SUNNY NAGPAL vs SUNRAYS HEIGHTS PVT. LTD.

ffiHARERA ffi, euruenArrr BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Date of decision: 08.04.2025 Complaint No.

6523 of 202? and 23 others NAME OF THE BUILDER SUNRAYS HEIGHTS PRIVATE TIMITED PROJECT NAME "63 Golf Drive" at Sector 63A, Gurugram, Haryana Sr.

No.

Case No.

Case title Appearance L, cR/L478/2024 Ltd.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Harshit Batra, Advocate 2. cR/6523/2022 Shri Kailash Prashad Pandey, Advocate Shri Harshit Batra, Advocate 3. cR/332e /2023 Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Lalit Kumar, Advocate 4. cR/4308/2023 Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Harshit Batra, Advocate 5. cR/5246/2023 Jagdish Kunrar Vs.

Sunrays Heights Pvt.

Ltd.

Smt.

Muskan Rana, Advocate Shri Harshit Batra, Advocate 6. cR/s371/2023 Anamika Sengupta and Angshuman Debnath Vs.

Ltd. ih.Nijry Rratap singi,, Advocate Shri Tushar Bahmani, Advocate 7. cR/s700/2023 Anil Kumar St", Vif.V P*rp O;*,, Advocate Page 1 of38 i I i _l Shivani Sharma Vs.

Abhishek Pratap Singh Vs.

Haripal Malik Vs.

Ltd. ffiHARERA #hGuRUGRnrrl Complaint No.6523 of 2022 and 23 others Vs.

ShriTushar Bahmani, Advocate 8. cR/sB7 /2024 Chandani Kumari Vs.

Shri Vijender Parmar, Advocate Shri Lalit Kumar, Advocate 9. cR/657 /2024 Kirti Virmani Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Gagan Sharma, Advocate 10. cR/676/2024 Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Gagan Sharma, Advocate 11. cR/7e712024. in ; !l),,,i: Shri Nipun Rao, Advocate Shri Harshit Batra, Advocate 12. cR/t1,L4/2024 Shri Roopak Gupta, Advocate Shri Gagan Sharma, Advocate 13. cR/7379/2024" tt Tanmay Kant Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Gagan Sharma, Advocate t4. cR/r470/2024 Achin Bhardwaj Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Lalit Kumar, Advocate 15. vocate 15. cR/L71,0/2024 Radhika Pant Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate ShriTushar Bahmani, Advocate Page 2 of 38 Ki$i Virmani Vs.

Bhumesh Vs.

Roopak Gupta Vs.

HARERA GUl1UGliAM Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others 16. cR/t722/2024 Prithvi Pal Rana Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Tushar Bahmani, Advocate L7. cR/1724/2024 Prakash Kumar Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Tushar Bahmani, Advocate 18. cR/L742/2024 Mahesh Sharma Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate ShriTushar Bahmani, Advocate L9, cR/7788/2024 Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Tushar Bahmani, Advocate 20. cR/t7s4/2024 "' ,:: Nikhil Kumar Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate ShriTushar Bahmani, Advocate 2L, cR/1881/2024 Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate ShriTushar Bahmani, Advocate ZZ, cR/26e3/2024 JaspalSingh Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Tushar Bahmani, Advocate 23. cR/2779 /2024 Rakesh Arora Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Tushar Bahmani, Advocate 24. cR/278L12024 Devid Kumar Sharma Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Page 3 of38 ffi ffi {srcE wi Navin Chandra Gupta Vs.

Sunny Nagpal Vs.

Sunrays Heights Pvt, Ltd.

Ltd. ffiHARERA ffiGURUGRAM CORAM: Shri Arun Kumar Shri Vijay Kumar Goyal Shri Ashok Sangwan ORDER This order shall dispose of the aforesaid 24 complaints titled above filed before this authority under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and DevelopmentJ Act, 201,6 [hereinafter referred as "the Act") read with Rule 2B of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 201,7 (hereinafter referred as "the rules") for violation of Section 11[4)[a) of the Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all its obliga its obligations, responsibilities and functions to the allottees as per the agreement for sale executed inter se between parties.

The core issues emanating from them are similar in nature and the complainant[s) in the above referred matters are allottees of ttre project, namely, "Sixty-Three Golf Drive" situated at Sector-63 A, Gurugram being developed by the same respondent/promoter i.e., "sunrays Heights Private Limited." The terms and conditions of the allotment letter, buyer's agreements and the fulcrum of the issue involved in all these cases pertain to failure on the part of the promoter to deliver timely possession of the units in question, seeking possession of the unit along with delayed possession charges.

Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others ShriTushar Bahmani, Advocate Chairman Member Member 7.

2.

3.

The details of the complaints, status of reply, unit no., date of agreement, possession clause, due date of possession, total sale consideration, total paid amount, and relief sought are given below: Page 4 of 38 HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others Proiect Name and Location "63 Golf Drive" at Sector - 63A, Gurugram, Haryana Project area 9.7015625 acres DTCP License No. and validity 82 0f 20L4 dated 08.08.2014 Valid up to 31.12.2023 RERA Registered or Not Registered Registered Registration no.

249 of 201.7 dated 26.09.2077 valid up to 25.09.2022 Date of approval of building plans 10.03.2015 Date of environment clearance L6.09.20t6 Possession clause buyer's agreement per the t\ l 4.

Possession 'l!,1.

The developer shall endeavour to handover possessron of the said flatwithin a period of four ,years i.e., 48 months from the date of '.|cqmmqncement of the project, subject to force 'i,4ajeure and timely payment by the allottee ;tow.grds the sale consideration, in accordonce '..,W.ith, th'e te:ims stipulated in the present 'ogreembnt." Possession clause as per Affordable Housing Policy, 2OL3 . cy, 2OL3 .

As per clause l(iv) of the Affordobte Housing Policy,2013 "All such projects shall be required to be necessarily completed within 4 years from the approval of building plans or grant of environmental clearance, whichever is later.

This date shalt be referred to as the "date of commencement of project" for the purpose of this policy.

The licenses shall not be renewed fi;gyond the said 4 years period from the date of commencement of proi ect." Due date ofpossessio[ 16.03.202L (Calculated from the date of environment clearance being later including grace period of -6 months in lieu of Covid-19) Occupation certificate 3L.L2.2024 Sr.

