MS MONIKA SHARMA AND MR PANKAJ KR JANGID vs EMAAR INDIA LIMITED

HARERA GURi]GRAN/ BEFORE THE HARYANA complarntNo 1760o12022 REAL ESTATE REGULIITORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Date of decision: 24.09,2024 I CORAMI Shr,Arun Kumar ShriVijay Xumar Goyal Shri Ashok Sanewan ORDER This order shall dispose of 3 complaints titled above filed before this author,ty under section 31 of the Real Estate [Regulation and Deve]opmentl Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as'the Acd') read w,th rule 28 ofthe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,2017 (hereinafter referred as "the rules") forviolation ofsection 11(4)(a) ofthe Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promorer shall be responsible for all its obligations, responsibilities and functions to the allottees as per the agreement for sale executed inter sc parties.

NAMEOFTHE BUIIDER PRO]ECT NAME M/S Em.ar lndia Limited. "Emerrld Hills - rloors",Sector- 65, Gurugram, Haryana L cR/ L760/2022 Monika Sharma and Pankar Em.ar India Limit€d (R€spond€n0 cR/1162/2022 v/s Ehaa.MCFLrnd Limited Compla,niNo.

1760of 2022 !A RAl\/ ABI URUG LI Grfli The core issues emanating from them are similar in nature and the complainantG) inthe above referred matters are allottees ofthe proiect, namely, "Emerald Hills - Floors", Sector 65, Curugram, Haryana, being developed bythe respondent/promoter i.e., M/s Emaar India Limited.

Theterms and conditions oithe allotment letter, buyer's agreements, tulcrum ofthe issue iDvolved in all these cases perta,ns to lailure on the part of the promoter to deliver timely possession of the units in question thus seeking award for delayed possession charges and cost oil,tigation.

The details ofthe complaints, uDit no., date ofagreemenl possession clause, due date ofpossession, total sale consideration, totalpaid amount, and reliefsought are given in the table below: 2.

3.

10of 2012 dated 21.05.2009 Lrcensee l(a.nha lnfrastructu.e and 2 others Rcgisrered vide no.

162 or2017 dated 29.08l0l7 09062016and3005.2018 ri.

5.2018 ri. t)ossEssloN Iil Time of handirBover of possession DTCP lic€Ne no. and other RERA Registered/ Possession clause as per buyer's "Subject to terFs oithis clause and subject to the AIlotteeG) having complied with all the terns and conditions of this Agr€ement, and not b€in8 in default under any of ihe provjslons or thjs Agreement and compliance with all provrsions, formalilies, documentation etc., as presc.ibed by the Company, the Company proposes to hand over the possession ot rhe F\oot wibin 27 nonths, fon the dote ol de.u.iot ol this Aq.eenenl TheA ottee(s) ag@s ond understands thot the Project Nane and Location I HARERA GURUGRAN,4 ComplaintNo.

1760o12022 six nonths, lor oPptins occupdtion ceftilicote ih *s HARERA GURUGRAII complaintNo.

1760o12022 R+Lyreei.dbythr|mddn ^Fouit pad by thg rllDtcrs 4.

5.

The facts olallthe complaints filed by the complair ant(sl /allotteeG) arcsimrlrr Out of the above'mentiotred case, the particulars ol lead case CR/1760/2022 titled as,rrronika Srarma d nd Pankoj KumorlangidV/s Enaartndia Lintited are beingtaken into consideration tordetermining the rights of the aUottee(sJ Proiect and u.it related details 'Ihe particulars olthe project, the dctails olsale consideration, the amount pard by the co mplaiDant, date of propo sed han d ing over the possessio n delav p e r !r d' ifany, have been detailed in the fouowing tabular lorm cR/1760/2022 titted as Monika Shamo and Ponkaj Kumor langid v/s Emoor Indio Limited 1.

Hills" at sector65,Ilrban Estate, Haryana l tl respondentto pay interest@ of 18 0/o towardsdelav in handinsover the unLt. respondent to pay a sun oi Rs.so,000/ to the conplainants as cost ot Na mE and locatiun of rhe lrolc.t *4i HARERA GURUGRA[/ Date oi provisional allotment i,i Buyer's agreement execlted subsequent allottcel 9n comm!r44llq!I!!l .l M/s Logical Developers P!'t.

RERA ReSistered/ not reS6rered ReEistered vide no.

152 of 2017 dated 29.08.2017 np to 28.08.2Q22 EHF 2 67-A-SF.115, blo. .115, blo.k Amber Page 1a ol the complaintl 10 0f2012 dated 21.05.2019 betwccn .espondcnt and P.abhiecv Snrsh NaranE and Manmeet Kaur Na.ahs (1n frvour of onB,nal allottee 08.07.2009 lPase 39 oithe replyl 28,02.201O 29.47 2077 lAs adnitted by the respondent on pagc t 1. subsequent allLftce The complainants purchased the subiect urit from 2d subsequent allottee (Madan MohaD Bhatia and Suneeta Narans) vidc asreement to sell dated 05.10.2017.

IPage 103 ofreplyl The same was acknowledged bY the respondent vide nominatton letter daaed 04.12,2017 l&sqlfu!44dallll l CtaBe r3 5!btecr ro terms ofthis ctause and sDblect to theAllotteeG) havinCcomplied with all rhp terns and conditions oi this Agreement, and not being in default under any of the Provisions of this Aereement and conPliance with all provislgrc. &q4j!19!

4!! complaintNo.

1760of 2022 JNatue ortheprcject tr9i9!!rr9l (Prabhjccv Sirsh Narang and Manmeet Kaur Naransl sold th. $rbject unjt ro 2d subsequent allottee (Ma.lan Mohan Bhatia and Suneeta Narangl vidc ae.eement to selldated 1i 13 il HARERA GURUGRA[/ 21.06.2079 at complaintNo.

1760 of 2022 9 l - ] L B.

