MR SHAM SUNDER BHATIA AND MR VINAY KUMAR BHATIA vs ANAND DIVINE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

ffiHARERA H- eunuennl.

1.

Sham Sunder Bhatia 2.

Vinay Kumar Bhatia Address: - H. no.479, East Bhatia Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana- 13 5001 M/s Anand Divine Develope ReEd.

Office at: 7 1 L / 92, New Delhi-110019 CORAM: Shri Ashok Sangwan APPEARANCE: Ms.

Ada Khursheed Ms.

Shivani Dang Complaint No.

1719 of 2024 BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Complaint no. : 17 L9 of 2O24 Date of filing complaint: 19.04.2024 Date of Decision: 16.05.2025 Complainants Respondent Member x&ffir:R,,k lf)h.tfl fl ",""nts/allottee u nd er idnVndD&dlopment) Act, 2016 (in short, the Act) read with rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2 017 (in short, the Rules] for violation ofsection 11(4)(aJ of the Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed thar rhe promorer shall be responsible for all obligations, respo nsibilities and functions under the provision of the Act or the rules and regulations made there under or to the allottee as per the agreement for sale executed inter se.

A' Unit and proiect related details page r of 25 1.

HARERA GURUGRA[/ Complaint No.

1719 of 2024 2.

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

No.

Heads lnformation 1.

Name and location of the project "Triump", Sector 104, Village- Dhanwapur, Gurugram 2.

Nature of the project Group housing colony 3.

Proiect area 14.093 acres 4.

DTCP License \:.1: 101 1 dated 16.07.2011 valid till 2019 d 03.02.2012 valid till o Name of the liccnsec 1 Private tructure private M/s Grcat Value 11 Limited M/s Kaanha Infras Limited PL Infratech 5.

HRERA registe registered 6.

Datc of execution of buycr's agreement 5 of the complaint) 7.

U nit no.

4151 on 1sth floor, tower 4 (As per page no.27 ofthe complaint) 8.

Super Area 2290 sq. ft. (As per page no.27 ofthe complaintl 9. plaintl 9.

Possession clause 7& Time of handing over possession Barring unforeseen circumstonces and force mojeure events as stipulated hereunder, the possession of the soid apartment is proposed to be, offered by the Page|ofzs / l L & # company to the allottee within o period of 36 months with o grace period of 6 months from the date ol actual stort of the construction of a particular Tower Building in which the registration for allotment is made, such date shall hereinafter referred to as 'Stipuloted dote', subject always to timely poyment oI qll omounts including bosic sole price, EDCIDC, IFMS, Stomp duty, Registrotion .l^-.--. ^-) ^*L^- -L^-^-- ^- -l;^,,r^+^) 6jgi,g, ot may be demanded by the ffiiy from time to time in this regord.

Wote of actual stort of const;ction Aparrmenc certitrcation the Albttee. ate on which the foundotion of \pui/ding in ,nicn tne soid Q!\ttea snan be hid as per plfilllbe final ond binding on 7 10.

Due date ofde possession ;.96.2[ti, !', ,r$rrffi$if ,n" dare orasreemenr ,5l5tC..o$)rfst ruction is not availabl e gflitlld(including grace period of 6 nifs as it is-unqualifiedl 11. 'I otal co nsideration GU 7 (As per payment plan on page no.

45 of complaintl 1,2.

Total amount paid by the complainants Rs.7,76,34,750 /- (As alleged by the complainants on pag no.4 ofcomplaint) 13.

Occupation Certificate 28.05.2019 (page no.28 of reply) L4.

Offer of possession 3 0.0 5.2 019 (page no.

31 of reply) * HARERA ffi eunuennvr |lo,;.* N,frr "r,orrl l PaEe3of25,,/ -T I tl B. *HARERA & eunuennHl Complaint No.

1719 of 2024 15. ] Conveyance deed 25.02.2022 (As per page no.

47 of complaintJ Facts ofthe complaint The complainants have made the following submissions: - That the complainants relying on various representations and assurances given by the respondent booked a unit in the project of the respondent by paying an amount of Rs.

30,22 II, That the respondent confirmt ofthe unit no.4151, 15th floor, tower no. tower no.4, in Sector 104, G_ ng area measuring 2290 sq. ft. in the aforesaid project tal sale consideration of , Rs.1,06,76,000/- aFif s earmarked in the by the company at the basement/ open "/$/u" id6fi1f1" dal time of possessio4,i&1" "p ll II I.