Complaint No., Case Title, Date of filing of complaint and reply status Unit no. and size Allotment letter and date of execution of BBA Total Sale Consideration / Total Amount paid by complainant - Offer rf --- possession (OOP) and publication of cancellation 1. cR/1478/2024 SunilGupta Vs, 33, Tower F Carpet area- 613.31 sq. ft.

201.6 (Date not specified on buyer's agreement at BSP-{25,00,790l- (Page 63 of reply) AP-<22.78.300/ OOP: Not Off,ered Page 5 of38 ffi ffi ffiHARERA ffiaJRUGnAM Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others Sunrays Heights Pvt.

DOF219.04.2024 Reply: 79.09.2024 Balcony area- 95.10 sq. ft. (Page 35 of Complaint) page?Z of complaint) (Page 64 of reply) Publication in Hindi newspapel "AaiSamai": 06.04.2024 (Page 66 of reolv) 2. cR/6s23/2022 Shivani Sharma Vs.

Ltd, DOF220.10.2022 Reply: 1L.7L.2024 87, Tower H Carpet area- 605.10 sq. ft.

Balcony area 94.94 sq. ft. [Page 31 of ComplaintJ 04.02.201,6 (Page 17 of Complaint) BSP-<24,67,8701- (Page 52 of reply) AP-<22,46,460/- (Page 53 of reply) OOP: Not Offered Publication in Hindi newspaper "AaiSamai": 06.04.2024 (Page 50 of reply) 3. cR/3329/2023 Abhishek Pratap Singh Vs.

Lrd.

DOF: 18.07.2023 Reply: 27.06.2024 104, Tower C Carpet area- 361,89 sq: ft.

Balcony area- 69.84 sq. it. [Page 34 of Complaint) 01.03. nt) 01.03.2016 (Page 21 of Complaint) Ediss s* &t BSP-t 14,82,490/- (Page 67 of reply) AP-{13,35,23gl- [Page 68 of reply) OOP: Not 0ffered Publication in Hindi newspaper "AaiSamai": 06.04.2024 (Page 63 of reply) 4. cR/4308/2023 HaripalMalik Vs.

DOFr 22.09.2023 Reply: 07.08.2024 Balcony area- 94.94 sq. ft. [Page 32 of complaint) 04.02.20t6 [Page 19 of complaint) BSP-\24,67,870/- (Page 51 ofreply) AP-<22,46,777 /- (Page 53 ofreply) OOP: Not Offered Publication in Hindi newspape "Aai Samai": 06.04,2024 (Page 49 of reply) 5. cR/s246/2023 Jagdish Kumar Vs.

DOF: 08.11.2023 Reply: 01.08.2024 .-32, Tower E, Carpet area- 613.31sq. ft.

Balcony area- 95.10 sq. ft. (Page 15 of complaint) 04,02-.201.6 I (Page 17 of complaintJ BSP-{25,00,790l- (Page 65 of replyJ AP-<6,76,995/- IPage 66 of reply) OOP: Not 0ffered Publication in English newspaper "The Statesman": 28.04.2023 Page 60 ofreplv) 6. cR./s371/2023 Anamika Sengupta and Angshuman Debnath 66, Tower D Carpet area- 605.10 sq. ft.

2016 (Date not specified on buyer's agreement at BSP-<24,67,9701- (Page 69 of reply) AP-123,33,101/- OOP: Not 0ffered Page 6 of38 ffi ffi {iq{s Gqi HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others _-l Vs.

Sunrays Heights Pvu Ltd.

DOF: 24.7L.2023 Reply: 2L.08.2024 Balcony area- 94.94 sq, ft. (Page 33 of Complaint) page 16 of ComplaintJ (Page 70 ofreply) Publication in Hindi newspaper "Aai Samai": 06.04.2024 (Page 64 of reply) cR/s7oo/2023 Anil Kumar Vs.

DOFr 1,3.12.2023 Replv: 27.09.2024 37, Tower E Carpet area- 605.10 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 94.94 sq. ft. (Page 32 of Complaint)', 20L6 (Date not specified on buyer's agreement at page 19 of Complaint) BSP-124,67,870/- (Page 66 of reply) AP-<22,46,777 /- (Page 67 of reply) OOP: Not Offered Publication in Hindi newspapel "AaiSamai": 06.04.202+ fPaee 61 ofreply) 8. cR/sB7l2O24 Chandani Kumari Vs.

DOF: 1,5.02.2024 Reply: 23.05. ly: 23.05.202+ 94, Tower H' i$!

Balcony area- 69.84 sq. ft. [Page 30 of oonrplaint) lt 02.07.2019 (Page no.

16 of Complaint- Taken from stamp paper annexed to BBA) BSP-<74,99,9201- (Page 21, of replyl AP-<12,75,952/- (Page 22 of reply) OOP: Not 0ffered Publication in Hindi newspaper "AaiSamai": 06.04.2024 (Page 15 ofreply) 9. cR./657 /2024 Kirti Virmani Vs.

DOF: 21.02.2024 Reply: 22.10.2024 44, Tower D Carpet area- 361.89 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 69.84 sq. ft. (Page 34 of complaint) 20t6 [Date not specified on buyer's agreement at BSP-,;114,82,480/- '(Page 34 of complaint) AP-{13,50,064/- (Page 20 ofreply) OOP: Not Offered Publication in Hindi newspaper "AaiSamai": 06.04.2024 (Page 1,7 of replyJ 10. cR/676/2024 Aparajita Mishra Vs.

DOF: 21..02.2024 Reply: 22.1,0.2024 .65; Toiver D Carpet area- 361.89 sq. ft.

Balcony area 69.84 sq. ft. (Page 35 of complaint) 28.L2.20L8 (Page no.

21 of Complaint- Taken from stamp paper annexed to BBA) BSP:{14,82,480/- (Page 35 of complaint) AP-t L3,81.,818/- (Page 19 ofreply) OOP: Not Offered Publication in I Hindi newspaper'l "AaiSamai": I 06.04.2024 | (Page 17 of reply inl cR/6s7 /2024) | 11. cP-/79L/2024 Bhumesh Vs.