Fac rhe tollowrng submrssions in the complaint: etc., as presoibed by the company, the Conpany proposes to hand over the possession of the Floor withln 27 months, from the date of ex€.utlon of this Agreement The AllotteeGl agrees and understands that the Company shall beentitledtoa gr..e period of six months, ror applyinB and obtaining the o..upaijon certificate in respect oithe Floor and/or 14 Due dare ofposse$ron 28.77.20t2 lNot* .alculated from the date erecution of buyer's agreement '.e., 2a.02.2010 + 6 months srace Deriodl Total sale .onsidcration as pcr sratcment ol account daied 21.a6.2A79 at pa8e 53 of Rs55,49,s72l - 30.05.2018 Amount paid bythe conrplainant as pcr statement ot account dated 21.06.2019 at pdSe 53 ol complaint 17 Occupdton certLfrcale l'" offer ol possession to the 37.O7.20t8 LPaqe 112 olth9fld, 21.09. ld, 21.09.2018 [&9q117 ofthe rcpu 1712 2018 lPage 122 oithe replyl Rs.2,A2,265 / - ?1 19. ; Unit handove. letter to lhc conrPlainants Deed of .onveyan.e to the D"l,y "o.p"n."tion p"; by th" .espondcnt as Pe. thc ternrs ol rhe buycr's agreemctrt.s P€r complllnants have made *s HARERA complaintNo.

1760 of 20?2 GI]RUGRA[/ That,nitially, the unit in question i.e. floor bearing No.

EHF_267_A_SF 116 (second floorl admeasuring 267 sq. yards, in the projectofthe respondent i.e., M/s Emaar India L,mited, known as Enerald Hills Floors" situated at Sector-65, Gurugram, Haryana, was booked by Sh.

Prabhjeev Singh Narang and Smt.

Manmeet Kaur Narang.

That thereafter. on 28.02.2010, the above named persons entered into a builder buyer's agreement with the respondent, by virtue of which the respondent allotted a floor bearing no.

EHF-267-A-SF-116 (Second Floor) admeasuring 267 sq. yards, along'with car parking space ,n the proiect.

Subsequent thereto, in the year 2011 itseli the above named persons sold the property in question to Ms.

Suneeta Narang and Mr' Madan Mohan Bhatia from whom, the complainants herein had purchased the said unit and the unit was later assigned to the complalnants, bythe respond€nt, bv vir ruF oi the assigrunent lerrr dated 04.12.2017.

That in thesaid buyer's agreement the r€spond€nt had categorically stated thatthe possession oithe said floorwould behanded overwithin 27 months irom the date of signing of the builder buyer's agreement, with a further grace period ofanothet 6 months Moreover,at the time oi transterring the floor in question, the complainants were further coerced bythe respondent to sign affidavits/indemnity cum und€rtakin& in favour ofthe respondent wherein the complainants were required to undertake, notto claim or raise anycompensation fordelay in handing over possession olthe propertv' That the said buyer's agreement and the indemnity cum undertaking are totally one sided, which impose compl€tely biased terms and conditions upon the compl the complainants, thereby tilting the balance ofpower,n favour ofthe respondent, which is turther manifest from the fact that the delav in handing overthe possession bythe respo.dentwoutd attract onlya meagre lt III, IV, lrs HARERA ComplaintNo 1760 of 2022 GURUGRAN/ pena)ty oiRs.10/' per sq. ft., on the supcr area otthe flat, on monthly basis, whereas the penalty lor lailue to take possession would attract holding charges of Rs.10/-pe. sq. it. and 15% penal interest per annum compounded qua.terly on the unPaid amount ol instalment due to the That,the respondent hasbreached the fundamentalterm ofthe contract bv inordinately delaying in dehvcry ol the possession by 74 months.

It is pertiDent to ment,on here that the possession of the property in question was nnally ofiered on 31.07.2018.

The respondent has committed various acts ofomission and commission by making incorrect and false statement in the advertisement materialas well as by committing other serious .cts as mentioned in preceding paragraph.

That the complainants, rrithout any delault, had been tinrely paving the instalments towards the property, as and when demanded bv the respondent towards the aloresaid residential floor in the Proieci and after maklng the balance payment which was to be made at the time oloffering oipossession, gotthe conveyance deed in their name on17.12.2014.

That the respondent has even lailed to providethe compensation as perthe terms of the builder buyer's agreement and has paid onlv a meagre sum of Rs.2,82,265l-, for the entire period ofdelay in handing over the possession That th. respondent has not acknowledged the requests of the complainants in regard to the delayed compensation. ln fact, the prom'sed amenities are missing.

The complainants were made to make advance deposit on the basis ofinformation contained in the brochure, which is talse VI v .

VIII, *s HARERA GURUGRAI\I ComplaintNo.

1760 of 2022 lx. f 2022 lx.

That the complainants, ther€fore, seek direction to the respondent to pay interest@ 18% p.a. as payment, towardsdelay inhanding over the property Relief sought by the complalnants: ' The complainants have sought following relief(s): c.

7.

D, 9. u. handing over the unit.

Il.

Direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/ to the conlplainants as cost oflitigation.

On the date of hea.ing, the authority explained to the respondent /pronroter aboui the contraventions as alleged to have been committed in relation to section 11(41 tal oithe Act to plead guilty or not to plead guiltv' Reply by the respondent The respondenthas contested the complaint on the followinggrounds:_ L That the present complaint is not rnaintainable in law or on iacts lt is submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable beforc this Authority.

The complainants have no locus standi or cause olaction to file the present complaint after execution of conveyance deed' lhe present conrplaint is based on an erroneous interpretation ofthe provisions ol the Act as well as an incorrect understanding of the terms and conditions of the buyer's agreemcnt dated 28.02 2010, as shall be evident from the submissions made in the followiDg paragraphs ofthe present reply' IL Thnt the complainants are not'aggrieved persons'under the Act but are investors who have booked the unit in question in orderto earn prolit fronr its resale or earn re.tal jnconrc therefrom The complainants have not purchased the unit in question with a viewto reside in the sam'' Direct the respondent to pay interest at the rate oi 18 % towards delav in u HARERA conplaintNo, 1760of 2022 GURUGRA[/ That Mr.

Shantanu Bhowmick, Ms.

Ruchika Sehgal and Mr.

Manish 14adan (hereinafter referred to as the original allottees) had approached the respondent iD June 2009 lor the purchase of a unit in its upcomnrg residential project "Emerald Floors" at Emerald Hills situated in Sector 65, Gurgaon. , Gurgaon.

That without prejudice to the above, it is stated that the statement of objects aDd reasons ol the Act clearly states that the Act is enacted for effective consumer p rotection.

Th e Act has not been enacted to protect the interest ofinvestors.

As the said Acthas notdefined the term "consumer', therefore, the definition ol 'consumer" as provided under the ConsLrmer ProtectioD Act, 1986 has to be referred for adjudication oa the Present complaint.

A ba.e reading of the definition ofthe definition oi 'consumer' makes the presenl complaint as not maintainable, as such, the present complaint mer,tdismissal.