That a buyer's n the allottee and respondent on 05.1 e buyer's agreement the sale price of the said a 1,,0 6,7 6,000 / - including the 3.

I, fitu"t'no ""lusive right IV.

That as per clause 18 ofthe buyer's agreement, the respondent had agreed to deliver the possession of the flat within a period of 36 months plus 6 months from the date of commencement of construction upon receipt of start of construction.

Due date of possession is calculated from the date of agreement i.e.05.72.2012.

Hence due date of possession comes out to be 05.72.2015.

That as per the demands raised by the respondent, based on the payment plan, the complainants to buy the captioned unit already paid a total sum Page 4of25 y' *HARERA #,eunuennvr Complaint No.

1719 of 2024 of Rs.

1,16,34,750/- towards the said unit against total sale consideration of Rs.

1,16,34,750/-.

Vl.

That the complainants after many follow ups and reminders, and after clearing all the dues and fulfilling all one-sided demands and formalities as and when demanded by the respondent issued the physical handover Ietter of the unit on account of handing over the physical possession of the unit.

The respondent asked the complainants to sign the indemnity bond VI I. as perquisite condition for ing over of the possession.

The complainants raised obiecti id pre-requisite condition of the respondent as no delay poss es was paid to the complainants but respondent instea possession charges clearly refuse to handover ainants do not sign the aforesaid indemni ts left with no option instead of signing That the complai reminders, and after clearing all the du emands and formalities as and when demand ued the physical handover advice letter ofthe unit on ng over the physical possession of the uni of the unit.

HARERA VIII. 'Ihat the complainants after many follow ups and reminders, and after clearing all the dues and fulfilling all one-sided demands and formalities as and when demanded by the respondent got the conveyance deed execu ted dated 25.02.2022.

IX.

That the respondent has arbitrarily demanded for payment of interest on account of delayed payment at the rate of 15o/o-240/o whereas the compensation for delay stipulated for the buyers is merely Rs.

5/- per sq. ft.

The complainants are actually entitled to interest @ 9.g00/o per annum on the total sum paid by them.

Further, the co Page 5 ofZS "/ X.

Complaint No.

1779 of 2024 That the complainants are entitled to get delay possession charges with interest at the prescribed rate from date ofapplication/ payment to till the realization ofmoney under section 18 & 19[4) ofAct.

Relief sought by the complainants: The complainants in the present complaint are seeking the following relief(s).

Direct the respondent to pay interest on the total amount paid by the complainants at the prescrib of interest as per RERA from due date of possession till date sical possession. lll. ii.

Direct the respondent to ount due to the complainants from the respondent on acc rest.

Direct the respondent different heads alo was not liable to p C.

4. *HARERA ffi eunuennvr lv.

Direct the respon increasing sale respondent and Direct the respo signed by the res 5.

On the date ofhearing, about the contravention as amount collected under which the complainants by respondent by s agreement between indemnity bond get er undue influence. the respondent/promoter been committed in relation to section 11(4) cl "f g-t.ktb RryP*$V,ead suilry.

D.

Reply by the respondent 6.

The respondent has contested the complaint on following grounds: I.

That the complaint is neither maintainable nor tenable and is liable to be out-rightly dismissed. dismissed.

The Buyer's Agreement was executed between the complainants and the respondent prior to the enactment ofthe Real Estate IRegulation and Development) Act,2016 and the provisions laid down in the said Act cannot be applied retrospectively.

II.

That there is no cause of action to file the present complaint.

III.

That the complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint.

PaEe6of25 y' * HARERA #- eunuennnr IV.

7719 of 2024 That the complainants are estopped from filing the present complaint by his acts, omissions, admissions, acquiescence,s and laches.

That the complaint is not maintainable for the reason that the agreement contains an arbitration clause which refers to the dispute resolution mechanism to be adopted by the parties in the event of any dispute i.e. clause 39 of the buyer's agreement.

That the complainants have not approached this Hon,ble Authority with clean hands and has intentionall pressed and concealed the material facts in the present compla nt complaint has been filed by him maliciously with an ulteri and it is nothing but a sheer abuse ofthe process of law.

T ts are as follows: VII.

