DEEPAK BAJAJ vs MS NINANIYA ESTATES LTD

1r HARERA sS, eun-uennrvr Complaint No.

5528 of 2022 BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Complaintno, : 6528 of 2022 Date of lilins comDlaint: 27.09.2022 Date oforder L4.O4.2025 CORAM: Shri Ashok Sangwan Member APPEARANCE: Sh.

Nipun Rao (Advocate) Complainant None Respondent ORDER 1.

This complaint has been filed by the complainant/allottee under section 31 ofthe Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 (in short, the Act] read with rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (in short, the Rules) for violation of section 11(a)(al of the Act wherein it is inter olio prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provision of the Act or the Rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottee as per the agreement for sale executed infer se.

Deepak Bajaj R/O: Cw-40 FF, Sohna Road, Malibu Towne, South City II, Gurugram, Haryana Complainant Versus M/S Ninaniya Estates Ltd.

Offrce: 278/3, Old Delhi Road, Opposite Ajit Cinema, Gurugram, Haryana.

Respondent Page 1 of 16 * HARERA ffieunLrcnnnt Complaint No.

6528 of 2022 A.

Unit and prolect related details 2.

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

No.

Particulars Details 1.

Project name and location "Prism Portico" Sector-89 Gurgaon- Pataudi Road, Gurugram, Haryana.

2.

Proiect area 5.05 acres 3.

Nature ofproiect Executive Suite and Commercial Complex.

4.

RERA registered/not registered Un-registered.

5.

DTPC license no. & valffi status ffiU 179 of2008 dated 11.10.2008 valid Upto 10.10.2018 6.

Name oflicensee Ninaniya Estates Ltd.

7.

Payment Receipt 31.t2.2014 (As per page no.

12 of complaint) 8.

Buyer's Agreement (lncomplete) 08.01.2015 (As per page no.

39 of the complaint) 9.

Agreement (Duplicate) 78.12.2021 (As per page no. r page no.

30 of the complaint) 10.

MOU 05.01.2015 (As per page no.

42 of the complaint) 11.

MOU (Duplicate) (lncomplete) I 78.72.2021 (As per page no.

41 ofthe complaint) 72.

Unit No.

Retail Shop , FD-12, 1s floor (As per paqe no.

20 ofthe complaint'l 13.

Unit area admeasuring 650 sq. ft. (page no.

20 ofcomplaintJ 74.

Possession Clause Cannot be ascertained.

15.

Assured return clause The Ruyer has poid to the Developer an dmount of Rs.

26,00,000/-on which the developer sholl give an investment assured return of k.

60,667/- per month w.e.f.

26.12.2014 in affears till the date of possession of the Said Unit is handed over to the Buyer.

Page 2 of 16 B.

3. trHARERA S-eunuennHr Complaint No.

6528 of 2022 Facts ofthe complaint: The complainant has made the following submissions: - That the complainant, based on the claims of the respondent purchased a 650 sq. ft. unit in the proiect of the respondent known as "prism Portico Retail Shops", located at Sector-89, Gurgaon-pataudi Road, Haryana for a total sale consideration of Rs.

31,20,000/-.

The original builder buyer agreement dated 05.01.201.5 and the allotment of unit no.

PPRS-FD-12, first floor, admeasuring 650 sq. ft. super area was assigned in favour of the complainant by the respondent vide its letter dated 37 .t2 .201.4 .

That the respondent also executed a M0U on dated 05.01.2015.

As per the MOU the respondent was liable to pay minimum guaranteed assured returns of Rs.

54,600/- per sq. ft. per month to the complainant till actual possession of the unit to the complainant.

The respondent was I.

II, (As per MOU dated 05.07.2015) 16.

Date of start of construction Not mentioned 77.

Due date ofpossession 08.01.2018 [Calculated as per Fortune Infrostructure and Ors, vs, Trevor D'Lima and Ors. (12.03.2078 .

SC); MANU/sC/02s3/20181 18.

Total sale consideration Rs.31,20,000/- (as per MoU at page 43 ofcomplaint) 19.

Amount paid by the complainant Rs.28,26,460/- (as per receipts of payment at page 12 of complaintJ 20. laintJ 20.