154, Tower B Carpet area- 361.89 sq. ft.

2016 (Date not specified on BSP-{ 14,82,480/- (Page 89 of reply) OOP: Not Offered Page 7 of 38 ffi ffi HARERA GUIlUGIIAM Complaint No.

Ltd, DOF:01.03.2024 Reply: 27.06.2024 Balcony area- 69.84 sq. ft. (Page 24 of complaint) buyer's agreement at page 18 of Complaint) AP-113,50,064/- (Page 90 of reply) Publication in Hindi newspaper "AaiSamai": 06.04.2024 (Page BB of reply) 12. cR./LLt4/2024 Roopak Gupta Vs.

Sunrays Heights Pvt Ltd.

DOF:21.03.2024 Reply: 22.10.2024 19, Tower D Carpet area- 356.18sq. ft.

Balcony area 69. y area 69.84 sq, ft, (Page 30 of complaint),' BBA not annexed BSP-{ 14,59,640/- (Page 14 of reply) AP-<tt,32,2271- (Page 15 ofreply) As stated by the complainant OOP: Not Offered Publication in Hindi newspaper "AaiSamai": 2t.06.2024 fPase 13 ofreolv] 13. cR/t3r9/2024 Tanmay Kant Vs.

DOF:08.04.2024 Replyr 04.07.202+ 46, Tower C Carpet area- 604.83 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 95.10 sq. ft. (Page 33 of complaintJ 04.02.20t6 (Page 20 of complaint) BSP-<24,66,870/- (Page 2L of replyJ ',, :.,.:Ai,122,45,8621- [Fage 22 of reply) OOP: Not Offered Publication in English newspaper "Hindustan Times": Undated [Paee 25 of replv ) 14. cF./1470/2024 Achin Bhardwaj Vs.

Sunrays Heights PvL Ltd.

DOF:19.04.2024 Reply: 19.09.2024 73, Tower D Carpet area- 604,83 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 04.02.2016 (Page 21 of complaintJ BSP-124,66,870/- (Page 61 ofreply) AP-<22,45,862/- (Page 62 of reply) OOP: Not Offered Publication in Hindi newspape "AaiSamai": 06.o4.2024 (Paee 59 of reply 15.

CR/L710/2024 - Radhika Pant i Vs. \ Sunrays Heights Pvt.

DOF226.04.2024 Reply: 09.09.2024 24, TowerA Balcony area- 69.84 sq. ft. (Page 35 of Complaint) 79.04.201,6 (Page?? of Complaint) 'BSP-i14,82 ,+80 / - ,,(P,1ee 67 of rePly) AP-<13,57,077 l- (Page 68 of reply) OOP: Not Offered Publication in Hindi newspapr "AaiSamaj": 06.04.2024 (Pase 62 of reply 16. cR/L722/2024 Prithvi Pal Rana Vs.

66, Tower B Carpet area- 605.1Osq. ft.

Balcony area- 94.94 sq. ft.

04.02.201,6 (Page 20 of Complaint) BSP-<24,67,870/- (Page 63 ofreply) AP-<22,46,777 /- (Page 64 of reply) OOP: Not Offered Publication in Hindi newspaper Page 8 of 38 HARERA ffiGUI?UGRAM Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others DOF:26.04.2024 Reply: 09.09.2024 [Page 33 of Complaint) "AaiSamai": 2t.06.2024 IPaee 60 ofreplvl 17. cP./1724/2024 Prakash Kumar Vs.

DOFz25.O4.2O24 Reply: 09.09.2024 83, Tower D Carpet area- 604.83sq, ft.

Balcony area- 95.10 sq. ft. (Page 36 of Complaint) 79.04.201.

79.04.201.6 (Page 23 of Complaint) BSP-<24,66,8701- (Page 65 of replyJ AP-<24,45,862/- (Page 66 of reply) OOP: Not 0ffered Publication in Hindi newspaper "AaiSamai": 06.04.2024 (Pase 60 of replvl 18. cP./1742/2024 Mahesh Sharma Vs.

DOFt24.04.2024 Reply: L3.08.2024 31, Tower G Carpet area- 356.18sq. fg:.

Balcony area; 69.84sq;,ft. (Page 29,of Complaih1).

04.02.201.6 (Fage 16 of Cbrnplain0 BSP-114,59,640/- (Page 63 of reply) AP-<1,3,29,280/- (Page 64 of reply) OOP: Not Offered Publication in Hindi newspaper "Aai Samaj": 21.06.2024 IPaee 60 of replvl 19.

DOF:07.05.2024 Reply: 26.09.2024 cP./t788/2024 ).': Navin Chandra Gupqfl Sunrays Heights Pvfl Ltd. : 28,07,2016 (Page 24 of Complaint- Taken from stamp paper annexed to BBA) BSP-<24,66,870/- (Page 63 of reply) AP-\22,45,862/- (Page 64 of reply) OOP: Not Offered Publication in Hindi newspaper "Aai Samai": 2t.06.2024 IPage 60 of reply) 20. cF./1794/2024 NikhilKumar Vs.

DOF:07.05.2024 Reply: 30.09.2024 117, Tower A Carpet area- 604.83sq. ft.

Balcony area- 95.10 sq. ft. [Page 32 of Complaint) 2016 (Date not specified on buyer's agreement at page 19 of Complaint) BSP-<24,66,8701- (Page 64 of reply) AP-\22,+5,862/- (Page 65 of reply) OOP: Not 0ffered Publication in Hindi newspaper "Aai Samai": 2t.o6.2024 fPaee 6]. of reply) 21. cF./IBBL/2024 Sunny Nagpal Vs.

DOF:07.05.2024 Reply: 30.09.2024 33, Tower G Carpet area- 605.10sq. ft.

Balcony area- 94.94 sq. ft. fPage 35 of Complaint) 21.08,2018 (Page 21 of Complaint) BSP-<24,67,870/- (Page 64 of reply) AP-<23,33,9241- (Page 65 ofreply) OOP: Not 0ffered Publication in Hindi newspapt "AaiSamaj": 21.06.2024 (Paee 61 ofreplv 22. cR/2693/ZOZ4 22, Torver B 04.02.201-6 BSP-<24,66,870/- (Page 107 ofreply) OOP: Not Offered Page 9 of 38 114, Tower B Calpet area- 604.83sq. ft, ':,,' Baltony area' 95,10 sq. ft. (Page 38 of .Complaint) ffiHARERA S.--GURUGRAM Complaint No.6523 of 2022 and 19 others faspal Singh Vs.

