MANISH KAKKAR AND MEENAKSHI KAKKAR vs ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.

HARERs' ffi.

GUI?UGRAM BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Complaint No.

198 of 2024 and ors.

Date of decision: I L3.05.2025 NAME OF THE BUILDER ANSAL HOUSING LIMITED SAMYAK PROIECTS PVT.

LTD.

PROJECT NAME ANSAL HUB 83 BOULEVARD S.

No.

Case No.

Case title APPEARANCE 1.. cR/TeB/2024 Naveen Yadav Madhu Yadav V/s Ansal Housing Ltd; (R,[) {Fotrmerly known as Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.) and Samyak Projects Pvt.

Ltd. [RZ) Sh.

Rishab Gupta Sh.

Amandeep Kadyan for R1 Sh.

Shanker Wig for R2 2. cR/Tes/2024 Chand Singh & ors.

V/s Ansal Housing Ltd. [R1J (Formerly known as Ansql Housing & Construction Ltd.) and Samyak Projects Pvt.

Ltd, (R2) Sh.

Shanker Wig for R2 3. cR/608e 12023 Veena Yadav And Dinesh Kumar Yadav V/s Ansal Housing Ltd, (R1) (Formerly known as Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.) and Samyak Projects Pvt.

Ltd. [R2) Sh.

Himanshu Gautam Sh.

Shanker Wig for R2 4. cRl3575/2023 Manish Kakkar And Meenakshi Kakkar V/s Ansal Housing Ltd. (R1) lFormerly known as Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.) and, Samyak Projects Pvt.

Ltd. (R2) Sh.

Shanker Wig for R2 5. cR/1420/2024 Chanchal Lata Gupta & Davend:ra Kumar GoyalV/s Ansal Llousing Ltd. [R1) (Formerly known as Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.) and Samyak Projects Pvt.

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Sh.

Shanker Wig for R2 6. cRl2B77 /2024 Naresh Kumar Through Power of Attorney Holder Aditya Kumar BhardwajV/s Ansal Housing Ltd. (R1) (Formerly known as Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.) and Samyak Projects Pvt.

Shanker Wig for R2 Page 1 of 30 1.. ffiHARERA ffi.- eunrGRAM CORAM: Shri.

Arun Kumar Shri. umar Shri.

Vijay Kumar Goyal Shri Ashok Sangwan Chairperson Member Member ORDER This order shall dispose of all the 6 complaints titled as above filed before this authority in form cRA under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and DevelopmentJ Act, 2oL6 (hereinafto. r!ftired as "the Act,,) read with rule 2B of the Haryana Rear Estate (Reguhron ,ftnd DevelopmentJ Rures, zoLT ; fhereinafter referred as "the rules"J for violation of section 1 1ta] (al of the Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all its obligations, responsibilities and functions to the allottees as per the agreement for sale executed.inter se between parties.

The core issues u*d;flng f.orn' ,n.r, ,.* sinLita; in nature and the complainanrfs) in rhe juB,l ulur"rred'mat,.r "r* ;;;., of rhe projecf namerv, "Ansar Hub 83 r";#iirn;,r.r-, il;;;;;;;;"** o*.roped by the same respondent/promoter i.e., M/s Ansal Housing Limited.

The terms and conditions of the buyer's agreements, fulcium of the issue involved in all these cases pertains to failure on the part of the promoter to deliver timely possession of the units in question, seeking award of delay possession charges along with intertest.

The details of the complaints, reply to status, unit no., date of agreemen! possession clause, due date of possession, total sale consideration, total paid amount, and relief sought are given in the table below: 2.

3.

Complaint No.

L9B of 2024 and ors.

Project Name and Location "ANSAL HUB 83 nourEvnnn " Sector-83, Gurugram.

Page 2 of 30 HARER& ffi- GUNUGI?AM Complaint No.

19B of 2024 and ors.

4.

The aforesaid compl, on account of violation of the builder buyer's agreement executed between the parties in respect of said unit for not handing over the possession by the due date, seeking award of delay possession charges along with interest. interest.

The relief sought by the complainants in the said complaints are as under: I Possession Clauie: l "Clause 30 I Th-e Devetoper shall offer of the unit any time a period of 42 monthsfrom the date of execution of agreement or within 42 months from the date ol oitaining att the required sanctions and approval necessary for commencement of construction, whichever is later.

Further there shall be a groce period 6 months allowed to the developer over and above the period of 42 months." upplied) Offer of possess-o.,, No ffi lrur oDfatneo offered lLwL-r i LaJ/zuz+ t)uag/2o?,3 3575/2023 1420/2024 2877 /2024 Unit no.

G-004 T-001 G-005 G-OOB G-100 BBA (R2 is confirmin g party) 09.06.201.5 30.07.2015 15.04.2015 Endorsed on 72.07.2021 08.01.2015 Endorsed on 09.06.2015 08.12.2014 25.71.2074 Endorsed on 1,7.02.2075 Due date 09.06.2079 30.07,2019 15.04.201.9 08.01.2019 08.12.2018 25.17.2018 TSC {1,60,36,54 0/_ <2,86,14,64 e/- <L,10,45,52 7 /- {1,55,35,20 0/- <67,00_,675/ <40,78,055/ AP <69,94,1.69/ t1,30,06,16 B/- <37,44,564/ <51",63,600/ {53,00,100/ r.40,77,595/ o/o of AP 41"0/o 45o/o 330/o 330/o 790/o 990/o Amount to be paid as per payment plan <67,62,733/ <1,14,84,43 1t t35,33,306/ <5L,00,846/ t53,00,000/ t40,50,000/ Cancellati on 04.72.2023 1,2.12.2023 12.12.2023 30.71.2023 28.12.2023 03.07.2024 CR No. t Possession and DpC Relief so cR/LeB /2024 cR/1e5 /2024 TUS5CSSION ANO UHL Page 3 of30 c-026 5. ffiHARERA ffi" eunl;cRAM Complaint No.