Occupation certificate Not obtained 21.

Offer of possession Not offered Page 3 of to / tr HARERA --tflb- eunuennH,l Complaint No.

6528 of 2022 per month since January paying the monthly returns of Rs.

54,600/- per month since January 2015.

That the respondent in furtherance of its mala fide intentions and ulterior motives without assigning any reason stopped the payment of the monthly returns to the complainant from March 2017 onwards.

Despite of repeated requests, the same have not been paid to the complainant till date.

That the respondent has not only duped the complainant but several other buyers like him by refusing to pay the monthly returns on one pretext or the other even the project has not received the completion/occupation certificate from the competent authority till date.

The buyers have been paid the monthly returns for different periods and have been denied the payment of the same on different grounds.

That the respondent has not even offered the possession of the unit of the complainant to him and has further stopped responding to the communications ofthe complainant and has also restricted entry into its office for the complainant and other buyers and has failed to apprise the complainant regarding the true and correct status of the proiect where the unit of the complainant is located and has further refused to pay the monthly assured rent/minimum guaranteed rent to the complainant for reasons undisclosed.

That the conduct of the respondent is illegal and arbitrary, and the respondent is guilty of deficiency of services and of unfair and monopolistic trade practices.

The respondent is clearly in breach of its contractual obligations and of causing financial loss to the complainant and the conduct of the respondent has caused and is continuing to cause a great amount of financial loss stress, grief and harassment to the I II.

IV.

Page 4 of 16 / trHARERA db* eunuennu Complaint No. plaint No.

6528 of2022 the present complaint is complainant and his family members.

Hence the present complaint is filed by the complainant.

C.

Reliefsought by the complainant: 4.

The complainant has sought following relief(sJ: i.

Direct the respondent to pay the assured returns due and payable by it to the complainant. ii.

Direct the respondent to continue paying the investment returns/monthly returns to the complainant as per the terms of the builder buyer agreement. iii.

Direct the respondent to pay interest at the prescribed rate of interest on the unpaid monthly returns/investment returns to the complainant to be calculated from the date the monthly returns were due till the date ofactual payment. iv.

Direct the respondent to handover the possession ofthe subject unit along with prescribed interest per annum from the promised date of delivery of the unit in question till handing over/actually delivery of the said unit. v.

Direct the respondent to execute a conveyance deed for the unit of the complainant and to handover the physical/symbolic possession of the unit booked by the complainant to him complete in all aspects. vi.

Direct the respondent to restrain him from demanding any amount from the complainant at the time of offer of possession which do not form a part ofagreement executed between the parties.

The authority issued a notice dated, 19.L7.2022 of the complaint to the respondent by speed post and also on the given email address at [email protected]. for filing reply within 15 days.

The delivery reports have been placed in the file.

The counsel for the respondent put in appearance on L7.01.2023, 05.04.2024, 05.O7 .2024, 16.08.2024 but has failed to file reply to the complaint within the stipulated period despite Page 5 of16 trHARERA S- eunuennll Complaint No.

6528 of 2022 given ample opportunities.

It shows that the respondent was intentionally delaying the proceedings by avoiding filing of written reply. ten reply.

Therefore, in view of above, vide order dated 03.05.2024, the defence of the respondent was struck ofl 6.

Copies of all the relevant documents have been filed and placed on the record.

Their authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can be decided on the basis of these undisputed documents and submissions made by the complainant.

D.

Jurisdiction ofthe Authority: 7.

The authority has complete terrltorial and subrect matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint for the reasons given below.

D.I Territorial Jurisdiction 8.

As per notification no. l/92 /20L7-ITCP dated 14.12.20'1,7 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose with offices situated in Gurugram. ln 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.

D.II Subiect-matter Jurisdiction 9.

Section 11[a)(a) of the Act, 2015 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale.

Section 11(4)(a) is reproduced as hereunder: Section 17(4)(q) Be responsible for oll obligotions, responsibilities ond functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the ollottees as per the agreement for sole, or to the association of ollottees, as the cose moy be, till the conveyonce of all the oportments, plots or buildings, os the cose may be, to the ollottees, or the common oreos to the ossociotion of ollottees or the competent authoriry, os the cose moy be; Secti on 3 4 - F u n cti on s of th e A u th o rity: Page 6 of 16 r' ItrHARERA Seunuennn,l Complaint No.

