DEVENDER LAL PAHWA vs RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD.

The aforesaid complaint was disposed of vide order dated 18.02.2020 by the authority wherein the complainant was held entitled for interest at the prescribed rate of 10.20% p.a. for delay in handling over of possession from the due date of possession i.e., 24.11.2015 till the offer of actual possession and to pay interest accrued from 24.11.2015 till 18.02.2020. An application was filed by the complainant on 26.03.2024 for rectification of order dated 18.02.2020 and the complainant-applicant has sought following rectification:- S.No. Matter sought to be rectified Relevant page of detailed order dated 18.02.2020 showing error Proposed rectification by the applicant-complainant with relevant page of paper book showing error 1. Amount paid by the Applicant-complainant Rs.78,48,013/- [Point no.13 at page 3 of detailed order dated 18.02.2020 and para 4 at page 5 of detailed order dated 18.02.2020]  The amount was calculated from the receipts present on record. There was no demand letter on record earlier. Rs.87,07,435/- [as per the receipts & demand letter filed by the applicant-complainant along with the present application at page 38 of rectification application]    2. Name of the complainants Devender Lal Pahwa [As per performa B] Devender Lal Pahwa and Varsha Rani Pahwa    On last date of hearing i.e., 23.04.2024, the counsel for the complainant was  directed to hand over a copy of the said application to the proxy counsel for the respondent today itself who shall file reply within one week but no reply has been received till date.   The authority observes that section 39 deals with the rectification of orders which empowers the authority to make rectification within a period of 2 years from the date of order made under this Act. Under the above provision, the authority may rectify any mistake apparent from the record and make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the parties. However, rectification cannot be allowed in two cases, firstly, orders against which appeal has been preferred, secondly, to amend substantive part of the order. The relevant portion of said section is reproduced below:   Section 39: Rectification of orders  “The Authority may, at any time within a period of two years from the date of the order made under this Act, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it, and shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the parties:                   Provided that no such amendment shall be made in respect of any order against which an appeal has been preferred under this Act:                  Provided further that the Authority shall not, while rectifying any mistake apparent from record, amend substantive part of its order passed under the provisions of this Act.”   The authority observes that the application for rectification was filed on 26.03.2024 which is after the statutory limitation period of two years as per section 39 of the RERA Act, 2016. Hence, the present application barred by limitation and is thus dismissed.  File be consigned to the registry.

The aforesaid complaint was disposed of vide order dated 18.02.2020 by the authority wherein the complainant was held entitled for interest at the prescribed rate of 10.20% p.a. for delay in handling over of possession from the due date of possession i.e., 24.11.2015 till the offer of actual possession and to pay interest accrued from 24.11.2015 till 18.02.2020. An application was filed by the complainant on 26.03.2024 for rectification of order dated 18.02.2020. The counsel for the respondent promoter states that they have not received the copy of application for rectification so far. The counsel for the complainant is  directed to hand over a copy of the said application to the proxy counsel for the respondent today itself who shall file reply within one week. Matter to come up on 30.07.2024 for further proceedings.

RE-OPENED