That thereafter the original allottees vide application form applied to the respondent lor p.ovisionalallotment ofa unit in the project.

The original allottees wereallotted a unitbearingno EHF 267_A'SF'116 intheprolect vide provisional allotment lett€r dated 08.07.2009 Thereafter, the said unit was sold to Mr.

Prabhjeev SiDgh Narang and Mrs.

I4anmeet KaLrr Nardng vrde agreement lo sellddted Ib.l 1.200o That buyert agreement dated 28.02.2010 was executed between I\4r.

Prabhjeev Singh Narang and Mrs.

Manmeet Kaur Narang and the respondent.

The allottees in questjon conscioudyopted fora construction linked plaD for remittance ot the sale consideratioD for the said unit and further agreedand undertookto the respondent that they shallrem't every installment on time as perthe payment s.hedule.

Ilt IV, VII VIII *& HARERA GURUGRAIV ComplaintNo.

1760of 2022 That thereafter, Mr.

Prabhjcev Singh Narang and Mrs.

I\4anmeet Kaur Narang iurther sold the unit in question to Mr.

Madan Mohan Bhatia and Mrs.

Suneeta Narang vide agreement to selldated 29.07.2011.

Eventually, N4r.MadanMohan Bhatiaand Mrs Suneeta Narangsold theunithquestion to the complainants vide agreement lo sell dated 05.102017.

The complainants had also executed an indemnity cum unde.taking dated 30.08.2018 rn iavour of the respondent. espondent.

That however, right lronr the beginning, the previous allottees and the complainants were irregular rcgarding the remittance ol installments on That construction of the unit was completed and the respondent applied ior issuance oi the occupation certificate on 21.09.2017 from thc competent authority and the occupation certificate was issued on 30.05.2018.

The possession olthe unitwas offered to the complainant vide letter oi ofler of possession dated 31.07.2018.

The complainants werc called upon to remit balance anlount as per the buyer's agreem€nt and complete the requisite documentation and lormalities to eDable the respondent to hand over possession ofthe unit to the complainants That possession of the unit r'as handed over to the complarnants on 21.09.2018 after the complainants were lully satisfied with the unit in all respccts and acknowled8ed that thc respondeDt had duly discharged its obligations under the buyefs agrccnrent. l'he conveyance deed bearing vasika number 10947 dated 17.12.2018 was registered in favour of the That the complainants have availed a loan on the said propertv nnd the rrjpartite agreement datcd 07.12.2017 .lt is pertinent to menhon hercrn that Punjab National Bankought !o have been inpleaded as a partv to the PaBe 1l of29 I,\ x.

XI *s HARERA GURI]GRAIV present comPlaint- The That it is respectfully sLrbmitted that in view oi the documents and the conveyance deed executed by the complarnants, the compla'nants are estopped from demanding any compensation and f.om instituting the presenr complaint.

Furthermore. it is submitted that thc complsin.rnts have purchased the unit in resal. hom the original allottees and subsequent a)lottees vide agreement to sell dated 05-10.2017 whrch had been executed well alter the so called due date ol possession as per the buyer's agreement.

The time lines for delivery of possession have been waived by the complainants. plainants.

That without prejudice to the subnission oi the respondent that thc complarnants are not entided to claim any compensation/interest for alleged delay in delivery ofpossession since atthe time of the execution of rhe documents/agreement ofsale dated 05.10.2017, they were wellawar. ot the due date olpossess,on.

That without prejudice to srbmissions of the respondent, delayed possession interest ii any has to be calculated lrom the date when subsequent allottee entered into the shoes of the original auottee ie.

04 ll.20l7 and not lrom l\e Jale oldue dare o[ pos.es\ion.

That the complainants purchased the unit in resale on 05.10.2017 and possession was oiiered on 31.07.2018.

Thus, there is no delay on the part of the respondent and thus, the instrtution of the present complainr seeking interest/compensation lor alleged delay in deliverv olpossession, is grossly prematu re. 'lhat ii is pertineDt to mention herein that at the iime when the complainaDt had agrced to purchasc the unri from the previous allottees, ComplaintNo.

1760 of 2022 complaint is bad rn law for nonloinder oi a xlt.

XII I xtv xv XVll.

That the complainants have filed the complaint on 16.04.2022.It is cvident from the unit handover letter datcd 21.09.2018 that the complaint iled bv the complainants is barred by limitation it is submitted that in case the period of limitation is construcd lrom the exccution and registration of conveyance deed even then the complarnt is barred by limitation l'he complaint filed by the complaint is liable to be dismissed outriSht on Ihrs ground as well.

XVII1.

The respondent has filed the written submission and the same has taken on record and perused.

XIX A1l other averments made in the complaints were denied in ioto.

10.

Copies oiall the relevant documents have been filed and placed on the record Their authen ti city is not in disputc.

Hence, the complaint can be decided on the basis olthese undisputed documents and submisslon made by lhe pa.ties ll. a.ties ll. lherespondenthasnledthewrittensubmissionson23.0l2024,whichistaken on record and has been considered by the authority while adjudicating upon the.eljef soughtbythecomplainants. [. lurisdiction ofthe authority 12.

The authority observes that it has territorial as well as subject maiter jurisdiction to adiudicate the present .omplaini for the reasons given below E.l Territorial ,urisdicti on 13.

As pcr notification no -1/92/2017'1TCP dated 14.1Z 20I7issued by Town and Country Planning Department, thc iurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatorv Authority, Curugram shall be entire Curugram District for all purpose with oficcs situated iD Gu.ugram.

In the present case, the pro)ect in question rs situatcd within the planning arca ol G rugranr District.

Therefore, this ComplaintNo.

1760of 2022 ..ns.ious and awa.e that construction ofthe said r3 di HARERA GURUGRA[/ the complainants were unit had been delayed.

HARERA ConplalntNo.

1760o12022 GURUGRA[/ authority has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present D.ll subiect natter ,urisdiction 1a.

Section lltalta) of the Act, 2016 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as pcr agreement for sale. section 11[4][a] is reproduced as hereuDder: sectionlT t4 m" p,..ote,sn"tr (al be rcsparsible In oll obligottuns rcspansibitities and fuh"ons uhdet the ptovisians aJ thj Act ot the tutes and regutotions node thercundet ar ta the ollottcd os pet thc ogreehenr fa. sole artathc ossociotin alattateetosrhe.ase mor be rill thc convevance ofull th' o pdfthenE, plats ot brildngt as the cose nar be ra the allottees ot the onm on ot eos tn the ossot i otian oI dllotte es at the con petent outha n nl osthecosemaybe) se.tioa 34-Functions oJ the Authotitt: 31A ol the Act providd tt) entLre .onphoh'e ol the abtisotlans Lasr upan the pronotert the allattce\ond the tealestote ogen$ under thi' Actand the tules ond requtatians node thercunder 15. cunder 15.

