MAHESH GUPTA HUF AND RAMESH CHAND AGRAWAL vs ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.

ffi HARERA #" eunuennt',r BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Advocate for the complainants Advocate for the respondent ORDER 1.

The present complaint has been filed by the complainants/allottees under section 31 ofthe Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short, the ActJ read with rule Zg of the Haryana Real Llstate (Regulation and Developmenr) Rules,2017 (in short, the Itules) 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 provisions of the Act or the Complaint No.

1532 of 2024 Complainants Respondent Member ?

1.

Mahesh Gupta (HUFJ 2.

Ramesh Chand Agarwal Address at: House no.

DC-911/3, Saroj Mata Ji Ashram Wali Gali, Adarsh Nagar, Sonipa!

Haryana-131001 Versus M/s Ansal Housing & Construction Limited Office: Ansal Plaza, 2F-AHCL,2nu floor, Ansal Plaza Mall, Sector-1, Vaishali, Ghaziabad (Up) - 2 01010 CORAM: Shri Ashok Sangwan APPEARANCE: Sh.

Sunil Kumar Sh.

Amandeep Kadyan Page 1 ol 17 I 1,s32 ot 2024 , 74.O4.202s 23.07.2025 *HARERA ffi eunuennr,rr Rules and regulations made there under or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale executed interse.

Unit and proiect related details The particulars of unit details, sale consideration, the amount paid by the complainants, date ofproposed handing over the possession, delay period, if any, have been detailed in the following tabular form: rr 83, 09 at olkr e date tns or tment t force s God, losion, enerol qbour Complaint No.

1532 of 2024 A.

2.

Sr.

No.

Particulars Details 1.

Name of the project "Ansal Hub 83" in Sector I Manesar, Gurgaon.

L I 41s (Page no.24 of complainr) I un,, ,o. menrioned as 60 ] customer ledger t_- 417.28 sq. ft. (PaBe noJ4 of conrplaint) 26.71.2011 (page no.

24 of compla jnt) 26. a jnt) 26.

The Developer shall possession oJ the UnlL anytime t a period of36 months from the of sanction of building plon datc of execution of allot, whichever is loter, subject to. mojeure circumstances such os f,re, earthquake, Jlood, commotion, war, riot, expla terrorist, qcts, sabotage or get shortoge of energy la equipment.........

26.1.1.2074 2.

Unit no.

3.

Unit admeasuring 4.

Date of allotment Ietter 5.

Possession clause 6.

Due date ofdelivery of possession PaEe 2 of 77 IIABENA GUI?UGRAM Compfaint No.

1532 of 2OZ4 (Notet 36 months from allotment i.e., 26.11.201 1 as r sanction of building plans known) Rs.

18,30,158/- 9Yal'"yl,,1ll Rs.22,55,792/- (as per customer Iedger at I 1Y'"'1',1,r Not obtained 7.

Total sale consideration B, Total amount paid by the complainant 9.

Occupation certificate 10.

Offer ofpossession Not 0ffered date ol' he datc ol are not paSe no.

B, Facts ofthe complaint The complainants have made the following submissions in the complaint; That on dated 23.02.201,1, complainant booked a commercial oftice by paying a sum of Rs 2,64,277 /-.

Further, on dated 26.1,7.2OlI allotmenr was executed in favour of Mr.

Mahesh Gupta (HUF) & Ramesh Chand Agarwal and between the respondent in relation with unit no.

415, type office, admeasuring 417.28 sq. ft. for a basic sale consideration of Rs.

18,30,158/-.

That later unit no.

609 admeasuring super area 433 sq. ft. for a total salc consideration of Rs.22,55,792/- issued by the respondent vide account statement dared 27.02.2074 and the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.22,55,792 /- as and when demanded by the respondent.

That vide clause 26 of the allotment letter the respondent agrees and promise to handover physical offer ofpossession ofsaid unit within 36 months from the date of sanction of building plans or date of execution I.

II.

III.

Page 3 ol17 HARERA ffi-GURUGRAI/ of allotment letter, whichever is Later. is Later.

But till today there is no offer of possession given by the respondent even and many other charges which is extra not part ofpayment plan impose by the respondent.

That unit no.

415 was booked in year 2011 and allotment was issued in favour of unit no.

415 but later as per account statement unit no.