That the responde mpany having immense goodwill, compris ving persons and has always believed i VI II.

That the complain of the proiect namely, 'ATS Triumph', se ied for allotment of an apartment vide boo dated 28.02.2012.

The complainants had agreed to-t?tounU'f the terms and conditions of rhe VI. booking application fornr and based on the said application, respondent allotted to the complainants an apartment no.

4151 on the 151r, iloor of tower no.

4 having super area of 2250 sq. ft. for a sale consjderation oi IX.

Rs. \,14,43,7 50 /-.

That the complainants signed and executed the apartment buyer,s agreement on 05.12.2012 and the complainants agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions contained therein. d therein.

That the respondent raised payment demands from the complainants in accordance with the mutually agreed terms and conditions of the allotment as well as of the payment plan. x.

Page 7 of25 v tr HARERA S-eunuennrvr Complaint No.

1719 of 2024 XI.

That the possession of the unit was supposed to be offered to the complainants in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions of the buyer's agreement.

As per clause 18 of the buyer,s agreement the construction was to be completed within a period of 36 months with a grace period of 6 months from the date of actual start of the construction of tower building in question and the same was subject to force majeure events and to the timely payment of all the charges by the allottees.

The respondent has already compl e construction of the tower in which the unit allotted to the comp XIL That after the completion of for the grant of the authorities granted only on 29.05.20 complainants on installment for th possession which XIII.

That as already mentici occupation certificate and o ted. ction, the respondent had applied r scrutiny, the concerned r the tower in question the possession to the t had demanded the 4,756/- due on offer of 6.2019. t has already obtained the 6ssession ofthe unit ip question to iRl{,**rn rheparrorrhe respondent.

The respondent has strictly abided by the terms and conditions of the duly executed.builder buyer's agreement.

On the other hand, even though the complainants had been called upon to take the possession of their unit after payment of the amount due to the respondent and fulfillment of the requisite formalities yet the complainants intentionally did not come forward to do so even after reminder dated 03.07.2019 was sent by the respondent to the complainants. the resilondent Page I of 25 ffiHARERA ffi,eunuenRl,l Complaint No.

1719 of 2024 XIV.

2024 XIV.

That there were various other reasons for delay in offering possession of the units in the project such as non-payment of instalments by allottees on time and also due to the events and conditions which were beyond the control of the respondent and which have materially affected the construction and progress of the project.

Some of the Force Majeure events/conditions which were beyond the control of the respondent and affected the implementation of the project and are as under : Demonetization: independence The respo of the I contractor approx.

T- the Central demonetization. second time in TL years of d could not be foreseenl. ion ofthe project to one of India.

The said the entire project for ber 2016 the dav when cation with regard to e contractor could not make $r ofcasual labour force ia do not have bank accounts Edq F.eTD4idi /r,.^.

FttnoF fl daily basis.

During o ",n o n u t i,,b7n V i ltr1 V-n[,\#] I l/J,, ro, co m pa n i es wa s capped at Rs.24,000/- per week initially whereas cash payments to labour on a site of the magnitude of the project in question are Rs.

3-4 lakhs per day and the work at site got almost halted for 7-g months as bulk of the labour being unpaid went to their hometowns, which resulted into shortage of labour.

Hence the implementation of the project in question got delayed due on Pase 9 of25' HARERA GURUGRA[/ Complaint No.

1719 of 2024 account of issues faced by contractor due to the said notification of Central Covernment.

Further there are studies of Reserve Bank of I ndia and independent studies undertaken by scholars of different institutes/universities and also newspaper reports of Reuters of the relevant period of 2076-17 on the said issue of impact of demonetization on real estate industry and construction labour.

In rt-Macroeconomic Impact of Demonetization, it ha erved and mentioned by Reserve Bank of India a of the said report that the construction ring Q3 and Q4 of 201.6- 17 and sta in April 2017. pril 2017.

Furtherm ies on the said subject matter and usion that during the period of de ur went to their native places due to sli and construction and real estate industrv the pace of construction came to n,n/,. b"{'{ A.RGS[-df rauliw or rabour. some newspaper/rlEi4t m4i? rFpa(ti-bv F.eureqs etc. also reported the negative imbaa bpd":ir!r"k-ti,irr6fi\,€d !state and constru*ion sector.