So, in view of the provisions olthe Act of 2016 quoted above, the authoritv has complete jurisdiction to decid. the complaint regarding non_compliance of obligations by the promoter leavnrg aside compensation which is to be decided bythe adjudicating officer it pursued by the conrplajnants at a later stage' t.

Obiections raised bythe respondent.

F.l obiection resarding malntainabilitv of complaint on account ot comPlainant being ln!cstor.

16.

The respoDdent took ; stand that the complaina.ts are investors and not consumeE and therefore, they are not entitled to the protection olthe Act and thereby not entitled to file thc complaint under section 31 oithe Act' However' it is pertinentto note thatany aggrieved p.rson can file acomplaintagainstthe promoter il he cont.avenes or vjolates any provisions of the Act or rules or regulations made thereunder' tjpon carelul perusal of all the terms and It d5 THARERA $-aTRUGRAtt/ conditions of the allotment Complaint No.

1760 of2022 lener. ir r< reverlod lhat the compldinrnls are buyer's, and have pa,d a totalprice ofRs.s5,49,572l_ to the promoter towards purchase ofa unit in its project.

At this stage, it is important to stress upon the definition of term allottee under thc Act, the same is reproduced below ior ready reference: ''2k)'ollottee" n retuloh tod tedlcnoE Proiectmeonsthepertunt whan o ptat aportnent or buldrhs, .t rhc .ase mo, be hos been ollotted tultl (whether os teehaltl or leaehatd) ot othevse nanskted b! the prcnoEr' ond nctudes the pe.son ||ha \tbsequently ocqutes the said allatneqt through nle tronsler or othetuise but daes haL i,)clude o persoh ta whon such ploaapartnento.building,us the cose nnt be, k giveh nn renti 17. ln view ofthe above'mentioned dcfinition of"allottee" as wellas allthe ternls and conditions of the buyer's agrcement executed between promoter and complainant, itis crystalcl€ar that thecompl:inantare allottee(sl asthe subiect unit was allotted to them by the promoter. promoter.

The concept ol investor is not defined or relerred to in the Act As per dte definition given under section 2 of the Act, there will b€ "promot.r" and "allottee" and there cannot be a party having a status of iDvestor '.

Ihus, the .ontentio n ol the promoter that th e allottee being investor are Dot entitled to protection of this Act also stands t.ll weather the.omPlainants.an claim delaved Po$ession charges aner executiotr of conv.yatrce deed.

18.

1t has b€en contended by the respondent that on execution olconveyance deed the relationship between both the parties'stands concluded and no right or liabilities can be asserted by the respondent or the complainant against the other.

Therefore, the complainants are cstopped lrom claiming anv interest 'n the lacts and circumstances olthe case.

19.

It is important to look at the dcfinition of the term 'deed' itself in order to understand the extent ofthe r€lationship betlveen an allottee and promoter' A deed isawritten documentoran instrumentthat is sealed, signed and delivered complaint No.

1760 of 2022 RA RAI\,4 ABI URUG H G u by aU the partiesto the contract (buyerand seller).ltis a contractual document that includes legally valid terms and is enforceable in a court of law.

It is mandatory tbat adeed should be in writing and both the parties involved must sign th€ docume[t.

Thus, a conveyance deed is essenhally one wherein the seller transfers all rights to legally o!vn, keep and enjoy a particular asset, immovable or movable.

In this case, tbe assets under considerat,on are immovable property.

On signing a conveyance deed, the original owner transfers all legal rights over the property in question to the buyer, against a valid consideration [usually monetary).

Therefore, a 'conveyance deed' or 'sale deed' implies that the seller signs a document stating that all authority and ownership ofthe property in question has been transferred to the buyer.

F. buyer.

F.om the above, it is clear that on ex€cution ofa sale/ conveyance deed, only the title and interest,n the said immovable property [herein lhe alloned unit) is transferred.

However, the conveyance deed does not conclude the relationship or marks an end to the liabilities and obligaiions ofthe promoter towardsthe said unitwhereby the right, title and interest has been transfer.ed ,n the name ofthe allo$ee on execution ofthe conveyance deed.

The allottees have invested theirhard.earned money and there is no doubt that the promoter has been enjoying benefits oland the next step is to get their title perfected by executing a conveyance deed which is the statutory right of the allottee.

Also, the obligation otthe developer promoter does not end with the execution ofa conveyance deed.

The essence and purpose of the Act was to curb the menace created by the developer/promoter and safeguard the ,nterests oi the allottees by protecting them irom being exploited by thedominant position oi the developer which h€ thrusts on the innocent allottees.

Ther€fore, in furtherance to the Hon'ble Apex Cou rt iudgement and the law laid down in case 20.

21 rirleC. as Wg.

Cdr.

Arilur Rahmon Khon and Aleyo Sultana and Ors Vs.

DLF HARERA CofrplaintNo.

1760of 2022 GURUGRA|\/ Southem ltomes PvL Lt(t [now Knoi'n as BECUR OMR Homes M- Ltd.) and ors. (Ctvll appeal no, 6239 of 2019) dared 24,0A 2024 the relevant paras a.e reproduced herein below: "34 The developer has not disputed thee connunicatiohs Though these are lov coftnunication! i$ued bt the derelaper' the appellonts subnitted thot theJ are not ieloted aberotions b rt lt inta d Po tte The develoPef.loes ^ot stote thot nwos wittins to olfer the lot purchoseB pasesion oltheir Jtats and the tight to execute cohveyonce of the lots \|tule leseding their cloin for conpenerion ht deloy.