It has been decided to delay possession charges along with interest and compensation.

Project and unit related details The particulars of the project, the details of sale consideration, the amount paid by the complainant(s), date of proposed handing over the possession, delay period, if any, have been detaired in the following tabular form: 6. r form: 6. compliance of statutory obligations on the part of the prom oter f respondent in terms of section 3a(fJ of the Act which mandates the authority to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottee(s) and the real estate agents under the Act, the rules and the regulations made thereunder.

The facts of all the complaints filed by the complainant(s)/allottee(s)are also similar' out of the above-mentioned ease, the particulars of lead case cR/198/2024 Naveen yadav & anr. v/s Ansal Housing Ltd.

And anr, are being taken into consideration for determining the rights of the allottee(s) qua A.

7. cR/608e /2023 cR/3s7s/2023 Litigation cost {1,00,000 Commit a date for offering the possession.

Complete the project. cR/1420 /2024 DPC Possession CD cR/2877 /2024 Litigation cost.

Refrain the respondent no. z from implementing contents of letter dated 04.0s.2023 ffor executing MoU with respondent no.

2 for KYC purpose) Direct the respondents to complete the construction of the project and hand over the possession of the allotted unit.

Execute CD.

Direct the respondents to commit a date of offering the possession of the allotted unit.

Abbreviations used: DPC: Delay Possession charges CD- Conveyance deed Page 4 of 30 C! '98 ^4 Naveen Yadav & anr.

V/s Ansnl uorr<inn r *rt A^) S.

N.

Particulars | _ __t _ ___-_d- -.vae.r.y, Ltgu.. dtlU UIll .

I Details - I I l Ansal UrU I Gurugram l2.60acres - I I Commercial Proiect I' ,09 /20L8 Dated 08.01.20 1B t.

Project name and location Project area 2.

Nature of project 4.

RERA registered/not registered 5.

DTPC license no. & validity status Lrcense No.

71 of Z0L0 dated 15.09.2010 6.

Date of execution of agreemeni U9.U6.2IJL5 R2 is the confirming party [pg.

26 of complainr] G-004 lpg.28 of complaintl 7.

Unit No.

8, Unit area admeasuring 962 sg. ft.

62 sg. ft.

Clause 30 of BBA The Developer shall offer of the unit any time a period of 42 months from the date of execution of, agreement or within 42 g*gn!",hsfrom the date of obtaining all the required sanctions and approval necessary fo, commencement of construction, whichever is later, further there shail be a I grace period 6 months qllowed to the I developer over and above the period of aZ I months.

I lg.

Possession clause 10.

Due date of Possession ue.06.2019 (Calculated from the date of Execution of Agreement, as no document w,r.t date of start of construction placed on record) (Grace period of 6 months is allowed being unqualifiedJ.

1,1.

Sale consideration t 1,60,36,540/- ffiHARERA ffi. ouRUGRAM Complaint No.

Page 5 of30 ffiHARER* ffi GURUGRAM Complaint No.

198 of 2024 and ors. [pg.2B of complaint] 12.

Total amount paid by the complainant < 69,94,168/- Paid 470/o of the TSC [As alleged by the complainant in its complaintl 13.

Cancellation issued by R2 04.t2.2023 [pg.61 of the complaint] 74.

Offer of Possession NA 15.

Occupation Certificate NA Facts of the complaint B.

B.

The complainant has made the following submissions in the complaint: - a' That as per assurances and promises made by the respondent's company in their advertisement, the complainants agreed to purchase the commercial shop in the project Ansal HUB -83 Boulevard, situated at Sector- 83 Gurugram.

The booking was made on 05.03 .2015 by paying an amount of t20,00,000/- to the respondent company. b.

That after booking, the complainants were allotted unit no.

G-004, Shop, Ground Floor measuringg62 sq feet Sale area, of project Ansal HUB -83 Boulevard, situated at Sector- 83 Gurugram.

That developer buyer agreement was executed on 09.06 .2015 interse between parties, The basic sale consideration of the said unit was {1,60,36,500 /- andthe total sale consideration was Rs. {1,68,80,858/-. c. ,858/-. c.

That as per Annexure A- at page no,21 of the developer buyer agreement, the payment plan was settled as possession linked plan wherein booking amountwas 13,50,000 &400/o was to be paid atthe slab of 90 days from date of booking and remaining 600/o was to be paid of offer of possession with other charges. d.

That in compliance of said Annexure A of the developer buyer agreement, complainants have paid up to 400/o of from the date of booking i.e. an Page 6 of 30 ob' h. ffiHARER,& ffi GuRUGhnM amount of 169,94,168/- has been paid by complainants and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time when respondents company would provide the offer of possession to complainants after obtaining occupation certificate and necessary approvals/ sanctions from the concerned authorities/ Departments.

That according to the terms of the developer buyer agreemen! the respondent's company were supposed to deliver possession with in 42 months from the date of execution of BBA i.e. on or before OB.1,Z.ZOLg.

The construction was not completed, so the respondents company extended the period of 6 months ?s groce, period i.e., 08.06 .zo1,g,which is the final date of delivery of possession as a:greed/ assured/ in the terms of developer buyer agreement.

That to lure complainants by showing rosy pictures, respondent no. z and Ansal Housing & Cop,ritgucJion *put.l,td. had entered into assured return - ". : t i , ,,t ',.1i plan agreement datbd:"19.09.20.1.5 and acknowledged to pay the assured return calculating the ritd if fZonper annum on the paid up 41u/oamount in lieu of purchase of the said commercial shop.

That complainants were regulaply---,,, in contact with the officials of respondent company to know about the status of construction of project and final date of delivery of possession but officials of respondent,s company were making lame excuses and has not given a response to the requests of complainants. plainants.