6528 of 2022 i4A of the Act provides to ensure compliqnce of the obligotions cast upon the promoters, the allottees qnd the reol estate agents under this Act ond the rules ond regulations mode thereunde thereunder.

10.

So, in view of the provisions of the Act quoted above, the authority has complete iurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non-compliance of obligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer if pursued by the complainant at a later stage.

E.

Findings on the reliefsought by the complainant: E.l Direct the respondent to pay the assured returns due and payable by it to the complainant.

E.ll Direct the respondent to . coltinue paying the investment returns/monthly returns toth'e:eolrplainant as per the terms of the builder buyer agreement.

E.III Direct the respondent to.p4y tmq.rest at the prescribed rate of interest on the unpald mon$ily ieturns/investment returns to the complainant to be calculated from the date the monthly returns were due till the date ofactual payment.

E,Mirect the respondent to handover the possession of the subiect unit alon8 with prescribed interest per annum from the promised date of delivery ofthe unit ln question till handing over/actually detivery of the said unit, Assured Return 11.

In the instant complaint, the cemplainant duly booked a unit bearing no.

FD-12, located on the 1st floor of the respondent's proiect, "Prism Portico," situated at Sector-89, Gurugram.

Subsequently, on 31.12.2014, the respondent issued a payment receipt confirming the booking of the aforementioned unit.

Thereafter, on 05.01.2015, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between the complainant and the respondent.

Further, on 08.01.2015, a buyer's agreement was executed between the parties.

1.2.

The complainant in the present complaint is seeking relief w.r.t payment of assured return as per the terms of the MoU dated 05.01.2015.

The. complainant has submitted that as per clause 2 of the said MoU, it wa( PaEe 7 of 16 13. ff HARERA *$- eunuennur Complaint No.

6528 of 2022 agreed that the respondent would pay monthly assured return of Rs.60,667 /- with effect from 26.72. rom 26.72.20t4 till the date of possession of said unit is handed over to the buyer.

The complainant is seeking unpaid assured returns on monthly basis as per the MoU dated 0S.01.2015 at the rates mentioned therein.

It is pleaded by the complainant that the respondent has not complied with the terms and conditions of the said MoU.

The authority is of the view that the MoU dated 05.01.2015 can be considered as an agreement for sale interpreting the definition of the agreement for "agreement for sale" under section 2[c) of the Act and broadly by taking into consideration the objects of the Act.

Therefore, the promoter and allottee would be bound by the obligations contained in the memorandum of understandings and the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities, and functions to the allottee as per the agreement for sale executed inter-se them under section 11(4J(a) of the Act.

An agreement defines the rights and liabilities of both the parties i.e., promoter and the allottee and marks the start of new contractual relationship between them.

This contractual relationship gives rise to future agreements and transactions between them.

The "agreement for sale" after coming into force of this Act (i.e., Act of 2016) shall be in the prescribed form as per rules but this Act of 2016 does not rewrite the "agreement" entered between promoter and allottee prior to coming into force of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case Neelkamal Realtors Subutbon Private Limited and Anr. v/s llnion of India &Ors., (Writ Petition No.2737 of 2077) decided on 06.12.2017.

The money was taken by the builder as deposit in advance against allotment of immovable property and its possession was to be offered within a certain period.

However, in view of taking sale consideration by way of advance, the builder promised certain amount by way of assurgd Page 8 of 16 14. *HARERA *$- eunuennnr Complaint No.

6528 of 2022 returns for a certain period. in period.

So, on his failure to fulfil that commitment, the allottee has a right to approach the authority for redressal of his grievances by way offiling a complaint.

The Authority has been regulating the advances received under the project and its various other aspects.

So, the amount paid by the complainant to the builder is a regulated deposit accepted by the latter from the former against the immovable property to be transferred to the allottee later on.

If the proiect in which the advance has been received by the developer from an allottee is an ongoing project as.per section 3(1) of the Act of 2016 16. then, the same would fall within iction of the authority for giving the desired relief to the complainant besides initiating penal proceedings.

