MRS MANISHA vs OCEAN SEVEN BUILDTECH PVT. LTD.

HARERA GURUGRAIT/ AEFORETHE ComplaintNo.

7456of 2022 HARYANA REAL ESTATE RECULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUCRANI Orderpronouhced on: 14.o3.202s NAME OF THE BUILDER 0ceaD Seven Buildte.h Pvt.

Ltd.

Expressway Towers, Sector- 109, Gurugram, Haryana cR/7456/2422 (R/7635/2422 (R/4130/t422 cR/531/t021 Deepak Kunrar lai. v/s Ocean S€ven Buildte.h Private Bhawna Kaira.nd Mahrp.l v/s ocenn seven Buildtech Private NitinKumarSinEh v/s 0cean seven Burldtech Private 0cern Seven Buildtech Private CORAMI ShriV,jay Kumar Coyal Shn Ashok Sanswan ORDER This order shdll drspose of4 cor+plaints tided above nled before this authonty under serhon 3l of the R€dl Eslare (Regularion and Development) Act, 2016 therernafrer reterred as theAct') readwilh rule28orrhe Haryana Real Estate tResulduonand Developmen'l iules,20l7 (hereinafter referred as"$erules"l Page1of30 Chairman 1 *HARERA s,GuRUGRAI/ CodplaintNo.

7456of 2022 :t lor violation ofsection 11[4)(a] olthe Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsrble for all its obligations, responsibilities and functions to th e allottees as per the agreement for sal€ cxecuted inter se parties.

The core issues emanaiing lronr them are similar in nature and the complainantls] in the above reltrrcd matters are allottces of the project, namely, "Expressway Tore.s", Sccto.- 109, Gurugram, Haryana being deveLoped bythe respondent/promoreri.e, Iqls oceanseven Eujldtech Priva!e Linrited.

The terms and conditions otthe allotment letter, buyer's agreements, lulcrum ofthe issue involveC in allthesecases pertains to failure on the part oi the promoler to deliver tinrelj/ possession of the units n question seek'ng award of set-aside the cancellation letter, and to grant delayed possession chargcs and execute the conveyancedeed and others. 'l'he details ofthe complaints, unitno., date ofagreemen! possession clause, due date olposscssion, totalsale consideration. ideration. totalpaid amount, and relielsought dre given in the tablc bclow: Elp'e$rvJ, ro\eL at S- ru l0'r.

Curugrr n Atrordable sroup housins colony RERA Registered/ not deaEn.e 3q 112017 {As,nlnrmanon obta,oed troh ?0r of2017 dar.d 13.10.2017 Occupalion cerlifi@te Possssi.D .lause as pet 1"5,2 Possestion rine 'rh" aonpav \hall . h. e, elr endeaw to @nplete the eonsttu.tion onrt oller the poss.ssion olthe 'oi.I unit lrfli HARERA GURUGRAN/ ComplaintNo.T4S6of 2022 within lve yeorc lrotu the .tote ol the receiving ol license ('Cohtuitnent Penod ), but subiect to Iorce tuojeute clduse oI this Agreement ond tinelt potnent ol instottnents by the a onee(s), Howevet tn cosethe campan! conpletes the constuctian ptia. to the perhd af 5 yeors the A ottee sho not roise ant oble.tion in tdkiw rhe Dosession after pothent of remaining sole price ond other.horges stipuloted in the Aqreement to sell lhe conpany on obtainin! centlicote Ior accupotion ah.l u* b! the cohpetent Althotitip\ \hnll hond ovptthp \aid tnit Lo th.

Allattpc Iot his/hey' en occupotion and uv, subject to the Alottee havjng canplied with all the tetns and condiaans of the eid Poticy ond asreenent ta Sell an.l Possession .lau* as per Aflordabl€ Housing Policy, rarr.tntt nodcn\! t Pt\rrt Iltn 1(lv) ol the AUor.tobte Housing Polic!,2013 All su.h prajects shall be equtred to be ne.ettunu conpleted withht a reors fron the opproval ol biil.ling plans or groic oI environmentol eleoronce, \,hithever h lotet Thk date \hall be rcfened to os thc 'dotc al .ontntenccneht af praten la. the putpos. .l th6 palLy Tha licnte. ntotl not b.enewed beyan.l th. tutd 4 teors penod fion the dote d annercem t aJ l't*' - -1 L HARERA GURUGRA[I havebeen used They JerlJhvdRdrsrollows: ComplaintNo.7456oI2022 *I]ALENA S-GURUGRAN/ s.N 1.

2.

3. !ar!!!s!?!L - lr,,,r L,, r '1,\r CoEplaintNo.T456of 202?

Affordable housins Droie.t 06 0f2016 dated 16 06.2016 Reply re.eived by the reipordeir Anountra'd by L\e allotee/s I 5. tee/s I 5.

HRERA re8trre,edl not I HxERA re8istrurpn Elil BuildinE sh. shree Bhagwan C/o M/s Ocean Seren 15.06.2021 lhe fncts ol all the comphints filed by the complainant(s)/allotteet, are sinrllir.

Out of the above mentioned cJse, the particulars of lead case CR/7456/2022 titted as Deepak Kumorloin vs.

M/s Oceon Seven Buitdtech Privote Limited. arc bcing taken into consideration tor determining the rights Prolect and unit related details 'l'he particulnrs olthe projecr, th6 details ofsale conslderation, the amount pa'd by the complainant, date of proposed handing over the possession, delay period, ifany, have been detailed in drc lollowine tabula.lorm: CR/7455/2022 titled as Deepak Kunar lain Vs.

M/s Ocean Seven Auilcltech = l-t t3.to.zo17 72.04.2022 0ncludins 6 months COvID extensionl 26.09.2016 Expressway Towers, Sector 109, Gurugram, regkrered _ 7 .l.ar3n..

10.11.2017 Allotment l€lter isrued in favourof complainant on ComplaintNo,7456of 2022 (As alleeed bythc complainant on page 17 orcom!b!!!L 1801, 18rh floor, Tower l Builder buyer agreenent Possession clause as pe. claus€ 5 2 oltheaAreehent fhe Compant sho since.ely endevour to eanptete the canntuctian and oJlet the pose$ion af the eid unit withi" lve yeorc lrom th. date ol the r.eiving oJ li.ense ("Connitnett Period'), but subject to lorce nojeure douse ol this Agree qt and tinel! parnent ol tnstattment' by the Attottee(s), Hoveeet ]n cose the catnpdn! conpletes the conttruction ptiat to the period ol S veats the Allotd:hullhat taiv ahr objectioh in toking the possesion olier patment ol tenarnnS \ule P ct ahd other .hotlte\ \ti pu I a te.l i n t he Asr ecnenr to Sel L T h e Can p, n!, an abtu i h i n g ce tif o re I t occt Pation and u se b! the conpetent Authorittes shall hond aver the said unit to thc Allottee fat ha/her/theit occupattan ond use, subject ta ttle Ailottee havng Latnplic.t with oll the terns an.l .andnlons ol the liit1 t'oti.! and Ag. .! and Ag.ee cntto Scllund palnien4 nndcaspet Poyment Plun lt a lLnhet agreed by the Allnttee thot th.

Develaper shall hot be tiobte lot delat in codpletioft al connruction, in case ol lorce ma)eu.e condtian ohd/or the delay is cau*d due to non-conptetion of cohstruclior al soid Contplex/buildihg/unit. ln the event il a number Atlouee(s) are not paJng du. installhents on tine o. o hunber al Altauee(s) hos withdrawn then opplicotion ofter allotn*t oI unit ar o nunber ot untts has beea cancelled due to nonparnent ot d ue tneollnen$ ot orheM9 . tPaqe 33 olconptotntl t(tv) of the Allordobte floustng Poticy, 2013 Att such prop.B rhatt be required b bel ne.es ty .onpleted wiihin l tpon I.on thel approvol of butldns ptont ea a!!L!

9t) 11, 645 sq. ft. ofcarpeta.ea alons with 99 sq. ft.

Page 25 olthe complainil 0942.201? tl 1..

Due date ofpo:session by ComplaintNo.T4S6of 2022 !..n.trrinrltnt tttr Alltrirf!.r ^ /rt.r llrr\ 25.03.2020 Rs.26,29,500/ doE shott be .elered to ot the "dote ol connencenehtalploject fot the purpoe olthk polic!.

The licenys shotl hot be renewd belon.l the eid 4 JeoB petiad lron the dote of .onh.n.ehrhtof.n,P.t 30.05.?0?2 Galculated f.om the date of environment clearance dated 30.11.2017 beinB lare. + 6 monthsas per HARERA notification no.9/3- 2020 dated 26.05.2020 for the projects having completion date on or after &HARERA & eunuennul 19.

20.

Noti.e io. cancellatn)n 0..uprlio..rlrlrcalc Rs.27,60,321/ [As alleSed by the conrplrinant at page 18 ir2 09 2021 06.09 2021 lPagc 65 ol.onrplaintl l_inaL installnrcnt paid the conrplrrnant un R Fe.ts ofthe.omDlrint The conplainant has L That relyins on rDadc tr. toUowing nL the representatioDs, respondent about the tiqely delivery booked an apaftment in the real estate bmissions h the complajn!' warranties, and assurances ot lhe of possession, the complainant development of the r€spondent, known under the name an{ sryle of "Expressway Towers" at Sector 109, Curugram, under the Affofdable Housing Policy, 2013. icy, 2013.