That in view of the above studies and reports, the said event of demonetization was beyond the control of the respondent, hence the time period for offer of possession should deemed to be extended for 6 months on account ofthe above- : In last four successive years i.e.

2075-2016-2017-2018, Hon'ble National no. l owing improvemen PaEe lO of 25 r' ff HARERA # eunuennHl Complaint No.

17 79 of2024 Green Tribunal has been passing orders to protect the environment of the country and especially the NCR region.

The Hon'ble NGT had passed orders governing the entry and exit of vehicles in NCR region.

Also the Hon'ble NGT has passed orders with regard to phasing out the 10 year old diesel vehicles from NCR.

The pollution levels of NCR region have been quite high for couple ofyears at the time of change in weather in November every year.

The Contractor ofthe respondent could dertake construction For 3-4 months in compliance of the Due to following, the n'ble National Green Tribunal. lay of 3-4 months as labour went back to their ho in shortage of labour in 2016 and November- April-May 2 remained very badly affected for stated major events and conditions whi trol of the respondent and the said period is a to be added for calculating the : Several other allottees were in default of the agreed payment plan, and the payment of construction linked instalments was delayed or not made resulting in badly impacting and delaying the implementation of the entire project.

Inclement Weather Conditions viz. tions viz.

Gurugram: Due to heavy rainfall in Gurugram in the year 2016 and unfavorable weather conditions, all the construction activities were badly affected as the whole town was waterlogged and gridlocked as a result of which Page 11of25 { December directions In view o n issued the requisite district admin trHARERA ffi eunuenarrr Complaint No.

1779 of 2024 the implementation of the project in question was delayed for many weeks.

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

This period is also required to be added to the timeline for offering possession by the respondent.

XV.

That after the above said reminder dated 03.07.2019, the complainants made payment of the outstanding dues to obtain possession of the said unit.

After making payment of tstanding dues to the respondent, complainant no.

1 approach ondent to obtain the physical possession of the unit in qu lainant no.

1 represented to the respondent that he h complainant no.2 to take over the possessi on behalf of both the complainants; to other act, deed uired and to do any complainant no.

2. be done on behalf of f complainant no.

1 to be correct, the resp e physical possession of the unit in question to XVI.

That since there was no delay on the part of thc respondent, the complainants never demanded any delayed possesslon chargcs.

The ;:H,ilil:,:llffiffJ,R1J"ffiRAIyJ"ffi ,rJ::"T:: well as the tower in which the unit was situated, complainant no, 1 on behalf of the complainants obtained the actual, physical possession of the said unit from the respondent on 24.06.2020.

Complainant no.

1 on behalf of himself and complainant no.

2 also executed certificate of possession, key handover letter, possession letter dated 24.06.2020 and Indemnitv Cum Undertaking. y documen PaEe 72 ofZS y' trHARERA ffi, eunuennvr Complaint No. plaint No.

1719 of 2024 XVIL That the complainants then approached the respondent to execute conveyance deed in their favour.

Accordingly, the respondent got executed and registered conveyance deed bearing vasika No.

11499 dated 25.02.2022 in favour of the complainants regarding the said unit admeasuring 4l 5l sq. ft.

XVIII.

That thus, from a perusal of the conveyance deed dated ZS.O2.2OZZ, it is clear that the complainants have no claims whatsoever left against the 7. respondent and they cannot cl y compensation as being sought in the present complaint.

The are absolutely bound by the said conveyance deed dated 2 5.021 Copies of all the releva en filed and placed on the record.

Their authen e, the complaint can be decided on the basi and submissions made by the complainan E.

8. furisdiction ofth ct matter jurisdiction to The authority has co adjudicate the present s given below.

E.I Territorial jurisdiction 9.

As per notification no.1,/92/zOU -\TCp dated 1,4.12.2017 issued byTown and Country Planning Department, Haryana, the jurisdiction of Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram district for all purposes.

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

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

E.ll Subiect-matteriurisdiction te.

Henc )cumenl se undisputed docu Page 13 of 25 ffiHARER^ #-eunuenntrr Complaint No.

1719 of 2024 l0.Section 11(a)(al of the Act,2016 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale.