On the contor!, Ihe tenot oI the connunicotions indicot5 thot whi le executing the Deeds oI Conveto nce the Jlot bu!^ we.e ihlome. .e ihlome.t that no Ion ol Protet or t$ervotion woutd be o.ceptabte. rhe ,ot bqes wte etsentnlly ptesented \|ith an unlat choice ol eithe. rctoining theit nght ro pursle thar cloins (in which event thev \|auld not qet pose$ion or titte n the hedntine) ot ro loBake the ctoihs in order to petect their .irle b the lots lot which thet had paid eot\oble cohsiderction ln this bdckdroP, the sihpte qu\dan which ve need to at)dress is whether a llat buyet who eeks to espouse o cloid ogoinst the detelopet fot delaled pi$e$ion can as a @nYquence ol doins sa be .odpeled to delet the tisht ta obtoin a conwyonce to pete.t thei title lt would in our riew, be nd^tfestlv unreoenoble to erpect fiot in oilet to puBue o cloin lot conpenetion fot deloyelJ hahding oeer of po$essiotl the purchNt must indelnitelv delet abt;inihs a conveyance ol the prehies purcho*d ot, if thet *ek to obtotn o D*d ofconverance to lotsoke the .ight to claitu cohpentution.

This bosicallv 6 o p;sition whnh the NCDRC hos espoused.

We connot countenonce thot 3s The fat purchosers inv5ted hor.l eamed none!. h is onlt reosonable to presuh;thdt the ndt losical step is lot the purchaer to pe+ct the title ta the prenises which have been ollotted undet the tems ol the ADA' But the subnision ol the developer 6 thot rhe purchoser Io$okes the rmed! behte the consuner Iorun b, eekins o D@d ol conveJonce' ro dccept slch o construcnon woutd leod to on absunl consequence ol rcqtinng the Putchast eithet to obon.lon a just clain ds a @nditian lor obtoining the 'onv'von* or to indefnnety detdy the execution ol the Deed ol conv'von'e pendthg Protrocted cons! net I i tig oti on 22.

The authorityhas already taken a view in in CRl4031/2019 md otheB 'lled as vorw Gupto v/s Emaor MGF Lond Limiteil ond others and observed that the execution ofa conveyance deed does not conclude the relationship or marks an end to the liabilities and obligations olthe promoter towards the subiect unit and upon taking possession, and/or ex€cuting convev ing convevance deed, the Its THARERA S-auRrrGRArr/ ComplaintNo.

1760 of 2022 complainant never gave up his statutory right to seek delayed possession charges as per the provisions ofthe said Act.

23.

After consideration of all the facts and circumstances, the authority holds that even afterexecution ofthe conveyance deed, the complainant/allottee cannot be precluded from his nght to seek dclay possession charges from the respondent/promoter.

F,lll Whetherthe complaintis barrcd by limitation ornot?

24.

So fa. as the issue oi limitation is coDc.rned the Authority is cognizant of thc view that the law of limitation does not stricdy apply to the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act of 2016.Howcver, the Authority under section 38 ofthe Act oi2016, is to be guided by the princiPle of natural lustice. lt is a universally accepted nraxim and the lawassists those who are vigilant, nolthose who sleep over their rights.Therefore, to avoid opportunistic and frivolous litigation a reasonable period of tinre needs to be arrived at lor a ltigant to agrtate his right.

This Authority is of dre view that three years is a .easonable time period for a litigant to injtiale litigation to press hrs nghts unde. normal ci.cumstances.

However this shall not apply to the provisions oi section 1'l where speciuc period has already becn dcfined.

25.

It is also observed that thc Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 10.01.2022 in MA N0.21o12022 ofSuo Moto Writ lretition CivilNo- 3 of2020 have held that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for purpose of limitation as maybe prescribed undcr aDy general or special laws in respect oi all judicial or quasi-iudicinl proceedinss.

26. ln CR/1760/2022 thc cause ol action arose on 3107 2018 when the offer of possession was made by the respondcnt to the.omplainant.

The complainant has filed the present complaint oD 25.04.2022 which is 3 years 8 months and 25 days from the date ofcause ofaction. ofaction. ln the present matter the three year period oldelay in filing olthe case also alter taking into account the exclusion period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 would fallon 14.07.2023.

In view ofthe above, the Authority is olthe view that the present complaint has beeD filed with'n a reasonable period ofdelay and is not barred bv limitatioD.

27. ln CR/U62/2022 the cause ol action arose on 30 07.2018 when the offer ol possession was made by the rcspondent to the complainant.

Th€ complainant has filed the present complaint on 25 04.2022 which is 3 vears 8 months and 26 daysfromthedateofcauseolaction ln the present matter the tbreevear penod of delay in filing ofthe case also after taki.g into account the exclusion period fron 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 would lall on 15 07.2023.

In view of the above, the Authority is ofthe view that the present complaint has been filed w'thin a .easonable period ofdelay and is notbarred bv limitation.

28. ln CRI3O+12022 the cause of action arose on 12.04.2017 when the offer or possession was made by the respondent to the complainant' The complainant h:s filed the present complaint on 01.02.2022 which is 4 years 9 months and 20 days from the date ofcause ofaction.ln the present matter the three year period ofdelay in filiDg otthe case also after taking iDto account the exclusion period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 would fall on 29.05.2022 1n view ofthe above' the Authorty is ofthe view that the Present complaint has been filed with'n a reasonable period ofdelay and is not barred by limitation F,lv Where the suhsequent allottce has stePped into the shoes of the origin'l allottee after comirg into torce ofthe Act: 29 There may be a situation where an allottee transferred h's unit in favour of 3 subsequent allottee after thc Act camc itrto force and where the project has been registered under the Act by the respondent. espondent. ii was argLred by the promoter that in cases where the subsequent allottee came into pictu'e after the regrstration ofthe proiect under the provisions ot the Act with the authority, then the date of *HARERA S- cLnuo,rAM complainlNo.

1760 of 2022 ComplaintNo.

1760 or2022 !A RAIU ARE URUG Lr Gil completion of the project and handing over the possession shall be the date declared by the promoter under section 4t2ltlltcl oithe Act.

The counsel ofthe respondent iurthe. argued that the wh ile purchasing the unit, it is presu med that the allottee ve.y well knew that the project would be completed by that speciflc de.lared date, thereiore, the delayed possession charges shall not beallowed.

Theauthority is oi the view that th e time period for handing over the possession as committed by the builder as per the relevant clause of builder buyer's agreement a.d the commitment of the promoter regarding handing over of possession of the unit is taken accordingly.

The new tineline indicated in respect olongoing project by the promoter while making an application for registration olthe proiectdoes notchangethe commitmentof the promoterto hand overthe possession by the due date as per the builder buyer's agreement and the promoter is liable for the consequences and obligations a.ising out ofiailure in handing over possession by the due date as committed by him in the buildcr buyer's agreemeDt aDd is liable lor the delayed possession charges as provided in prov,so to section 18(1) ofthe Act.