That since th€ bookiDgofthe unit ofthe colnplainant tilldate, the complainant(s) had been continuously harassed by tle defaulting conduct ofthe respondenl which shallbe noted es under. t4 ComplaintNo.

7456of 2022 HARERA IV, GURUGRAIV 'Ihat the complainant was allotted an aparrmcnt bearing no.

1804, 18rb floor, in Tower3 having 645 sq. ft. carpetarea and 99 sq. ft. balconyarea in project oi respondent namcd Expressway Towers" at S€cror 109, Curugram, under the Affordable Housing l,olicy,2013 through a builder buyer agreement uas 09.02.2017 executed berw.cn the parti€s herein. 'Ihatafter theallotmentofibe u.it, a builder buyer agrcement was given to bccxccuted.l'hntthe complairrantwas made tosign the one-sided arbitrary ugreement the te rms an d conditionsofwhich were lixedandcould nor have been altered.

That th€ respondent had deviarcd from the ternrs and conditions olthe Affordable llousing policy, under the said Agreement and had malafidely attempted to lorce its own terms and conditions over rhe Complainant.

For instance, the due date ofpossessioD has been malafidely extendcd over and above ihe timelines mentioned in the Afforddble Housing Policy, 2013.

Incaseoldclay in paymenr 1570 olinterest,s charged lrom th. .omp lainanr under clause 4.5 however, no payment oiinterest has been noted in case oldelay by dre respoodent.

Ihe respondent takes Nr.ry thc right ibr raisi.gobjections in case ofalteration rrr layout plan and design under clause 4.8 oi the agreement.

Labour cess, VAT and WTC have been .loredunder Lla r., 4.q[]i, how"ve,.rhesamecannor belegallychdr8cd.

That succumbing to the one-sided and arbitrary conduct of the respondent, the complainant, who booked the unit rljth dreams and aspiratioD ol owning his own house, executed the arbitrary agreement- That at the outset, it is reiterated that the respondent had unilaterally, unlawfully and nrbitrarily ex(ended the due ddG ander the agreement by going beyond the Affo.dable llousing Poli. sing Poli.y,20l3, which, under no circumstance whatsoevDr, can be accepted.

T aomplarnt No.

7456of 2022 HARERA GURUGRAI\,4 That under the Scc 1(ivl ol drc Affordable Housing Policy, 2013, the possession ofthe unit was to be delivered within 4 years lrom the approval of building plan or grant of envjronmental clearance, whichever is later.

Hence, the due date needs to be computed from the Aiiordable Horsing Policy, 2013.

Hence, the due datc lrom 26.09.2020 (buildi.g plan) it conres out to be 26.09.2020. 'lhat tilldate, the possession has not been ofiered and the projedis rar from being completed.

It is a matter oirecord that no occupancy certificatc has been applied iill date and the essential services are incomplete in the project.

The entire aim of freating afordable living has been miserably violated by the respondent, due to its inordinate delay. 'lhat the respondent failed in complying wrth all the obligations, not only with respect to the agreemenr wirh lhe complainant but also with respect to the concerned laws, rules, and regulations thereunder, due to which the complairant faced innumerable hardships.

I\4o reover, the respondent made rilse statements about the progr.ss oithe proje.t as and when inquirrd by thc complainant. lt is iurtler submitted that takrng advaniage ot thc donrlnant position and nalafide intention had restored to unlair trade p.acti.es by harassing lhe complarnant by way ol delaying the project by diversion ofthe money riom the innocent arrd gullible buyer. lhatin case ofdelayin the oifer olpossession, the complainant has a rght under proviso oisection 18 oldre Act io seek delay possession charges till thc actual handover of possession.

That accordingly, the .espondent is bound to make the paymeDt ol intercst on the amount deposited b), thc contplainant till the actual handover oi possession.

That the compla'nant has a statuto.y .ight under section 18 of the Act, which, cannot go trnDoticed. rnDoticed.

Hencc, lor the delay caused i offering the possessioD, the v VIIT HARERA GURUGRAI/ I IDd3OthCTS respondent is ljable to pay th. complainant the delay possession charges under section 18[1) of the Act r/w rule 15 of Haryana RERA Rules and section 11[4] oithe Act, Lom the due date ofpossession i.e.,25.09.2020 rill rctual handover ol phvsical possession rfter the receipt or occupancy 'lhat it is the iailure ol the promoter to fulfil his obligations, and responslbilities as to hand ov€rthe possession within the st,pulated period Accordingly, the non conrpliance of the mandatc contained in section 11[4](al rca.l with section 18(11 olthe Act on the part olthe respondent is established.

As such the complainantis entjtled to delayed possession at the prescribed rate of interest ftom the due date till the physical handover ol possession as pcr provisions olsection 18[1) ofthe Act. 'lhat the respondent has utterly tailed to fu1fil its obligation to deliver the possession of the .rpartment in time and adhere to the contentiofls of the agreement wh,ch has caused mentalagony, harassment, and huge losses to th e co m plajnant, hence the p.esent co mplaint. 'lhat the complain.int has always timely complied with its obligations with respect to payment against the unit, as per the time-linked plan agreed l,er\\een rhe parties.

Till datb the compldinrnt hJs mide a totdl pdymenl oI Rs.27,60,321/'- till 06.09.2021 'lhat as per the paynrent plan, a totalofS installments had to be given to be paid against the unit.

All ofwhich we.e timely paid by the respond€nt.

That tlre Triinstallment wasduly paid by the complainant, asis reflected iron the said demand lette., and in fact, the respondent had also acknowledged the complete payment olthc 7r,installnrent vide emaildated 06.12.2019 1hat it is categorical to note that the demand letter shows Rs.1/- as the balance rmount payable till 71r installment and acknowledges that complete Complaint No 7456 of202l xt XIT xII ComplaintNo. mplaintNo.T456of 2022 RA RAlr/ ARE URUG Lr G payment had been nrade againstthe Lrnit I{owever, for nojustifiable reason and without any due explanation, the respondent arb,trarily and illegally demanded Rs.53,109/- as the 76 installment, i.e., after having noted that completc payment has been nrade, a further demand over and above the agreed p.ices in the agreement, and the Policy 2013, was nrade.

That the respondent has unilate.ally and arbitrarily demanded more and more monies irom the complainant with an intcnt to ivrongfully earn over the llrongful loss to the complainaDt and tbe rcspondent has accordingly, also co.ducted lraud agains! the conrplainant. 'lhat the complainant had also objected against rhe last demand being demanded despite no constiuc'tion havin8 been done in the unit or in the prolect.rs a rlhole.

The complainant had cat€godcally Doted that lvrong demand beirg raised and the incomplete constructio. olthe project, vide .n,dil ddr"d .r-.0-.1021.

Upon r1e threct ol cancerlrtron or the uni|hF -emdrnrng p.,ymPnt wa\ al\o made undFr pr otFsr a.

F! idFnt from E.rr' r.pr sholring NEFT o1 Rs.3,31,9r3l-.

That the complete payments as pcr the ngreenrent had been made by the con)plainant. flowever, the respondent unilaterally, arbitrarily, and wroogfully cancelled the unit on 02.09.2021. 'l1rl Ine .dnce.irl.on ofrhe dnrt olthe complarndnt tra. hrghl) unrldre-rL or the reasons stated as under: z Cancellntionwlsdoneon thebasisotnon paynrentof T installment, the complete payment ol which was already acknowledged vide denrand lefiPr:nd email d,red 06l2 2019 ; Canccllation was done on basjs of non-payment of additional sum ol Rs.56,397l- which was never a part oi the agreement or the Policy of 2013. > No public notice was issLred by the responden!, re., violating cbuse 5(iiil(il ofthe Atfordable Housing Poliry 2013. ; No relund was ever paid to the complainant, i.e., violating clause 5[iii](il of thc Affordablc Housine Policy, 2013. xtv Complaint No. plaint No.

7456 of2022 HARERA GI]RUGRAI'/ ;.

The respondent has been earning ,nterests over the 100% oftheamount paid by the Complainant. > Despite compet€ payment and letter requesting withdrawal of cancellation letter, the samewas n€verdone bythe respondent. xV.

That the compla,nant duly replied to the responde.t vide letter dated 06.09.2021, request,ng to recall the rancellation letter and noting the complete payment made by the complainant.

However, despite the same, the highly unilateral, arb,trary and wro.gful cancellation letter was not set aside by the r€spond€nt and the respondent continues to earn wrongful profits over the w.ongful loss to the complainant.

That in the above lacts and circumstances ofthe case, thecancellation letter ofthe respondent is ooLr d ro bp \er d\.de and thE d.lorment oi rhe u r.r. 'Ihat it is a matter of fact that the GST was implemented on 01.07.2017.