Section 11(aJ(a) is reproduced as hereunder: Section 11 (4) The promoter sholl- (a) be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities ond functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules ond regulstions made thereunder or to the ollottees os per the ogreement for sale, or to the ossociation ofollottees, os the cose moy be, till the conveyance ofoll the opdrtments, pdrtments, plots or buildingL psdte cose moy be, to the ollottees, or the 34(f) of the Act upon the prom Act ond the rul 11.

So, in view of the complete jurisdicti obligations by the decided by the adj stage.

F.

Findings on the obiections common oreos to the asso as the case may be; Secti on 34-Functions of or the competent outhority, of the obligotions cost te agents under this , the authority has ng non-compliance of sation which is to be by the complainants at a later ndent: ":Jl::*""1,::-;:1'm;3ffiffi s,ffi,:p"k1i",J;:',thebuver's 12.

The respondent subrilitted that the complaint is neither maintainable nor tenable and is liable to be outrightly dismissed as the buyers agreement was executed between the complainants and the respondent prior to the enactment of the Act and the provision of the said Act cannot be applied retrospectively.

13.The authority is of the view that the provisions of the Act are quasi retroactive to some extent in operation and would be applicable to the agreements for sale entered into even prior to coming into operation ofthe ons oI the Ac[ qu ecide the complaint Page 14 of 25 | #HARERA S.eunueRRtr,r complaint No.

17L9 of 2024 Act where the transaction are still in the process of completion.

The Act nowhere provides, nor can be so construed, that all previous agreements would be re-written after coming into force of the Act.

Therefore, the provisions ofthe Act, rules and agreement have to be read and interpreted harmoniously.

However, if the Act has provided for dealing with certain specific provisions/situation in a specific/particular manner, then that situation would be dealt with in accordance with the Act and the rules after the date of coming into force Act and the rules.

The numerous provisions of the Act save the f the agreements made between the buyers and sellers.

The said n has been upheld in the landmark judgment of Neelkamal Ltd.

Vs.

UOI and others. (W.P 27s7 ol 2077) provides as under: in honding over the " 119. the " 119.

Under th for sole reg 9tven o the some u contract be 122.

We have olready not retrospective in retroa ut then on that validiq, of lscom effect.

A I ng existing public in We med in mode at which submitted its detoiled reports." the lqrger public interest after a thorough study ond discussio the highest level by the Standing Committee ond Select C, 14.

Further, in appeal no.1,73 of 2019 titled as Magic Eye Developer pvt.

Ltd.

Vs. lshwer Singh Dahiya, in order dated lZ.1l2.2oj-9 the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has observed- "34.

Thus, keeping in view our oforesaid discussion, we ore of the considered opinion thot the provisions of the Act ore quosi retrooctive to sone extent in operotion and will be applicable to the agreements for sale {d provisions ofthe RERA ore to some extent be hoving o ment Paee 15 of25 / ffi HARERA s-eunuennnr Complaint No.

1779 of 2024 entered into even prior to coming into operotion of the Act where the tronsactiol ore still in the process ofcompletion.

Hence in case ofdeloy in the offer/delivery of possession os per the terms ond conditions of the ogreement for sole the ollottee shall be entitled to the interest/deloyed possession chorges on the reosonable rote ofinterest as provided in Rule 15 of the rules qnd one sided, unt'oir ond unreosonoble rote of compensation mentioned in the ogreement for sole is liable to be ignored." 15.

The agreements are sacrosanct save and except for the provisions which have been abrogated by the Act itself.

Further, it is noted that the builder- buyer agreements have been executed in the manner that there is no scope left to the allottee to nego the clauses contained therein.

Therefore, the authority is o that the charges payable under various heads shall be reed terms and conditions of the agreement subject e are in accordance with the plans/per the respective contravention of any departments/com other Act, rules and d are not unreasonable or exorbitant in na mentioned reasons, the conte the contention of the resp nds rejected.

F.ll Obiection regar each of agreement for non-invocation o 16.

The respondent su t maintainable for the reason that,h" "c.@{if+i:fGm&Mcrause which refers ro the dispute resolution mechanism to be adopted by the parties in the event of any dispute.

17.

The authority is of the opinion that the jurisdiction of the authority cannot be fettered by the existence of an arbitration clause in the buyer,s agreement as it may be noted that section 79 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts about any matter which falls within the purview of this authority, or the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

Thus, the intention to Page16of25 / * HARERA S"eunuennn,l Complaint No.

1719 of 2024 render such disputes as non-arbitrable seems to be clear.