609 was shown as there was no intimation and no approval taken from the complainant for transfer of the booked unit in year 201 1.

At present the complainant is confused which unit he has 415 or 609.

Relief sought by the complainants: The complainants in the present complaint have seeking the following relief(sl. [i) Direct the respondent to pay delay possession interest since 26.17.2074 as allotment was execut ed on 21.ll.ZO11. (iil Direct the respondent to offer the legal offer ofpossession of the unit. (iii) Direct the respondent for registration of conveyance deed in favor of the complainant.

5.

0n the date of hearing, the authority explained to the respondent/promoter about the contraventions as alleged to have been committed in relation to section 11(4) (a) of the act to plead gu ilty or not to plead guilty.

Reply by the respondent.

The respondent has contested the complaint on the following grounds.

I.

That the complainants had booked the shop no.609 in their own name in an upcoming project Ansal Boulevard, Sector g3, Gurugram of thc answering respondent.

Upon the satisfaction of the complainant regardlng inspection of the site, title, location plans, etc. an agreemenr to sell dated 26.11.2011was signed betlveen the parties as per claint of the complainant.

Complaint No.

1532 of 2024 IV. c.

4.

D.

6.

PaEe 4 of 77 v' *lA8rnn #- ounuennvr II.

That rhe current dispute cannot be governed by the RERA Act,2016 because of the fact that the builder buyer agreement signed between the complainant and the answering respondent was in the year 2011.

The regulations at the concerned time period would regulate the project and not a subsequent legislation i.e. ation i.e.

RERA Act,201_6.

The parliament would not make the operation of a statute retrospective in effect, IIL That the complaint specifically admits to not paying necessary ducs or the full payment as agreed upon under the builder buyer agreement.

The complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong.

IV.

That the complainant has admittedly filed the complaint in the ycar 2024 and the cause of action accrue occurred before that and is bound by limitation as per the complaint itself.

Therefore, it is submitted that the complaint cannot be filed before the HRERA Gurugram as the samc is barred by limitation.

V.

That clause 34 ofthe said agreement provides for Rs.

5/ sq foot per month on super area for any delay in offering possession ofthe unit as mentioned in clause 30 of the agreement.

Therefore, the complainant will be entitled to invoke the said clause and is barred from approach ing the Hon'ble Commission in order to alter the penalty clause by virtue of this complaint more than 8 years after it was agreed upon by both parties.

Vl.

That the respondent had in due course of time obtained all necessary approvals from the concerned authorities.

Similarly, the approval for digging foundation and basement was obtained and sanctions from the department of mines and geology were obtained in 2012. .l.hus, the respondent has in a timely and prompt manner ensured that the requisite compliances be obtained and cannot be faulted on glving delayed possession to the complainant.

1532 of ZOZ4 Page 5 of17 HARERA P* GURUGRAM Complaint No.

1532 of 2OZ4 VII.

That the delay has been occasioned on account of things beyond thc control of the answering respondent.

The builder buyer agreement provides for such eventualities and the cause for delay is complctely covered in the said clause.

The respondent ought to have complied with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWp No.

20032 of 2OOB, dated 1,6.07.20L2, 31.07.

L2, 31.07.2012, 21.08.2012.

The said orders banned the extraction of water which is the backbone of the construction process.

Similarly, the complaint itself reveals that the correspondence from the respondent specifies force majeure, demonetization and the orders of the Hon,ble N GT proh ibiting construction in and around Delhi and the CoVID _19 pandemrc among others as the causes which contributed to the stalling of the projecr at crucial iunctures for considerable spells.

VIIL That the complainant had signed and agreed on builder buyer agreement dated 06.01.2015.

That perusal of the said agreement would show that it is a tripartite agreement wherein M/s Samyak pro,ects l)vt.

Ltd is also a party to the said agreement.

IX.

That the perusal of the builder buyer agreement at page 3 would show that M/s Samyak Proiects pvt.

Ltd not only possesses ail the rights and unfettered ownership of the said land whereupon the proiect namcly Ansal boulevard, Sector 83 is being developed, but also js a developer in the said project.

That the operating lines at page 3 of the builder buyer agreement are as follow; ,,The Developer has entered into an agreemenr with the confirming parry 3 i.e M/s Samyak projects pvt.