The promoter is liable to pay that amount as agreed upon.

Moreover, an agreement/Mou defines the builder-buyer relationship.

So, it can be said that the agreement for assured returns between the promoter and allottee arises out of the same relationship and is marked by the said memorandum of understanding. ln the present complaint, the assured return was payable as per clause 2 of the MoU dated 05.01.2015, which is reproduced below for the ready reference: 2.

The Buyer hos poid to the Developer an omount of Rs.

26,00,000/-on which the developer sholl give an investment assured return of Rs.

60,667/- per month w.eJ 26.12,2014 in arreors till the dote of possession of the Soid Unit is handed over to the Buyer." Thus, the assured return was payable @Rs.60,667 /- per month w.e.f.

26.12.2074, till the date ofpossession ofthe said unit is handed over to the to the complainant.

In light of the reasons mentioned above, the authority is of the view that as per the MoU dated 05.01.2015, it was obligation on part of the respondent to pay the assured return.

It is necessary to mention here that the respondent has failed to fulfil its obligation as agreed inter se both the Page 9 of 16 v- 77.

18. v- 77.

18.

Complaint No, 6528 of 2022 parties in Mou dated 05.01.2015.

Further, it is to be noted that the occupation certificate for the proiect in question has not been received till date.

Accordingly, the liability of the respondent to pay assured return as per MoU is still continuing.

Hence, the respondent/promoter is liable to pay assured return to the complainant at the agreed rate i.e., @Rs.60,667/- per month from the date i.e., 26.12.20L4 till the possession of the said unit is handed over to the buyer as per the memorandum of understanding after deducting the amount already paid on account of assured return to the complainant.

Delay Possession Charges: In the present complaint, the complainant intends to continue with the proiect and is seeking delay possessign charges as provided under the proviso to section 18(1) ofthe A€t Seri'18(1) proviso reads as under. "Section 78, - Returu oJ amount dnd compensotion 18(1). lf the promo@r lolls to complete or is unoble ta give possession of qn opattment, plot, or building, - Provided thot where on ollottee doet not intend to withdraw from the project, he sholl be poid, by the promoter, interest for evety month oI delay, till the honding over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed," 20.

In the present matter, MOU was executed between the parties on 05.01.2015 and the buyer's agreement was executed on 08.01.2015.

As per the documents on record it was observed that the copy of buyer's agreement dated 08.01.2015 is incomplete and does not provide the clause of handing over of possession.

In this regard the complainant has stated that there original documents got lost due to which they have filed a lost information report with Delhi Police on 09-12.2021,.

Whereas, the complainant has also annexed a copy of buyer's agreement dated L8.72.2021.

8.72.2021. and stated that after misplacement of original documents they approached the respondent but respondent edited the front page and mentioned the date of execution of agreement as 18.12.2021.

The affidavit trHARERA .tib*eunuennHrr 19.

PagelOof16 .y' Complaint No.

6528 of 2022 in this regard has also been filed by the complainant on 26.09.2024.

The authority is of the view that in such case the due date of handing over of possession should be calculated as per the view already been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases where due date of possession cannot be ascertained then a reasonable time period of 3 years has to be taken into consideration.

It was held in matter Fortune lnfrastructure v.

Trevor d'lima (2078) 5 SCC az : (2078) 3 SCC (civ) I and then was reiterated in Pioneer Urban land & Inftastructure Ltd.

V, Govindan Raghavan (2019) SC 725 -: "Morcovet, d person conriot'ie motle to woit indelinitely lor the possession of the llots ollotted to Wm oid they ore entitled to seek the rclund ol the omount poid by them, otong with compensotion.

Althouqh we dre owo.e ol the fod tqqt when there v,tos no delivery peiod stipuloted in the oqreement,.d rcosonoble time hos to be token into considetution. ln the fdcts ond *c!t tstonces q thb cose, o time petiod oI 3 yeors would hove been reosohoble lot cofipletidt o, the controct i.e., the possession wos required to be given by lost quottet of 2014.