Also, section 88 of the Act says that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

Further, the authority puts reliance on the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly in National Seeds Corporation Limited v.

M.

Madhusudhan Reddy & Aor. (2012) 2 SCC 506, wherein it has been held that the remedies provided under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation e other laws in force, consequently the authority would not be b parties to arbitration even if the itration clause. agreement between the partie F.lll Obiections regarding 18.

The respondent-p t the construction of the proiect was dela such as various orders passed by Hon'b Haryana, NGT and ol) Authority and demonetization but is regard are devoid of merit.

The authority has sion clause and observes particular tower.

The rds therefore, due date is calculated from the date of execution of buyer's agreement.

The date of execution of buyer's agreement is 05.1,2.2012.

Hence, the due date of possession comes out to be 05.06.20L6 including grace period of6 months as it is unqualified. qualified.

The respondent was liable to complete the construction of the project and the possession of the said unit was to be handed over by 05.06.2016.

The events such as demonetization and various orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, NGT and Environment Environment Po Hili$HilH::::I: Page 17 of 25 //' HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.

1719 of 2024 Pollution (Prevention & Control) Authority, were for a shorter duration of time and were not continuous as there is a delay of more than two years.

Hence, in view ofaforesaid circumstances, no grace period on such grounds can be allowed to the respondent- promoter.

F.lV.

Obiection raised by respondent thatafter execution ofthe conveyance deed the complainants cannot claim delayed possession charges.

19.

The respondent during proceeding raised an objection that the conveyance deed ofthe unit has already been ted in favour of the complainants on 25.02.2022 and the transa the parties' stands concluded e respondent has further argued upon the execution of con that upon the execution d, the relationship between the parties is consi any further claims or lainant is barred from liabilities by either asserting any in the case. the allottee and the 20.

In order to comp promoter, it is essen a formal, written do on of a "deed." A deed is igned, and delivered by all sale deed to be valid, it must be written and signed by both parties.

Essentially, a conveyance deed involves the seller transferring all rights to legally own, retain, and enjoy a particular asset, whether immovable or movable.

In the present case, the asset in question is immovable property.

By signing a conveyance deed, the original owner transfers all legal rights pertaining to the property to the buyer in exchange for valid consideration, typically monetary.

Thus, a "conveyance deed" or "sale deed,,signifies that the seiler formally transfers all authority and ownership of the property to the buyer. the buyer. parties involved in the contract, namely the buyer and the seller.

It is a legally binding document that incorporates terms enforceablc by larv.

For a Page 18 of 25 7 HARERA GURUGRAM 21.

That the execution of a conveyance deed transfers only the title and interest in the specified immovable property [in this case, the allotted unit).

However, the conveyance deed does not terminate the relationship between the parties or absolve the promoter of their obligations and liabilities concerning the unit, despite the transfer oftitle and interest to the allottee upon execution of the conveyance deed.

22.

The allottees have invested their hard-earned money and there is no doubt that the promoter has been enj enefits of and the next step is to get their title perfected by ex nveyance deed which is the statutory right of the allotte the obligation of the developer- promoter does not end wi nveyance deed.

Therefore, in furtherance to the t and the law laid down in case titled as Wg.

Sultano and Ors, Vs.

DLF Southern Pvt Ltd.) and Ors. relevant paras are BEGUR OMR Homes dated 24.08.2020, rhe "34 The developei munications Though these o re lou.r co mm u nit*Q@$@/tfr evel ope r, the o ppeltoits submitted thot-lhg! ore n@oberrotionis but fit into the Complaint No.

1719 of 2024 pattern.

7 he cleveloper does not stete that it \ros wi tnlJ to L,llet the Jlot purchasers po.rse,ss/o, of ther fots an(l the riqht to e.\etute conveyonce oJ thgllaB wnik reserv-ind their cloin fi)r compensotion for clelay.

On the contrary, the tenor ofthe communicotions indicotes tha_t while executing the Deeds of Conveyonce, the flat buyers were 1at it \ro s wil ts and the r informed thot no form of protest or reservqtion would be ;cceptoble.

The flot buyers were essentially presented with on unfoir choice of eithe_r. f eithe_r.retoining theirrights to pursue their claims (inwhich event thiy would not get possession or title in the meontime) or to forsoke tie claims in order to perfect their titles to the flats for which they hove poid voluoble considerotion.