Ltd to jointly promote, develop and market the proposed project being developed on the land as aforesaid." X.

The said M/s Samyak proiect pvt.

Ltd. in terms of its arrangement with the respondent could not develop the said project well within time as Page 6 ol 17 ffi HARERA ffi eunuEnnlrr 7. xt. was agreed and given to the respondent, the delay, ifany, is on the part of M/s Samyak Project pvt.

Ltd. not on the part of respondent, because the construction and development of the said project was undertaken by M/s Samyak Project pvt.

Ltd.

That in an arbitral proceedings before the Ld.

Arbitrator lustice A.K Sikri, M/s Samyak project pvt. oject pvt. has taken over the present project thc answering respondent for completion of the project and the respondent has no locus or say in the present project.

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

Their authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can be decided on the basis ofthese undisputed documents and submissio n made by the parties.

Jurisdiction of the authority The authority has complete territorial and subject matter Jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint for the reasons given below.

E,l Territorialjurisdiction As per notification no.

1/92/2O17-1TCp dated 14.12.20t7 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana the jurisdiction of Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entirc Gurugram district for all purposes.

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

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

E.ll Subiect-matteriurisdiction Section 11(4)(aJ of rhe Act, 2016 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale.

Section 11(4)(a) is reproduced as hereunder: Section 71 E, L 9.

1532 of ZO24 10.

Page 7 of 17 </ HARERA RGURUGRAI\/ Complaint No.

1532 of 2OZ4 (4) The pronoter shaL (o) be responsible for ollobligotions, responsibtlitrcs ond functrcns under the provisions of this Act or the rules ond regulattons made thereunder or to the ollottees qs per the ogreemei't for sole, or to the association of allottees, os the case moy be, till ti" ,onr"yunr" of .all the opartments, plots or buildings, os the cose moy be, to the allottees, or the common areos to the ossociation of oltottees or the competent outhoriq), as the cose moy be; Section J 4- Functions of the Authority: 344 of the Act provides to ensure complionce of the obltgotions cast upon the promoters, the qllottees ond the real estote ogents under this under this Act ond the rules ond regulations made thereunder.

11.

So, in view ofthe provisions ofthe Act quoted above, the authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non- compliance ofobligations by the promoter leaving aside compensat,on which is to be decided by the adiudicating officer if pursued by rhe complainants at a Iater stage.

F.

Findings on the obiections raised by respondent: F.l Obiection regarding iurisdiction of the complaint w.r.t the builder buyer agreement executed prior to coming into force ofthe Act.

12.

The respondent submitted that the complaint is neither maintainablc nor tenable and is liable to be outrightly djsmissed as thc builder buyer's agreement was executed between the parties prior to thc enactment of the Act and the provision ofthe said Act cannot be applied retrospectively.

13.

The authority is of the view that the provisions of the Acr are quasr retroactive to some extent in operation and would be applicable to thc agreements for sale entered into even prior to coming into operation of the Act where the transaction are still in the process of completion.

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

Therefore, the provisions of the Act, rules and agreement have to bc Page E of 17 GURUGRAI/ HARERA Complaint No.

7532 of 2OZ4 read and interpreted harmoniously.

However, if the Act has provided for dealing with certain specific p rovisio ns/s ituatio n in a specific/particular manner, then that situation will be dealt with in accordance with the Act and the rules after the date of comjng into force of the Act and the rules.

Numerous provisions of the Act save thc provisions of the agreements made between the buyers and sellers.

The said contention has been upheld in the landmark judgment of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban pvt.

Ltd, Vs. llol and others. (W.p 2737 of 2077) decided on 06.12. on 06.12.2017 and which provides as under: "119.

Under the provisions of Section 18, the deloy in handing over the possesslor] would be counted from the dote mendo;ed in the agreement for sole entered into by the promoter and the ullotlee prior to its registrotion under REF#.. under the provisions of RIiRA, the promoter is given o facitrty to revise the dote oj .ompletion of project ond declare the some under Section 4_ The RERA does not contemplate rewriting of contrqct between the flot purchoser ond the promoter...

122.

We hove olready discussed thot qbove stoted provisions of the REF'1 are not reiospective in noture.

They noy to some extent be hdvinu a retroqctive or quasi retroactive effect but then on thot ground the volidity of the provisions of REFuA connot be chollinged.

The Porliament is cornpetent enough to legislate lq; having retrospective or retroqctive effect.

A law can be even framed to offeit subsisting / existing contractuol rights between tie pqrties in Lhe lorger public interest.

We do not hove any doubt in our mind thot the REM hos been fromed in the lorger public interest ofter o thorouqh study and discussion mode ot the highest level by the Stondin!) Committee and Select Committee, which submitied its detoiled reports." 14.

Also, in appeal no.

173 of 2079 titled as Magic Eye Developer pvt.

Vs, Ishwer Singh Dahiya, in order dated 17.12.201,9 the Harvana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has observed- "34.

Thus, keeping in view our qforesoid discussion, we ore ol the considered opinion that the provisions of the Act are quost retroactive to some extent in operotion and will be applicoble to the ogreements for sale entered into even prior to coming into operat@n of the Actwhere the tronsoction qre still in the proceis i;;oktion.

Hence in cose of delqy in the offer/deliver! oI possessiinr.-.s per the terms ond conditions of the agreement for sole the allottee shL)ll l)e Page 9 of17 1/ ffiHARERA ffi aJRUGRAT,/ F".

GRAT,/ F".pl"trrt N" 1$, "f ,0r-l entitled to the interest/delTyed possession chorges on the reasonable rote of interest os provided in Rule 15 oflhe rules ond one sided, unfair and unreasonoble rqte ofcompensation mentioned in the ogreementfor sale is tioble to be ignored.,, 15.

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

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

Therefore, the authority is of the view that the charges payable under various heads shall be payable as per the agreed terms and conditions of the agroement subject to the condition that the same are in accordance with.therdans/permissions approved by the respective departments/compdtent authorities and are not in contravention of any other Act, rules and regulations made thereunder and are not unreasonable or exorbitant in nature.

Hence, in the light of above-mentioned reasons, the contention of the respondent w.r.t. jurisdiction stands re.iected.

F.ll Obiection regarding force maieure conditions: 16.

The respondent-promoter raised a contention that the construction ol the project was delayed due to force majeure conditions such as various orders passed by Hon,ble High Court ofpunjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.

2OO3Z of 2008, dated 76.07 .20t2, 31.07 .2012.

21.0A.2072, lockdown due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic which further led to shortage of labour and demonetization.

Further. the authority has gone through the possession clause and observed that the respondent-developer proposes to handover the possession of thc allotted unit within a period of 3 6 months from the date of sanction of building plans or date of execution of allotment letter, whichever ls later. [n the present case, the date of sanction of building plans are not Page 10 of 17 / ffiHARERA ffi eunuennM Complaint No. plaint No.

1532 of ZO24 available so, the due date is calculated from the date of execution ol allotment letter is 26.11.2011 therefore, the due date of subject unit comes out to be 26.11.2014.

The events such as various orders by Punjab and Haryana High Court and demonetization were for a shorrer duration of time and were not continuous as there is a delay of more than ten years.

Even today no occupation certificate has been rece,ved by the respondent.

Therefore, said plea of the respondent is null and void.

As far as delay in construction due to outbreak of Covid_19 is concerned, the lockdown came into effect on 23.03.?O2O whereas the due date of handing over of possession was much prior to thc event ol. outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic.

Therefore, the authority js of the view that outbreak of a pandemic cannot be used as an excuse for non- performance of a contract for which the deadlines were much beforc the outbreak itself and for the said reason, the said time period is not excluded while calculating the delay in handing over possession.

F.llI Obrection regarding non impleadment of necessary party i.e., M/s Samyak Proiect pvt.

Ltd, 17.

The respondent in the present has pleaded that M/s Samyak project Pvt.

Ltd. should be impleaded as a necessary party to the case and should be held liable.

The Authority observes that in the presenr complaint, it is evident that Ansal Housing Limited executed the agreement with the complainant and received consideration towards the same, for which receipts have been issued.

Moreover, the M/s Samyak Project Pvt.

Ltd. was not confirming party in the agreemenr executed between the complainant and the respondent.

In vjew thereof, Ansal Housing Limited is held Iiable.

Page 11 of 17 7 ffiHABrnr #,eunuennll Complaint No.

1532 of 2024 G.