The authority is of the view that the Act nowhere provides, norcan be soconstrued, that allprevious agreements will be re-written after coming into force ofthe Act.

The same issue has been dealt by Hon bl€ Bombay High Courtin case tided as lveelkamal Realtors Suburban PvL ftd.

Gupra) wherein it was held that the RERA Act does not coDtemPlate rewriting ofcontract between the allottee and the promoter. promoter.

The relevant para ofthe judgement is reproduced below: ''119 Unrler the ptavisions alSe.ttan 18, the delo! in honding over t,r€ porsessio, walh be counted ton the dote n)entnned n the ogreehentforsalc enteted into b! the p.an.td dnd the ollattee Pri.r b its tcgistrction un.ler RERA Undet the pravtstuhs oI ?ERA, the pratnote. is sNen o locitir! to rcvke the dote of conpletian oJ pra)ect ond decld.e the sohe tndet scction 1 1 he REp.A, does not contemplate rewrtin! af cohto.t bet|ecn the Jlat purchaer ond thc prcnoter..

ComplaintNo.

1760 of 2022 !A RAIV ARE URUG H G u However complainants were well aware about the lact that the construction of rhe tower where the subject unit is situated has not been completed and occupation certiffcate qua that part ofproject isyet to be obtained.

Further, they stillchos€n to proceed with execution ofthe agreementvoluntarilywhich means that th€ complainant had accepted the factum ofthe delay.

Moreover, they have not sufered anydelayasthe subsequent allottee/complainants herein came into picture only on 04.12.2017 when the subject unit was endorsed in his favour.

Hence, in such an eventual,ty and in th€ interest ol natural iustice, delay possession charges can only be granted to the complainant from the date oa nomination dated 04.12.2017 1.e., date on which the complainant stepped into the shoes ofthe original allottee. tlndings on the relief sought by the complainant c.l Dired the respondeDt to pay inte.est @ of 1ayo of delay in otfering possessior from the date ofpayment tillthe date ofdellvery ofpossession.

In the present compla,nt, the original allottee was allotted a unitvide allotm€nt letterdated 08.07.2009 and thereafter the original allottee sold thesubject unit to the lirst subsequent allottee on 16.11.2009 following which the first subsequent allottee sold the subject unit to the second subsequent allottee on 29.07. on 29.07.2011and then the second tubsequent allottee sold the subiect unit to the 3d subsequent allottee being the complainants herein on 05.10 2017, and the same was acknowledged by the respondent vide nomination letter dated 04.12.2017.

Therefore, the complainant stepped into the shoes of original a11ofteeon04.12.2017.

The complainant intends to continue with the project and are seeking delay possession charges as provided under the proviso to section 18(1) ofth€ Act.

Sec.18(1) proviso reads asunder: ''S.ctioi7A: - Return ofdmountond.o pentudon :ll 32. (;.

3:.1 ts HARERA GURUGRAIV 18(1).

IJ the prcnoter laih to conpkte aportnent plot, or building, complaint No.

1760 of2022 at is unable to gtve posesrcn olon Prcvided thot where on ollattee daes not intend to wtthdro|| fron the pro)ect, heshatt bepoid, b! the ponoter, interci lat every nanth al delay, till the hondtns orcr afthe possestoh, attuch ture os hot be pt5.tibed " 3 4.

As per clause 13 oi the floor buyer's agreemen t p rovides the time period ol handing overpossession and thesame is reproduced below: U Tineolhandins oeerolpo$ession subiect to terms of this .loue ond subF.t to the Allattee(s) hovrns camphed with oll the terns und cohdnhhs ol th6 agreehena ond nat being in dclatlt under anr of the provisions aJ this Agteeneht ohd .anption.e wi.h oll ptovisians, fornahttes .lacunentatton etc., ds prescribed by the conpan!, rhe conPoh!

Pr.Poses to hona avet the pasesionoJthe Flaor thin 27 months, ftom the date ol*ecutioa ol this AgreetuenL lhe Allauee(s) ogrees ond unde\tonds that the conpant shdllbe entitled toa sroce periad of sn nonth'lor opptying ond obtoining the occupotion certifcote in respet olthe t:loot dnd/or the PrcjaL 35.

At the outset, it is relevant to comment on the present possession clause ofthe agreement wherein the possession has been subjected to all kinds ofterms and conditions olth,s agreemenl andthe complainant not being in delault under any provisions oi this agreement and comptiance wi ptiance with all p rovisions, formali!ies and documentaEon as prescribed by the promoter.'lhe drafting oithis clause and incorporation oisuch conditions is not only vague and uncertain but so heavily loaded in favour of the promoter and against the allottees that even a single default by him in lulnlling formalities and documentations etc. as prescribed by the promoter may make the possession clause irrelevant ior the purpose of allottees and the commitment time period for handing over possession loses its meaning.

The incorporation of such clause in th€ buyeis agreement by the promoter isjustto evade the liability towa.ds tim ely delivery of su bject u nit and to deprive the allottees oftheir right sccruing after delay in possession.'lhis is iust to comment as to how the builder has misused his dominant Position and ConplaintNo.

1760oI2022 !A RA[/ ABI URUG !

G *s drafted such mischievous clause in the agreement and the allottees is left with no option butto sign on the dotted lines.

Admlsslblllty of grace periodr l he promoter has proposed to hand over the possession of the unit within a period of 27 months from the date of this agreement.

The buyer's agreement was executed on 28.02.2010.

Further, it was provided in the buyer's agreement drat company sha11 be entitl€d to a Srace period of six months, fo. applying.rnd obtaining the completion certiiicnie/ occupatio. certificate in respectofthe unitand/or the project.

The Authority put reliance oD the judgement ol the Ilon'ble Appellate Tribunal in appeal no.433 ol2022 tilted as Emaot MGF Lond Limitecl Vs Babio Tiwari and Yogesh TlparL wherein it has been held that if the allottee wishes to continue with the project, he accepts the term olthe agreement regarding grace period of three months for applying and obtaining the occupation certificate.

The relevant para is reproduced belowl As per olorcsotd doue oJ the ogrcenen. pas ssion ofth. unt \9os ra be .leliveted ||thin2l nanthsf.otn r)re dote olexe. ote olexe.utbn althe dgreenent t e by a7.a32a14 As per the obave soi.t clduse 11(d) olthe ogteenena o grc.e penod af 3 nonths for obtoin B occuponoh CertiJicate et hos been provided The pen6ol ofthe accupotian cenili.ate dotcd 11112020 ptaced ot poge no.317 of the papet borrk teveols thot the appellont ptanotet has opplicd for gront ol 1rupotion C*ttfcate an 2107.2020 whtch wos ultmately grohtedon 11.11.202a h iralsowellknown thdt tt takes tttue ta apply and obtoin A.cupaton CetnlLate lton the contctned outhonty.