Singh Vs.

DOF:t7.06.2024 Reply: 15.01.2025 Carpet area- 604.83sq. ft.

Balcony area- 95.10 sq. ft. (Page 32 of Complaint) (Page 19 of Complaint) AP-<22,45,862/- (Page 108 of reply) Publication in Hindi newspapel "AaiSamai": 16.t0.2024 (Page 104 of reply) 23. cR/2779/2024 Rakesh Arora Vs.

DOFI lt.06.2024 Reply: 15.01.2025 82, Tower F Carpet area- 613.31sq. ft.

Balcony area- 95.10 sq. ft. (Page 32 of , ComplaintJ ' ,"i.: 10.03.202? (Page 20 of Complaint) 1 BSP-{25,00,790l- (Page 171 ofreply) AP-<22,76,731/- (Page 1,72 of reply) OOP: Not Offered Publication in Hindi newspaper "AaiSamai": t6.t0.2024 (Page 168 of renlv) 24. cR/2781/2024 Devid Kumar Sharma Vs.

DOF:1,1,.06.2024 Reply: 1,5.01,.2025 48, Tower I Carpet area- 356.18 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 69.84 sq. ft. (Page 35 of Complaint) 44.02.201.6 (vag.eZz of Complaint) BSP-{14,59,640/- [Page 65 ofreply) AP-?.1,3,29,280 /- (Page 66 of reply) OOP: Not 0ffered Publication in English newspaper "Hindustan Times": October,2024 (Specific date not mentioned) (Paee 62 of reply) The complainant herein is seeking,the following retiefs; L.

Direct the respondent to pay interest @ 8.65% per annum as per the prevailing MCLR plus 20lo on the paid amount for delay period starting from 1.5.03.2021 till the date of actual handing over of physical possession or offer of possession plus 2 months after obtaining 0C, whichever is earlier.

To quash letter dated 1.5,03,2024 issued by the respondent demanding illegal arbitrary amount of Rs.7,96,970/- without *n fiising the last tax invoice/demand letter.

Direct the respondent to handover actual physical possession ofthe booked unit.

4.

To raise the last demand as per Haryana Affordable Housing Policy towards consideration of the said unit in order to make the payment.

5. ayment.

5.

The Authority to guide as to in which bank account complainant should deposit last demand if raised by respondent as escrow account of respondent is freezed by Authority vide its order dated 1.2.02.2024.

6.

Direct the respondent to get the copy of application for 0C as such the respondent claims that they have applied for OC.

Note: In the table referred above certain abbreviations have been used.

They are elaborated as f,ollows: Abbreviation Full form DOF Date of filing of complaint BSP Basip Sales Price AP Amount paid by the allottee/s OOP Offer of Possession Page 10 of 3B HARERA GUl?UGRAM Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others 4.

The facts of all the complaints filed by the complainant-allottee[s) are similar.

Out of the above-mentioned cases, the particulars of lead case CR/7478/2024 titled as "Sunil Gupta Vs.

Sunrays Heights Private Limited" are being taken into consideration for determining the rights of the allottee(s) qua the relief sought by them.

Proiect and unit related details The particulars of the project the details of sale consideration, the amount paid by the complainant[s), da,I-g-:o{.nrgposed handing over the possession, delay period, if any, have been detailed in the following tabular form: a Vs, Sunrays A.

5. cR/7478/2024 -"Sun Heights Private Limited S.No.

Particulars Details 1.

Name of the project "Sixty-Three Golf Drive", Sector 63-A, Gurugram" 2.

Prolect area 5.90 acres 3.

Nature of the::proiect ,' Affordable Group Housing 4.

DTPC License no. and validity 82 of 2074 dated 08.08.2014 valid upto 07.08.2019 5.

Name of licensee Sunrays Heights Pvt.

Ltd., Smt.

Kiran ::WJ-a Dharam 6.

RERA registration details Registered Registration no.

249 of 2017 dated 26.09.2017 7.

Allotment letter 30.06.2017 fPase 20 of complaintl Builder Buyer Agreement 2016 fDate not specified on buyer's agreement at pageZZ of complaint) B.

Unit no.

F-33, Tower F (zBHK-Type C) fAllotment letter at page 20 of complaint') 9.

Unit area admeasuring Carpet Area- 613.

Area- 613.31 sq. ft Balcony Area- 95.10 sq. ft. [Allotment letter at pase 20 of complaint) Page 11 of38 ffi ffi ilff{{ ,rqi HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others 10.

Possession clause 4.

Possession "4.L The developer shall endeavour to handover possession of the said flat within a period of four years i.e., 48 months from the dote of commencement of the project, subject to force majeure and timely payment by the allottee towards the sale consideration, in accordance with the terms stipulated in the present agreement." (BBA at page 25 of complaint) l4; per aflornable hovst - ':1(iv) All such projects shall be required to be 'necessarily completed within 4 years from '.thg. approval of building plans or grant of t€nilionmental cleorance, whichever fs later.

This,date shall be referred to as the "date of iommencement of project" for the purpose of this policy.

The licences shall not be renewed beyond the said 4 years period from the date of co m m encement of p r oj ect. " (Emphasis supplied) 11.

Date of building plan I approval ,tr.0.03.2015 (Page 33 of reply) 1.2.

Date of environment clearance 16.09.2016 (Page 39 of reply) 13.

Due date of possession E.

161p3.?oZL fOafculatbd from date of environment clearances i.e., 16.09.20L6 being later, which cor-,1tes out to be 16.09.2020 + 6 months as per HAREM notification no.

9/3-2020 dated 26.05.2020 for projects having completion date on or after 25.03.2020, on account of force majeure conditions due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic') L4.

Basic sale consideration <25,00,7 g0 / - (as per Payment Plan Detail Report at page 63 of replv') Total sale consideration <26,1.4,259 /- (as per Payment PIan Detail Report at page 63 of replv') 15.