Fufther therc is no dispute os to the foct thot until now there is no rcdevelopment of the prcpefty, Hence, in view gl the obove dbcussion, which drow us to on ircsistible @ncluion thot therc b deficiency 4 se&ice on the pdtt ol the oppellonts ond occordingly the issue ls onswered." 21.

Accordingly, the due date of possession is calculated as 3 years from the date of original agreement i.e., 08.01.2015.

Therefore, the due date of possession comes out to be 08.01.2018.

22. .2018.

22.

Admissibility of delay possession charges at prescribed rate of interest: The complainant is seeking delay possession charges at prescribed rate of interest.

Proviso to section 18 provides that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the proiect, 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 rate oJ interest- lPmviso to secfion 72, section 78 and sub.section (4) ond subsection (7) oI section 191 (1) For the purpose of proviso to section 72; section 18; ond sub- sections (4) ond (7) of section 19, the "interest ot the rate ./ * HARERA # arnuenntt,r Page 11 of 16 25.

HARERA GURUGRAN/ Complaint No.

6528 of 2022 prescribed" sholl be the Stote Bank oI India highest morginol cost oI lending rote +2%; Provided thot in case the State Bank of lndia morginal cost ol lending rote (MCLR) is not in use, it shall be replaced by such benchmark lending rotes which the Statc Bank of lndia moy fix from time to time for lending to the general public.

23.

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

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

24.

Consequently, as per websitq:;bf , the State Bank of India i.e., https://sbi.co.in. the marginal.f,&iA*r*nding rate (in short, MCLRJ as on date i.e., 18.04.2025 is 9.10%.

Accordingly, the prescribed rate of interest will be marginal cost of lending rate +2o/o i.e.,17.l0o/o.

The definition of term 'interest' as defined under section 2(za) of the Act provides that the rate of interest chargeable from the allottees by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of int ate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottees, in case of default.

The relevant section is reproduced below: "(zo) "interest" meons the rates of interest poyqble by the prcmoter or the allottee, os the cose moy be.

Explanotion. -For the purpose ofthis clouse- (, the rote of interest chorgeoble from the ollottee by the promoter, in case of defoult, sholl be equal to the rote of interest which the promoter shall be lioble to poy the ollottee, in case ofdefault; (ii) the interest poyoble by the promoter to the allottee sholl be from the date the promoter received the omount or any port thereof till the dote the amount or port thereof ond interest thereon is refunded, ond the interest poyoble by the allottee to the promoter shall be from the dote the ollottee defoults in payment to the promoter till the dote it is paidi' Therefore, interest on the delay payments from the complainant shall be charged at the prescribed rate i.e., 11.100/o by the respondent/promoter Page 12 ot { 26. * HARERA fl[cnuennl,r Complaint No.

6528 of 2022 which is the same as is being granted to the complainant in case of delay possession charges.

On consideration of documents available on record and submissions made by the complainant and the respondent, the authority is satisfied that the respondent is in contravention ofthe provisions ofthe Act.

The possession of the subject unit was to be delivered by 08.01.2018.

Till date no occupation certificate has been obtained by the respondent/promoter.

The authority is of the considered view that there is delay on the part of the respondent/promoter to offer physical possession of the subiect unit and it is failure on part of the promoter to fulfil its obligations and to hand over the possession within the stipulated period.

Accordingly, it is the failure of the respondent/promoter to fulfil its obligations and responsibilities as per the agreement to hand over the possession within the stipulated period. ed period.

The authority observes that now, the proposition before the Authority whether an allottee who is getting/entitled for assured return even after expiry of due date of possession, is entitled to both the assured return as well as delayed possession charges?

To answer the above proposition, it is worthwhile to consider that the assured return is payable to the allottee on account of a provision in the MoU at the rate at which assured return has been committed by the promoter i.e., Rs.60,667/- per month.

If we compare this assured return with delayed possession charges payable under proviso to section 18 (1) ofthe Real Estate (Regulation and Development] Act, 2016, the assured return is much better.

By way of assured return, the promoter has assured the allottee that he will be entitled for this specific amount from 26.12.2014 till the possession of the said unit is handed over to the buyer.

Accordingly, the interest of the allottee is protected even after the due date of possession is over.