Nor even the payment of assured return was paid to the complainant till date.

The respondent's company are in default in payment of assured return as agreed under assured return agreement.

That utter a shoch complainants received an email dated IZ.O}.ZOZZ wherein it has been stated the project has been transferred/ handed over by Ansal Housing & Constriction Pvt Ltd company to respondent no.

2 in PageZ of30 Complaint No.

198 of ZO24 and ors. j.

HARER,q ffi GUI?UGIIAM Arbitration proceedings/ Litigation held between respondent no.

1 and,2 inter se and had issued various other emails to get execute the one sided/ arbitrary/ unilaterally agreement with complainants which is completely against the law &facts.

The terms of addendum agreements/ other documents are unilateral and arbitrary wholly one sided in favor of respondents for which complainants have clearly raised objection to their emails on various time but respondent no.2 being in dominant position has not paid any heed to their requested and ultimately, now respondent no' 2 is bent upon to cancel the unit by sending cancellation letter dated 04'12'2023 through you which is completely against the law and statutory provision of Iaw.

That by the order passed by the arbitral tribunal restraining both the respondents into arbitral litigation, from creating any third-party rights and keep the rights of the allotees intact.

12.

Thatin view of aforesaid view upheld/ analyzed by the Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal, respondent no.

2 is specifically restrained to create any third-party rights and respondent no.

2 have intentionally opted by sending such threaten notice like the present cancellation notice through its Advocate.

The complainant received the cancellation notice dated 04.1,2.2023 which was replied by the complainants on 20.1,2.2023.

The respondent no. ondent no.

2 has no right to cancel the unit rather is under legal obligation to obtain the occupation certificate from the Concerned Department and then issue demand notice as per the terms of the Developer Buyer Agreement.

That the respondent no.

2 is playing its own policy without adhering the statutory provision of law and order passed by the Hon,ble Arbitral Tribunal' violation of any order passed by any tribunal results to contempt of Court Act.

Page 8 of 30 HARER& ffi- GURUGRAM Complaint No.

1.98 of 2024 and ors. k' That the project ANSAL HUB-83 BOULEVARD, Sector- 83 Gurugram, has not been got registered / transferred in name of respondent no.

Z under the statutory laws and Parliamentary Act, i.e.

REpq Act.

The respondent no.

2 has not registered this project and in spite of doing the project registration, is bent upon to issue cancelation notice to drag the innocent customers so that under this threat notice respondent no.

Z may receive the receivable from customers like complainants without obtaining occupation certificate and without offering possession to my clients l.

That the complainant also served legal notice dated LO.OL.Z}Z3 through his counsel Sh.

Rishabh Gupta Advocate, requested to adhere the terms of the BBA dated 30.O7.2Ol-5 and to obtain the occupation certificate and then raise the demand but no reply has been sent by the respondent company rather has been bent upon to cancel the unit by sending such vague cancellation notice.

That the respondent has failed to fulfill its obligations as under Builder Buyer agreement and also has failed to provide any offer of possession of the commercial shop till now.

It is clear cut case of abuse of their dominant position of the respondents in the market and such an act needs to be penalized against the respondents.

Hence, the cause of action has been arisen to the complainants to file the present complaint before the Hon'ble Authority.

Authority.

Thus, the respondents in the given circumstances, has voluntarily committed breached terms of the builder buyer agreement dated 09.06.2015 and have acted arbitrarily with the complainant for which the respondent's company should be even prosecuted criminally for cheating, fraud and criminal breach of trust. m.

Page 9 of 30 ffiHARERA ffi..aJRUGRAM Relief sought by the complainant: The complainant has sought following rqlief(s) a.

Direct the respondent to handor*' tfru physical possession of the unit along with the delayed poss;;;i;li''.iiarges along with interest to the complainant.

10' on 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 ro plead guilry or not to plead guilry.

D.

Reply by the respondent no.

1.

11'.

The respondent has contested the complaint on the following grounds: a.

The answering respondent is a developer and has built multiple residential and commercial buildings within Delhi/NCR with a well-established reputation earned over years of consistent customer satisfaction. b' That the complainants had approached the answering Respondent for booking a shop in an upcoming project Ansal Boulevard, Sector 83, Gurugram.

Upon the satisfaction of the complainant regarding inspection of the site, title, location plans, etc. an agreement to sell dated 09.96.201,5 was signed between the parties. c' The 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 2015.lt is submitted that Page 10 of30 Complaint No.

198 of Z0Z4 and ors. o' That according to the relief claimed by the complainant, this Hon'ble Forum only has Iurisdiction to try the present complaint. complaint.

The complainant reserves his right to seek compensation from the promoter for which he shall make separate application before the Adjudicating Officer, if required.

That no other compliant, suit, is pending or decided by any other court or Forum between the same parties on same cause of action.

C.

9.

HARTR,& ffi.

GURUGI?AM the regulations at the concerned time period would regulate the project and not a subsequent legislation i.e.

RERA Act,2O16.

It is further submitted that Parliament would not make the operation of a statute retrospective in effect.

The complaint specifically admits to not paying necessary dues or the full payment as agreed upon under the builder buyer agreement.

It is submitted that the complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong.

That even if for the sake of argument, the averments and the pleadings in the complaint are taken to be true, the said complaint has been preferred by the complainant belatedly.

The complainant has admittedly filed the complaint in the year 2024 and the cause of action accrue on 09.06 .zltg as per the complaint itself.

Therefore, it is submitted that the complaint cannot be filed before the HRERA Gurugram as the same is barred by limitation That even if the complaint is admitted to be true and correct, the agreement which was signed in the year 2015 without coercion or any duress cannot be called in question today, The builder buyer agreement provides for a penalty in the event of a delay in giving possession.