Ihereattcr, !v.c.U 01.04.2019, the rates of impositioD ol GSl were rev'sed for an Allordable Housing P.oject, the rate that can be charged irom the ; 1olo without input tax credit or ; 8%with inputtaxcrediti That the respondenfs dem4nd letter shows that before 2019, 8% GSl has been credited.

Horvever, no input ta-Y credjt benefit has been olfered to the complainant. ]'he respondbnt has been acting in utmost malafide and depri!ing the conrplainant lronr enioying ihe berlents reserued to him in law and by the gov.rnnrcnt.l'ha! the respondent has always attemPttd to iinancially crunch the complainant and take undue benefits over wrongful garD to the conrplainant, all of which cannot be accepted, u.der any circumstance whatsoever.

That as per the Affordrble llousing Policy,2013 lread with amendment dated 0,1.01.2021 vide Memo No.

Pr 27{VOL'ttt)/2020/2TCP/41), the parking space is to be pro!ided at the rate olhaltequivalent ca. space IECS] xvll \VII1. ffHARERA S-eLnlcrw ComplaintNo.

7456of 2022 Ibr every unit, a.d it is unclear as to what amount of parking charge has been levied. en levied.

Looking at the utte. malafide activities ofthe respondent, the complainant seeks clear bifurcation ol the total sale price, including the charge of parking.

That in dre.ircumstance, it is seen that an excessrve charge is being denranded by the respondent, this Authority may kindly be pleased to directthe respondent to refund the same.

X/X.

That moreover, as per the ameDdcd Affordable Housing Policy, additional car parking cnn be provided/sold aftc. dcrivins coDsent oa 2/3 ol the .llottees.

Ihat in complete vio lation of the same, the bu ilder has been selling the car parking at exorbitantrates and encroaching upon tbe common areas of the project.

That the builder should be restrained from carrying such illegal, nrdior4de and unlawtul activities in violation ol the Affodable Housing Policy,20L3.

XX. 'lhat it is a settled position ol law that in affordable housing projects, the builder is bound to maintain the projectfor a span of 5 years from the date of occupancy certil'cate Further. the respondent, under the clause 4.9(iiil and (iv.)ofthe agreement hqs demanded: > Labourcess, i Work Contract Tax; beginning.

Despite having gravely defaulted in the construction ofthe unit, the materialbeing used foroonstruction is sub'par, excess monies are being , Porver Backup charges. xxl.

Ihat the respondent seeks to pnt the additional burden olthese costs over the complainantwhcn thesame is bound to be paid by the respondent only.

Accordingly, the respondent be .estrained from raising any such demand riom thc complainaDt. xXIl 'Ihat the conduct of thc respondent has been tnolalde since the very HARERA GURU6RAl!4 CompLd ni No.

745boil0ll \x r xxtv xxv. collected lrom the allottees, the builder has been committing rnisapproprjation offunds, aod stands in violation olthe DTCP norms and the mandatory compliance under the Act of 2016. further, in Seprember 2022, the DTCP had also rcconrnrended the cancell.r!ion olthe license olrh. ense olrh. projects olthe respond€nt due to its continuous non,compliance. 'lhat thereafter, vide another meeting oi the allottees, conducted on 04.11.2022, with the Chairman, STP, Gurugram, all ofthe said issues were categoncally highlghted.

Ihe Chairman had also sugg.sted the allottees to approach HRERA for redressalolbilateralissues i.e., forensic financialaudit etc.

Additionally, the respondent was directed to not sell car parking over thc conrmon areas and was required to submit the approved site plan, showing thc parku)g space. 'lhat in light of the above, in order to saleguard ihe interests of the ''ort drndnl and \avethe complarnanr from beingwrongfully prerudired bJ he unlJwlul conJL( r of rhe rFspondent anJ in InF s irh the \uggF,riun ui the Chainnan S'lP, it is nrost hunrbly rcqucsted that a localcommissioner be appointed to carry on the followingtasksr / To ascertaiD the stage oiqonstruction ofthe p.oject; - to \ rr.ry ir Ih-. unstruction qualrty rs cub.pJr: , Ioverifytheillegal carparkingbeingsold bytherespondenti , lo verify is the development is in accordnnce lrith the site plani .Cdditionally. a iorensic audit ol the books of accounts be conductcd to ver,fyi , l'he totalamountoimonies collected bytheauotleesof theprojectl , The total amou nt oi moni es yet to be collected fiom the allotteesl , The totrl .mount of monies utilised toua s the construction /development oi the projfctl The expenditure yet lo be incurred towards the construction development of the proiect; Ifthe fund from the allottees is being maintained in the escrow account Complaint No.

7456 of 2022 HARERA GURUGRA[/ , Ihe records ol the accountant verirying the disbLrrsement oi monies towards expenditure done for the construction/developrnent of rhe project tilldatel - Ascertain whether 70% ol the deposit by the allottees was berng deposited in a sep.rrate bankrccount.

That the registration ol dre prcl.ct has been exprred since 12.10.2021 and the same has not been renewed till date. till date.

That accordingly, the respondcnt hrd committed default ol section 6 oi the RERA Act and hence, penal proceedings in this regard be rnitiated against the respondent.

Moreover, alier an inordinate delay in the project, no specific date lor hand,ng ovcr ot the possession has been undertaken by the respondent and hence, the respondent should be directed to provide on affidavit, the date by when thc valid and legaloiler olpossession shallbe made by the respondent. iefsought by the complainantr ' (omplainant has sought following relief(sl: 'Io restrain the respondent from creatingthird party interest in the allotted 'to set aside the cancellation letter dated 02.09.2021 and restore drc allotment olthe unit. 'to appoint a local commissiQ ner to carry outthe tasks as mentioned in para .13 ofthe compla,nt. lo c.nCL, r ., forensi. aJdit of the book( ol a, coLnt. of the respondenr J\ per rdck men(ion, J ,n prra 44 olthe compl 'inr Dn'ect the respondent to prov'de on affidavrt, a date tillwhich a valid olter ol posscssion shall be given.

If the respondent fails to provide th. sam., penal proceedinss lbr violatioD olsection a(2)(llIC) be initiated against the Direct the respondentto provideavalid physical possession afterreceiptol occupancy certif icate, Drrect the respondent to givc dclaycd posscssion charges @ MCLIi+2% lronr 26.09.2020 tillthe date ot actual physical po sscss io. atthe prescribed Directthe respondent to give anti-profiteering credit/inputtax credit to the C, Re Th L lt.

III, lv. vll VIII ComplaLnl No.

7456 ol20lz HAI?FAA .omoan nn74q6o{2nzr GJRJGRAI/ "NJ 3 OI\E,' 'lo directthe respondentto €xecute th€ conveyance deed afteroffering valid olfer of possession to the complainant; Directthe respondeotto refund ofRs.56,397l- charged ov€rand above the agreemeDtandtheAffordableGroup HousingPolicy,2013. licy,2013. 'to restrain the respondent kom demanding Labour Cess, VAT, Work ContractTax and Power Ba(kup chargesi Directthe respondent to give bifurcation olthe totalsale price including the clarification ofcost ofpark,ng under the Affordable Housing Policy,2013, To .estrain the respondent irom charging any maintenance charges in luture as the complainant is noibound to pay the same und€rtheAffordable Housing Policy,20l3; To .estrain the respondent hom demanding car pa.king charges lrom the To ldke dcuon lor vrolalron or :ectjon 6, i.e.. non-exlensron of regislralron of the Act: Cranr any other rehetas thli< Hon'bie Authonty deems fit rn lhe peculidr ia.ts rnd c,rcums!ances oithe present ioinplaint. he date oi hearins, the authority explained to the respondent/ promoter x. xl. xlt.

XIII xtv. xv. xvt.

Jbour lne contrdvenuons as d,ieged to hdve bpen .ommilled section 11[4] [a] ofthe act to plebd guilty or not to plead suilty.

D.

Replybytherespondent 9.

Th. respondeot is contesting the conrplainton thc following grounds: I That this Authority lacks jsdiction to adjudicate upon the present of the builder buyer agreement both the .on)pl.rint rs vLdr clausc 1 parties have unequ,vocally agreed to rcsolve any disputes through IL That the complainant is a willful deiaulter and deliberately, intentionally 6.2 andknowinglyhavenotpaidtimelyinstalments.

That starting from February 2023, the construction activities have been severely impacted due to thte suspension of the license and thefteezingol accounts by the DTCP ChaFdigarh and HREM Curugmm, respectively This suspension and freezitg ofaccounts represent a force majeure event l ComplaintNo.T456of 2022 HARERA GURUGRAIT/ beyond the control ofthe r9spondent.

The suspension ofthe license and ireezing ofaccounts, starting from Feb 2023 till date, have created a zero- time scenario for the respondent.

Further, there,s no delay on th€ part of the respondent project as lt is covered under clause number 5. number 5.5 force Majeure, which ,s beyond controlofthe respondent.

That the Rnal EC is CTE/CTo which has been received by the respondent in February 2018.

