DINESH CHANDER BAHL vs BLACKBERRY REALCON PVT. LTD.

HARERA ComplaintNo.

1508of 2024 GURUGRAN/ BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGUI,ATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Dinesh Chander Bahl Address: Godhuli 5C37-A, Garcha Road, Phari Cariahat Ballygun!!e, Xolkata.

I{/s Blackberry Re.rlcon Pvt.

Ltd. officeat: - Iloor-11d, Paras twin Towers,Tower B, Sector-5,1, Golf Course Road, Gurugram'122002.

CORAM: Shri.

Ashok Sangwan APPEARANCE: llemant Phogat Ilimanshu Singh | 1504 of2024 : 12.O3.ZOZS [Advo.ate] Complainant ORIJER 1- The present complaint has been nl€d by the complainant/allottee under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulat,on and Developmentl Act, 2016 (in short, the Act) read with rule 28 ofthe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2C17 (in short, the Rules) tor violation of section 11(4)ta) of the Act whffein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and tunctions under ffHARERA S. ct]RUGRAI/ aomplarnt No.

1508 of2024 2. the provision ofthe Act or th9 rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottee as perthe agreernEnt for sale executed inter se.

Unlt and prorect related details The particulars of unit details, sale consideration, the amount paid by the complainanl date ofproposed handing ov€r the possession, delay period, if any, have been detailed in the following tabular form: Burlder BuyerAgreemer't 42.t2.2414 No.23 of2013 {As on page n..

12 ofreply) (As on page no 55 olcomplarnq 39, FlooFCround, Type-R€tatl [As on pase no.19 ofcomplaint) (As on pase no 19 olcomplaino (il The dote ol conptetion ol I Vide .esisration no.13of2018 [,\s on page no 16 ot.omp]arntl Amended Buyel s Agre.mc Claus.

7.DATE OFCOMPLETION (a) Time of handing over the Secrbr-63-A, Villaee-Behrampur, P.rl..t shall be Thirty six 3 5 ffHABERA S"GURIJGRAM q A c/cc, sh ( 11 tE anrculotl! tpectfed here.i,r bave in 'ub ctaueto) (i) af ta$e 7 ,lor conptetion ol the son pageno 25 ofcomplaintl l2 lcalculated 36 months from date of strrt 01 construcnon- 17.05. on- 17.05.2013 + 180 daysl 13. k.22,25,960 /- (As on page no.

56 of.omplaint) P;-U,74327 / - [As on page no.

57 ot complai.t] ComplaintNo.

1508oI2024 comDlaintNo.

1508oi2024 HARERA GI]llUGRAIV *s- 24.0?.20t4 lAso. paseno,41 of reply) 22.\2.2022 [As on pase no 5Sotcohplaint) 23,72,?,022 (As on D.ae no.

6t of complaintl B. lacts ofthe complairt That the complainant purchased a retailShop no.

GF-39, on G.ound Floo., having super area 430 Sq. it. in the commercial project of the respondent named 'Paras Square' situated in Seclor-63A, Village Beh.ampu., Gurugram lor a total sale consideration oiRs.30,10,000/- and total unit cost of Rs.35,79,610/-.

The .espondent executed Builder Buye.'s Agreement dated 02.12.201,1 in i:vou. olthe complainant The respondent was olierLng monthly Paynrcnt Plan' rn respect oi the unit.

1n this regard, itwas agreed between the complainaDt and the responFent that the compla,nant is not willing to go with the 'Monthly lncome Plan" and the respondent lvould make a "flevlsed ]\yment Sttucture" after decreasing the price of the units, as the complainant gave-up the fixed monthly inconte plan.

That both the part,es agreed for rhe Revised Payment Slru.t .e to the tune ol &s.2190,246/-.

At thnt point oi time, the respondent has assured the complainn nt that an a me nd ment to the b uild er buyer agreement would also be executcd by the respondent in tavou. oi the complainant uPon the ft:ceipt oa Occupation Ce.tificate and before the registration of the 3.The complainanthas rnade the followlng submr ssron: - Itl II I l8 IV.

That the respondent raised, the demands as per the revised payment structure and on constructioi linkbasis as the unit was under Construction Link Plan.