Clause 34 of the said agreement provides for Rs.

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

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

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

The permit for environmental Page 11 of 30 Complaint No.

198 of 2024 and ors. d. e. ob' HARERlq GURUGRAM complaint No.

198 of 2024 and ors. clearances for proposed group housing project for Sector 103, Gurugram, Haryana on20.02.201,5.

Similarly, the approval for digging foundation and basement was obtained and sanctions from the department of mines and geology were obtained in2012.

Thus, the respondents have in a timely and prompt manner ensured that the requisite compliances be obtained and cannot be faulted on giving delayed possession to the complainant. h.

That the answering respondent las adequately explained the delay. it is submitted that the delay has been occasioned on account of things beyond the control of the answering respondent. it is further submitted that the builder buyer agreement provides for such eventualities and the cause for delay is completely 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 2008, dated 1,6.02.201.2, 3t.07 .20L2, 21,08.20 L2.

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 NGT prohibiting construction in and around Delhi and the COVID -19 pandemic among others as the causes which contributed to the stalling of the project at crucial junctures for considerable spells. i.

That the answering respondent and the complainant admittedly have entered into a builder buyer agreement which provides for the event of delayed possession. ossession.

It is submitted that clause 31 of the builder buyer agreement is clear that there is no compensation to be sought by the complainant/prospective owner in the event of delay in possession. i.

That the answering respondent has clearly provided in clause 34 the consequences that follow from delayed possession.

It is submitted that the Page L2 of 30 Complainant cannot alter the terms of the contract by preferring a k.

L m. ffiHARER.:I ffieuntlGRAM complaint before the Hon'ble HRERA Gurugram.

That admittedly, the complainant had signed and agreed on Builder Buyer Agreement dated 09.06.2015.

That perusal of the said agreement would show that it is a Tripartite Agreement wherein M/s Samyak projects pvt.

Ltd is also a party to the said agreement.

That the perusal of the Builder Buyer Agreement at page 3 would show that M/s Samyak Projects Pvt.

Ltd not only possesses all the rights and unfettered ownership of the said land whereupon the project namelyAnsal boulevard, Sector 83 is being developed, but also is 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 agreement with the confirming Party 3 i.e., M/s Samyak projects pvt.

Ltd to jointly promore, develop and market the proposed project being developed on the land as aforesaid." The said M/s Samyak Project Pvt.

Ltd. in terms of its arrangement with the respondent could not develop the said project well within time as was agreed and given to the respondent, the delay, if any, 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. n.

That in an arbitral proceeding before the Ld.

Arbitrator fustice A.K Sikri, M/s Samyak Project Pvt. has taken over the present project the answering Respondent for completion of the project and the Respondent has no locus or say in the present project. t project.

The execution of application form and payment done by the complainant in lieu therefrom is subject to Complaint No.

Page 13 of30 ffiHARERT ffi eunuennrv Complainr No.

198 of 2024 and ors. verification' It is submitted that the respondent never approached anyone to buy any unit. o' The Builder Buyer Agreement was executed only when the lawyer of the complainant had gone through the said agreement and only after their consent it got signed by the complainant.

That the possession date given therein was a tentative one and subject to Force Majeure clause which did invoke in the present case.

However, any payment made by the complainant is subject to verification with the accounts branch of the Respondent' The Respondent submits that in an arbitral proceeding before the Ld' Arbitrator f ustice A.K Sikri ,M/sSamyak project pvt. has taken over the present project the answering Respondent for completion of the project and the Respondent has no locus or say in the present project.

However, it is clarified that the Respondent No.L has not caused any wilful delay in the present project.

E.

Z 1'2' The respondent has contested the complaint on the following grounds: a' That the respondent no.Z i.e., Samyak Projects pvt.

Ltd. [Landowner) and respondent no.L i.e., ANSAL Housing constructions Ltd. [Developer/ AHL) entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 1,Z.O4.ZOl3 [hereinafter referred to as "MoU") in respect of construction and development of a project known as ANSAL BOULEVARD 83 (hereinafter referred to as "said Project"), situated on a land admeasu ring 2.60 acres (equivalent to 20 Kanal 16 Marlas), situated in village sihi, Tehsil & District Gurgaon in Sector 83 of Gurgaon, Manesar forming 1'13 of 2008 dated 01.06.2008 and License No.

1-5.09.20L0.

As per the said Mou, the respondent no.i. a part of License No.

71, of 2010 dated being the developer, Page 14 of30 Complaint No.

4 and ors. made sales of various units to the allottee[s), executed builder buyer b.

C. ffiHARER/., ffi GTJRuGRAM agreements) with allottee(s) and also received sale consideration amount from the allottee(s).

The respondent no.2 was not a party to any builder buyer agreement executed between respondent no.1 and the complainant and for the same respondent no.

2 i.e.

Samyak Projects Pvt.

Ltd. have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11- under CPC for rejection of plaint as a party in this complaint.

That the perusal of the builder buyer agreement at page 3 f"Clause D") would show that M/s Samyak Projects Pvt.

Ltd. possesses all the rights and unfettered ownership of the said land whereupon the projects namely boulevard 83, Sector 83 Gurgaon, Haryana is being developed.

That the operating lines at page 3 ("Clause D"J of the Builder Buyer Agreement are as follows: "The Developer has entered into an agreement with the confirming party i.e., M/s Samyak Projects Pvt.

As Respondent No.L failed to fulfil its obligation under the said MoU and construction of the said Project was substantially delayed.

Therefore, due to abject failure of RespoL4gnt ttto.l;!o,pepform,|ts obligations under the fte shd p br,ect the Respondent No.2 being left said MoU and to construct t with no other option, terminated the said MoU vide Termination Notice dated t0.11..2020. d.