Hence the start date of project is Feb 201a and rest details a.eas f.llows: ( oud rn.l Nt;l lirstricti.tions P.orect comDletion Date Feb 22 Covid lock down waiver NGT stay (3 nonthsapDrox. for every 'lotalTinre extended to be extended I 1.+l8l f,1r,'tl,\ i(urnts 1r..z.d & L(c rr. sLLs|.rd,rd l 5 Y s ry N >T h lurthertrnrc to be extended tillthe unrieezing ollhe a..ou;ts i.e.

Feb- Nov 2023 LLO trtgntlls) _ f_Lnal prolccr complenon date Ii!.ase rojc.t is unlic( zcdl lnfiher hm c would added till unltee:rng tlrc a.counts p As per the table given above, the final date for the compl€tion or construction is Iieb 25 in cas€ the accounts a.e uDfreezed by the competent authority on the date of liling this reply From ]reb 2023, the lice.sc has been suspended and ac{:ounts have been frsezed by the DTCP Chandrgarh and HRIRA Gurugram.

Copies ofall the.elevaDt documents have been tiled and placed on the record. 'l'her r auth enhcily is not in dispute llerce, the complaint caD bc decided on the basrs olthese undisputed documents and submission made by the pa.ties.

Thc complainant and respondent have filed the written submissions on 18.02 2025 and 11.02 2025 respectively, which rs taken on record and h:s been ]l Complarnt No 7456 o12022 .'6,HARER I ,o,p ,rro-,so- o (s^ eun-eneu | ''d I o'htr' I considered by the authority while adjudicating upon the relief sought by the lurisdiction of the authority 'lhe autho.ity observcs that it has territorial as well as subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate thepresent complaint lorthe rsasons given be1ow. [-l Territorialjurisdiction AspernotificatioD no.

I/92201 7-lTCP dated 14.12.20I7issuedbyTowD and Country Planning Department, the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurufam District lor all purpose rvith olfices situated in Curugram.

Curugram. ln the present case, the project in question is nxL.ued within the planning :rea ol Curugram Disrrict.

Therefore, this au(horit), has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present E,ll Sub,ect matter itrrisdiction Secnon l1(a)[a] ol dre Act,2016 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as De. asreement for sale.

Section 11[4)[a] is rcproduced as hereunder: '1i1t t" pan,re, snott.

E.

12.

13 t1 (o) be respansible lor pll obliso ons, respansibilittes ond lunctions undet the p.ovtsion| of this Act ot the rula ond regulations ade thereunder or to tla olldtve, os per the ogr@ent lor ele, or to the associotion ofallonees, os the cae noy b. ti th. converonce olall rhe apo rtnen ts, ptots or bL i ld i ng s, o s the co se n o! be, to th e a I lotte6, or the conmon oreas to the assactatan alollottees ar the cohpetent outhority, Section i4-Functlols ol the Authoritt: 344 ol the Act providet to ensure ca plionce olthe obligotions cast upon the ptonoten. the ollonees ond the real estote ogents undqthis Actand the rulesond rc@latians node thereunder PaBe 18 ur ]8 CohDLainrNd.7455.I2022 15.

So, inview ofthe provisions ofth+Actquoted above, theauthorityhascomplete jurisdictionto decidethe complaiht regardingnon-complianceofobligations by thepromoter.

I.

Findings on obiections raised by lhe respondent F.l Ob,ectlotr regardiDg comglainant is in breach of agr€ehent fo. non- lhvocation of arbitration.

16.

The respondent has submitted that rhe complainr is not maintainable for the reason that the agreehent contains an arbitration clause which refers ro the dispLrte resohtion mechanhm to be adopted by the parties in the event ofany dispute.

The authority is of the opinion that the jurisdiction ol the authority cannot be fettered by the existence of an arbitration clause in the buye.s agreement as rt mny be noted that section 79 ofthe Act bars thejurisdiction of ci!,ilcou. ci!,ilcou.ts about any matter which iblls within the puruiew ofthis authority, or the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

Thus, the intention to render such disputes as non-arbitrable seenrs to be .lear.

Also, section 88 of th€ Act sats dr,rt the provinons ol this Acl shull be rn ndditron to ar)d not ln derogation olthe provisions of any other law for the time being in force Furthe., the authority p u ts rehance o n cate na oljudgments oi the Hon'ble Su p reme Court, particu la rly fi National Seeds Corporation Limited v.

M.

Modhusttdhon Reddy & Anr. (2012) 2 SCC 506, wlietein it har been held that the rcnrodies provided undcr the Consumer Pratection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the othcr laws in lorce, consequently the authority would not be bound to refer p.ties to arbjtration even if the agreement between the parties had an rrbitrarion clause.

I'herefore, by ipplying same analogy the presencc of arbitration clause coukl not be conslrued to take away the jurisdiction of the 7. hrther in,ytoD.tirgn ondors.vs.

Dmaat MGF Land l,td and ors., Cortsutner cose no.701 ol2015.lecided on 13.07-2017,rbe NatroDal Consumer Disprtes #llARIlt S- GURUGRAN/ ltc(lressal Co mmission, New Delhi(NCDRC) has held that the arbitration clause in agreements between lbe compl.rinants and builders could not circumscdbe thc jurisdiction of a consumer.

Further, while considering the issue of nuintainability of a complaint befo re a consumer lorum/commission in rhe fact ol an existing arbitratlon clause in the builder buyer agreementi the Hon'ble Sup.e,ne Court in .ase li led as M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd.

V.

Aftob Stngh in revision petition no.2629-30/2018 ii civil oppeal o.23572-23573 o12017 decided on 10.72.2O1Ahas upheld the aforesaid judgement of NCDRC and as provided in Article 141 ol the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Supreme Couft shall bc binding on all courts lvithin the territory of Indi. y of Indi. ,rnd accordingly, the authont), is bound by the aforesaid vier\r 'l'herefore, ,n vlew of thc above judgements and considering the provision ofthe Act, the authority is of the view ihat complainanr is well within his right to seek a special remedy nv.rlnble in a beneficia I Act such as the Consumer Protection Act and RER-^ A.t.

2016 inst.ad olgoing in for an arbitration.

Hence, lvc have no hesitation in holding that this authority ha! the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the complarnt and that the dispute does not require to be reierred to arbitration l_.rl Objections regardingfirrce maieure.

1U l hc respondent/promoter has raised the contention that the construction of thc proiect has been delayed due to iorce majeu.e circumstances such as ban on construction due to orders passed by NCT, major sprcad oiCovid-19 ac.oss wo.ldwide, suspension of license by the D'lCP, Chdndigarh and freezms ol ac.ounts by HRERA Gurugram etc. which is beyond the control ol the rcspondentand arecovered underclause 5 5 of the agreement.

The respondent has further submitted that suspension ot the licens. and freezingof,accounts, srrrting Lom [eb 2023 tjl] dale hrvc crealed a zerc time scenario for the Complarnt No.

T456 of2022 ;}J I-]ARER aiv 13JRjGtAi,,l ComplaLnt No.

7456of Z0Z2 respondent.

Furthermore, the nrtal EC is CTE/CTO which has been received by the respondent in February 2018, hence th€ start date ofproiect is Feb 201B.

Moreover the respondent compsny has nled the representahon that the final completion date [incase project is unfreeze) turther time would b€ added till unlreezing the accounts as the due date of possession may be considered as March 2026.

The counsel for the respondent during proceeding dated 19.11.2024, stated that the due date of possession may be calculated arom the date of'consent to establish' i.e.

0 5.02.2018 which .ome. out to be 05.02 2022 and further requests to allow the grace period due to force majeure circumstances i.e. ances i.e., Covid-2019, ban imposed by NCT from time to time.

Moreover, the delay was h:ppened due to agjtation by the m€mbers of Association ofallottees who obstruct the construction wo.k at site as a result the DTCP has cancelled the license on 23.02.2023, vide Memo No- LC-3089- P A(v A)-2023 /547 S and even tho Authority had lrozen allthe bank accounts or the respondeDt colnpany.

The counselforthe respondent has placed on record a report of chartered E ngineer 4ated 14.0 5.2 0 24 vide which bringing out the t. linancial losses caused by the delayed payments and escalated material costs due to delayed payment by the allottees.

Howeve., all the pleas advanced in this regard are devoid ofmerits, The Authority is of considered view that the provisions of zero period is neither provided in the Act of 2016 nor in the Affo.dab1e Croup Housing Policy 2013.

Therefore the due date ofpossession is .alculated as per clause 1(iv) of the Aifordable Housing Policy,2013 it is prescribed that "Allrlch pnjec6 shall be required to be necessoril! completed within 4 yeors lrom the date ol opprcval of building plans or gmnt ol enviranmental clearance, whichever k lokr.Thisdob shall be relerred to os the "date of commencement of proie.t for the purpose of tnis pollc),.

The respondent has obtained environment clearBnce and build,ng plaD approval in respect of HARERA, GURUGRA[/ th. said project on 30.11.2017 and 26.09.2016 respectively.

Therefore, the due date ofpossession is being calculated Lom the date of e nviro nmental clea.an ce, belnt later.

Iurthe., an extension ol6 nionths is granted to the respondent in vielv of notitication no.9/3 2020 dated 26.05.2020, on account ofoutbreak of Cov'd l9 pandemic.