As pet sec ti a n 1 3 a I thc A. t, i f the ptuie c t.

I nte prom o te. i s d e I dred o nd il th e a I lattee \'Bhcs to wxhd.o\r then he hos tli aption to withdtow lton the proje.tond yek reflnd ofthe atnauhtot iJtt). olbtteedoes nat irtehd to withdn\9 fron the p.ajectohd wi.hes ta canttnue wth the traiect, the allottee ts to be Paid hterest by the pranotet for ea.h tnanth al the delor In aut opinnn ifrhe allattee wisher t. conhnue wth lt ptojetL, he o..epts the tetn ol the agteenent rcoanlins !.uce pdbd ol three nanths l'or opplltng ontl obtoming the a.Lupotioh .ddlnate.

So, in view oJ the obove ni.I circu stdnces, the oPpe ont'protuoter i5 entitled to ovail the graee period so provided 1a the agreenent lor aPPlling dnd obtoining the Oecupotion Certilicdte, Thrt, wnh lncluian af llrace periad of 3 nontht os pet the pravisions h ctouse 11 (a) al the as.eenenL, the tatal .ompletl.n -16.

HARERA complaintNo.

1760o12022 GURUGRAN/ petiad beconet 2 7 nanths Thus, tlle dre ddte af delivery alpasessian canes outh a7a6 2A14 38.

Therefor€, in view ofthe above judg.mcnt and considering the provisions ofthe Act, the authority is of the view that, thc promote. is entitled to avail the grace period so provided in the agreenrent lor applying and obtaining the occupation certificate.

Thus the due date ol hirnding over of possession comes out to be 2a.17.20t2.

39. .20t2.

39.

Admissibility of delay possession charges at prescribed rate of interestl The complainant is seeking delay possession charges at the prescribed rate ol interest on the amouDt already paid by him.

However, proviso to section l8 provides thatwhere an allottee do.s not intend to withdraw from the project, he shallbe paid, by the promoter interest lor eve.y month oidelay, tiU the handing over of possession, atsuch rate as may bc prescribed and it has been prescribed under rule 1s ofthe.ules.

Rule 15 has been reproduced as under: Rule TS,Presiibed rute oJinterest lProviso to seetion 12, se.tion 18and sub-section (4) ond subsectioa (7) ol section 1el 0) For the pryoe ofp.ovttutusenian 12)sectian 18)ondsub4ection:[4) ond (7) of ectian 19, the lntercst or the rote ptesnibed'sholl be the Stote Bunk oltndn high*t natgihal cost.l tending rcte t2%: Prcvidctl thdt in cote the state Bonk aJ lndio norgihol .o aJ lendins.ote (MCLR) i\ nat ir use,itshotlbe teplaced b! su.h benchnurk lendihg rate: \|htch the Stote Bonl aftndto noy fx lroh ne b nn)e lor lendlng ta thegenetol Public.

40.

The legislature in its wisdom in the subordinate legislation under the Provision ofrule 15 ofthe rules, has determined the prescribed rate olinterest.

The rate oi interest so determined by the legislaturc, rs rcasonable and jf the said .u1e is followedto award the interest, itlvillensure uniiornr practice in allthe cases.

41.

Consequently, as perwebsite olthe State Bank ollndia i.e.,h marginal cost of lending rate (in shorr MCLR) as on date i.e-, 24.09.2024 is 9.10%.

Accordingly, the prescribed rate of inte.est will be marginal cost of lend,ng rate +2016 i.e., 11.1oYo. *s ComplaintNo.

1760oi2022 RA RAIV lARE GURUG *& The definition ol term 'interesf as defined under sectioD 2(zal of the Act provides that the rate olinterest charSerble from the allottees by the promoter, in case oldefault, shall be equal to the rate ol interest which the promote. e promote. shall be l,able to pay the allottees, in case oldefault.

Therefore, interest on the delay payments irom thecomplainantshallbe charged at the prescribed ratc i.e., 11.10% by the respondcnt/promoter which is the same as is being granted to the complainant in case of delayed possession On consideration of the documents available on record and submissions made regarding contravention ofprovisions of the Act, the Authority is satisfied that the respondent is in contravention of the section 11[4][a) of the Act by not handing over possession by the due date as per the agreement.

8y virtue of clause 13 of the agreement, the possession of thc subject apa.tment wls to be delivered within 27 months from the datc ofexecution ofbuyer's agreement and it is further provided in agreement thal promoter shall be entitled to a grace period of six months for applying and obtaining complet,on certificate /occupation certificate in respect oi said floor.

As far as grace period is concerned, the same is allowed for the reasons quoted above.

Therefo.e, the due date of handlng over possession comes out to 28.11.2012.

In the present case, the complainaDtwas offcred possession by the respondent on 31.07.2018 after obtaining occupation certilicate dated 30.05.201U from the competeniauthority.

The author,ty is of the considered viclv that there is delay on the part of the .espondent to ofler physical possession of the allotted unit to the complainant as per the te.ms and conditions olthe buyer's agreenrent executed between the In the present complajnt, the original allottee was allotted a unit vide allotment letterdated 08.07.2009 and thereafte. the originalallottee sold the sub)ect uDit 42.

43.

44.

45. *HARERA S-crrnrrcnlv ComplaintNo.

1760of 202Z to the first subsequent allottee on 16.11.2009 following whjch the first subsequent allottee sold the subiect unit to the second subsequent allottee on 29.07. on 29.07.2011 and then the second subscqueni allottee sold the subject unit to the 3rd subsequent allottee being the complainants herein on 05.10.2017, and the same was acknowledged by thc rcspondent vide nomiDation letter dated 04.12.2017.

Therefore, thc complainrnls stepped into the shoes oi onginal allottee on 04.12.2017 i.e., after the due date.

It simply means that the complainants were well aware about the lact that the construction ofthe tower where the subject unit is situated has not been completed and occuPation certificate qua that part olproiect is yet to be obtained.

Ilowever, he stillchosen to proceed with execution of the agreement voluntarily which means that the complainant had accepted the factum oi the delay.