In this bockdrop, the simple qiestion which we need to oddress iswhether siot buyerwho espousei o cloim against th.e developer Ior delsyed possession can os o consequence of doin-g so.be compelled to defer the right to obtain o ,orriyonn io perfect their title. ltwould, in our view, be manifestly unreos;noble to expect that in order to pursue o cloim for compensqtion for deloyed handing over of possession, the purchqser must indeliiitely dLfer rilur Rahmon Kha '2019. : Page 19 of 25 j.r.

HARERA GURUGRAN/ Complaint No.

1719 of 2024 obtaining a conveyonce of the premises purchqsed or, if they seek to obtoin a Deed of Conveyonce to forsake the right to cloim compensation.

This basicolly is o position in which the NCDRC hos espoused- We cannot countenonce thotview.

23.

The Authority has already taken a view in Cr.

4031/2079 and others titled as yorun Gupta V/s Emaar I|IGF Land limited and others and observed that the execution of a conveyance deed does not conclude the relationship or marks an end to the liabilities and obligations of the promoter towards the subiect unit and upon taking possession, and/or executing conveyance deed, th lajnts never gave up their statutory right to seek delayed poss as per the provisions of the said Act.

24.

Upon reviewing all mstances, the Authority determines that th in the right to seek respondent-promoter, compensation for despite the executi G. i.

Findings on the ts.

Direct the respo total amount paid by the complainants of interest as per RERA from due date ofposs actual physical possession. oject and are seeking nder the proviso to section 18( 1l of the Act.

Sec.

18(11 proviso reads as under. "Section 78: - Return ofqmount ond compensation 18(1). ion 18(1). lf the promoter foils to complete or is unable to give possession of an opartment, plot, or building, - Provided that where on ollottee does not intend to withdrow from the project, he shall be poid, by the promoter, interest for every month of deloy, till the honding over of the possession, at such rote os moy be prescribed." pagelo of2S y' * HARERA s"eunuennl,r Complaint No.

1719 of 2024 26, As per clause 18 of the buyer's agreement provides for handing over of possession and is reproduced below: 18: Tme of honding over possession Barring unforeseen circumstances ond force najeure events as stipulated hereunder, the possession of the soid oportment is proposed to be, offered by the compony to the ollottee within a period of 36 months with o grace period of 6 months from the ddte oJ qctual stqrt of the construction of o pqrticulorTower Building in which the registrotion for ollotment is mode, such dote shqll hereinafter referred to as 'Stipulated date', subject olwoys to timely poyment of oll amounts including bosic sale price, EDC/IDC, IFMS, Stomp duty, Registrotion chorges ond other chorges os ted herein or as may be demonded by the Compony from tim of construction sholl be porticulor Building in wh as per certificotion shall 27.

Due date ofhandi the agreement da handed over wi date of actual sta not available on execution of buye agreement is 05.12.2012. regard.

The date ofactuol stort which the foundotion of the rtment is allotted shall be loid ing on the Allottee. " r possession clause 18 of of the unit was to be of 6 months from the rt ofconstruction is ted from the date of f execution of buyer's te of possession comes out to be 05.06.2016 including grace period of 6 months as it is unqualified.

28.

Admissibility of delay possession charges at prescribed rate of interest: 'l'he complainants are seeking delay possession charges rn terms of proviso to section 18 of the Act which provides that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the pro om the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of possession, 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 75, Prescribed Krte of interest- lproviso to section 72, sectiol 18 and sub-section (4) and subsection (7) of$ection 791 (1) For the purpose of proviso to section 12; section 19; and sub- sections (4) ond (7) of section 19, the "interest at the rote prescribed" PageZ7 ot 25 ! ffiHARERA ffieunuennnr Complaint No.

1719 of 2024 sholl be the State Bonk of lndia highest morginol cost of lending rote +20k.: Provided that in cose the Stote Bonk of lndio morginal cost of len(ling rate (MCLR) is not in use, it sholl be replaced by such benchmork lending rates which the Stote Bqnk of lndio may fix from time to time for lending to the generql public, 29.

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

The rate of interest so determined by the legislature, is reasonable and if the said rule is followed to award the interest, it will 31. ensure uniform practice in al 30.