Amount paid by the complainant <22,78,300 /- (as per Payment Plan Detail Report at page 64 of replvl Page 12 of 38 ffi ffi ilq{s q{i HARERA GUl?UGl?AM Facts of the complaint Complaint No.6523 of 2022 and 23 others B.

6. hers B.

6. f acts oI the complalnt The complainant has made following submissions in the complaint: a) That in 2015, the complainant got information about an advertisement, in a local n.*"rrlper about affordable housing project "Sixty-Three Golf Drive" situated at'S.6cfi $B AlCullugf-am, Haryana.

The marketing staff of 3 the respondent shottffi y l,1die 'of the project and invited the I ' \: :i:::r:li':i:1 '::::,..::: complainant for site visitl$he-bblhplainant visited the project site and met with local staff 'of.respondent,.who gave an application form and -i .; ,. , ".b .t assured that pos'$b_9'Sloir W-qUld be. deliffeied within 36 months as it is a government proipi$ ,illmnEi....ll-g* commeniernent of project for the purpose of this policy.

The licences shall not be renewed beyond the said 4-year period from the date of commencement of project, payment instalment is to be given every 6 months and on the date of last instalment, the possession would be delivered. b) That the complainant applied for a 2-BHK residential unit vide application bearing no SGDB0898 in the said project of respondent and 1,6.

Final Reminder letter sent by respondent to complainant 75.03.2024 (Page 60 of reply) 1,7.

Publication of cancellation in newspaper 0 6.0 4.202 4, 12.0 4.202 4 (Page 60 and 62 of reply, respectively) 18.

Letter by the respondent confirming cancellation on 21,.04.2024 and requesting the complainant allottee to collect cheque of refunded amount 22.04.2024 [Page 62 of reply dated 23.10.2024) 19.

Occupation certificate '$$flP,zoz+ .$aken from another file of the same project) ,fAbnlied on 08.12.2023) 20.

Offer of possession i Not offered Page 13 of 38 HARERA GtJ11UGRAM paid an amount of \1-,24,040/- towards booking a unit vide receipt no.

1180 dated 76.01,.2016, along with application form.

The respondent acknowledged the payment and issued payment receipt.

Subsequently, the complainant was allotted a unit through a draw of lots.

That on 11.01 . on 11.01 .201,6, the respondent issued a provisional allotment-cum- demand letter against the allotted unit F-LB, admeasuring 603.83 sq. ft., including a balcony area of 95.10 sq. ft.

The unit was booked under the time linked payment plan as per the mandate under the affordable housing policy 20L3 for sale consideration of 124,66,870 /-.

That on 04.02.2016, a pre-printed, unilateral, and arbitrary buye'r's allotted unit was executed between the parties.

As per clause 4.L, the respondent had to complete the construction of unit and handover the possession within 4 years from the date of commencement of project.

That till date the respondent has raised a demand of <22,78,300/-, which has been paid by the complainant.

However, upon noticing that there is very slow progress in the construction of subject unit since long time, he raised his grievance to the respondent.

That the complainant has always made timely payment of his instalments and the last instalment was paid on 24.01.2022.

The project is already delayed by more than 3 years and is expected to take another 1-2 years for the completion of the project.

Complaint No.6523 of 2022and 23 others c) d) e) g) That it was promised by the respondent at the time of receiving payment for the unit that the possession of fully constructed unit as shown in newspaper at the time of sale, would be handed over to the complainant on and after the payment of last and final instalment These instalments were due every six months from the commencement of construction Page 14 of ll8 ffi ffi wu{q ilri HARERA ffiGU|?UG|IAM work and the respondent was obligated to deliver the completed project as and when the respondent takes the last instalment or by maximum till 29.09.2020.

That the facts and circumstances enumerated above would lead to the only conclusion that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the respondent and as such, they are liable to be punished and compensate the complainant. mplainant.

That due to above acts of the respondent and of the terms and conditions of the buyer's agreement and Affordable housing Policy 201.3, the complainant has been unnecessarily made liable to pay interest on the capital amount, which amounts to unfair trade practice.

That the respondent issued a letter dated 1,5.03.2024 charging an amount of 17,96,970f-, which is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Haryana Affordable Policy 201.3.

The said letter is issued as reminder, without even raising the last demand against the sales consideration to the complainant.

Further, the escrow bank account of the respondent was blocked by the Authority vide its order dated 12.02.2024 and the respondent is demanding money from the complainant by way of physical cheque, further coercing the complainant into signing an affidavit and an indemnity-cum-undertaking.

The same shall be treated as contempt of this Authority .

That as per section 19 (6) the Real Estate fRegulation and Development) Act,201,6 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the complainant has fulfilled his obligations with respect to making timely payments.

Therefore, the complainant herein is not in breach of any of the terms of the agreement.

It is the respondent who is deliberately and wilfully refraining from Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others hl i) i) k) Page 15 of38 Complaint No.6523 of 2022 and 23 others C.

7.

III.

IV. booked unit.

1+.,;:',''i''l\r,i;'i., .: To raise the last demand as per Haryana Affordable Housing Policy towards consideration of the sqid unit in order to make the payment.

To quash letter dated 15.03.2024 issued by the respondent demanding illegal arbitrary amount of \7 ,96,970 /- without even raising the last tax invoice/demand letter.

The Authority tou$rEjde asjto in which bank account complainant should deposit last demand if raised by respondent as escrow account of respondent is freezed by Authority vide its order dated 1,2.02.2024.

2.02.2024.

Direct the respondent to get the copy of application for OC as such the respondent claims that they have applied for OC.

V.

VI.

B.

D.

9.

HARERA ffiOUI?UGRAM raising the final demand as per the amended construction linked payment plan of the Haryana Affordable Policy, 20L3.

Relief sought by the complainant The complainant has sought the following relief[s): I.

Direct the respondent to pay interest @ 8.650/o per annum as per the prevailing MCLR plus 2% on the paid amount of <22,78,300/- for delay period starting from L5.03.2021 till the date of actual handing over of physical possession or offer of possession plus 2 months after obtaining OC, whichever is earlier. ,.:;.

II.

Direct the respondent to han$over iactual physical possession of the 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 to plead guilty or not to plead guilty.