The Respondent No.2 also published a Public Notice in the newspaper dated 1,6.12.2020 informing the public at large about the termination of said MoU by Respondent No.2 due to breach of the terms of MoU by the Respondent No. l-.

The Respondent No.1 challenged the termination of MoU before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in OMP (l) (COMM) No.431 of 2O2O in the matter titled as "Ansal Housing Limited vs.

Samyak Projects Page 15 of 30 ffi ffi fliq{s Uqii HARER,E GURUGI?AM Complaint No.

Private Limited" under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, L996.

Act, L996.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to refer the matter to Arbitration and appointed Justice A.K Sikri, (Retired fudge of Supreme Court) as the Sole Arbitrator and appointed Local Commissioner. e.

The Learned Arbitrator rejected the prayer of Respondent No.1 for stay on the termination of MoU and directed the Respondent No.1 to handover the possession of said Project on 14.10.2021 to Respondent No.Z for taking over the balance construction of the said Project.

The Learned Arbitrator vide Order dated 02.09.2022 hel:dl,that:Respondent No.2 shall also be free to approach the allottees and demand and/or collect monies from them in respect of their Units. f.

That the answering respondent acting in good faith and in the interest of public at large, in benefit/interest of the allottees of the aforementioned project, the answering respondent sought to authenticate and verify the veracity of the agreements/allotments made by AHL and urged the allottees including the complainants vide various Emails to come forward for KYC process and show bona fide by paying the balance amounts payable due as the project stood on the verge of completion. g.

It came to the knowledge of Respondent No.2 that Respondent No. t has done several dummy transactions by creating fake profiles of allottees, Thus, the Respondent No.2 issued Notice dated 04.05.2023 to the Complainant for verification of the Complainant and legitimacy of the transaction undertaken by Respondent No.1. h.

Notice dated 04.05.2023 to the Complainants in order to comply with the verification process.

It was specifically mentioned that, in case no response is received on or before 20.06.2023 from the allottees, then the allotment of the said Unit Bearing No.

G-004 shall stand forfeited/cancelled.

Despite Page 16 of30 ffiHARERA W- GtnucRAM Complaint No.

4 and ors. numerous attempts to engage with the Addressees of the Complainants, no satisfactory response or compliance was received, leading to the cancellation of the allotment of said Unit Bearing No.

G-004 in question. i.

Since Respondent No.

1 is registered as 'Promoter' in respect of the said Project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority ("REM"), Respondent No.2 requires a No Objection Certificate from the Allottees for the purpose of carrying forth the development of the said Project and obtain necessary permission from the RERA.

Thereforg, in order to change the Developer of said Project, the Respondent No.;i#U]*io written consent of the allottees of said Project.

In this regard, Respondent No.2 issued Notice dated L4.06.2023 and 03.08.2023 requOotipg the Complainant to sign the Addendum Agreement with Respondent No.2 to accept and acknowledge Respondent No.2 as the new Developer. j.

That said Ansal Housing Ltd in terms of its BBA date d 09.06.2015 with the complainant.

It is pertinent to note that the delay in completion of the project is caused due to the malfe.as; be and'hd!tig.n." of the M/s Ansal Housing Ltd. not on the prit.es!ola"ni#'il..rrr" the construction and development of the said prolecftas Bndertaken by M/s Ansal Housing Ltd. k.

That after fully understanding that respondent no.2 as a land owner have their limited liabilities to the extend provided the land only and as a confirming party and sign builder buyer agreement without having any obligation towards completion and construction and financial liability in the project and builder buyer agreement.

13.

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 of these undisputed documents and submission made by the parties.

F. jurisdiction of the authority Page 17 of 30 ffiHARERA ffi eunuenAM Complaint No.

4 and ors.

1'+' The authority observes that it has territorial as well as subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint for the reasons given below.

F.

I Territorial jurisdiction 15.

As per notification no.

1/92/201,7-lTCp dated 1,4.12.2017 issued by Town and country Planning Department, the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose with offices situated in Gurugram.

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 deal with the present complaint.

II Subject matter jurisdiction 1'6' Section 11(a)[a) of the Act, 2016 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale.

Section 11( J(al is reproduced as hereunder: Section 77 ft) 'fhe promoter shall- (a) be responsible for ail obligations, responsibirities and functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale, or to the association of allottees, as the case may be, till the conveyance of all the apartments, plots or buildingst os the case may be, to the allottees, or the common are1s to the association of allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be; Section S4-Functions of the Authority: 3a(fl of the Act provides to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and reg ulations made thereunder.

17 ' So, in view of the provisions of the Act quoted above, the authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non-compliance of obligations by Page 18 of30 G.

18.

HARERE Complaint No.

198 of Z0Z4 and ors. ffi- GURUGRAM the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer if pursued by the complainants at a later stage. ter stage.

Findings on the relief sought by the complainants.

G.l.

Direct the respondent to handover the physical possession of the unit along with the delayed possession charges along with interest @ Z4o/o per annum to the complainant.

In the present matter the complainants were allotted unit no.

G-004, admeasuringg62 sq. ft. in the project "Ansal Hub 83 Boulevard" sector g3 by the respondent-builder for a total sale consideration of {1,60,3 6,540 /-and they have paid a sum of <6g,g4,'i,68/-.A,brty-.e+,s agreement dated 09.06.2015 was executed between the allottee and respondent no.

L wherein respondent no.

Z was the confirming party.

As per clause 30 of the BBA, respondent no.

L was obligated to complete the construction of the project and hand over the possession of the subjeCt'unit within 4?,months from the date of execution of agreement or within 42 months from the, date of o-btaining all the required sanctions and approval shnptibni a4d approval necessary for commencement of construction, whichever is later.

The occupation certificate for the project has not yet been obtained from the competent authority.

As per the BBA, respondent no.