Moreover, they have not suffered any delay as the subscquent nllottee/complainants herein came into picture only on 04.12.2017 when the subiect unit was endorsed in his favour' Hence, in such an eventuality and in ihe inierest of natural justice, delay possession charges caD only be granted to the complainaDt from the date of nomiDation dated 04.12.2017 i.e., date on which the complainant stepped rnto the shoes ofthe original auottee.

The Authority is of considered view that there is delay on the part of the respondents/Promoter to offer of, possession ol the allotted unit to the complainant as per the terms and conditions ofthe buvefs agreement dated 28.02.2010.

Accordingly, it is the farlure of the respondent /promoter to fulfil its obligations rnd responsibilities as per the agreement to hand overthe possession withjn the strp!lated period 46.

The detaih ofthe nonlinatroD letter in ca.h casc are provided herein belowr_ complainrNo.

1760 of 2022 HARERA GURUGRA[/ cR/304/2023 ] 2 762/2O l"tt* tr.) cR/1 L Allotn.nt Letter Dated 2 H 03072009, in favour .f o.iginal rllottee namely, cR/ t'7 60 /202 cR/7160 /2022 23.O7.2009 Date oi ere.unon ol "* ^.1 I buleis zsr.emeni be@ern onsnalrllutree and th..espondtni on 17 03 20r0 ll Asreem. ll Asreem.nr to sell 1 bd.""n o"q,".1. rok" ,nd (he .omp:'n.n' here'n 09 10.20!l the I sme w* Jcknowledaed by rh. respond.nt vide l€trer Jdatedrs.ro.zorl IL- which the complainant_ rms of Proviso to section D .ifexe.0tion ofbuve.t lluvcls asrccment execut.d dt'-n . - Ii-n rhe o' 3 rr J or' c da i ..o.Fq'anL dlDd" | "'".r' o'1'.o' I 0'l0lu tD'dbftcP\ \'{l- \rJ13 Jrd vJr nPPr K,r' \rEn8l r 'o 'le e.ponoerl \aPn ,,230220t0 I .ub.c.re r rllotLe!

Or.8'ldldlo'reP IV ll .o e!

P,olreer lr1e1 NJ'rg )"qhr' i.1 '!oo', Lb 'r ,no v"rn*r tr ' '!"irn8' Ln 'o I 'LbscqJenr "JorFP ..ld t.e -uorelr Lrrr ro I d Llllor \4n.1 \.d. r8i"e"'f ;:;;;".::,;,";;;.;, ' ,"..,"","i ", 0,, i' MoFrr BnJ''d . rd sr reerd Nrtunrt vrde r8reemenr Io - d;d /q o_rorr -] ".pr,'n,., r"*""." 'onPl od I tr 'l 2i n h\e.renr r o.lec. rfc rubsDqnn' lor" p \ d. \ me hds ..kn itr doqc o/ I ,e'cc-"r, r. *,1 o *o rF, jes.ord.n Ud, o0--ol " tla ,rnA LuJ' ^o n, n,n rPr e' dared J, { otr 'ds"o nY (l ' a4 tt )at7 rc oo.dP1r \ de nohlnrlion L hnrrdalcd 20 oe.2o-17 The following table concludes the time period ior allottee is entitled to delayed possession charges in t€ 18(1) olthe Act: 47. compl.intno.

Dup drte;r I\odin,tion ofi'r or lerterin Posrssion rn tavourol -l 0412.2017 01102018 s. .ompL'nanr comPlrin.n ,6:692017 I3o.o7 2o1B we.t I L""il).,, H-r-l 21.o2.,0ti J,\rcnti [-J :ff:: il HARERA GURUGRA[,1 ) 12.09.2Ot7 | an alloftee is entitled to cla,m compensanon &litigation charges under sections 12,14,18 and section 19 which is to be decided by the adjudicating omcer as per section 71 and the quantun ot conrpcnsation & litigat,on expense lhall be adiudsed bythe adjudicating omcer having due regard to the factors mentioned in section 72.

Theadjudicating officer has exclusive jurisdiction to dealwith the complaints,n respect ofcompensation & legal expenses.

48.

Accordinsly, the non'compliance olthe mandate conta,ned in section 11(41{al E.

1(41{al E.ll Direct the respordent to pay an amount of Rs50,000/'as litiSation Prcmoterc ond Developers Pvt Ltd.

Vs, State ofUP & ort (supra) has held that read with section 18(1) ofthe Act on the part ofthe respondent is €stablished.

As such the complainants are entitled to delay possession charges at rate oithe prescribed interest @11.10% p.a. w.e.f. from the date of nom,nation letter i.e, 04.12.2017 till the date ofofler ofpossession plus rwo months or tillthe date of handover wh,chever is earlier as per provisions of sect,on 18(1) ofthe Act read w h rule I5 ofthe Rules. {9.

The complainant is also seeking relief w.r.t. compedsation Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ,n civil appeal nos- 6745-6?49 of 2021 ti,tled as M/s Newtech H, Directions of the authority Hence, the authority hereby passes this order and issue the following directions un.ler section 37 ofthe Act to ensure compliance of obligations casted upon the promoter as per the functions entrusted to the authorty under section 34(0 ol complalntNo.

1760of 2022 2102.2022 2 The respondent/promoter is directed to pay interest atthe prescribed rate i.e.,11.10% per annum lor every month ofdelay on the amount paid by the cornplainan(sl from the date olnomjnation letter i.e.,0412.2017 till the date ofoffer oi possession plLrs two months o. the date of handing over whichever is ea.lier as per proviso to section 18[1) orthe Act read with rule 15 of the rules The date of nomination leiter and the date ol entitlement ofdelay possession charges are detailed in table given in para 47ol this order.

The respondent is directed to Pay arrears ol interest accrued so far within 90 days irom the date oiorder olthis order as per rule 16[2] oithe rules.

Also, the amountolcompensation already paid bv the respondent towards compensation for delay in handing over possession shall be sdiusted towards the delay possession charges to be paid bv the respondent in terms ofproviso to sechon 18(1) ofthe Act The respo.

The respo.dent is directed to not to charge anything which is not pa( of thebuyer'sagreentent.

51.'l'hisdecisionshallmutatismutandisapplytocasesmentionedinpara3otthis order wherein details ofpaid up amoun! is mentioned in each ofthe complaints 52.

The complaints stand disposed ot HARERA GURUGRA[/ (Asf,oks complainlNo.

1760 of 2022 \t1-2---) (viiay Kumar Goyal) {etu.,t F' Haryana Real Date{ 24.09.2024 (Arun Kumar) Chairman Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram