MRS YOGESH YADAV AND MRS NEELAM YADAV vs ELAN BUILDCON PVT. LTD.

ffi HARERI #*eunuennH,r BEFORE THE HARYANA 1.

Mrs.

Yogesh Yadav R/o:- H-31, DDA Flats, Pockect New Delhi- 110075 2.

Neelam Yadav R/o:- Pawera, Pawera (286), Ilaryana- 12 3001 M/s IILAN Buildcon Priva (Through its Managing Regd. office:- 14, 8ir, A Juanapur, New Delhi, Also at:- 3.d Floor, Golf View Course Road, Sector- 42, G CORAM: Shri Arun Kumar Shri Vijay Kumar Goyal Shri Ashok Sangwan APPEARANCE: Shri Gaurav Rawat (Advovate) Shri Ishaan Dang (Advocatel 1. 'l'he prescnt complaint has scction 31 of the lleal Estate short, the Act) read with rule Development) Rules, 2017 11[4J(a) ofthe Act wherein it Page 1 of 30 i- 110 Complaint no.

3933 of 2021 ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, UGRAM Complaint no.: 3933 ofz0?1 Order reserved ont L9.LL.2024 Order pronounced on: 1L.O2.2025 1, Sector- 2, Dwarka, ndragarh, Complainants Respondent Chairman Member Member Complainants Respondent en filed by the complainant/allottees under Regulation and Developmentl Act, 2016 [in 8 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and n short, the RulesJ for violation of section s inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall ORDER ffi HARER,. #"eunuennrvr Complaint no.

3933 of 2021 be responsible for all oblig4tions, responsibilities and functions to the allottee as per the agreement {or sale executed inter-se them.

A.

Unit and Proiect related det4ils: 2.

The particulars of the project, the details of sale consideration, the amount paid by the complainants, dafe of proposed handing over the possession, delay period, if any, have been detailed in the following tabular form: S.

No.

Particulars Details 1.

Name ofthe project "EIan Miracle", Sector 84 Village Hayatpur, Guruqram, Gurugram 2.

Nature ofthe project Commercial colony 3.

DTCP License 34 ofZ0L4 dated 12.06.2014 valid up to 11,.O6.2019 4.

Name of licensee Bajaj Motors(P) Ltd. and others 5.

RERA Registered,/not registe red Registered vid no.

190 of 2017 dated 14.09.2077 valid up to 13.09.2023 6.

09.2023 6.

Allotment Letter in favour of the original allottee i.e., Renu Yadav and Vikram Yadav 12.06.2014 (Annexure C-2 page 85 of complaintJ 7.

Unit no.

G-030, Ground Floor (Annexure C-2 paqe 85 of complaintl 8.

Super Area 925 sq. ft, (Annexure C-2 paee 85 of complaintl 9.

I Revised area as per offer I of fit-out possesdion I letter dated 07.o9.2azt 1181 sq. ft. (Annexure R/6 at page no.

86 of the replvl 10.

L Date of execution of builder bufVer agreement in favourf of the original allottee i.e., Renu Yadav ] Dt" "f ".dorrement in i favour of complain4nts iherein I Por*r.., .lrr* _ 04.02.201.9 (Page no.27 ofthe replyJ 1.2.03 .2021. (Page no.

132 of complaint) 7.1.

Possession ofthe unit Page 2 of 30 ',, U:?UORA[/ ARER'.

Due date of deliverl, p o ss essi on Total sale conside Total amount paid bY the complainant 3f;. "t possessiol fit Reminders letter for clear the outstanfinB Complaint no.

3933 0f2021 The Promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery of possession of the said premises/unit to the allottee[s] and the common areas to the association of allottee(s) or the competent authority, as the case may be, is the essence of the Agreement.

The Promoter assures ,o hand over possession of the said premises/unit along with ready and complete common areas with all specifications, amenities and facilities of the project in place within a period of 48 (forty eight) months lrom the date of this Agreement with an extension of further twelve months, unless there is delay or failure due to war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project ["Force Majeure"J, mDhasis suDplied 04.0?.2024 [Calculated from the date of buyer's agreement i.e., 12 months qrace period.

Rs.87,01,498/- (As per receipt information at page 86 of the repl 07 .09.2021 (Page 145 of the complaint) t2.L0.202L, t2.11..2027, 2a.L2.2027, 08.02.2022, r0.03.2022, 05.04.2022, 09.05.2022, 06.06.2022, 04.07.

22, 04.07.2022, 05.08.2022, 05.09.2022, 10.10.2022, 03 ttzozi, 03.12.2022, O3.Ol20?3l of execution 04.02.2019 + l 15 7.

Rs.1,27 ,81.1,25 /- (Annexure C-2 page 85 of complaint) Rs.1,64,20,5r2 I - (As per Applicant ledger at page no.

85 of the repl Page 3 of30 13 14.

HARERA *@*GURUGRAI/ Occupationcertificate 15.03.2023 (Page no.

1 of the additional documents filed bv the respondent on 12.10.2023 Intimation grant of OC regarding 22.03.2023 (Page no.4 ofthe additional documents fi led by the_.regpg!!ggl9n 12.1qzq?!

Facts ofthe complaint The complainants have made the following submissions: - I.

That in 20L4, the respondent company issued an advertisement announcing a commercial project "Elan Miracle" at Sector - 84, Village Ilayatpur, Gurugram was Iaunched by M/s.

ELAN Buildcon Private Limited, under the license no.34 of 2074 dated 12.06.20L4, issued by DTCP, Haryana, Chandigarh, situated at Sector - 84, Village Hayatpur, Gurugram, Haryana and thereby invited applications from prospective buyers for the purchase of unit in the said project.

Respondent confirmed that the projects had got building plan approval from the Authority. ll.

That the complainants while searching for a commercial was lured by such advertisements and calls from the brokcrs of the respondent for buying a comnrercial shop in their pro,ect namely ELAN Miracle.

The respondent company told the complainants about the moonshine reputation of the company and the representative of the respondent company made huge presentations about the proiect mentioned above and also assured that they have delivered several such pro,ects in the national capital region.

The respondent handed over one brochure to the complainant which showed the project like heaven and in every possible way tried to hold the complainants and incited the comp)aina nts for paymenl.s.

Complaint no.

3933 of2021 B.

3.

Page 4 of30 tia.

19.

HARERA ffi GURUGRAN/ IV.

3933 of2021 II I.

2021 II I.

That relying on various representations and assurances given by the respondent company and on belief of such assurances, original allottee namely Mrs.

Renu Yadav, booked a unit in the project by paying an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- towards the booking of the said unit bearing no.

G-030, on ground floor, in Sector 84, having super area measuring 925 sq. ft, to the respondent dated 11.05.2017 and the same was acknowledged by the respondent.

That the respondent sent an allotment letter dated 12.06.2018 to the original allottee confirming the booking of the ur.rit dated 11.05.2017, allotting a unit no.

G-030, ground floor measuring 925 sq. ft. in the aforesaid project of the developer for a total sale consideration of the unit i.e., IIs.1,2 7,81,L25 /- and other specifications of the allotted unit ancl providing the time frarre within wh jch the next instalment was to be paid.

The respondent sent aforesaid allotment letter after a delay of more than year which against the spirit of the Act, 2016. 'l'hat after repeated reminders and follow ups with the respondent.

Respondent finally after delay of almost two years sent builder buyer agreement to the original allottee.

That the original allottee duly and timely signed the agreement and sent the same to the respondent but respondent till date has failed to execute the builder buyer agreement. further, as pe| clause 7..1 of the unexecuted buyer's agreement tlte respondent had to deliver the possession within a period of 48 months from the date of execution of the agreement.

Due to default on the part of the respo ndent/bu ild er till date buyer's agreement has not been executed thc due date of possession shall bc calculated from date of booking application form i.e., 11.05.2017 . 'lherefore, the due date of possession comes out to be 11.0 5.2 021.

Page 5 of30 VI. ffi HARERA ffi, eunuenRvr VII.

VII I.

Complaint no. plaint no.

3933 of2021 That as per the demands raised by the respondent, based on the payment plan, the complainants to buy the captioned unit already paid a total sum of Rs.87,01,,4991-, towards the said unit against total sale consideration of Rs.\,27 ,81,125 / -.

That the original allottees subsequently transferred/endorsed the property in favour of the complainants vide affidavit dated 1,5-03.2021.

The original allottee executed an "agreement to sell" in favour of the complainants for an appropriate consideration.

The balance amount for obtaining the property which was still under construction was paid by the complainants according to the demands raised by the respondent.

The respondent/promoter, vide their nomination letter/affidavit recorded her consent to the transfer by stating: "Accordingly, now the capLioned properqr shnds in the name of Comploinants." That respondent acknowledging/confirming the acceptance of documents for the said unit for purpose ofendorsement in favour ofthe complainants.

The respondent confirm the booking/endorsement ofthe said unit to the complainants providing thc details of the project, conlirming the booking of the unit dated 1 1.05.2017, allotting a unit no.

G-030 ground floor, measuring 925 sq. ft. in the aforesaid project ofthe devcloper for a total sale consideration of the unit i.e.

Rs.L,Z7 ,81,,1,251-, which includes basic price of Rs.1,06,37,500/- plus EDC and IDC of Rs.5,a|,1,25 /-, car parking charges of Rs.4,00,000/-, PLC of Rs.10,63,750/-, IFMS of Rs.1,38,750/- and other specifications of the allotted unit and providing the time frame within which the next instalment was to be paid.

The complainant having dream of its own commercial unit in NCR signed the booking application in the hope that the unit will be delivered within fouryears from the date ofexecution of Page 6 of30 Complaint no.

3933 of 2021 agreement.

They were also handed over one detailed payment plan. ment plan.

That the dream of owning a unit of the complainants were shattered due to dishonest, unethical attitude of the respondent.

Though the payment to be made by the complainants were to be made based on the construction on the ground but unfortunately the demands being raised were not corresponding to the factual construction situation on ground.

That the payment plan was designed in such a way to extract maximum payment from the buyers viz a viz or done/completed.

The complainants approached the respondent and asked about the status of construction and also raised objections towards non-completion of the project, Such arbitrary and illegal practices have been prevalent amongst builders before the advent of the Act of 2016, wherein the payment/demands/ ctc. have not been transparent and demands \,\,cre being raised without sufficient,ustifications and maximum payment was extracted just raising structure leaving all amenities/finishing /facilities/common area/road and other things promised in the brochure, which counts to almost 500/o oI the total project work.

During the period the complainants went to the office of respondent several times and requested thern to allow them to visit the site but it was never allowed saying that they do not permit any buyer to visit the site during construction period, once complainant visitcd the site but was uot allowed to enter the site and even there was no proper approached road.

The complainants even after paying amounts still received nothing in return but only loss of the time and money invested by them.

That the complainants contactcd the respondent on several occasrons and were regularly in touch with the respondent with regard to execution of the builder buyer agreement.

The respondent was never Page 7 of 30 lx.

X. xt. ffiHARERA #- eunuenanr XII, XIII.

3933 of2021 able to give any satisfactory response to the complainant regarding the status of the agreement, construction and were never definite about the delivery of the possession.

That the respondent have completely failed to honour their promises and have not provided the services as promised and agreed through the brochure, allotment letter and the differcnt advertisements released from time to time.

Further, such acts ofthe respondent is also illegal and against the spirit of the Act, 2 016 and the Rules, 201,7.The respondent have played a fraud upon the complainants and have cheated them fraudulently and dishonestly with a false promise to complete the construction over the project site within stipulated period.

That the respondent sent letter dated 19.06.2021 to the complainants, stating that occupation certificate has been applied for the commercial project namely "Elan Miracle" on 09.06.2027.

Further, to this significant milestone, you shall not be entitled to get the fixed amount/delay penalty/down payment rebate (if applicable) with effect from the date of application of the occupation certificate.

That respondent sent letter of offer of possession for fit-outs dated 07.09.2021, to the complainants, mentioning that the construction of the said unit has been completed and the occupation certificate for said project has been applied.

Thc unit is reirdy for the possession for the purpose of comnrencing the fit-outs and interior work and the same can be legitimately offered by the developer to you.

Further stating that the super area ofyour unit stands revised from earlier communicated 925 sq. ft. to 1181 sq. ft. and that all the sums payable as mentioned hcrein below have been calculated on the basis of the super area of your unit i.e.

1181 sq. ft.

Page B of 30 ffi db XIV.

HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint no. plaint no.

3933 of2021 That the above said letler of offer of possession respondent raised several illegal demands {n account of electricity connection and pre- paid meter charges of RE.9,854/-, external electrification charges and HUDA water connectioip charges of Rs.l,7l,47l/-, labour cess of Rs.33,659/-, which was {rever the part of the payment plan provided along with allotment letfer.

Furthermore, respondent had arbitertelly increased the super area also from 925 sq. ft. to 1181 sq. ft.

Therefore, the total demand raised bf, the aespondent in aforesaid mentioned letter is of Rs.94,63,932l-.

XV.

That the complainants after receiving the aloresaid letter of offer of posscssion asked the respondent to provide the copy of the occupation certificate but respondent fail to provide the same.'l'hat the respondent in respect of the said unit has not received the OC till dated.

Hence, respondent without getting the OC sent offer ofpossession letter which is bad in the eye of law and clearly shows the malafide intention on the part ofthe respondent to cheat and extract the money from the innocent allottees. l'urthermore, as per the provisions of the Act of 2016, respondent cannot offer sent the offer of possession letter to complainants without receiving the 0C from the concerned department.

Therefore, the aforesaid Ietter of possession dated 07 .09.2021 is illegal ancl not valid as per the provisions of the Act of 2 016.

That the allotment of the unit was made on 12.06.20L8, after coming into force of the Act, 2 016 and as per the Act, after coming into force of the Act the respondent can charge only on the carpet of the unit not on the super area ofthe unit.

In the present case, rL,spondent has charge the complainants on the super area i.e.925 sq. ft. @ Rs,11,500/- per sq. ft. which is against the provisions of the Act, 2016 and the Rules, 2017 Page 9 of 30 XVI.

3933 of 2021 xvn. ffi HARERA #,eunuGRAN/ made thereof. e thereof. flence, in accordance to the provisions of the RERA Act, necessary penal action to be taken against the respondent.

The complainants have suffered on account of deficiency in service by the respondent and as such the respondent is fully liable to cure the deficiency as per the provisions of the Act, 2016 and the provisions of the Rules,2017.

The possession ofthe property may kindly be provided to the petitioner as per the assurance given in the brochure at the time of offering the property for sale.

Occupation certificate is one approval which the respondent has to obtain before handing over the possession but the respondent also has to deliver all other amenities and facilities assured at the time of selling the property and the h andover would be termed as complete only when the entire amities and facilities also need to be provided and then only the handover is considered to be complete.

The complainant had bought a shop in a complex and not in a standalone building and the amenities and facilities assured at the time of selling are also required to be provided at the time of the handover. 'Ihe complainants have prayed that to hand over the possession of the allotted unit should be considered complete only when all the above important amenities and facilities are also provided together with the shop and the interest of the period of delay should be paid till the proper handover is giverfas elaborated above.

AII these facilities are not available in complex everf today and even after repeated follow ups with respondent, no dates hfe been shared by respondent by which this basic infrastructure will be made available to complainants for which they have paid money (ore than 4 years back.

That the complainants Page 10 of 30 IIARERA ffi.

GURUGRAM Complaint no.

3933 of 2021 have not filed any other 4omplaint before any other forum against the erring respondentand no other case is pending in any other court of law.

C.

Relief sought by the complaiFants: 4. iFants: 4. 'l'he complainants have sought following relief: lI.

Direct the respondent to hand over the possession of the said unit with the amenities and spec[fications as promised in all completeness without any further delaf and not to hold delivery ofthe possession for certain unwanted reason$ much outside the scope of BBA.

Direct the respondent !o quash the illegal demand raised by the iii.

To quash the illegal demand of respondent on account of electricity connection and pre-paid meter charges of Rs.9,854/-, external electrification charges and HUDA water connection charges of Rs.1,,7 7,41,1l- Labour Cess of Rs.3 3,659/- and increase in super area Direct the respondent not to lely Holding charges from the complainants.

Direct the respondent to set aside the letter of offer of possession for fit outs dated 07.09.2021 along with the demands raised for Rs.94,63,932/- and restraining the respondents from charging any penalty from cornplainants. vi.

To restrain the responddnt from raising the illegal demand on account of advanced Direct order force the complainant to sign any monthly maintenance. the respondent not to lndemnity cum undertaking indemnifiring the builder from anything legal as a precondition for signing the conveyance deed. viii.

Direct the respondent to execute the builder buyer agreement with the complainants on the terq\s and condition as per the allotment letter. ix.

To appoint the local corlrmissioner for inspection of the said unit and project and thereafter, gi]ve the final report in relation to deficiencies in the proiect and illegally i!creased area. x.

Direct the respondent tf Unaty handover the possession of the unit after completing in all fspect to the complainant and not to force to deliver an incomplete un]it.

Page 11 of 30 ffirlaRERA *ru* euRuenlvt Complaint no.

3933 0f2021 xi.

Direct the respondent to quash the illegal demand on account of increase in the area from 92 5 sq. ft. to 1181 sq. ft. i.e. increase of 27 .670/o. xii.

70/o. xii.

To initiate the penal proceedings against the respondents for contraventions of the provisions of the Act of 2016 and the Rules of 2017 . xiii.

Direct the respondent to provide the exacL lay out plan of the said unit and justification for increased in the area, xiv.

Direct the respondent to charge the complainants on the carpet area of the unit instead of super area.

On the date of hearing, the authority explained to the respondent/ promoter about the contraventions as alleged to have bcen committed in relation to section 11[4)(a) ofthe Act to plead guilty or not to plead guilty.

Reply by the respondent 'l'he respondent has contested the complaint on the foilowing grounds:- L That before proceeding rvith the reply to the complaint, certain facts are necessary to be carved out in the series as they appear which would also be an essential part towards the reply to the false and frivolous claims as well as vexatious allegations and untenable contentions of the complainant thereby assisting the Authority to arrive at justifiable conclusions.

The various statements made by the complainant are couched with malice, fraud and material suppression of facts. 'l'he complainant has deliberately suppressed various material facts which havc substantial bearing on the outcomc of the present proceedings.

The complainant has thus not come with clean hands before this Authority and their present claims clearly are an afterthought to acquire a wrongful gain for themselves and extract nroney of the respondents illegally.

II.

The present case by the complainant is a classic example of"suppresio veri suggestio falsi".

It is most humbly submitted that suppression of Page 12 of 30 D.

6.

3933 of 2021 truth is (equivalent to) suggestion of what is false. lt is the rule of equity, as well as law, that a suppresio veri is equivalent to suggestio falsi; and where either the suppression of truth or the suggestion of false can be provcd, in a fact material to the contract e contract, the party injured may have relief against the contract. .

The complainants are regular investors who have been investing into real estate projects.

Further, the complainants has in fact purchased the unit in question in resale from the erstwhile allottee Ms.

Renu Yadav in March 2021.

In terms of builder buyer agreement dated 04.02.2019, executed between the respondent and the erstwhile Allottee Ms.

Renu Yadav, which has eventually been endorsed in favour of the complainants, the date of possession is 04.02.2024 [including grace period).

Thus by no stretch of imagination, can the present complainants take a plea that the project is delayed.

The complainant w;ts wcll awareofthefactofthe status and quality of the project and had invested after conducting all due diligence.

In fact as per registration certificate dated 14.09.2017 issued by this Authority, the date of possession for the sirid complex namely ELAN Miracle is 13.09.2023. .

A mere perusal of the communication prove beyond any iota oF doubt that the complainants themselves have been avoiding to pay the agreed balance amount, despite the fact that the respondent has already completed the construction of the proiect and has applied for occupation certificate.

Moreover the complainant has raised a false and frivolous allcgation that the builder buyer agreement has not been executed,'fhat the builder buyer agreement w.r.t the unit in question had been executed with the erstwhile allottee Ms.

Renu Yadav, from whom the complainant has purchased the said Unit in sccond sale in March 2021.'l'he Said agreement has been endorsed in favour of the complainants and the col'nplainants have accepted thc terms and conditions of the said buiider buyer agreement.

It sllall not be out of place to mention that vide letter dated 18.03.2019, the Page 13 oF 30 HARItA GURUGRAII $ffiHARER \ #. eunuennN Complaint no.

3933 of 2021 respondent requested the erstwhile allottee Ms. lottee Ms.

Renu Yadav to come forward for registration of the said BBA.

That the complainant$ in the present case have miserably failed to pay the dues timely and further, despite themselves being in default have filed a frivolous complaint to coerce and browbeat the respondents.

After transfer of the unit in question in favour of the complainant, the respondent vide letter dated 07.09.2021, offered the possession of the said unit in question for fit outs.

Since the construction of the conrplex is complete and respondent has applied for occupation certificate ofthe complex, the allottees ofthe complex approached the respondent for possession of their respective units for carrying out fit outs ,t.their end so that as and when the occupation certificate]is issyed by the Town and Country Planning Department, Haryanai the units can be offered to tenants.

In view of requests from different allottees, the respondent offered the possession of the unit in question to the complainant also and requested the compl+inant to clear her dues as per the demand raised vide Ietter datdd 07.09.202t, I That as per the payrfrent plan annexed along with builder buyer agreement dated 0+.0[.20 tS, the complainant is Iiable to clear all his outstanding dues at tfe time of possession.

Despite reminders and notices dated 12.L0.1021 and 12.71.2021 the complainants have failed to make paymgnts to the re.spondent as per the Ietter dated 07.Og.2OZl.

As on dafe there is an outstanding of Rs.1,00,33,816/- (inclusive of interept and applicable GSTI towards balance consideration payablQ by the complainants to the respondent.

Further, the decisiofr to buy the units was the complainant's independent decisio4.

They have purchased the unit in question from erstwhile allottee Ms.

Renu Yadav in March 202L after verifying the construction at site as at that time the construction of the commercial corpplex namely "ELAN Miracle" was almost complete at site. e at site.

Thqs the above proves beyond any iota of doubt that the complainant! failed in their reciprocal obligations miserably Page 14 of30 ARERA URUGRA[/ Complaint no.

3933 of 2021 and thus it is the complainants who are in breach and not the respondent as has been falsely alleged.

That the unit bearing no.

G-30, admeasuring 925 sq. ft. on ground floor in "ELAN Miracle" Sector 84, Village Hayatpur, Gurugram, Haryana was allotted to Ms.

Renu Yadav vide allotment letter dated 72.06.20LA. ln March 2021 the erstwhile Allottee Ms.

Renu Yadav approached the respondent for transferring the said unit in favour of the complainants.

After completion of formallities, the respondent transferred the said unit in favour of the complainant.

The builder buyer agreement dated 04.OZ.2OI9 was executed witliithe erstwhile allottee Ms.

Renu Yadav and the same was endorded in favour of the complainant and thus the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the said builder buyer's agreement.

After satisrying themselves with regard to applicable terms and conditions governing the allotment and sale of shops in the project, the complainants executed necessary documents ancl confirmed that he shall be bound by thc applicable terms and con d itio ns.

IV.

That as per the agreed tqrms the amounts are due and payable by the complainants, hence they have filed the present falsc and frivolous case to evade payment of chargcs towards incrcasc in usage area of the tlnit in question.

At the time of allotment of the said unit in favour of the erstwhile allottee, Ms.

Renu Yadav, the height of the said unit was 4 5 meters however at the time of completion of construction of the complex it was observed that the said unit in qucstion has mezzatritre floor thus the height of the unit is now 6.35 meters.

While issuing the letter dated 07.09.2021the respondent informed the complainant that area ofthe unit in question stands revised from 925 sq. ft. to 1181 sq. ft.

I . q. ft.

I .

Page 15 ol 30 ,&HARER^ # eunuennlrr Complaint no.

3933 of 2021 as the same is now a unit f,,r'hich has a mezzanine floor.

Clauses 1.10 (ii) and 1.115 of the buildler buyer agreement dated 04.02.2019.

A combined reading of Claupe 1.10 (ii) (bl, Clause 1.15 and Clause 1.5 of the Builder Buyer Agreenlent dated 04.02.2019 clearly imply as under: a) If the unit allotted becQmes preferentially located, the allottee shall pay the additional PLC to the Developer. b] The dimensions ofthe aaid unit can change, alternate property can be allotted to the allottee. c) In the event of increase or decrease in area of the Unit, the differential shall be paid/refunded by/tqrthe Allottee.

That it has been clearly pstabhthe4 in the present case that the unit which was originally allotted to the complainant had a height of 4.5 meters and during the course of construction, the height of the said unit was increased to 6.35 meters, thus making it a unit with mezzanine floor, which implies that the unit is now preferentially located.

The complainant became aware of this fact at the time of his visit to the complex before purchasinB the said unit fronl the crstwhile allottee, Ms.

Renu Yadav.'l'he complainants being aware that the unit with mazanine floor fetched more usage area, decided to purchase the said unit from the erstwhile allottee, Ms.

Renu Yadav, Secondly, the complainant is aware that the said unit now bears additional I']LC oI having a mezzanine floor. 'Ihe conrplainants does not want to pay additional charges towards the said increased usage area, therefore has approached this Authority to u'iggle out of his commitments.

The complainants are aware that there is an increase in area of the said unit as the unit has now a mezzanirle floor which results in additional usage area of the unit.

The respondent had informed the complainant of increase in usage area of the Unit in question vide its letter dated 07 .09.2021.

Page 16 ol30 Complaint no. plaint no.

3933 of 2021 VL That after receipt of tht letter dated 07.09.2021, the respondent approached the complalnant with an offer that in the event the complainant is not intertted in allotment of a unit with a mezzanine floor, the respondent wolld offer hlm an alternate unit in the complex which does not have a mefzanine floor, however, the complainant being greedy and with a malafde intention to extract maximum from the respondent proceeded fo file the present complaint before this Au th ority.

Vll.

I'hat in view of the aforesaid, the complainant, at this stage cannot be allowed to turn back fro m thelr own obtigation.

The p resent stand of the complainant is nothing else but a harassment tool to acquire wrongful and undeserved gains out oI the respondent, 'fhat ample opportunities were given to the complainant to fulfil their reciprocal obligations of making the payment timely, but despite repetitive reminders, thcy failed to rnake the necessary payment due to the respondent and have filed the frivolous complaint.

7.

Copies of all the relevant documents have been filed and placed on record. 'l'heir authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can be decided on lhe basis of these undisputed documents and submission made by the pa rties. u. l'he complainants and respondeltt have filed the written submissions on 05.09.?02+ and 28.08.2024 respectively which are taken on record and has been considered by the authority while adjudicating upon the relief sought by the complainants.

Jurisdiction of the authority 'l'he authority observes that it has territorial as well as subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint.

Page 17 ol30 & HARERA ffi eunuennnr E.

9.

I], I HARERA GURUGRAI,/ Territorial iurisdiction Complaint no.

3933 0f2021 10. and Country Planning Department, the iurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose with offices situated in Gurugram.

Gurugram.

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

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

E.ll Subject matter iurisdiction Section 11(4)(a) of the Act, 2016 provides that the promoter shall be rcsponsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale, Section 11(41(a) is reproduccd as hereunder: Sectbn 11(4)(o) Be responsible for oll obtigations, rcsponsibilities and functions under the ptovisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottee as per the egreementfor sale, or to the ossociation ofallottee, as the case may be, Lill the conveyqnce ol all the qpartments' plots or builtlings, os the cose may be, to the allottee, or the ('ammon areus to tlle association ofallottee or the compeLent uuthattty, os the cose mdy be; 34(i of the Act provides to ensure complionce oJ the obligations cqst upon the promote$, Lhe allottee and the reol estote qgents under this Act and the rules a n(l regulations made thereunder' So, in vicw of the provisions of the Act of 2016 quoted above, the authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non-compliance of obligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be riecided by the adjudicating officer if pursued by the complainants at a later stage.

Findings regarding reliefsought by the complainants.

F'.1 Direct the respondent to hand over the possession of the said unit with the amenities and specifications as promiscd in all completcness without any further delay and not to hold delivery of the possession for certain unwanted reasons much outside the scope of BBA.

As per notification no. l/92/2077-1TCP dated 14.72.2017 issued by Town 11.

T, Page 18 of 30 12. * HARERA #- eunuennH,r Complaint no.

3933 0f2021 F.

0f2021 F.ll Direct the respondent to kindly handover the possession of the unit after completing in all aspect to the complainant and not to force to deliver an incomplete unit. 'lhe above-mentioned relief sought by the complainants are being taken together as the findings in one relief will delinitely affect the result of the other relief and the same being interconnected.

0n consideration of the documents available on record and submissions made by both the parties, the complainants were allotted a rctail /commercial shop bcaring no. (l-3 0, ground floor, in, for an area admeasuring 925 sq. ft. vide allotment letter dated 1,2.06.2018 for the total sale consideration of Rs.1,27 ,81,125 /-.The complainants have paid an amount of I1s.87,01,498/- against the total sale consideration. 'l'he buyer's agreement has been executed between the parties on 04.02.201.9. ns per clause 7.1 of th€' agreement, the respondent was required to hand over possession of the said premises/unit within a period of 48 months from the date of this agreement, with an extension of further 12 months.

Therefore, the due date of possession comes out lobe 04.02.2024.

The respondcnt has issued offer of fit out of possession of the allotted unit to the complainants on 07.09.2021, without obtaining occupation certificate.

As per the said letter, the respondent company revised the super area of the unit of the complainants fr-om 925 sq. ft. to 1181 sq. ft. i.e., 27.670/a and raised an demand of l\s 64,63p321-.

Thereafter, the respondent company issued various rerninder letters for taking possession and clearing the outstanding dues 'Ihe complainants did not pay the said denlands and filed the present complaint on 27.09.2021.

Thc respondent has ol)tained the occuprLion certificate in respect of the allotted unit of thc complainants on 15.03.2023 and thereafter, issued a letter for intimation regarding grant of occupation certificatc on 22.03.2023.

13.

Page 19 of 30 1_4. of 30 1_4. -ffiHARrR, #"eunuenRtvr After, considering the Complaint no.

3933 of 2021 above said factual and legal circumstances ofthe case, 15.

16. the offer of possession for fit-out dated 07.09.2021 is hereby quashed. 'l'he occupation certificate of the aUotted unit of the complainants was obtained by the respondent/promoter on 15.03.2023. [n view if the above, the Authority hereby directs the respondent to handover possession of the allotted unit to the complaina4ts as per buyer's agreement dated 04.02.2019 and in terms of section 19(10) of the Act of 201 6.

F.III Direct the respondent to restrain the respondent from raising illegal demand on account ofadYance monthly maintenance.

F.lV Direct the respondent to restrain the respondent from raising fresh demand for payment undpr any head.

F.v To quash the illegal demand of respondent on account of electricity connection and pre-paid meter charges of Rs.9,854/-, external electrilication charges and HUDA water connection charges of Rs.l,7l,4ll/- Labour Cesf ofRs.33,659/- and increase in super area.

F.VI Direct the respondent to $et aside the letter of offer of possession for fit outs dated 07.09.2021aIqn9 with the demands raised for Rs.94,63,932 /' and restraining the reqpondents from charging any penalty from complainants.

F.VllDirect the respondent 10 quash the illegal demand on account of increase in the area from p2 5 sq. ft. to 1181 sq. ft. i.e. increase of27.670/o.

The complainants have pleadfd that as per the letter of offer of possession for fit-outs dated 07.09.20211 the respondents are charging various illegal charges such as the electricity connection & pre-paid meter charges of I1s.9,854/-, external electrififation/DHBVN connection charges & HUDA water connection charges of {s.1,71 ,411/-, and labour cess of Rs.33,659 /-. ]'he Authority observes thatt4e respondenthas issued an offer ofpossession for fit-out dated 07.09.2021, which is annexed at page 145 lo 147 of complaint. complaint.

The respondents While issuing the said offer of possession for fit- out has raised several dema4ds such as increase in basic sale price as the area of the allotted unit has been increased.

Furthermore, it has raised a demand regarding electricity connection & pre-paid meter charges of Page 20 of30 1U.

77. ffi HARER 1 *dh eunuennM Complaint no.

3933 of 2021 l{s.9,854/-, external electrification/DHBVN connection charges & HUDA water connection charges of Rs.1,71 ,41,7/-, and Labour Cess of Rs.33,659/-.

All the demands are dealt accordingly below: .

Electricity Connection & Pre-Paid Meter Charges ofRs.9,854/-, External Electrilication/DHBVN connection charges & HUDA water connection charges of Rs.1,71,411/-. 'l.he complainants have pleaded that the respondents while issuing offer of possessior for fit out dated 07.09.202L, have charged an amount on account of Electricity Connection & Pre-Paid Meter Charges of Rs.9,854/-, External Illectrification/DHBVN connection charges & HUDA water connection charges of Rs.1,71,411/-.

The Authority observes that as per clause 1.11 to 1.14 of the buyer's agreement dated 04.02.2019 executed inter-se partics mcntions about all such charges and the same has been agreed to be paid by the complainants. 'Ihe Authority has already dealt the above mentioned charges in the compliant bearing no.

CR/4031 of 2019 titled as Varun Gupta V/s Emaor MGF Land Limited wberein the Authority has held that the colonizer/promoter would be entitled to recover the actual charges paid to the concerned departments' from the complainant/allottee on pro-rata llasis on account of clectricity connection, seweragc connection and rt'ater connection, etc., i.e., depending upon the area of the flat allotted to the complainant vis-aI-! is the area of all the flats in this particular project. r project. 'l'he complainants would also be entitled to proof of such payments to the concerned departnrcnts along rvith a computation proportionate to the allotted unit, before making payments under the aforesaid heads.

I,'Llrther, the details of the above mentioned charges charged by the rcsponclent, the respondent shall provided to the complainant(s) and the complainants can verify thc same from thc concerned department, if Page 21 ol30 79.

20. ffi HARERi, #,eunuennlrr Complaint no.

3933 of 2021 21,. required.

Thus, when the complainants agreed to pay charges under this head on the condition of the promoter providing the details of expenditure to them and the same to be verified by them, then promoter can legally charge the same from them. .

Labour Cess of Rs.33,659/-. 'Ihat the respondent in its offer of possession for fit-out letter dated 07.09.2021 has claimed reimbursement o1 labour cess, However, the respondent has failed to provide the clarification on what account the rcspondent has charged an amount on reimbursement of labour cess.

Moreover, the Labour cess is lcvied @ 1%o on the cost of construction incurred by an entployer as per the provisions of sections 3(1) and 3(31 of the Building and Other Construction Workers'Welfare Cess Act, 1996 read with Notification No.

S.O 2899 dated 26.9.1996.It is levied and collected on the cost of construction incurred by employers jncluding contractors under specific conditions.

Moreover, this issue has already been dealt with by the autliority in complaint bearing no.

962 of 2079 titled Mr, Sumit Kumar Gupta and Anr.

Vs Sepset Pnperties Private Limited wherein it rvas held that since labour cess is to be paid by the respondent, as such no labour cess should be separately charged by the respondent.

The authority is of the view that the allottee is neither an employer nor a contractor and labour cess is not a tax but a fee. but a fee.

Thus, the demand of labour cess raised upon the complainants is completely arbitrary and the complajnants cannot be made liablc to pay any labour cess to the respondcnt and it is the respondent builder who is solely responsible for the disbursement of said amount r Advance monthly maintenance charges.

22. 'lhe authority has decided this in the conlplaint bearing no 4031 ol 2079 titled as Varun Gupto v/s Emaar MGI: Land Ltd' wherein the Page 22 oi 30 IARERA ffiGURUGRAI/ Complaint no.

3933 of 2021 Authority has held that since maintenance charges are applicable from the time a flat is occupied, its basic motive is to fund operations related to upkeep, maintenance, and upgrade of areas which are not directly under any individual's ownership.

RERA's provisions enjoin upon the developer to see that residents don't pay ad hoc charges.

Also, there should be a declaration from the developer in the documents that they are acting in own self-interest and that they are not receiving any remuneration or kick-back commission.

Since, in the present matter the respondent has obtained the occupation certiFicate on 15.03.2023 and intimation regarding grant of occupation certificate of the said unir on 22.03.2023 aftcr receiving 0C therefore, the complainants are liable to pay the CAM charges w.e.f. date of intimation regarding grant of OC plus 2 months i.e., from 22.05.2023 onwards. .

To quash the illegal demand on account of increase in the area from 925 sq. ft. to 1181 sq. ft. i.e. increase of 27.670/o, 23.'l'hecomplainantsstatesthattheareaofthesaidunitwasincreasedfrom925 sq. ft. to 1181 sq. ft. vide offer of possession for fit-out dated 07.09.202L, without giving any prior intimation to, or by taking any written consent from the allottee, The respondent in its defence subnlitted that the increase in super area was duly agreed by the complainants at the time of booking/agreement and the same was incorporated in the buyer agreement. agreement.

CIause 31, provides with regard to alteration/modification resulting in more than 20ok change in the super area ofthe said unit or material change in the specifications of the said unit at any time prior to and upon the grant of occupation certificate.

The respondent company shall intimate to the allottees about the alterations in writing.

Relevant clauses ofthe agreement is reproduccd hereunder: 31.

ALTEMTION/MODIFICATION Page 23 of 30 ffi I]AREIA HP, eunuenelit ln case of any olteration/modifications resulting in chqnge in the Super Area of the Sqid llnit any time prior to and up on the grant of occupation certificate is more thqn +20%0, the Developer shsll intimate in writing to the Allottee (s) the chonges thereof and the resultant change, if any, in the Total Consideration of the Said tJnit to be paid by the Allottee(s) qnd the Allottee(s) agrees to deliver t{, the Developer written consent or obiections to the changes within thirty (30) itqys |rom the date of dispatch by the Developer, tn cose the Allottee (s) does not send his written consent, the Altottee(s) shall be deemed to have given unconditional consent to qll such alterqtions/modifications ond Jor payments, if dny, to be poid in consequence thereof, ]f the Allottee(s) obiects in writing indicating his non' consent/objections to such alterations/modificotions then in such case alone the Developer moy ot its sole discretion decide to cancel this Agreement without furthet notice qnd refund the money received from the Allottee(s) (less earnest money & non-refundable amounts) within nineLy (90) days from the dote of receipt of funds by the Developer t'rom resale of the said unit.

Upon the decision of the Developer to cqncel the Said Unit the Developer shall be dischorged from qll its obligotions ond liobilitias under this Agreement and the Allottee(s) sholl hove no right, interest or clain of any nature whatsoever on the Said Unit ond the Parking Space(s), ilatlotted. latlotted.

Should there be any qddition ofa Floor or part thereof in the unit, consequentto the provisions ol the Clause-18 ofthis BBA' then the Aituql Area and consequantly the Super Area of Lhe soid Unit shall stand increased ctccordingly ond the AllotLee hereby gives his unconditionol occeDtonce to the same, 24.

Considering the above-mentioned facts, the Authority observes that the respondert has increased the super area ofthe flat from 925 sq ft to 1181 sq. ft. vide offer of P u n letter for fit-out dated 07.09.2021 with increase in area of 256 sq. ft. i.e 27 .67o/a without any prior intimation to the complainants.

2 5. 'l hat in NCDRC consumer case no' 285 of 2018 titled as Pawan Gupta Vs' Experion Developers Private Limited, it was Ilcld that the respondent is Ilot cntitled to changc any amount on account of increase in area The relevant part of the order has been reproduced hereunder:- The comploints hove been fled moinly fot two reosons 'l'he frst is that the opposite party has demanded exta money for excess area ond second is the delay in honding over the possessiort ln respect of excess ctreo, the complainant hos made a plint thot without any bosis the opposite porty sent the demand for excess a;ea ond the certiJ)cote of the orchitect \tqs sent to the complainant' which of a latet date The iust[cation given by the party that on the basis ol the internal report of the architect the demand was made for excess areo is not Page 24 of 3O Complaint no.

3933 of 2021 o ssesst o o ffi HARERA ffieunuennl,r Complaint no.

3933 of 2021 acceptoble because no such report or ony other document hos been liled by the opposite party to prove the excPss orea. )nce the original plon is approved by the competent authority, the areqs of residentiql unit as well as of the common spaces and common buildingsare specified ond super orea connot ch(tnge until there is change in either the aneo ofthe lqt or in the orea ofony ofthe common buildings or the total areo ofthe project (plot ect (plot area) is changed.

The reol test Ior excess area would be thot the opposite party should provide a comparison of the oreos of the original appro'ted common spoces and the flots with finally approved common spoces/buildings and the Jlots.This has not been done.LtfggL basicollv an unfair trade practice.

This hqs become a means to extroct extra money from the allottees ot the time when allottee connot leove the proiect os however the, fully solved ond further reforms are required. problem ofsuper area is not 26.

In view of the above, the Au ority has clear observation that there was an increase in the super area which was intimated to the complainants at the time of offer of possession for fit-out and not before.

The respondent had intbrmed the complainant of increase in usage area of the unit in question vide its letter dated 07.09.202L As the unit which was originally allotted to the complainant had a height of 4.5 meters and during the course oF construction, the height of the said unit was increased to 6.35 meters, thus making it a unit with mezza{ine floor, which implies that the unit is now preferentially located.

Furthpr, in the present matter, the builder buyer agreement was executed betl'ireen both the parties herein on 04.02.2019 i.e., after enactment of the Act, boru. norv"r"., as per clause 31 of the said agreement, the respondent (ad increased the area of the allotted unit for stage.

There is no harm in comrnunicating ond chorging for the extro oreo at the Page 25 of 30 27. ffi HARERA #" eunuennlir Complaint no.

3933 of 2021 more than 120%0, it is violation ofthe model agreement to sell.

Moreover, the model agreement to sell [The Rules,2017) provides that increase in the area can be allowed only upto 5%0. ln view of the above, the Authority is of the view that the respondent has increased the area of the allotted unit by more lhan 27. e lhan 27.670/o however the same cannot be prescribed as per the model builder buyer agreement (as per l{Lrles, 20171 and thus, the demand raised by the respondent vide letter dated 07.09.2021 is illegal, void and hereby set aside to the extent of charging for increase in super area beyond 5yo limit as prescribed in the mode agreement to sell (as per Rules, 2017) as builder buyer agreement was executed on 04.02.2019 i.e., after enactment ofthe Act, 2016 and the Rules of 2017 .

F.VIII Direct the respondent not to levy holing charges from the complainants, 'l'he complainants have also challenged the demand raised by the respondent builder in respect of holding charges.

0n the contrary, the respondent submitted that all the demands have been strictiy raised as per the terms of the flat buyer agreement.

Although, this issue already stands settled by the Ilon'ble Supreme Court vide ;udgment d,ated 14.1,2.2020 in civil appeal no 38t6438a9 /2020, whereby the Hon'ble Court had upheld the order dated 0:J.01,2020 passed by NCDRC, which lays in unequivocal terms that no holding chargcs are payable by the allottee to the devcloper' 'I hus, the respondent is not entitled to demand holding charges from the complainants at any point of time even after being part of the buyer's ailreement as per law settled by tlon'ble Suprenle Court in civil appeal nos.

31164 -3889 I 2020 decided on 7 4.1 2.2020. ['.IX.

Direct the respondent not to force the complainants to sign any indemnifying the builder from anything legal as a precondition for signing the conveyance deed. ?9.

Page 26 of 30 30.

HARERA P.GURI]GRAI/ Complaint no.

3933 of 2021 'Ihe respondent is directed not to place any condition or ask the complainants to sign an indemnity of any nature whatsoever, which is prejudicial to their rights as has been decided by the Authority in complaint bearing no.

4031 of 2019 titled as Varun Gupto V, Emaar MGF Land Ltd.

F. nd Ltd.

F.X Direct the respondent to execute the buitder buyer agreementwith the complainants on the terms and condition as per the allotment letter.

0n consideration of documents available on records and submissions made by both the parties, the Authority observes that the allotment le$er dated 12.06.20L8 was issued by respondent in favour of the original allottee(s) namely Renu Yadav and also an buyer's agreement dated 04.02.20L9, executed between the origirial allottee(sJ namely Renu Yadav and the respondent herein (Annexure R2, bage 27-65 of reply).

Thereafter, vide endorsement sheet dated 12.03.2021 fpage 132 of complaint), the subject unit was endorsed/transferred in favour ofthe complainants herein vls-a vls buyer's agreement dated 04.0?.2019.

In view of endorsement in favour ofthe complainants, no further dire4tions are required. l F.XI Direct the respondenttq appoint the local commissioner for inspection of the said unit and prJoiect and thereafter, give the final report in relation to deficiencies fn the proiect and illegally increased area.

31, 32.

The above-mentioned relief sought by the complainants was not pressed by to pursue the above-mentionfd reliefs sought.

Hence, the authority has not raised any linding \ ,.r.t. to the above-mentioned relief. !'.xtl To initiate the penal proceedings against the respondents for contraventions of the provisions of the Act of 2016 and the Rules of 2017.

33. 'l'lie complainants have not mentioned the specific provisions of the Act, 2016 and the Rules of 2017 being violated by the respondent accordingly, the said relief cannot be deliberated by the Authority.

Page 27 of 30 the complainant's counsel dufing The Authority is of the view qhat arguments in the passage of hearing. complainants counsel does not intend the the HARERA P*GURUGRAI/ F.XIII Direct the respondent to provide the exact lay out plan of the said unit and justilication for increased in the area.

34. area.

34.

The Authoriff is of the view that as per section 19[1) of Act of 2016, the allottee shall be entitled to obtain information relating to sanctioned plans, layout plans along with specifications approved by the competent authority or any such information provided in this Act or the rules and regulations or any such information relating to the agreement for sale executed between the parties.

Therefore, the respondent promoter is directed to provide the area calculation relating to $uper area, Ioading and carpet area to the complainants within 30 days ofthis prder.

F.lV Direct the respondent to]charge the complainants on the carpet area of the unit instead ofsuperl area, i 35.

On the documents and subniissions made by the parties, the Authority observes that the builder buycr's agreentent has bcen executed between the parties on 04.02.20'19, between the original allottee i.e., Renu Yadav and the respondent herein (after enactment of the Act of 2016 and the Rules of 2017).'Ihe complainants have purchased the subject unit to the original allottee and the same was endorse by thc rcspondent company on 12.03.2027.

The total sale con$ideration of the subject unit was calculated by the respondent on the basis of the super area.

As per clause 1.2 of the model 'Agreement for Sale' annexed prescribed in the Rules of 2 017, the respondent is obligated to calculate the total price for the build-up unit/apartment based on the carpet area.

In view of the above, the respondent is directed to calculate and charge the sale consideration of the unit based on the carpet area.

G.

Directions of the Authority 36.

IIernce, the authoriry hereby passes this order and issue the following directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations Page 28 of 30 Complaint no.

3933 of 2021 II HARERA M.

3933 of 2021 cast upon the promoter as per the function entrusted to the Authority under section 34[0: I. n 34[0: I.

The respondent is direc]red to issue a revised statement of account of the allotted unit of the complainants in terms of the relief allowed under the said order within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.

The complainants are directed to pay the outstanding amount within next 30 days after issuing a revised statement of account.

After clearing all the outstanding dues, the respondent shall handover the possession of the allotted unit to the complainants.

The respondent is directed to provide the details ofcharges on account of public utility services (i.e., electricity connection & pre-paid meter charges, external electrification/DHBVN connection charges & HUDA water connection charges) to the complainants and the complainants after veriliing the same, the charges/payments in lieu of it can be paid by the complainants.

The respondent is further directed not to charge any labour cess and holding charges.

The respondent is directed to not force the complainants to sign any indemnity of any nature, whatsoever.

The rate of interest chargeable from the allottees by the promoter, in case of default shall be charged at the prescribed rate i.e., 11.10% by the respondent/promoter which is the same rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottees, in case of default i.e, the delayed possession charges as per section 2(zal ofthe Act.

TIle respondent is directed to get the conveyance deed of the allotted unit executed in the favour of the complainants in terms of section 17(1) of the r\ct of 2016 on payment of stamp duty and registration charges as applicable.

Page 29 ol30 III.

37.

38. (A HARERn GURUGRAM k Mem I-laryana Real Est Dated: 11.0 2.202 5 Complaint no.

3933 of 2021 VI.

The respondent shall which is not the part of e builder buyer's agreement. agreement.

The respondent is debarred from clai ing holding charges from the complainants /allottees at any point of time even after being part of apartment buyer's agreement as p Iaw settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil appeal no.

3864-3899 20 decided on L4.12.2020.

Complaint as well as applica ns, if any, stand disposed off accordingly.

File be consigned to registry, ot charge anything from the complainants \tr =+-) (Viiay Kf,-mar Goyal) Member Ilegulatory Authority, Gurugram Page 30 ol30