The complainant had paid all his installmerts in a timely manner as and when demand€d by the respondent and a total amount ot *HARERA S-arRUcRA[/ ComplrrntNo. l508of 2024 Rs.23,78,327l- has been paid tolvardsthe subject unit.

V.

That as per clause 7(a) [i) of the Builder Buyer As.

Buyer As.eemenL the respondent wns under an obUgation to complete the project within a time period 36 months from the start of construction and immediately upon the rec.iving ofoccup.rtion certificate rvill offer possession of the unit lo theallottee. v1.

Tlat the occupation Certificate of the project was received on July, 2018.

Husever .lp.pirp ,e.Fiung rhe OC. rh! responoent drd nor ofler rh" possession of the unit to the complainant and withheld the possess'on ot the unit/ shop without any lustified reason dcspite of the iact that the conrplajnant had paid all the installments in a timely manner and there was no due on the part ofcomplainant in respect ofthe unit. vl1.

That the complainant wanted to enquire about the delay in handing over the possession despjte receiving olO.C. upon whrch the respondent kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other aDd later on the complainant came to knolv that the respondent has not received completion certiflcate and that the completion certificate was issued on 24.01.2020.

VIII.

That after several iollow ups, the physical possession of the unit was hrnded over to the complsjnant on 22-72-2022- That after obtaining physicirl possession, the conveyance deed was executed between the rr'spondent and the con)plainant on 23.12.2022 vide vasika bearing no.

18860 at Tehsil Wazirabad, Distt Curugram.

1x.

That as pe. the clause 7(a) (il ofthe BBA, the completion date was 36 nr)nths lrom the start date olconstruction. l'he construction start date of *IARERA S- c,rnucnnv lhe said project was 17.05.2013 which can be ascertained from the [orm RIjP-1 dated 14.01.2020 submitted by the respondent itself with the Authoriiy.

Considering the constructlon start date, the completion date ol the project was due on 17.06.2016 and hence, since the physical possession of the unit handed over to the complainant by the respondent on 22.12. on 22.12.2022, thererore, there is a delay of 78 months in handing over the rrhysical possession to the complainant. lhe respondent has comnritted gravc deilciency in services by not handing over thc physical possesnon of the unit as per the terms and conditjons of the Buildcr Buyer Agreenrent which amounts to uniair trade practi€e on account oi the respondent.

Therefore, the complainantis entitled to the delayed possessioD charges till handing over ol p hysrcal possession to the complainant.

C.

Reliefsought by the complainant: 4. lhc complainants have sought iollowing relief[s): i Drrect the .espondent io pay delayed possession charges from the conrplction date i.e., 17.05.2A16 ill22.12.2A2?

Lc, rhe date whcn the physicalpossession oithe unitwas handed overto the complatnant 5 0n the date of hearing, the Authority explained to the respondent/pronroter about the contfaventions as alleged to have been committed in relation to sectioD 11141 (al ofthe Act to plead guilry or not to plead guilty.

Reply by th€ respondent. 'lhc respondent has contested the complaint on the follow,ng grounds: _ L That one of the marquee proiects oi respondent company is "Pa.as Square" project, located rn Secior 63 A, VillaEe LIehrampu., Curugram Haryana.

The complai.ant approached the respondenl making enquiries about the project, and after thorough due diligence the complainant booked a retailshop in the proiect D.

6.

HARERA GURUGRA[/ IL Consequentially, after fully und€rstanding the stipulations and payment plans, the complainant Buyer Agreement on 02.12.2074.

The complaiDant shop bearing no.

GF 39, having a supe. area of 430 total basic considerat,on of Rs.35,79,610 /-. sq. ft. (ap the Builder ted a retail Ill.

That the time stipulated in respect of completion ol construction was 36 months from the start of the construction, subject to the force m:ieure circumstances and .ompliance ot the tenns and conditions of this agreement. agreement.

0n receipt of Occupancy Certificate, the developer shall give notice in writing to take the possession oithe unit.

The developer shall be eniitled fbr a grace period of 180 days.

As per this, the developer has to offcr the possession of the unit on or belore 02.06.2018. lV.

The respondent had obtarned the Occupancy Certificate olthe project on 2:i.07.2018 and offered the possession of the unit to the complainant on 2t107.2018.