Reply by the respondent The respondent has contested the complaint on the following grounds. a) That the complainant vide an application form SGDB-S381 applied to the respondent for allotment of a unit and was allotted a unit bearing no. [r- 33 in tower F, having carpet area of 613.13 sq. ft. and balcony area of 95.10 sq. ft. vide allotment letter dated 11.01.2016.

The complainant represented to the respondent that they should remit every instalment Page 16 of38 on time as per the payment schedule.

The respondent had no reason to suspect the Bonafide of the complainant and proceeded to allot the unit in question in their favor. b) Thereafter, a builder buyer agreement stamp paper dated 13.10.2016 was executed between the parties in 2016.

The agreement was consciously and voluntarily executed between the parties and terms and conditions of the same are binding on the parties. .!!4n!a". c) That as per clause 4. clause 4.L of , ,,Tr-###H9;ot, the due date of possession was subiect to the allottee travindjd with all the terms and conditions HARERA Complaint No, 6523 of 2022 and 23 others GUl?UGl?AM of the agreement.

That being a contractual relationship, reciprocal promises are bound to be maintained.

The respondent endeavored to offer possession within a period of 4 years from the date of obtainment of all government sanctions and permissions including environment clearance, whichever is later.

The possession clause of the agreement is on par with clause 1[iv) of the Affordable Housing Policy, 201,3.

That the building plan of the project was approved on 10.03.2015 from DGTCP and the environment clearance was received on 1,6.0g.2016.

Thus, the proposed due date of possession, as calculated from the date of EC, comes out to be 21,.08.2021.

The Ld.

Authority vide notification no.9 /3-2020 dated26.05.2020 had allowed an extension of 6 months for the completion of the project the due of which expired on or after 25.03.2020, on account of unprecedented conditions due to outbreak of Covid-19.

Hence, the proposed due date of possession comes out to be 1.6.03.2021.

That the offer of possession was also subject to the incidence of force majeure circumstances under clause 16 of the agreement.

That additionally, even before normalcy could resume, the world was hit by Page L7 of 38 d) e) HARERA Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others GUIlUGIIAM the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Ministry of Home Affairs, GOI vide notification dated March 24, 2020, bearing no.

40-3 /2020-DM-l tA) recognized that India was threatened with the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic and ordered a complete lockdown in the entire country for an initial period of 21 days which started on March 25, 2020.

By various subsequent notifications, the Ministry of Home Affairs, GOI further extended the lockdown from time to time. e to time.

Various State Governments, including the Government of Haryana, have also enforced various strict measures to prevent the pandemic including imposing curfew, lockdown, stopping all commercial activities, stopping all construction activities.

Despite, after above stated obstructions, the nation was yet again hit by the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic and again all the activities in the real estate sector were forced to stop.

It is pertinent to mention, that considering the wide spread of Covid-L9, firstly night curfew was imposed followed by weekend curfew and then complete curfew.

That during the period from 12.04.2021, to 24.07.2021 (103 days), each and every activity including the construction activity was banned in the State.

It is also to be noted that on the same principle, the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram granted 6 months extension for all ongoing Projects vide Order/Direction dated 26th of May, 2020 on account of 1st wave of COVID-19 Pandemic.

The said lockdown was imposed in March 2020 and continued for around three months.

As such extension of only six months was granted against three months of lockdown.

0 That as per license condition, developer are required to complete these projects within a span of 4 years from the date of issuance of environmental clearance since they fall in the category of special tinre Page 18 of 38 HARERA GURUGllAM Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others bound proiect under Section 78 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act L975, for a normal Group Housing Project there is no such condition applied hence it is required that 4 years prescribed period for completion of construction of Project shall be hindrance free and if any prohibitory order is passed by competent authority like National Green Tribunal or Hon'ble Supreme Court then the same period shall be excluded from the 4 years period or moratorium shall be given in respect "f flB*R-f-$.qd also. $.qd also. g) That it is safely conclud"O ,Hffi fiafd delay of 422 days in the seamless 1+ {iun,}.}1.14j xii execution of the project yras dud'tb'g'bnuine force majeure circumstances hl i) and the said period shall not be added while computing the delay.

Thus, from the facts indicated above and the documents appended, it is comprehensively established that a period of 422 days was consumed on account of circumstances beyond the power and control of the respondent, owing to the passing of aforesaid Orders by the statutory authorities.

All the circumstances stated hereinabove come within the meaning of force majeure in terms with the agreement.

That in a similar case where such orders were brought before the Ld.

Authority was in Complaint No.

3890 of 2021 titled "shuchi Sur and Anr. vs.

M/s.

Venetian LDF Projects LLP" which was decided on 17.05.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Authority was pleased to allow the grace period and hence, the benefit of the above affected 166 days need to be rightly given to the respondent.

That even the UPRERA Authority at Gautam Budh Nagar has provided benefit of 1"16 days to the developer on account of various orders of NGT and Hon'ble Supreme Court directing ban on construction activities in Delhi and NCR, 10 days for the period 01,.t1,.2018 to 10.11.2018,4 days Page 19 of 38 HARERA GUl?UGl?AM for 26.70.20L9 to 30.1.0.20L9, 5 days for the period 04.1L.2079 to 08.11.2019 and 102 days for the period 04.17.2019 to 74.02.2020.

The Authority was also pleased to consider and provided benefit of 6 months to the developer on account of the effect of COVID also.

That the Hon'ble UP REAT at Lucknow while deciding appeal No.

541 of 20tL in the matter of Arun Chauhan Versus Gaur sons Hi- Tech Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vide order dated 02.11..2021 has also granted the extension of tL6 days to the propte,r on account of delay in completion of construction on ,..oUilffif t.r,.i. if t.r,.i.tion/ban imposed by the Environment Pollution [PreVenfi'bn & Control) Authority as well vide order of Hon'ble Supf$doGpurt Dated L4.LL.2019.

That Karnataka RERA vide 'noti.fication No. "K-REM/S ecy /04 /201,9-20 :, and No.

RERA/SEAil.fl.&-O+120L9-20 has also granted 9 months extension :.:;: ., .1 .1. :: in lieu of Covid-X,P,;lr?l"mic,Moreover, this Ld.