Consequently, as per we State Bank of India i.e., https://sbi.co.in. the marg! rate (in short, MCLR) as on date i.e., 16.05.202 5 i rescribed rate of interest will be marginal The definition of 0olo per annum. ction 2(za) of the Act provides that the promoter, in case the allottee by the rate of interest which the promoter shall , in case of default.

The relevant section is repro "(zo) "interest" meutls the rqtes ofinterest poyable by Lhe prontoter or the allottee, Explanotion. (ii) the interest poyoble by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the amount or ony port thereoftill the date the omount or part thereof ond interest thereon is refunded, ond the interest poyoble by the ollottee to the promoter sholl be from the dot om the dote the allottee defoults in payment to the promoter till the date it is paid;,, 32.

Therefore, interest on the delay payments from the complainants shallbe charged at the prescribed rate i.e., 11.1,0o/o p.a. by the respondent/promoter which is the same as is being granted to the complainants in case of delay possession charges. o':;;i;:zi{ :^:W&UfQWWW:M}l"i:";:f:# :;;i, be ltable to poy the qllottee, in case ofdeloult; Palezzof25 Y *HARERA ffieunuennu Complaint No.

171.9 of 2024 33.

On consideration of the documents available on record and submissions made by the parties, the authority is satisfied that the respondent is in contravention of the section 11(aJ(a) of the Act by not handing over possession by the due date as per the agreement dated 05.12.2012 executed between the parties.

It is a matter of fact that agreement containing terms and conditions regarding the said unit was executed between the parti es on 05.1,2.2012.

As per the clause 18 of the agreement, s to be handed over on or before 0 5.06.2 016.

The respond d the occupation certificate of the proiect by the competent on 28.05.2019 and subsequently offered the possessio 0.05.2019.

Moreover, on 25.02.2022 conv n the parties.

The respondent has fa e subiect unit within prescribed time. espondent/promoter to fulfil its obliga e agreement to hand over the possession .

The authority is of the considered view that of the respondent to offer ofpossession ofthe allotted I of possession ofthe allotted unit to the co mplainants as per the ternts and conditions of the buyer's agreementdated 05.12.2072 execlltcd between ,, I:::.;,,,," ,GLJfililGRA"[#] contained in sec,ion 11(4)(a) read with proviso to section 18(1) ofthe Act on the part ofthe respondent is established.

As such, the allottee shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay from due date of possession i.e., 05.06.2016 till offer of possession (30.05.2019J after obtaining occupation certificate plus two months i.e., 30.07. e., 30.07.2019 at prescribed rate i.e., 11.10 0% p.a. as per proviso to section 18[1) ofthe Act read with rule 15 ofthe rules.

Page 23 of 25 y' handover possessi * HARERT.' S-eunuennnr Complaint No.

1719 of 2024 Direct the respondent to refund the entire amount collected under different heads alongwith offer of possession which the complainants was not liable to pay as per the payment plan.

Direct the respondent to return unreasonably charged by respondent by increasing sale price after execution of the buyer,s agreement between respondent and complainants.

Direct the respondent to set aside the one sided indemnity bond get signed by the responden m complainants under undue influence.

35.

As far as common issues with nd of amount collected at time of offer of possession, demand, and setting aside of indemnity bond is of the view that after the execution of complainants and the respondent, all th rties come to an end except the statuto H.

Directions of the 36.

Hence, the authority r and issues the following ure glmpliance of obligations to the authority iii. tv. under section 34(0: i.

The respondent is directed to pay the interest at the prescribed rate i.e.

11.100/o per annum for every month of delay on the amount paid by the complainants from due date of possession i.e., 05.06.2016 till offer of possession (30.05.2019) after obtaining occupation certificate plus two months i.e., 30.07.2019 at prescribed rate i.e., 11.10 % p.a. as per proviso to section 18(11 ofthe Act read with rule 15 ofthe rules. ance deed betw cial liabilities betwee PaEe 24 of 25 trHARERA # eunuenn,r ii.

A period of 90 days is given to the respondent to directions given in this order and failing which legal conseq follow.

37.

Complaint as well as applications, ifany, stands disposed o 38.

File be consigned to registry.

Dated: 16.05.2025 HARERA GURUGRAM ffi Complaint No.

17 9 of 2024 Haryana Regulatory ly with the accordingly. ) Estate tho rity, PaEe 25 of 25 (Ashok M Gurugram