The complainant is in possession ol the unit and th. conveyance deed has been already executed on 23.12 2022.

Despile thc complainanfs alleg:tions, the respondent categorically denies receipt olthe said :mount of stamp duty paid in .espect ol the conveyance deed.

Furthermore, the respondent has conducted a thorough check ol its a.counts and has also verified the same with its CRlq back'end team, and it hns been confirmed that Do such payment has been received bv the V.

That the respo.dent had endeavoured to deliver th. proPerty within thc sripulated time. lt is pertinEnt to mention here that due to ih€ orders passed by the Environment +ollution (Prevenrion & Control) Authority, the construction was / has beert stopped tor a considerable period day due to high rise in pollution in Del[, NCR.

When the parties have contracted and limited their liabilities, they are bound by the same, and relietbeyond the L.lr\DEDI -r,tlEt( f;;a;1il;;l C R.GRAI/ same could not be granted.

Further, compoundjng all these extraneous considerations, the Hon ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.11.2019, imposed a blanket stay on all construction activiF/ rn the Delh, NCR region.

It rvould be apposiie to note that the project ol the respondent was utrder thc ambit of the stay order, and accordjngly, there was next to no coDstruclion activity for a considerable period.

It is pertinent to note that sinrilar stay Orders have been passed during winter pcriod in the preceding yenrs as well, i.e.2017-2018 and 2018_2019.

2018_2019. lt is most respecdully submitted that a complete ban on construcnon activity at site invariably results in a long-term halt in constuction activitics.

As with a complete b.rn the concerned labour is let offand the said travelto thei. native viUagcs or look lorwork ln othcr states, the resumption ofwork at site becomes a slow process and a steady pace ol construction in realzed after long perrod of Unfo(unately, the pandemic of Covid 19 has had devastating effect on the lvorld-w e econonry.

Ilowever, unlikc the agrictrltural and teftiary sector, th e r ndust.ial sector h as been severally hit by the pandemic The real es t.r te *'ctor is primarily dependent on its labour for.e and consequentiallv the spced of construction.

Due to government_imposed lockdowns, there has been a complete stoppage on all colsiructioD activities in the NC1l are.r till luly,2020.

In iact, th€ entire labour rorce cmployed by the Respondent Nere lorccd to return to their home towns, leaving a severe paucity ol labour. l ill date, there rs shortage oilabour,.rnd as such the respondent has not been able to employ the rcquisile labour necessary io. completion ot its projects.

In view ol the sanre, it is most humbly submitted that the pandenric is clearly a 'Fo.ce Majeure' event, which automatically extends the timeline for handing over possess,on ofthe unit.

VI HARERA GURUGRAI/ romplarnt No.

1508 0t2024 7.

Copies of all the relevant dlcuments have b€en filed and placed on the record.

Their authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence, the complalnt can be decided on the basrs of rhese undlsputed documents and submissjon made by the panies.

Jurisdiction of rh€ aulhority Th.

Authority observes that it has territonal as well as subject mitter iurisdiction lo.diudicate thc prcs.nt complaiDt for the reasons 8'!cn E.

8. [.

E I Territorial jurisd i€tion As per notitication no.

1/92/2017-l'lCP dared 14.12. red 14.12.2017 issued by lown nnd Country Planning Department, the jurisdiction of Real Ustate Rcgulatory Author,ty, Curugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose widr oifices situated in Curugram.

In the present case, the proiect in question is situated wjthin the planning area ot Gurugram District.

ThcrRfore, this authonty has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal w'th the present complaint.

E.Il Subiect matter iurisdiction 10 Section 11(4J(a) of the Act, 2016 provldes that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement ior sal.- Section 11(41(a) 6 r€produced as hereunder: sedion 11(4)[a) Be.espontible lat oll oblisotiuhs, tesponsibnfies ond Junctions Lndothe ptuvbiansofth5 A.to. the nltes dnll.eltulauan\ hadt the.eunder or to the ullottees o: Pct the olt.eeneht Jd salc, or ta the osodotion ol oltottees, as thc case nlar be, till the .onvetohc. aJ oll the opartnents, plor or buildings, os thc .ose noy be, to the ollotteet at the @nnon oreu\ ta the osso.iotion olollonees ot the .onpetent outhanry, os the .ose noy be HARERA GURUGRAIV] {l.m.lalntNd 1504.f 2024 11.

So, in view oi the provisions of the Act quoted above, the Authonty has conrplete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non-compliance ol obl'gations by the promoter.

F.

Findings onth€ reliefsought bythe complainant.

Ll.

Direct the respondent to pay delayed possession charges from ihe completion dare i.e.,17.05.2016 till ihe dare the physical possession of the unit was handed over.

12.

At the lery outset, before deali.g with the nrerits of the case, the Authorty h.'s obseNed th.t the Buyer's Agreement betlveen the complainant and the respondeni !!as executed on 02.72-2A14- As pcr clause 7 (bl of the agreement, the respondent ras to olfer the poss.ssion of thc unit kr thc al o$ees by 17.05.2016.

The respondent is also entitled to the grace pcriod of I u0 days.1hus, the due date comes out to be 17.11.2016.

7.11.2016.

13 On consideration of rhe docunrents available on re(ord and submissrons made by both the parties regarding conkavention of provisions of the Act, the Authority has observed that the Buyer's Agreement between the complainant and the restrondent was exeorted on 02.12.2014.

AccordinE to the terms of this agreement, possession olthe unjt was to be ofiered ividrin 36 months lrom the date of sta.t of construction plus an additional 180 days grace period is auowed to the respondent, in terms oithe agreenrent.

Thereiore, the due date lor posscssion, considering the grace period was 1 7.1 1 .2 0 1 6.

1 he respondenr obrained the occupation ceni ticare lbr the rele\ anr loNer on 11.07.?018.

An oiir ol-possession was made to thc cohplainanr on Iu.07.:01E. and rhe unit $as fomllly handed o\er on ::.12.:022. as indicared 1,1 Ihe Authority is cosnizart of the vjew that d)e law ol limitation docs not strictly apply to the Real Estate Regulation and Developnent Authority Act of 2016.

However, the Authority under section 38 of the Act of2016, is to be gukied by the principle clnaNraljusticc.lt is universally accepted mnrinr and the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights.

Therefore, to;void opportunistic and t.ivolous litigation a rensonable period of time needs to be arrived at ior ir litigant to agitate his right.l his Authority ofthe view that three years rs a rcasonable time period for a litigant to initiate litigation to press his .ights under normal PHARERA S-cunrnnnvr l1.mblaintNo.1508of 2024 by rhe possession letrer daaed 2P-122022 and the .on\eyance deed was €xecuted in favou ofthe respondent on ?3.12.2022.

15.

It is also observed that the Honble Supreme Court in its order dated 10.01.2022 in MA NO.21 of?022 of Suo Moto Writ Petltlon Civil No.3 of 2020 have held that the perlod irom 15.03.2020 to 28.

020 to 28.02 2022 shall stand excluded for purpose of limilation as may be prescribed under any seneral or speciallaws in respect of all ,udicial or quasi-iudicial proceedings. ln the present matter the cause ofnction arose on 28.07.2018 when thc offer olpossession was nrade by the respondent.

The.omplainants have liled the present complaint on 2:1.04.2024 which ls 5 years 7 months and 5 days from the date olcause ol action.

The complaint has not been filed within a roasonable perjod oftime nor have the complainant exPlained any grounds f.'r the delay in filing the samc lnviewoftheabove,theAuthorityisofthc Page 11oi1/ I . or pl,rnr \o.l5OB ofl0.4 1t complajnt has not been filed within a reasonable time I by the limitation. mplaintis dismissed being barred by limitatio.. rhe r€gistry I I t, ' (AshbkshnEwanj rae'|'ber Haryana *eal Estate Regulatory Au thori ty, Gurugram Pasc 12 ol12 *HARERA H* eunuennu I ComplaintNo.

1508 of 2024 view that the present complajnt has not been filed within a reasonable time period and is barred by the limitation.

17 Consequently, the complaintis dismissed being barred by limitatio..

18.

File be consigned to the r€gistry.

Dated: 12.03.2025 (Ash6k u"Lul' Haryana *eal Estate Regulatory Au thori ty,