2(land owner) and respondent no. i.(developerJ entered into a MoU dated 1.2.04,2013 whereby the development and marketing of the project was to be done by the respondent no.

1, in terms of the license/permissions granted by the DTCP, Haryana.

Upon failure of respondent no.

1 to perform its obligations as per MoU and complete the construction of the project within the agreed timeline, respondent no.2 terminated the said MoU vide notice dated 10.11.2020 and issued a public notice in newspaper for termination of the MoU.

The matter pursuant to the dispute was referred to the Delhi High Court under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1,996 and L9.

Page 19 of30 HARERS, ffi- GUI?UGI?AM vide order dated 22.0L.2021 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi appointed the Hon'ble fustice A.K. stice A.K.

Sikri, former Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as a sole arbitrator of Arbitral Tribunal.

20.

The complainant i.e., Ansal Housing Pvt.

Ltd. in the petition sought various reliefs including to stay the operation of the termination letter dated 10.1,1.2020 and the public notice dated 16.1,2.2020 till the final arbitral award is given.

The Arbitral Tribunal vide order dated 31.08.202L granted no stay on termination notice dated 1,0.t1..2020 and no restraining order in this regard was passed against the M/s Samya(Ff.q,lqpts Pvt.

Further, vide order dated '+:l''lil+ ' 1,3.70.2021 of the sole arbitrator.re fiiiiit t no.

L was directed to handover the aforementioned project to the-resporrddnt no.

2.

Following the directive outlined in the order dated 13.10.2021 of the sole arbitrator, respondent no.

L handed over the project to respondent no.

2 via a possession letter dated 14.10.2021, for the purpose of undertaking the ."*rining construction tasks.

Subsequently, on 02.09.20;22, theSole Arbitrator direeted respondent no.

2 to finalize the project within the stipulated timeline, ,p..ifi.rlly by the conclusion of fune 2023 and to collect funds,ff,o{ the" altotiees with a condition that the amount so collected shalt'bflir]* l, B:frY; hccou;rt.

27.

The authority is of the vifu ttrat the Builder Uuyei'agieement dated 20.Ot.zOLs was signed by the complainants and the respondent no.

2 is a confirming party to that BBA.

In the builder buyer agreement dated 20.01.2015 it was specifically mentioned that respondent no.

2(land owner) and respondent no.

1(developer) entered into a MoU dated 1,2.04.2013 whereby the development and marketing of the project was to be done by the respondent no.

1 in terms of the license/permissions granted by the DTCP, Haryana.

Although the respondent no.2 i.e., Samyak Projects Pvt.

Ltd. cancelled the agreement vide termination notice dated 10.11.2020 and the matter is Page 20 of30 Complaint No. plaint No.

198 of 2024 and ors. ffiHARER,T ffi..eunGnAm complaint No.

1gB of 2024 and ors. subjudice before the arbitral tribunal appointed by Delhi High court vide order dated 22'01"202L. ft is relevant to refer the definition of the term ,promoter, under the sectio n Z(zk)of the Real Estate fRegulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Definitions,- (zk) "promoter" means o a person who constructs or causes to be constructed an independent building or a building consisting of apartmets, or converts an existing.buirding or a part thereof inti apartments, for the purpose of seiling ail or 'orne of the'apartments to other persons and includes hrs assignees;.or' (ii) a person who deverops rand into a project, whether or not the person also constructs struetqresgn any of the plots, for the purpose of selling to other persois all or somi of the plots in the said projecC whether with or without st,uctures thereon; or (iii) xxxxxxxx 22' The authority observes that landowner is covered by the definition of promoter under sub clause [i) or (iiJ of section Z(zk).

A person who constructs or causes to be constructed a building or apartments is a promoter if such building or apartments are meant for the purpose of selling to other persons.

Similarly, a person who develops land into a project i.e., land into plots is a promoter in respect of the fact that whether or not the person also constructs structures on any of the plots' It is clear that a person develops land into plots or constructs building or apartment for the purpose of sale is a promoter.

The words, ,,causes to be constructed" in definition of promoter is capable of covering the landowner, in respect of construction of apartments and buildings.

There may be a situation where the landowner may not himself develops land into plots or constructs building or apartment himself, but he causes it to be constructed or developed through someone else. eone else.

Hence, the landowner is expressly covered under the definition of promoter under Section 2 (zk) sub clause (i) and (ii).

23' Further, the authority observes that the occupation certificate for the project is yet to be received and the project stands transferred to the respondent no.

Z Page 2L of 30 HARER& ffiGUI?UGI?AM Complaint No.

198 of 2024 and ors. who is now responsible to complete the same.

In view of the above, the liability under provisions of Section 1B(1) of the Act & Rules read with builder buyer agreement shall be borne by both the respondents jointly and severally and the liability to handover the unit shall lie with respondent no.

24' The Respondent no.

2 has contended that the Complainants are in default of their payment obligations under the mutually agreed payment plan.

Despite issuance of several reminders and affording the Complainants final opportunities to comply with their obligations, the Respondents proceeded to cancel the allotment of the suUlect untt vide cancellation letter dated 04.1,2.2023.

25.

26.

Prior to adjudicating upon the reliefs sought by the Complainants, this Authority deems it necessary to first examine the validity and legality of the cancellation letter dated 04.12.2023 issued by the Respondents.

Upon perusal of the record, this Authority notes that the payment plan was duly executed and signed by both parties wherein respondent no.

It is an undisputed fact that the Complainants had booked the subject unit under the said payment plan and had remitted an amount of <69,94,1.68/- towards the total sale consideration of {1,60,36,s40/-, which constitutes approximately 41.o/o of the total consideration, It is relevant to highlight that, in accordance with the agreed payment plan, the Complainants were obligated to pay a sum of 167 ,62,733 /- within 90 days from the date of booking, i.e., by 05.06 .2015, with the balance amount payable at the time of offer of possession. ossession.