Authority had in similar l#" matters of the had alloWed tlp b,bnqfit Of obvid, Brace period of 6 months in a no. of cases. l) That despite there being several defaulters in the project, the respondent had to infuse funds into the project and have diligently developed the project in question.

Despite the default caused, the respondent got sanctioned loan from SWAMIH fund of Rs.

44.30 Crores to complete the project and has already invested Rs.

35 Crores from the said loan amount towards the project.

The respondent has already received the FIRE NOC, LIFT NOC, the sanction letter for water connection and electrical inspection report. m) That the respondent has applied for occupation certificate on 08.1.2.2023.

Once an application for grant of occupation certificate is submitted for approval in the office of the statutory authority concerned, respondent Page 20 of 38 Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others i) k) HARERA GU11UGRAM ceases to have any control over the same.

The grant of sanction of the occupation certificate is the prerogative of the concerned statutory authority over which the respondent cannot exercise any influence.

Therefore, the time utilized by the statutory authority to grant occupation certificate to the respondent is required to be excluded from computation of the time utilized for implementation and development of the project.

That the complainant has bB llotted unit under the Affordable : Housing Policy, 2073 whichrBnd4 huse 5(iii)(b), clearly stipulated the * 4',Eli a t: :;r 5 payment of consideratlo "Uf .gltb- fihi;! in six equal installments. tallments.

The complainant is liablffill$'iilr g,,qalm.nt of the instalments as per the government poli6ri$$'_!fder w,tiitth,rthb uhit is allotted.

At the time of application, the ffirrinrni-*"s aware bf 'the duty to make timely Hx" + -n ' : payment of ttr4 rlpi,-L"llry,_","r ,SIo$., o1ly,ras.'per the Policy, but the complainant wasffi:Unileri;thq;,olligdtioh to make timely payment of installments as agreed$er,clause 3 of the BBA.

That the complainant has:fbjJ"g_-4 ake any payment of installment at "withi n 3 6 mo nffiffi ,S$,n Yf1|u..se "1,p.1ef t$llcttm ent" al o n g with p arti al payment toward$)prBv{oU$ i st&hf{entd, The complainant cannot rightly contend under the nW ihai it e;itteged period of delay continued even after the non-payment and delay in making the payments.

The non- payment by the complainant affected the construction of the project and funds of the respondent.

That due to default of the complainant, the respondent had to take loan to complete the project and is bearing the interest on such amount.

The respondent reserves the right to claim damages before the appropriate forum.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others n) o) PageZl of 38 HARERA ffiGURUGIIAM That it is the obligation of the complainant under the Affordable Housing Policy, 20t3 (as on the date of Allotment) and the Act to make timely payments for the unit.

In case of default by the complainant the unit is liable to be cancelled as per the terms of Affordable Housing Policy,2013.

That the complainant stands in default of payments as per the payment plan.

The respondent sent various demand notices dated 77.10.20L6, 24.04.2017, 05.05.20\7,30.05.20t8, 77.07.20L9 and 3 t.t2.202L to the complainant to pay the iryS##ng1 Th final reminder letter dated L5.03.2024, 22.03.2024 l*.affi.nt+.ZOZ+ were also senr to the ..

1. ',- complainant.

However, the. ever, the.tbmplainant failed to adhere to these letters tl and make the outsffilii i bnt That in complete dbfuLl$ tna"'#ififlriidant rJliaa to make payment within 15 days of remindbr letter dated 22.03.2024 and thus, the respondent also made publimtloq in nindi newspaper on 06.04 .2024.

1"F' . - That due to non-Q}$ Hift "fitt e outstandi"q dues by the complainant even after issuanc'&,.).L'F,fr'md[r r.*iniier'and demand letters by the respondent, the responhen6ftaitfl,l.q other choice but to cancel the unit allotted to the c.o.6.npJainant as pefi'the,frovi$ions of the BBA.

The unit allotted has beenftr*Fc.ffi,oil{ lt.oa.zoi4land shme was conveyed to the complainant vid!.",le[maii , i"e.. dated 22.04.2024, informing rhe complainant to collect the refund payment as per provisions of the BBA.

That this Hon'ble Authority has adjudicated similar issues of termination/cancellation and has upheld the same noting the default on part of the Complainant.

The respondent cancelled the unit of the complainant with adequate notices.

Thus, the cancellation is valid.

That without prejudice, assuming though not admitting, relief of delayed possession charges, if any, cannot be paid without adjustment of Page 22 of 38 Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others p) q) r) s) 0 u) WHARERA ffi"GURUGRRttl Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others outstanding instalment from due date of instalment along with interest @150/o p.a. v) That, moreover, without accepting the contents of the complaint in any manner whatsoever, and without prejudice to the rights of the respondent, the unit of complainant can be retained only after payment of interest on delayed payments from the due date of instalment till the date of realization of amount.

Further delayed interest if any must be calculated only on the amounts deposited by the complainant towards the sales consideration of the unit in question and not on any amount credited by the respondent, br any payment made by the complainant towards delayed paym layed payment charges or any taxes/statutory payments, etc. w) That in light of the bona fide conduct of the respondent and no delay for development of project as the respondent was severely affected by the force majeure circumstances and no cause of action to file the present complaint this complaint is bound be dismissed in favour of the respondent.

10.

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

Their authenticity is not in dispute.

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

E. furisdiction of the authority 1l.

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

E.l Territorial i urisdi ction 12.

As per notification no.

7/92/2077-7TCP dated 74.72.2017 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purposes with Page 23 of 38 HARERA ffiGURUG|IAM Complaint No.6523 of 2022 and 23 others 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 a complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint.

E.II Subiect matter iurisdiction 13.

Section 11(a)(a) of the Act, 201,6 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale.

Section 1,1(4)[a) is reproduced as hereunder: @) fhe promoter shall- (a) be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations mode thereunder or to the allottees qs per the agreement for sale, or to the association of allottees, as the cose may be, till the conveyance of all the apartments, plots or buildings, as the case may be, to the allottees, or the common areas to the association of allottees or the compet the competent authority, as the case may be; Section 34-Functions of the Authority: 34(fl of the Act provides to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the reol estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder.