The purpose of delay possession charges after due Page 13 of16 J 27.

29. ffi HARERA S-eunuennnr Complaint No.

6528 of 2022 date of possession is served on payment of assured return after due date of possession as the same is to safeguard the interest of the allottee as his money is continued to be used by the promoter even after the promised due date and in return, he is to be paid either the assured return or delay possession charges whichever is higher.

30.

Accordingly, the authority decides that in cases where assured return is reasonable and comparable with the delay possession charges under Section 18 and assured return is payable even after due date ofpossession, the allottee shall be entitled !q aisured return or delayed possession charges, whichever is higher including compensation. preiudice to any other remedy 31.

In the present complaint, as per clause 2 ofthe MoU dated 05.01.2015, the amount on account of assured return was payable from 26.12. rom 26.12.2074 till the possession of the said unit is handed over to the buyer.

Hence, the respondent/promoter is liable to pay assured return to the complainant at the agreed rate i.e., @Rs.60,667/- per month from the date i.e.,26.72.2014 till the possession of the said unit is handed over to the buyer as per the memorandum of understanding after deducting the amount already paid on account ofassured return to the complainant.

E.V Direct the respondent to execute a conveyance deed for the unit of the complainant and to handover the physical/symbolic possession of the unit booked by the complainant to him complete in all aspects.

32.

The complainant is also asking for the relief of conveyance deed getting executed.

As per section 11(41 (fl and section 17( 1) of the Act of 2016, the promoter is under obligation to get the conveyance deed executed in favour of the complainant.

Whereas as per section 19(11) of the Act oJ Page 14 of 16 a ff HARERA *{$, eunuennvr Complaint No.

6528 of 2022 2016, the allottee is also obligated to participate towards registration of the conveyance deed ofthe unit in question.

33.

Since no occupation certificate has been obtained by the respondent- promoter and the possession of the subject unit has not been offered to the complainant till date.

Thus, the respondent is directed to get the conveyance deed executed within a period of three months after obtaining occupation certificate from the competent authority after payment of stamp duty and registration charges.

E.VI Direct the respondent to restrain him from demanding any amount from the complainant at the time of offer of possession which do not form a part ofagreement executed between the parties.

34. rties.

34.

The respondent is directed not to charge anything which is not part of buyer's agreement/MOU.

F, Directions of the authority 35.

Hence, the authority hereby passes this order and issues the following directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the promoter as per the function entrusted to the authority under section 34(fl: i.

The respondent/promoter is directed to pay assured return to the complainant at the agreed rate i.e., @Rs.60,667 /- per month from the date i.e., 26.12.2014 till the possession of the said unit is handed over to the buyer as per clause 2 of the MOU dated 05.01.2015, after deducting the amount already paid on account of assured return to the complainant. ii.

The respondent/promoter is directed to pay the outstanding accrued assured return amount till date at the agreed rate within 90 days from the date of this order after adjustment of outstanding dues, if any, from the complainant and failing which that amount Page 15 of 16 / tr HARERA db- eunuennnr Complaint No.

6528 of 2022 36.

37. would be payable with interest @9.10% p.a. till the date of actual realization. iii.

The respondent/promoter shall not charge anything from the complainant which is not the part ofthe BBA/MoU. iv.

The complainant is directed to pay outstanding dues, if any, after adjustment of payable assured returns. v.

The respondent/promoter is directed to offer possession of the subject unit to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of obtaining occupation certificate. vi.

The respondent is directed to get the conveyance deed executed within a period of three months after obtaining occupation certificate from the competent autlority after payment of stamp duty and registration charges. vii. lt is also noted by the Authority that the project of the respondent falls under the category of'ongoing protects' under section 3(i) of the Act of 2016. t of 2016.

The promoter has prima facia violated the above provision of the Act, 2016 and is liable to be proceeded against under section 59 of the Act, 2016.

The Planning branch of the Authority is directed to initiate action against the promoter in this regard within 30 days ofpassing ofthis order Complaint stands disposed of.

File be consigned to registry. (Ashqk Ii{e Haryanh Re Regulatory Authority, Gurugram Dated: 18.04.202 5 Page 16 of 16