Thereiore, the due date ol possession was 30.05.2022.

As far as other contentions of the respondent w...t delay in construction ol the proled is conce red, the same arc disallowed as firstly the orders passed by NGlbanDingconst rction in the NCR.egion was for a ve.y sho. ve.y sho.t period oftinre |nd thus, cannot be said to impact the respondent-builder leading to such a dela] in the.ompletion.

Secondly, the license ofthe p.ojcct ofthe respondent was $6pended by DTCP, Haryana vide memo dated 23.02.2023, due to grave violations made by it jn making compliance ofthe terms and conditions ofthe license.

In view olthe same and to protect dre interest olthe allottees, the bank account olthe respondent relnted to dre proiect was frozcn by this Authorily vidc order dated 24.02.2023.

It is $,ell seltled princrple that a person caDnot tnke benefit ofhis olvn wronB. (i. l,iDdings on the reliefsought by the complainant.

G.l To resrrin the respond.nttrom creatingthird p.rty interestiD thc utrit. c.rr to sct asidc rh€ can.euntion lcttcr dated 02,09.2021 and restor. the allotmentotdr. unit, 19 The complainant ivas illotted a unit bearing no.

1803, 18'r' floor, in tower3, in thc proiect of the respondent at lhe sale consideration oiRs.26,29,500/- undcr thc Alfordable Group llousing Policy 2013.

The possession ofthe unit was to be oltered withm 4 ycars ffom the approvalorbuilding plans (26.09.2016) or n om thc date ol envjronment clearancc (30.11.2017), whichever is later, which .o.r.s.rrrnr he 30 r 1 202r.alculared fiomthe date of environmentclearance beins later.

Further, as per HAREM notification no 9/3'2020 dated 26.05.2020, ar extension of 6 months is granted for the prcject having Compla'ntNo.7456of 2022 Pdge z2.tla Conplaint No.

T456 of2022 completion date on or after 25.03.2020.

The completion date ofthe aforesaid project in lrhich the subject unit is being allotted to the complainant is 30.11.2021 i.e., alter 25.03.2020. 'l hcrefore, an extension of 6 months is to be siyrn over and above the due datc olhanding over of possession the due date ot possession in view ofnotificatio. no.9/3'2020 dated 26.05.2020, o. account of torce majeure conditions due to outbreak ofCovid_19 pandemic. pandemic.

Therefore, rhe due date olhanding over olpossession conres out to be 30.05.2022.'lhe conrplainant has paid a sunt ol Rs.27,60,321l- towards the subject unit, and the complainant is readyand wilUng to retain the allotted unit in question.

20. ]'h!t the counrel for thc respondent stated dlat the complainant was default in nrrking paynrent alier giving dellland notice cum renrir)dcrs letter.

But in sPite ol repeated reminders, the payment of outstanding amount was not made leadingto cancellation oftheunit on 02.09.2021.

The OC ofthe unithas notbeen obtrLned by the respondent and no offer of possession was made prior to the 21 upoll perusal oldocuments and subftissions made by the complainant, it has been found that allotnent oithd subject unitwas cancelled by the respondent on 02.09.2021 due to non-paymfnt.

Ihe foremost question which arise before thc Authority for the purposc ol adiudication is that whether the said crncellatiorr is valid or not?

22.'lhcAuthorjtyobsewesthatclauseSIi]oftheAffordableGroupHousingPolicv, 201:J deals with the cancellation and the relevant clause is reproduced below: _ "lh'l'",daniloenlnd4ndvfurdh hmtu d. .,tmth.duQ p\kt@ NiertllnrdAr tth"attalte t|\tep rn ns h" DdntuL qP tia ol i.r ,otd H,nd E.spop.tnowrs r.ulonor al nod m.1t at one onorlt wt1,4 tsll4gt:futu ,t-t tk .ow\ nko.n opountot R.2shnn/ 4oJ D" d4tdd bl n" otor: et oadt\?bator.. on, ,tiattoetd"rddbF<ht" a1t <J 'roda,\r.n^.o- bJIh? o4nt@ h, !I?t b th^t qkar6 lah;s n tt wt,l!

81 .

Pase23 or33 LornphLnt No.

7456 of 2012 23 on 21.07.2021, the respondent raised a demand for an amount oiRs.3,88,370/- (page no.64 ofcomplaint) to be paid u,ithin a period of l5 days from the date ot said letter.

The respondent vide letler dated 0209.2021, cancelled the allotted unit ol the complainant.

Thereafter, on 06.09.2021, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.3,31,973l- against the said demand letter dated 2l 07.2021. l 07.2021.

I'he Authoriry observcs rhal the complainant has paid morc than 1009; ofthe sal. consrderation and lhe respondent lvas required to handove. the project by 30.05.2022 including g.ace period oi6 months, the respondent t r iled to complete the constructio n of the project M o re th an two years later, the proiect remains inconrplete and the respondent has not obtained the occupation certificate.

I.urther, the interest accrued during the delay period srgniflcantly reduces the amount payable by the complainani.

Upon adjustment of this interest, the respondent would, in fact be liablc to paythe complainant.

Despite this, the respondent chose the can.el the unit on grounds of non- pnynrent, \!hile negleciing its own obligaiions.

Such actjons by the respondent displays bad faith, as it failed to adjust the delay period interest.

Furthe., the respondent lniled to fulfil the prerequisite ofpublishing the due notice in the daily newspaper.

Ther.fo.e, the presc.ibe.l pro.edure .s pcr clause 5[iii]01 of the policy of 2013 had not been [ollowed by the respondent to cancel the unit of the complainant.

In lighr of these findings, the cancellation oithe allotment on 02.09.2021, is deenred invalid and hereby quashed as issued in bad faith.

2,1.

1n .ase no.7635 ol 2022,8130 af 2022 and 531 ol 2023, the respondent /promorer hrs rlso islue rhe lrn.ellrtton lener due to non.paymenL'Ihe detdris ol the amount pard, toql saie consjderaLion dnd dale of cancellation Ietter in each case are provided ere,n belowr ComplaintNo.

7456o12022 1 2 3.

763s at2on 1 16.2snin/. ll r5 t)rt) | 42.09 2021 arzo itnn J laiifiv | 26,?6,0p4/.

8,s6,300/ Th.

C.htony shall rn1nrcl, en.ieowr to conplete the constuctioD ond oll.r the possession ol the sdin unit within fve yeors [rotn the .ra4 o[ the re@ilins oI license ("Commitment After conside. r conside.ing the above, the Authoriry is view that there is no document available on record to substanriate the claim of respondent that the unit has beetr validly cancelled after following the due procedure as prescribed undcr tbc policy o12013, duly supports the arguments oi rhe complainant thar rhe respo.deDt has duly received amount from the complajnant on several dates that thc conrplainant(sl has paid more than 85% of the sale consideration as the construction ofthe project is still pending.

Moreover, post cancellation, the respondent bas failed to relund rhe amounr to the conrplainant till date. ccordingly, the said cancellation cannot be held valid rn the eyes oilaw and is herebysetaside.

G,lll Dire.t the respondent to give delayed possession charSes at the prescribed rate i.e., MCLR+zd/o f.oii 26.09.2020 till the date of.crull physical posscssion at thc pres.ribed rate ofintercst.

G.lV Direct the respondent to execute the conveyance deed afte. ottering valid offer of possessioD tp the complainant :15 lhc complainant intends to continue with the project and is seeking delay possession charges xs provided under the proviso to s.ction 18(1) of the Act. sec.l8[1] proviso rcads as undcr. 'Sectio" fi:.

Return ol anoutt and eompen tion 1 3U ). ll the prcnotq lails ra conplete or it uno ble to give possessioh f .ta dpatta"at.Dtot o Ldtdtng. - . .

Ptuv t d et1 t h a t w het e o n u I lattee d oes na t 1 n tend ta wi thd r ow f.on the prc1e.t he \ltoll be poitt. h! tlre ptatnotet inte'cn l.tereryhonth ol delo),,ttll hc han.l ls artt oltht po\ sean, aL tu.h tdte asnoybc Dtes.tite.l 2 4,.

As per clause 5.2 talks about the possession ofthe unjt io the complainants, the rele!,ant portion is reproduce as unde.: Penod"), but stbje.. to foree majeure ctause oI this Agrcenent and timely pornent ofinstollmentt bt the Atlottee(s).

Howevet tn.ote th.conpa.! c. pletesthe canst.ucnan pti. ucnan pti.t to the petiod al5yetrstheAllottcesha not roise onyobjectior in toking the possession aftet partuent ol remoining sate price ond othet ehorges stipulated in the Agreenent to Sell 'the Conpony on abtothti! .e.tirtate lor ac.Lpotion and use b! the cohpetent ^uthantit thall hoi.l ote. the \oid unit to the Allottee Iot hh/he4tha. a(upattun an.l us., tub)cct b the lthxtee hovns conplied et h oll the r.t ns an.t .andiLto s.[ nrt \ id Pol tcy ond Agree .it to sell ond prlntunt. ntu.le.\pe.