Entitlement of the Complainants: (il Direct the respondent to pay delay possession interest since 26.1.1.201,4 as allotment was execut ed on Zt.ll.ZOll. t.ll.ZOll. (iil Direct the respondent to offer the legal offer of possession of the unit.

18.

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

Sec.

18(1) proviso reads as under. "Section 18: - Return ofamountqnd compensation 1B(1).

If the promotet foils to complete or is unoble to qive possesston ol an oportment, plot. or building _ Provided that where on ollottce does not intend to withclraw from the project, he sholl be poid, by the promoter, inLeresl for evety month ofdelay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as moy be prescribed." Clause 26 of the allotment letter provides the time period of handing over possession and the same is reproduced below: "The Developer shall offer possession ofthe IJnit onytine within o period of 36 months Irom the dqte oI sonctioi ol building plans or date of execution of allotment whichevir is totel. subject to force mojeure circumstonces such os Gocl, fire, eorthquake, Jlood, civil commotion, war, riot, explosion, terrorist, acts, sabotage or generol shortoge of energy lohour equipnent.....__,.." Admissibility of delay possession charges at prescribed rate of interest: The complainants are seeking delay possession chargcs in terms ofproviso to section 18 ofthe Act which provides that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of possession, at such rate as may be prescribed and it has becn 19.

20.

Page 12 ol 1z y' ffiHARERA ffi eunGnntr,r 27.

22.

23.

1532 of ZO24 15 has been reproduced as prescribed under rule 15 of the rules.

Rule 1S has been reproduced as under: Rule 75. prescribed rate of interest- [proviso to section 12, section 78 and sub-section (4) ond subsection (7) olsection tgl (1) For the purpose of proviso to section 12; seciioi lg: antl sutt- sections (4) and (7) ofsection ofsection 19, the,,interest at the rote prescribed,, sh-a-ll be the State Bonk of lndio highest mqrginot cost of Iending rate +20,4.: Provided thot in cose the Stote Bonk of Indio margtnal cost ol lendlnl|t rote (MCLR) is not tn u.e, tt sholl be reptotpdLy such henrhmorA lending rateswhich the Stote Bank of Iniio may tr-x yrom ti^e to time for lending to the generol public.

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

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

Consequently, as per website of the State Bank of Indra r.e., https: //sbi.co.in. the marginal cost of lending rate (in short, MCLRI as on date i.e., 18.07.2025 is 9.100/0.

Accordingly, the prescribed ratc of interest will be marginal cost of lending rate +Zo/o i.e., 11.10%o per annum.

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

The relevant section is reproduced below: "[za) "interest" means the rates ofinterest poyable by the promoter or the qllottee, as the case moy be.

Explanation. -For the purpose ofthis clause- (i) the rate- of interest chorgeable from the ollottee by the promoter, in cose of default, sholl be equal to the rote of iitereit whtch thc p omoter *all bc lMbte rc pov the ollottce in rcse ol deloutr, (ii) the interest poyqble by the promoter to the allottee ihqli be from the tlate the promoter recelved the amount or ony porr thereu| ltlt thc date the amount or port thereof and interest thereon is rifunded, |/ page 13 oJ 1Z ff HARERn ffi eunuenavr the datethe ollottee defoults in poyment to it is poid;" Therefore, int efore, interest on the delay payments be charged at the prescribed rate respondent/promoter which is the same complainants in case of delay possession c On consideration of the documents submissions made by the parties, the aut respondent is in contravention of the sectio handing over possession by the due date executed between the parties. lt is a matter 24.

25. ond the interestpayoble by the allottee to t e promoter sholl be from he promoter till the date Complaint No.

153'2 of 2024 om the complainants shall i]e., 11.10% p.a. by the s is being granted to the arges. vailable on record and ority is satisfied that rhe 11(4)(a) ofthe Acr by not s per the allotment letter f fact that allotment letter As per the clause 26 of the pos$ession of the booked unit containing terms and conditions regarding [he said unit was executed between the parties on 26.11.2017. alf otment letter dated 26.1.1.201,1,. the was to be delivered within a period of 36 months from the date of sanction of building plans or date of execution of allotment lerter, whichever is later.

In the present case, the date of sanction of bu ild ing plans are not available so, the due date is calculated from the datc of execution of allotment letter is 26.11.2011 therefore, the due date ot subject unit comes out to be 26.71.2014.

Furthermore, thc respondent's request for a grace period based on force majeure rs hereby denied, as the reasons for such denial have been outlined above.

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

The authority is ofthe considered view that there is delay on the part ofthe respondent to offer physical possession ofthe sub,ccl. unit and it is failure on part ofthe promoter to fulfil its obligations and to hand over the possession within the stipulated period. v' Page 14 of 77 26.

IIABEBA GURUGRAI/ Accordingly, non-compliance of the man 11(4) (al read with proviso to section 1B( the respondent is established. tablished.

As such co delay possession charges at the prescribed p.a. for every month of delay on the amoul the respondent from the due date of posses offer of possession of the subject unit a certificate from the competent authority pl over ofpossession whichever is earlier as p, 18(1J ofthe Act read with rule iS ofthe rul The respondent is also directed to handove unit allotted to the complainants within obtaining valid ociupation ceitificate.

Direct the respondent for registration Complaint No.

1532 of 2024 date contained in section l) of the Act on the part of mplainants are entitled to rate of interest i.e ., 11.100h )t paid by complainants to sion i.e., 26.1 1.201 4 till rhe fter obtaining occupation us two months or handing :r the provisions of section ls. r possession of thc subjcct t period of 60 days after of conveyance deed in 27. (iii) favor of the complainant.

28.

Section 17 (7) of the Act deals with duty of promoter to get rhc conveyance deed executed and the same is reproduced below: "77.

Trqnsfer of title.- (1).

The Womoter shall eecutc o registered conveyance deed in fqvour of the ollotuc slong with Lhe undivided proporttonote title in the.common oreas to the association of the allottees or the compatent authority, as the case moy be, and hand over the physicql possession of the ploC apqrtmelt of building, os the case may be, to the ollottees qnd the @mmon oreos to the associotion of the ollottees or the competent authority, os the case may be, in o real estate proiect, ond the other title documents pertoining thereto within srycified period os per sanctioned plans os provided under the local laws: i..

Prouided thoC in the obsence of ony local low, conveyonce deed in fovour of the allottee or the associotion ofthe oliottees or the competent outhoriE, os the cose may be, under this section shall be corried out by the promoter within three months from date ofissue ofoccuponc)t ce,rtificote." Page 15 of l7 ffHARERA ffi ounuenru H.

5U. nru H.

5U.

Accordingly, the authority directs the r conveyance deed within 60 days in favou obtaining valid occupation certificate from Directions of the authority complaint No.

1532 of 2024 29. spondent to execute the of the complainants after e competent authority.

Hence, the authority hereby passes this ord directions under section 37 of the Act obligations cast upon the promoter as per r and issues the following to ensure compliance of e function entrusted to the ll. authority under section 34(0; The respondent is directed to pay the interFst at the prescribed rate i.e.

11.100/o per annum for every month of del{y on the amount paid by the complainants from the due date of posseslion i.e., 26.11,.20L4 till valid offer of possession of the subject unit r obtaining occupation over of possession whichever is earlier as per the provisions of scctjo tl 18(1J ofthe Act read with rule 15 ofthe ru,les.

The respondent is directed to pay arrears ofinterest accrued within 90 days from the date of this order as per rule 16[2) of thc rulcs ancj thereafter monthly payment ofinterest be paid till date of handing over of possession shall be paid on or before the 1Oth of each succeeding month.

The respondent is directed to handover p06session of the unit allottcd to the complainants within a period of 60 days after completing thc unit in terms of buyer's agreement and obtaining of occupation certificate and execute conveyance deed on payment of stamp duty charges by the allottee in terms ofsection 17 ofthe Act.

The rate of interest chargeable from the allottees by the promotcr, ln case of default shall be at the prescribed rate i.e., 11.100/n bv th.

111. respondent/promoter, which is the same rate of interest which the Page 16 oi17 lv. * HARER,I S- eunuennlrr 32.

File be consigned to registry.

31. istry.

31. promoter shall be liable to pay to the allo delayed possession charges as per The respondent shall not charge anyth which is not the part of the buyer,s agree Complaint as well as applications, if accordingly. r f,t -r PrY'l H/t I?Fu> in case of default Z(zaJ of the AcL ng from the com ent. ny, stands di Au th o rity, Dated:2 urugram .2025 Complaint No.

1532 n) Page 17 of 17