\ the cot; na, bp, with interest at such Nte os noy be prestibed in th\- ieholf -n,tudtaj.anDpndnocn,henat @ o. p.avded !"da t\_ r t Provided that wh€re an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the proiect, he sha be paid, by the promorer, inrerest for every month of delay, till the handing over otrh. possession, at such rat€ as mav be prescribed.' 23.

Thecomplainanrwas atlotted unI no B0S 4t on5Lr]-loor,TowerB6388.05 sq lt. in the p.ojecr Ireo curgaon lltr,ar Cwal thirri, sector 2, Curugranl by the respondenl/buitdrr tor;l b.isic sale pricc of Rs.

5,7S,17,194l- and he has p.rid a surn at Rs 5,24,21791)/- whtch rs .rpprox.

9t% ot rhe sale 1rHARERA lS crnrcnrur Complrnr No 6659 or 2022 24 consideration.

A buye.s agreement dated 28.11.2012 was executed between parties with regard to rhe alloned unrt and the due date for completion of the project and offer of possession was on 1705.2016.

The respondent obtained the OC from the concerned authotity oo 29.06.2022 and subs€quently offered the possession of the unjr vide letter dated 11.07.2022, the complainant was requested ro clear oursranding dues and ro take the possession.

The complainant failed to pay the ourstanding amount due against the allorted unit.

The respondent issued n)any reminders dated 29.03.2017 and 25.09.2018 thereafte r issued linal d ema nd o n 2 5. d o n 2 5.10.2018.

The Occupation Certiticate for the project oithe allotred unitwas granted on 29.06.2022.

Afrer receipt of OCthe respondent oiie red th e possess,on totheconrplainanron 11.07.2022.

It is evident from the above mentions facts thar the complaindnr pajd a sum of Rs.

5,24,21,798l- against basic sale consideration of Rs.5,75,17,19+/ of the unitallotted to him on 27.08.2012.

The complainant has failed to adhere to the terms and condilions ofthebuilder buyeragre€ment.

However, the deductions otearnest money shall be made accordance with the applicable lawsand as perthe law olthe land laid down bythe Hon ble apex court ol the land nr cases ol Moula Bux VS.

Union oltndia, (1970) 1 ScR928 ond Sirdor KB.

Ra,, Chandra Raj Urs.vS.

Saruh C, Urs., (2015) a SCC 136, and lvherein it was held that/o*tture of the umaunt in cose af brcach ol cantract nust be reosonoble and il fo*iture is in the nature oJ penalty, then prawsians ol sectian 74 ol Contract Act,1872 are axached and the porty so forfeiting must prove actual damages.

After concellation oI ollotnena the latrenoins with the builder as su.h there is hardly ony actual damoge National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions in Cc/4 3 5/2 019 Ramesh Molhotra VS.

Emaar MGF Land Limited ldecided ar 29.06.2020) and Mr. saurav sonyot vS.

M/s IREO Private Limited (decided t'aqe 26 at 2A *HARER s-eunuenn,r on 72-04.2022) and fo owed i\ CC/2266/2017 in case titted as /ayant Singhal and Anr.

M3M tndto Limlted cteciited on 26.07.2022. held that 100,4 ol basjc sale price is reosonobte amaunt to be lorfeited n the name af "earnest noney".

Keeping in view the principtes lajd dolrn in the first two cases, a regulation known as the Haryana Rent Estare Regulatory Aurhoriry Curugram [Forteirure oie:r.nesr money by the builder) Regulations, t1(5] oi 2018, tlas farmed providirg.]s underl "5, AMOUNT OF EARNESf MONEY S.enotia ptior ta the R t Estate (Resututnn, ond Derelapnent) Act 2 A16 wos dfurent.

Ftduds werc.a. ds werc.a.rEd out withaut ahy feor as there wos no taw la. the sane but now in view althe obave lbcts dnd tukhq inta .onsideronan the tudltenents oJ Hon,ble Notianul Cnhsunet Disputes Red.e$ol Cohhlsion ond the .h ble supretne Cau .ltndia, thc autho ! rol the ew Lhat the fo*iturc onount ol the amesL no\er shol aot erceed norethan 10ok oIthe consideratio\anountofthe rcat 6tote i.e, aporttuent /plot /buildingosthe cose na, be h oltcaes w h ere th e.o nc eltation ol the Jtot/ u n t/ p lot k n od e b! th e bu i I de t tno unnote.at nanner ot thebuyer oteh(ls toqth,jtow hon the p.ojectond onr agreenentcontoinins an! claure contrcry to the olo.esoid regulo oas shal be bid and not binding on the buyer,, 26.

Keeping in vjew the aforesaid factual and legat provisions, the respondents/promorer js direcred ro retund rhe paid-up amounr oi Rs 5,2+,21,79A/- after deducting 10% of the basic sate consideration of Rs.

5,75,17,194/ bcrng earnest moncy atong with an tntcrest @t 1.t0olo p.a. [the State Eank oltndja highest ma.grnalcost oflending rare (MCLRI applicabte as on dare +2%l as prescribed under rute 15 oI rhe lla.yana Real Estate (Regularion and Developmeno Rules,2017 on the refundabte amount, from the date offit,ng oacomplaint i.e., 13.10.2022 ri actual.efund ofthe amount within the timetines provided in rute 16 ofthe Haryana Rules 2017 ib,d.

Sounuennnr ComplrrntNo.66Se or 2022 H, Dir€ctions of the authority 27.

Hence, rhe authoriry hereby passes this order and issues the following directions under section 37 of rhe Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the promoter as per rhe function entrusted to the authoritv under section 34[01 The respondcnts/pronrorer is drrected ro retund rhe paid-up amount ol Rs- 5,24,21,79u1 after deducLtng t0% ol the basic srle considera tjon ol Rs 5,7S,17,194/, beingearnesr moneyatong with an interest @11.10% p.a. (rhe State Bank ot tndia high. ndia high.sr margtnal cost oi lending rate (MCt_Rl applicabte as on date +2%l as prescribed undcr rule 15 of ihe Haryana Real Estate IRegularjon and Developmenr) Rules,2017 on rhe refundable amount, from rhe date olfiling of complaint j.e., 13 10.2022 till its realizarron.

A period oi 90 days is given to rhe respondenr to compty with the directions givcn rn this order and tailing which tegal consequences 28.

Complaint stands d,sposed ot 29.

F,le be consigned to reg,stry.

Dated: 02.05.202s '4". t"--' /Irutr Kumar Chatrmar Haryana Real Estate RegulatoryArrthority, Gurugram PaEe 28of28