PryDent Plon.' 27 At the outset, it is relevant to connncnt oD the preset possession clause of rhe agreement \\rherein the possession has been sublected to allkinds ofterms and condrtions of this agreement and application, and the complainant not beirrg in delault under any provisioDs of these agreements and compliance ivith all provisions, ibrmalities and docunrentation as prescribed by the promoter.

The dr.liing ofthis clause and incorporation ofsuch conditions are not only vague an.] uncerbin but so heavily loaded in favour of ihe promoter and against thc allottees that even a sixgle delault by thc allottees in fulfilling iormalitics and docuorcntations etc. as prescrjbed by the promoter may make the possession clause irrelevant ior the purpoFe of allottees and the commitment datc ibr handiog ovcr possession loses its meaning.

The rncorporation ofsuch clause nr the buyer's rgreement by the promoter Is not only ir grrve violation ot (lILse 1(ivl ol the Affordable Housing Policy, 2013, but also dep.ive the allottees of their right accruingafter delay in possession.

This is just to comment as to how thc builder has misused his dominant position and drafted such mischievous chusc in thc agr..mcDt and thc rllottccs Jrc 1elt with no option but to sign on drc dotted lines. .lll Clarse 1(rvl of the Affordable Housing Policy, 2013 provides for completion ol nllsuch projects licenced underitand thesameis reproduced asunderfor ready ffiHAREBA S- cunlcnntrl ComplaintNo. mplaintNo.

7456of 2022 S HARER..

GURUGRAN/ "All such prcjecE sho be rcqutud to be necesorily conpleted within 4 yeo B Iton the d ate oI o ppraval oI bu i ld i ho plo ns ot grd n t olenvironnqta I cleoronce,whichever is loter This date sholl be refemd to as the date ol .onhehcenentolproj4t" fa. the purpoe ofthe pohcy " 29.

Due date ofhanding over ofposs€ssionr As per clause 1[iv) ofthe Affo.dable Housing Policy,2013 it is prescnbed that i.41i su.h prcjects shall be requned b be necessorilyconpletedwithin4yeorclrom the dok ofopprovolofbuilding ptons ar s rant of environnental clearance, whichever is loter-'this date shall be relerted to os the 'date af commencement ol project' for the purpose of this policy- The respond€nt has obtained environment clearance and building plan approval in possession comes out to be 30.05.2022 30.

Admissibility of delay posse$loo charges at prescribed rate of interest: Proviso to section 1ll provides that where an allottee does not jntend io r!irhdra$, fronr the prolect, he shallbc paid, by the promoter, interest for.vcry nrcnih ol dclay, till lhe handrng over of posscssion, at such rate as mry be prescribed and it has been prescribed under rule 15 ol the rules.

Rule 15 has respect of, the said project on 30.17.2017 and 26.09.2016 respectively. 'lhereiore, the due dnte of possession is being calculated from the date of environmental clearanc., beiDs later.

Further, an extension oa 6 montls is granted to the res pondent in view of notification no.

9/3 '2 0 20 dated 2 6.0 5.2 02 0, or Jccount oI outbreak ol Covid 19 pandenrc.

Thereibre, the due datc ol been reproduced as under: Rute 15.

Pr.wiberl.ole oJlnter6t.

IProvi@ to sp.ti@ 12, cuon tB ond subse<tion l4)hnd subs"rtion (7) oJ *ctton tgl t1) lor the pLrpoe df p.aviso to ection 1Z section fi; ontt tub- ectiont (4) and V7) ol section le, the 'interest ot the rote presribed sholl blthe state Dankof lndia highest ofginal @tof P,aeied thot h p\? the Stat" Dant< ot lnd,o harginol ,on oJ brc,n n oJ brc,ng rate tMCLRt ^ not,n use, it \hoh bp tpolaced lt tuch ben \t4o.k k.dt41.o+\ ht.h th. statc Ba4r at tndto not fx hon unetotitue k.lendtno rothe eeneral publn CompldLnr No.

7456of 2012 ComnLainrNo 74566f 2022 &TIARERA Lo',pd.nr^o-4sbo,ro,- & O,ntOuV ond rotre* The legislature in rts wisdom in the subordinate legislation underthe provision oln'le 15 olthe rlrles, has deternrined thc prescribed rnte ofinterest.

The rate of irierest so determined by the legislature, is reasonable and ii the sa,d rule is followed to award the interest, itwillensure uniiorm practice in all the cases.

Consequently, as per website ofthe Srare Bank of lhdia i.e., hrtps://sbico in, the marginal cost ot lendirg rate (nr shorr, MCLRI as on date i.e., 18.03.2025 is 9.10%.

Accord'ngly, the prescribed rate of interest will be marginal cost of lending rate +2% i.e., 11.100/6.

Th. definrtion of term 'interest' as deflned under section 2(zal oi the Act provrdes that the ratc olintcrest chargeable from the allortee by the promorer, in case ofdelaul! shall be equal !o the raie of interest which the promoter shall belableto pay the allottee, in case ofdefault The rel€vant sect,on is reproduced 'tza)'tnte.est" tneons the.atesaltntErcn paldble b! ttE pt onoter ar the dllatee, os the cosenot be Explonotrcn. t:ar the purAose aJ this.louse- ut o",at.t otee<rc\uaeabt. noq rh. oltottc" b\ tttp oqot",.n .a.e nl d"lort('holt be equot to the rote at [email protected] thi.n the prcnot.r thatt he lidble to po! the ollotte. jn coy ol delaultj 0, the nteBt porabh b! thc pranoter to the otlottee shatt be fron the.tute rhe pranaLct rctetred the otnaunt ot anr pu.tthereoftl nte doLe the onloutr at Nn thqeol a..t thterest thereon k tefundcd, ondthc intercst patoble by the ollattee ta the prcnotet shall be lran.he date the ollotAe delault\ ih poynent to the ptatnotL, till the dotc it is poid: Therefore, interest on thedelay payments from the complainantshall becharged at the prescribed rati,i.c., 11.10% by thc r. by thc r.spondent/promoter which is thr same as is being granted tQ the complainant in case ol delayed possession t1 't2 't,l s.

0n .onsrderdtion ot the documefts dvailabh on record and submissions made by both the parties. rhe authbriry is srtrsfied that the respondenl rs in contravention of the secrion 11ttr)ta) of the Act by not hanclins over possession IARERA P" GURUGRAIT/ by the due date as per the agreement.

By vj.tue ofclause 1(ivl ofthe Affordabl€ Housing Policy,2013, the respondent/p romoter shall be necessarily required to co nrplete th e con struction of rhe projcct withi n 4 years f.om rhe date of app roval ol building plans or grant of environmental clearance, whichever is larer.

Thcrefore, in view olthe findings given above, the due darc oihanding over of possession was 30.05 2022. llowevcr, the respondenr has failed ro ha.!lover possession ofthe subject apartmenr ro the complainan! rill rhe date olrhis order.

Accordingly, it is the iailure oithe respondent/promoter to tu1nl its obligations nnd responsibilities as perthe agreement to hand over rhe possession within the stipulaied period Further, there is no documenr available on record to substantiate the clainr ol the .espondent.

Accordingly, the claim ol the respondent is rejected beingdevoid of merits.

14or€over, the authority observes drat ihere is no document on record from which it can be ascertained as to whcther the reqmndert has applie(l Io. occupation cc.tihcatc or what rs rhe status of construction of th€ prote.t.

Ilence, this project is to be treated rs on- going project and the provisions of the Act shall be applicable equally to the builder as ivellas allottees. :16 Ac.ordingly, $e non (ompliance ol the mandate conlarned in section 11i4l1a) read with proviso to section 18(11 of the Act on the part of the respondent is established.

As such, the allottee shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for cvcry monlh of delay lionr due date of possession i.e., 30 05. e., 30 05.2022 till valid offcr of possession pLus 2 nronths alier obtrinirg occupation certificate fronr thc competent duthority or actualhtndrnC over ofpossession whichever is earher, a< per section I8(1) of Lhe Ac1o12016 read wirh rule I5 ofl}le rules.

1".

Furrher, ds per section 1l(aXT dnd sechon 17(l) or the Acr of 2016, rhe promoter rs under an obirgaoon to get the conveyan(e d€ed executed in favour orthe complainant. whereas as plr section 19tr1l orthe Act or2016 the allottee CompLaLnt No.

7456of 2022 Conplarnt No.

7456of 2022 eHARER onpc'i,\o-4qoo,-o-. d! eLn-enn[l d-d)dt' ' is nlso obligated to pnrticipate towards registration ol the conveyalce deed of lhe unit in question.

Holvever, th.re is nothing on the record to show that rhc respondent has appli€d ibr occupatjon ce(ificate or what is the status of the deveLopment of the above-mentioned project.