The Complainants have in fact remitted a higher amount, i.e., {69,94,L68f -, thereby fulfilling their obligation under the initial payment milestone.

Respondent No.

2 issued a reminder email dated 19.08.2022, followed by several subsequent reminders.

Despite such communications, the Complainants allegedly failed to discharge the Page22 of 30 HARERl\ Complaint No.

198 of 2024 and ors. ffi- GUI?UGI?AM outstanding dues, leading Respondent No.

2 to issue the final cancellation letter dated 04.1.2.2023 after granting adequate opportunity.

28' This Authority observes that the payment obligations of the complainants were governed by the agreed payment plan, wherein Respondent No. z was a confirming party. consequently, Respondent No.

2 is not entitled to raise any demand beyond or inconsistent with the terms of the said payment plan.

It is also noted that the complainants had duly paid the amount due under the plan, and the remaining balance was to be paid only upon the offer of possession.

As on date, the occupation certificate for the subject project has not been obtained.

Therefore, any demand raised by Respondent No.

2 contrary to the agreed plan is arbitrary, unjustified, and legally untenable.

In light of the foregoing, the cancellation letter dated 04.12.2023 is declared bad in eyes of law and is accordingly set aside by this Authority.

29" In view of the above, the liability under provisions of Section 1B[1) of the Act & Rules read with builder buyer agreement shall be borne by the respondents.

The complainants intend to continue with the project and are seeking delay possession charges interest on the amount paid.

Proviso to section 1B 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 been prescribed under rule 15 of the rules: "Section 78: - Return of amount and compensation pensation 1B(1).

If the promoter fails to comprete or is unabre to give possession of an apartment, plot, or building. _ in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, es the case may be, duly compreted by the date spicified therein; or due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reqson, Page 23 of 30 30.

HARER& Complaint No.

198 of Z0Z4 and ors. ffi GUI?UGI?AM he shall be liabte on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy avairabre, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, prot, buirding, as the case m-ay be, with interest at such rate os may be prescribed in this ulnary including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shail be paid, by the promoter, interestfor every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.,, (Emphasis supplied) Clause 30 of the BBA provides for handing over of possession and is reproduced below: "Clause 30 The Developer shall offer possession of the unit within a time period of 42 months from the date of execution of Agreement or within 42 months from the date of obtaining irr required sanctions and approvar necessary for commencement of construction, whichever is later.

Further, there shall be a grace period of 6 months allowed to the developer over and aboie the period of 42 months as above in offering the possession of the unit." Due date of possession and admissibility of grace period: As per clause 30 of the BBA, the possession of the allotted unit was supposed to be offered within a stipulated timeframe of within 42 months from the date of execution of Agreement or within 42 months from the date of obtaining all required sanctions and approval necessary for commencement of construc f construction, whichever is later.

The period of 42 months is calculated from the date of buyer's agreement i.e., og.o6.2ors as the date of commencement of construction is not known.

As far as grace period of 6 months is concerned the same is allowed being unqualified.

Accordingly, the due date of possession comes out to be 09.06.201,9.

Payment of delay possession charges at prescribed rate of interest: The complainants are seeking delay possession charges at the prescribed rate of Page 24 of 30 31.

32.

34. interest.

Proviso to section 1B 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 been prescribed under rule 15 of the rules.

Rule 1-5 has been reproduced as under: Rule 75, Prescribed rate of interest' [Proviso to section 72, section 78 and sub-section (4) and subsection (7) of section 191 For the purpose of proviso to section L2; section 78; and sub' sections (4) and (7) of secti-o.n'19i the "interest at the rate prescribed" shall be the State &fik.of/1adia highest marginal cost of lending rate +20/o': , ,, i,'.r ,,.

Provided that in case the Sta'pg n{r. pf lndia marginal cost of lending rate (MCLR) ispoffi, #"it"i.,trdl,k? ryplaced by suclt benchmark lending rdttls *trignttfi b.$tgpepcink of India may fix from time to time fnr le'hd1ng tb,thb general public.

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

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

Consequently, as per website of the State Bank of India i.e.

India i.e., https://sbi.co.in, the marginal cost of lending rate ,(in slrortr,MCIR) d; on date i.e., 13.05.2025 is 9.L0o/o.

Accordingly, the prescribed rate of interest will be marginal cost of lending rate +20/o i.e., Ll.LOo/o.

35.

The definition of term 'interest' as defined under section Z(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 of default.

The relevant section is reproduced below: "(za) "interest" means the rates of interest payable by the promoter or the allottee, as the case may be.

Explanation. -For the purpose of this clause- the rote of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rote of interest Page 2S of 30 ffiHARERn W- GURLTGRAM 33.

198 of 2024 and ors. which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default; the interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the amount or any part thereof till the date the amount or part thereof and interest thereon is refunded, and the interest payable by the allottee to the promoter shall be from the date the allottee defaults in payment to the promoter till the date it is paid;" Therefore, interest on the delay payments from the complainants shall be charged at the prescribed rate i.e., L 1.L0o/o by the respondent/promoter which is the same as is being granted to them,in case of delayed possession charges.

On consideration of the documents avAil le on record and submissions made ,: by the parties regarding contravention as per provisions 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. agreement.

By virtue of clause 30 of the buyer's agreement, the possession of the subject unit was to be delivered within stipulated time i.e., by Og.06.201,9.

However, till date no occupation certificate has been received by respondents and neither possession has been handed over to the allottee till date.

38.

The Authority is of considered view that there is delay on the part of the respondents to offer of possession of the allotted unit to the complainants as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter.

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

39.

Accordingly, the non-compliance of the mandate contained in section 1,1[4Xa) read with section 1B(1) of the Act on the part of the respondent/promoter is established.