In view of rhe above, the respondent is directed to handover possession oi the flat/unit and execure corveyance deed in favour oi the conrplainant in tems ol section 17[1J of the Act of 2016 on payment of stamp duty and registration cha.ges as appli.able, with'n three months after obtaining occupation certificate from the competent G,V To appoint a local conrmissioDer to cary out tlc tasks as hentioncd in para 43 ofthe complaint, G,Vl To conduct a forensic.udit otthe books otaccounts ofthe respondetrtas per task mentioned ln para 44 oftheconplalnL G,Vll To take action for violatlon otsectlon 6, i.e., tron-extenslon ofregistrarion G.Vlll Direct the respondent to providc on amdavi! a datc tillwhich avalid oflar of posscssion shall be giv6n, ltthe respoDdent fails to provide th. sanre, penal proceedings for violation ofsection 4(2)tl)tC) be initiated as!irst the respondent. 'l'h..omplaiDant has sought sonre other reliefs such as appointment ol t.. ent ol t..C, conduct forensjc audjr olthe books otaccounts olthe respondent, initjation oi peniL proceedings ror vrolatron ol Srcnon r (21(l)(c), SectioD 6 or the Act, 2016 etc Ihe Authority observes that due to several conlinuing violations ol (he provrsions ol the Act, 2016 by the respondent, the Authority has already taken Suo motu cognizance oi the projdtvide complaint beating no- RER4-GRG.7Oa7- 2023 and freezed the brnk account olthe r.spondent rclated to the projcct vide oftler dated 24.02.2023.

Therefore, the authority is Liroceeding to decide oDly the maiD relief sought by the complainant in the prcscnt complaint i.e., delay possession charges, porsession and execution of conveyance deed on the basis oldocumenls.rvirilrble on record ,B tr(tl irs subnnssion made by the parties. 'i1t HARERA GURUGRAIV C.lx Direct the rspoDdert to Erovide a Elld physlcal possesslon after receipt of occupancy certifi cate.

39.

The respondent is legally boutrd to meet the pre{equisites for obtaining occupation certificate hom the (ompetent authority.

It is unsatiated that even after the lapse of more than 2 years from the due date of possession the responde.t has failed to complete the construction and apply for OC to the competent authoriry. 'Ihe promqter is duty bound to obtain OC and hand over possession only after obtaining 0C.

G.x Direct the respondent to refund ofRs,56,397l- charyed ov€r and above the aSreementandAflor+ble Housing Pollcy, 2013.

40.

As p€r clause 4.1ofthe buyer's igreement the sale consideration/sale price of Rs.26,29,500/- shall be payable F per the payment plan annexed as annexure' B, GST, serv,ce Tax, VAT, and otler levies, duty ,f applicable shall be payable by the allotte€ over and above the pale consideration.

Further, it was also agreed the serv,ce taxlVAT and other appl,cable taxes and charges of any nature whatsoeve. whatsoeve., which may be livi€d by the Government Authorities with prospective and rekospective efect shall be payable by the allottee over and abovesale consideration mentioned h€reinabove.

Th e relevant clause 4.1 of the BBA rr reproduce herern below:- ARTICL[ 4 SALE CONSIDERATION 1.1 Sole Price Thot the ollo*ee ogrees to po! the conponr for the purchase ofth. eid Jlat/ uhiL o stn aJ Rs,26,29,s0o/ adneosuring 645 sq, lt (.ol.ulote.l @ Rs,4,000/- pertq, h ol.orpetoreo ofthe soi.!unia o.lnedsu ng99 tq, Ia ond bolcony oreo colcalate.l @ Rs,500/- per sq.

It- ottoche.l ||fth the flot ddnedsunns ............,..... sq. lt.), (herciaoftet reletrcd to os "sate Priee/sole consideQtion") sholl be poloble as oer the pawent plan onnexed os'Anndure B (heretnafrer releted as ?otmenr ptan"), C,S,f ,SeNlce tar, VAT orlyothq leies duty ilopplicoble sho be pdydble bt the ollottee over ond above the sdle consideration.

EDC sholl be polableasp thesoid pohct fhe twawheeletporki,)gshall beidentiledond a llacote d bt t he ca n po n! a t d 1c L i n e ol honA i n s ove r ol po$ssi on oI the un i t ta the Allottee. t'he SeNice ta\/VAf ontl u other oppti.oble taxes ond chorset of ony notne whatsoeveL which nal be levied bt the Govt.

Authotiry with ComplaintNo.7456oI2022 prcspective ana te|aspetttf. ellect shall be poyoble blt the ollottee owr ond a bore sole.onnderotion tnenttorctl he.cin ob.ve. ,11.

In view ofthe above clause, the Authority observes thnt the sale considoration is exdusive of CST, Service Tax, vA'|, and other levies, du$, it applicable and the respondent is well within right to claim such amount as agreed between the pafties aDd the same $nll be payable by the allottec ovcr and above the 9le considcranon.

Ilowever, the respondcnr is directed to fumish the dctails ol payment of such t.rles paid lo the .oncerned Authority.

If the respond. e respond.nt /promoter failed to provide the details oftaxes as wellas applicable chargcs as per the law oiland then the respondent shall relund the excess amount.

C.Xl Dirc.tthe rcspondent to Sive bifur.Ation ofthe total sale price Including thc clariti.ation of.ost ol p*king under the Affordable Houslng Policy, 2013, c.xll To restrain the respondent from demandingcarparkingchargesfroD thc comPlainants, .12.

Sinc€, the said proiect is the afford.rble housing project and as per the l.rtest nmtrdment datcd 04 01.2021 ir the sani Policy 2013, lvhich it is reproduce as GURUGRAM 1. thc |o[eha 4t.i,t ol the Altoruoble Houtno Poh,) da,"d lgthAugust. -at ] tet ttal t- p-,rtre latr..hollbe \lb,tttttedwnh tne lo\awi4g- "4(iii) Porking Norms: d ^lanaabrt non chargeqble A 3 Lcsporkng space . uand orr oo,Lnl,po' e ot thc tate ot h-, E\Lrdt nt ca,spoce tt.. tarcd.h dwelhnq uh shullbeprcided, I Ontr one Na.wneJler Potitng nE ,\oll bP eano.k?d tot Nrh l1o' wh\ h tholl b?allel@d onlt to the llat owre'\ thp ootltagbot altau. nne"h t<.\olt be 48n r ? l4 r4tp.. nt\p.d v pp.tfcd tn th? /a4 rt tit fhe bolonce owttobte p.tking:poce,iJ ont, bclon.l the ollocated rwa wheckr parktns sitet .on be eotdurked us Fee.vkirorcorpo,kin! b.

Aptionot and choryeoble patking spoce at the rcte of0.5 ECS per d||elling i.

The colani.er doy p.avide oh odditionol onA optionol parking space, naxinrn to thc ertcfiofhdftquvolentCar Spoce (ECS) perdwel]ino ii. tn rase such opharal potkins space is pravtled b! the colonBet) hotinun olane cor potuing space per dwellins unx can be otlor@d b!

Pase 32 ol3a HARERA GURUGRAIU the caton6e. ot a .ate not etceedtns 5% ol the co* ol llot to such ollatLee. ..

Miscellorears r /, .ds.s wh€re /icenses lndet A P 2013 olred[' nonA grunted and bu i ld tns p 1 ans sto nd apprcved w hhoL r ovo i t i ng the opti ono I 0.

5 ECS pc t d||elling unit po. g unit po.king spoce, the colaniser shollbe requircd to sLbnit the con seht ofat ledntua thitds ofthe allateesos per the pravhions al section 14 al Reol E*ore (Regttottan ond Developnent) Aca2016,lot t he p u t pose af o nen d tn ent i n bu nd ins plan s lbt orai li n g su ch odd itb n n t and aptDnal A5 ECS p.t dwelling unit turknlg \po.e Furthe., this beneJit sholl not be otunoble Jar the projcc\ whercin occupodon certiJicateolall the rca.lentjaltowe$ hos otreod! beeh obtaih.tl it Addtianalporkingnorhsand potdheters, {ony,can bespeciled in the 20nihg tlua ,13 In view of the above provisions, the respondent/p.omoter is bound to comply rhe terms and condition of the Affordable Croup Ilous,ng Policy, 2013 accordingly, no direction w.r.t. rtle same can be deliberated by the autho.ity at this stage.

G.Xlll Direct the respondentto Sive anti'proflteeringcredit/lnputtax.redit to the complainants. .14.

The contplainant has songht the relicfwith regard to direct the respondent to give anti-profiteering GST as per rules and r t taxcredittothe complainaDts and charS.the the attenrion ofthe authoriry rras drawn to the lact thatthe legislatue while lramingthe GST 1aw sp ccifically provided for Jnti- pro,iteering nreasures rs a check and to maintain the birlnnce in the inflatL.n of coq ur r1etrodu\l/nrvicesduelo(ldng4rnmrgrrllon rodne$ lrxrcSimr ..

CSl, by incorporat,ng section 171 in Central Coods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Haryana Coodsnnd Services lnxAct, 2017,thesanre'sreproduced hercnr "se.tbn 171. (t) Anyreducriatt in ntc oltox an on! supply ofgoods ar ervi.es ar thc beneft.f nput tax cretlit sholl be possell on to the tecipient by '/ar ol (antnenetrote reductiDn tn p.i.es. .15.

As per the above provision, the bencfit oitax reduction or'lnput Tay Credit'is requred to be passed onto the custonrers in vierv olscction 171 of HCS'I'/CGS'I' Act.

2017. ln the event, the respondent/promoter has not passed the benefit of ComplaintNo. mplaintNo.

7456of 2022 HARERA P"GURUGRAI\/ ITC to the buyers of the unit in coFrtravention to the provisions of sec-don 171 ofthe HGST A€t 2017.

The allottpe,s at liberty to approach the State Screen Committee Haryana for initiating proceedings under section 171 ofthe HCST against lhe respondent'promotet.

C.XIV To restraln the .espondet trom ch.rginS any maihten.nce charges itr future as th€ complainant is trot bound to pay the same urdc. the Affordable Housing Policy, 2013.

46.

As perthe clarification regarding ma,ntenancecharges to be levied on affordable sroup housing projects being given by DTCP, Haryana vide clarification no.

PF- 27A/2024/3676 dated3].01.2024, it is very clearly mentioned that the utility charges Iwhich includes electricity bil], water bill, property tax wastecollection charges or any repair inside th€ individual flat etc.) can be charged from the allotlees as per consumptions. '17.

Accordingly, the respondent is directed to charge the maintenance/use /utility charges n-onr the complainants .rljottees as perconsunrptions basis as has been cl.rriljed by the Directorate of Town and Country Plann,ng, Haryana vide clarillcation dated 31.01.2024.

G,XV To rcshrin the respondent lrom demanding L.bodr Cess, VAT, Work Conn actTax and Poxcr Backup charges. lll Thc complain,rnt hJ.i sou8hl the relef to restraxr th. rcspondent lronr dcrnandrns Labou.

Cess, VA'l', WC'|and powerbackup cha rges.

Although, rs per rccord, no demaDd under the above said heads have been made by the respond ent till d ate, holveve: iD claus.4 9 [iii] and (ivl oldre buyer's ag.eemcnt datod 17.06.2017, rt has bccD mLttroncd that thc allottee is liable to pay sepirrately the above said charges as per the demands raised by the respondent conrpany.

Therefore, in the interest ofjustice and to avoid further litigation, thc ALrthoriry" is deliberatingits llndings on theabovc said charges. d charges. (1) ing 3(11and 3t3l or Labour Cessr- The labour cess is levied @ 1olo on the cost incurred by an employer as per the provisions oisections Complaint No.

7456 of2022 HARERA ?

GURUGRAIV Complaint No.

T4S6 of2022 the Building and Other Construction Workers'Welfare Cess Act, 1996 read with Notilication No.

S.O 2899 dated 26.09.1996. lt is levied and collected on the cost ol .onstrudion incurred by employers including contractors underspecific conditions.

Moreover, this issue has already been dealt with by tbe authority in complaint bearing no.

962 oi 2019 titled ,,{r.

Sumia Kumar Gupta and AnL vs Sepset Properties Privaae limited whcrcin rt was held that since labou. cess is to bc pard by the respondent, as sLrch no labour cess should be sepa.atcly charged by the respondent.

The Authority Ls ofthe vielv that dre allotte. is neither an employer nor a contractor and labou. cess is not a tax but a iee. 'lhus. the denrtl d of labour cess raised upoD thc complaiDaDts is completely arbitraryand the complainants cannot bc made liable to pay any labour cess to the respondent and it is the .espondent builder who is solely responsible ior the disbursement olsakl VATi- 1he promoter is entided to charge VAT from the allottees where the sanre $,as leviable, at the applicable rate, il thcy have not optcd ibr .omposition schenre.

Hoiveyer, jfcomposition scheme has been availed, no VA'f is leviable.

Iirther, the promoler shall charge actual VAT fron) the nlottees/p.ospective buyefs paid by the promoter to the concerned departnrent/authority on pro-rata basis i.e. depending upon the area olthe flat !llotred to the complainan( vis i vis rhe total area of the parti.ular project.

However the complainant would also be cntitled to proofol such paymerts to the concerned depa(ment along with a computation proportionate ro the allofted unit, belore making payment under thc W'IC (work cont.act tax):.

Th. tax):.

Th. conrplainant is scckiDg above mertn)ned reliel with respect to restraining the responderrt from dcmanding Work consumption as 31.01.2024.

19 In complaint no.

531 important to stress upon the definition ol of the ofllce order dated HARERA GURUGRAIV Contract Tax.

At this stage,lt is term 'work contracf under Section 2t1191 of the CGST Aci, 2017 and lhe same is rep.oduced below for ready referencei '(119) watks conno.t neons a conidct fat bulaing, constructiah labn.otian, canpletian, etectioh, instdI latton,,uos oua i prcvencnt, nadtfcottan, .epai. nanttundnce, rcnavation, oltero on ar catnnrleonnls ol .ny ntnDv.bte prcpe, q wh?t ti ttuhslerolproperty n ltaods (\rhethet asgoads.r )h ne olhet t).h) 6 inv.tved in the c\e.uooh ol such cant o.L) Atter considering the above, the Authority is of the view that the complainant/allottee is neitheran employer nor a contractorand the same 's notapplicable in the presentcase.'lhus, the com plainant /alloftee cannot bem.rd. l..,bl r, p,yrhF\in,. rurh, r. pordpnr.

Power Backup charg€sr The issue ofpower back-up charges has already been clarified b] $e office of DTCP, Haryana v e omce order dated 31.01.2024 lvhcrein it has categorically .larified thc nrandatory servic.s to De provrded by (he colonizer/developer in aftordable group housing colonies and services for which maintenance charges can be charged irom the allottees as per consumption.

A€cording, the pronroter can only charge nraintenance/usc/utilit/ charges lrom thc conlirl.rrunt allottees as fer prcscribcd in catego.y ll o12023, the complainant has sought the additional relief with regard to the er€cution ol brye/s .grecmcnt.

1n vi.w of the same. lhe rcspondent is directed to execute lhe agreemeDt to s.1l as p.escribed under the Rulcs of 2017 within a period of60 days lrom the date olthis order. ll. order. ll.

Diroctions ofthe Authorit, 50 tlen(e, the authority hereby passes this order aDd issuc the lollowing directions undcr section 37 olthe Act to ensure conrpliance olobligations casted upon the Conplaint No.

7456of 2022 ComplJrnt No. -456 of l022 *HARERA S- eunuennvr pronroter as per the functions entrusted to the authority under sect,on 34[0 of i.

The cancellation letter dated 02.09.2021 is hereby set aside.

The respondent is directed to re instate the allotted unit or if the same is not available then allot an alternate unit ofthe same size similar location and same price as originally booked by the complainant within a period of 15 days irom the date ofthis order ii. lhe respondent/promoter is dirccted to pay interest to the conplainant(sl against the paid-up amount at the prescribed rate of 11.10% p.a- ior every month ol delay from the dqe date ofpossession i.e., 30.05.2022 till valid oifer oi possession plus 2 nronths after obtaining occupation certilicate tiom dre competent authority or actual handing over of possessron, whichever is earlier, as per section 18[1) orthe Act of 2016 read with rule L5 olthe rules. iii. fhe arrears ofsuch interestaccrucd from 30.05.2022 tillthe dateofo er by the authority shall be paid by the promoter to the allottee(s) within a period of 90 days fron datq ofthis order and interest for every month of delay shall be paid by lhe Dromoter to the allottee(s) before 10th ol the .Jbspquenr rno ,rh a. per rule l6t2l oirle rules. iv. 'Ihe respondent/promoter is directed to supply a copy of the updated statement ol account atter adjusting delay possession charges within a pertod oi 15 days to the complainant. v.

The compla,nant(sl are dire.tcd to pay outstanding dues, if any, afte. adjustntent delay possession charges within a period of 60 days lrom thc date oireceipt of updated statement ofaccount. vi. count. vi.

The respondent/promoter shall handover possession of the physical possession of theallotted unitand executeconveyanccdeed in lavourolthe HARERA ComplJLnt No.

7456 of 2012 \.1-* (viiay Kurnar Goyal) GURUGRA[/ vii complainant(sl in terrns of section 17[1) ofthe Act oi 2016 on payment of stamp duty and registration charges as applicable, within three nonths alter obtaining o ccupatio n cer!ific:]te from the comperent autbority. 'lhe respondent/promoter shall not cha.g. anything lrom the complainant(s) which is not the part olthe buyer's agreement or provided undcr the Affordable Housing Policy, 2013. 'lhe rate ofintercst char8.able tuonr the allot!ee(s.) by the promote., in casc ol default shall be cha.ged at the prescribed rate r.e., 11.100/0 by the respondent/promoter whjch is the same rate ol interest which the promoter shall bc liable to pay the allottee(sl, in case of default i.e.. the delayed possession charses as per sect,on 2(za) orthe Act. decision shall mutatis mutandis apply to cas€s mentioned in para 3 olthis rwherein details ofpaid up amount is mentioned in ench ofthecomplajnts. plaint as well as applications, itany, stand disposed off accordingly. be corlsigned to.egistry.

52.

53.

This Com (Afiok !1c llaryana Real Dated:18 0l2025 @",r gbr fur,, (Arun Kunar'l !state Regulatorv Au th o rity, Curugranr