As such, the allottee shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month of delay from the due date of possession i.e., 09.06.2019 till the date of valid offer of possession plus 2 months after obtaining occupation certificate from the competent authority or actual handing over of possession, whichever ffiHAREBT\ s- eunUGRAM 36.

37.

Page 26 of 30 Complaint No.

198 of 2024 and ors. is earlier at prescribed rate i.e., 77.10o/o p.a. as per proviso to section 1B[1) of the Act read with rule 15 of the rules.

The following table concludes the time period for which the complainants-allottees are entitled to delayed possession charges in terms of proviso to section 18[1) of the Act: CR no.

Period for which the complainants are entitled to DPC cR/teg/2024 W.e.f.

09.06.201,9 till valid offer of possession plus 2 months after obtaining occupation certificate from the competent authority or actual handing over of ,possession, whichever is earlier. cR/Les /2024 W.e.f.

30.07. .f.

30.07.2019 till vafid offer of possession plus 2 months after obtaining occupation certificate from the competent authority or actual handing over of possession, whichever is earlier. cR/6089 /2023 Although the due date of possession comes out to be 15.04.2019 but since the unit was endorsed in name of the complainant on 72.01.2027 i.e., after the lapse of due date of offer of possession therefore, the entitlement of complainants shall start w.e.f' 1,2.01.2021 till valid offer of possession plus 2 months after obtaining occupation certificate from the competent authority or actual handing over of possession, whichever is earlier. cR/357s /2023 w.e.f.

08.0x.201"9 till valid offer of possession plus 2 months after obtaining occup4tion certificate from the competent authority or actual handing over of possession, whichever is earlier. cR/1420 /2024 W.e.f.

08.12.2018 till valid offer of possession plus 2 months after obtaining occupation certificate from the competent authority or actual handing over of possession, whichever is earlier. cR/2877 /2024 W.e.f.

25.1,1.20L8 till valid offer of possession plus 2 months after obtaining occupation certificate from the competent authority or actual handing over of possession, whichever is earlier.

40.

As per the interim order of the sole Arbitrator the said proiect has now been physically handed over to the respondent no.

2 and there is nothing on the record to show that the said respondent has applied for occupation certificate or what is the status of the completion of development of the above-mentioned project.

In view of the above, the respondent no.

2 is directed to handover Page27 of30 ffiHARERA ffi eunuennlt HARER& Complaint No.

198 of 2024 and ors. ffi.

GURUGI?AM possession of the flat/unit to the complainant in terms of section 17 of the Act of 2016, within 2 months after obtaining occupation certificate from the competent authority.

G.lI.

Execute conveyance deed 41.. deed 41..

As per section 11,(4)[f) and section 1,7(1) of the Act of 2016, the promorer is under an obligation to get the conveyance deed executed in favour of the complainant.

Whereas as per section 19(11) of theAct of 2016, the allottee is also obligated to participate towards registration of the conveyance deed of the unit in question.

As per the interim order of the sole Arbitrator the said project has now been physically handed over to the respondent no.

2 andthere is nothing on the record to show that the said respondent has applied for occupation certificate or what is the status of the completion of development of the above-mentioned project.

2 is directed to handover possession of the flat/unit to the complainant in terms of section 1'7 of the Act of 2016, within a period of 2 months after obtaining occupation certificate from the competent authority and thereafter execute conveyance deed in favour of the complainant on payment of stamp duty and registration charges as applicable, within 3 months after obtaining occupation certificate from the competent authorily.

G.III.

Litigation cost.

42.

The complainant is also seeking relief w.r.t. litigation cost.

It is observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in civil appeal nos.6745-6749 of 202L titled as M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt.

Ltd, V/s State of Up & Ors.2021,-2022[1) RCR[c),357 has held that an allottee is entitled to claim compensation under sections 12,1.4,1.8 and section 19 which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer as per section 71, and the quantum of compensation shall be adjudged by the adjudicating officer having due regard to the factors Page 28 of 30 |-lARERA ffi" GUI?UGRAM complaint No.

1gB of 2024 and ors.

H.

43. mentioned in section 72' The adjudicating officer has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the compraints in respect of compensation. pensation.

Directions of the authority: Hence' the authority hereby passes this order and issues the following directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the promoter as per the function entrusted to the authority under section 3a$): a' The respondents/promoters jointly and severally are directed to pay interest at the prescribed rate of '1,1.'L|o/op.a. for every month of delay from due date of possession till the date of valid offer of possession plus 2 months after obtaining occupation certificate from the competent authority or actual handing over of possession, whichever is earlier; at prescribed rate i.e., 11-.L00/o p.a. as per proviso to section 1B[1) of the Act read with rule 15 of the rules. b' The respondent no.

2 is directed to hand over the actual physical possession of the unit to the complainants within 2 months after obtaining occupation certificate and thereafter execute conveyance deed in favor of complainant within 3 months from the date of obtaining occupation certificate. c' The rate of interest chargeable from the allottees by the promoter, in case of default shalr be charged at the prescribed rate i.e., 1r.1,oo/o 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 Z(za) of the Act. d.

The complainants are directed to pay outstanding dues, if any, after adjustment of interest for the delayed period.

Page 29 of 30 44. ffiHARERO ffi GURUGIIAM Complaint No.

19B of Z0Z4 and ors. e' The respondents are directed to pay arrears of interest accrued within 90 days from the date of order of this order as per rule 16(2) of the rules. f' The respondent shall not charge anything which is not the part of BBA.

This decision shall mutatis mutandis apply to cases mentioned in para 3 of this order.

The complaints stand disposed of.

Files be consigned to registry. lt, , Member Kumar) 45.

Kumar) 45.

46.

Haryana Real Dated: 13.05.2025 Chairperson Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram k Page 30 of 30 viY;rrffi^D