14.

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 the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer if pursued by the complainant at a later stage.

F.

Findings on the obiections raised by the respondent.

F.I Obiection regarding delay due to force maieure circumstances.

15.

It is contended on behalf of respondent that due to various circumstances beyond its control, it could not speed up the construction of the project, resulting in delays such as various orders passed by NGT and Hon'ble Supreme Court, lockdown due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic.

Section 77....

Page 24 of 38 ffi ffi HARERA GUI?UGtlAM Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others 16.

The Authority, after careful consideration, finds that in the present case, the project falls under the Affordable Housing Policy, 20L3, which contains specific stipulations regarding the completion of the project.

As per Clause 1(iv) of the said Policy: "All such projects shall be required to be necessarily completed within 4 years from the approval of building plans or grant of environmental clearance, whichever is later.

This date shall be referred to as the 'date of commencement of proiect' for the purpose of this policy.

The licenses shal/ not be renewed beyond the said 4' year period from the date,of c?.!1y:encement of proiect' 17.

The respondent/promoter, n;qyr,,flE,lIpliea for the license under the Affordable Housing Policy, was fullf aware of these terms and is bound by them.

The Authority notes.th€t Llr. .th€t Llr." constrxction ban cited by the respondent, was of a short duration and is a recurring annual event, usually implemented by the National Gregn Tribunal (NGT) in November.

These are known occurring events, 1n9, Ih. lespondent being a promoter, should have accounted for it duringproiect ntanling.

Similarly, the various orders passed by other Authorities cannot be taken as an excuse for delay as it is a well- settled principle that a person cannot take benefit of his own wrong.

Hence, all the pleas advanced ,9,",n,ri,..8&rLrar,l devoid of merits. ; G.

Findings on the retffi$gg-U# the,=---o.,,ry4lainhrit G.I Direct the resp(indent to pay inteiest @ 8,650/o per annum as per the prevailing MC{iR+lus,2plo1on, the, pa-id amount of Rs.13,80,371/- for delay period starting from L5.03.2,O21 tilt the actual handover of physical possession or offer of possession plus 2 months after obtaining OC, whichever is earlier, as per the provisions of the Act of 20L6.

G.II To quash letter dated L5.03.2024 issued by the respondent demanding illegal arbitrary amount of Rs.7,96,970/- without even raising the last tax invoice/demand letter.

18.

The factual matrix of the case reveals that the complainant was allotted unit no.

F-33, Tower-F admeasuring carpet area of 613.31 sq. ft. and a balcony Page 25 of 3B ffiHARERA ffiGURUGRAM Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others area of 95.10 sq. ft., in the respondent's project at basic sale price of <25,00,790/- under the Affordable Group Housing Policy 2013.

A buyer's agreement was executed between the parties in 2016.

The possession of the unit was to be offered by 16.03.202L as delineated hereinbelow.

The complainant paid a sum of \22,78,300 /- towards the subject unit.

19.

During the course of proceedings dated 08.04.2025, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complainant has instituted proceedings before the Hon'ble National Comp,any Law Tribunal (NCLT), Delhi Bench in \! lJi tr i:. i; rss.rst r r. ) . ". ..

Case No. .

IB-48 of 2025, seeking*"g,Hktfl along with interest at the rate of 240/o per annum.

It was furtlr:_I trq,Titfed t.fat in the said NCLT proceedings, the date of default has b.,,,,::,r,1:.1 a1 3103.2.:!23, whereas in the present complaint(s) befot.l[1*q Authority.,l,h".,,::,"pla=i13nJs have asserted the due date as L6.03.202, G.,,9_have sou,,,gh...,j1lief in the form of delayed possession charges and deliv"ry,,f-_l ,possession, In response, learned counsel for the complainant submittg$,.!.1".*.an..,mafter before the Hon'ble NCLT is at the admission stage and that:ro oldg has been passed therein as of yet.

20.

Upon considering the subnilssfffin:. by both parties, the Authority is of the considered view;,+hg't tpq co".mplaint fll_edibefore this Authority is with respect to the ,,",urB,So*'ftr,ffift, ufld..it " ri.it Estare (Regutation and Development) Ac! d,i-|fufii.t, is a special Act to regulate and promote the ,, 1 ,", real estate sector and to ensure sale of plot, apartment or building, as the case may be in an efficient and transparent matter and to protect the interest of consumers in the real estate sector.

It is noted that the objective and scope of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (lBC) are distinct and serve a different legal purpose.

It is further observed that the matter before the Hon'ble NCLT is presently at the stage of admission and no order initiating Corporate Insolvenry Resolution Process (CIRP) against the respondent has Page 26 of 38 HARERA Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others GUl?UGliAM been passed as on date.

Therefore, at this juncture, there exists no bar uncler any law that prevents this Authority from proceeding to adjudicate the present complaint(s) on merits.

2L.The complainant is seeking a direction to quash the letter dated j,5.03.2024 issued by the respondent as "final reminder".

A final reminder letter dated 1,5.03. ed 1,5.03.2024 was being sent to the complainant wherein it was specified that in case the complainant/allottee fails to make a payment of <T,96,97o/- within a period of 15 days of the said reminder, it shall result in automatic cancellation of the allotment without any further notice of communication by the respondent.

Thereafter, the respondent made a publication in the newspaper "AAI SAMAI" on 06.04 .2024 as required under Affordable Group Housing Policy, Z}t3.The said publication also stated that failure to make payment within the stipulated period would lead to automatic cancellation of the allotment, without any further notice or communication by the respondent.

Thereafter a letter dated 12.04.2024 was sent by the respondent giving an opportunity to the complainant to clear the outstanding dues and upon non-payment of the same, the respondent issued a letter dated 22.04.2024 confirming cancellation on 21.04.2024 and requesting the complainant allottee to collect cheque of refunded amount, 22'The foremost question which arises before the authority for the purpose of adjudication is that "whether the said publication would tantamount to a valid cancellation in the eyes of law or not?,, 23' Clause 5(iii) (i) of the Affordable Group Housing Policy, ZOl3 talks about the cancellation.

The relevant part of the clause is reproduced below:- "lf any successful applicant fails to deposit the instalments within the time period as prescribed in the allotment letter issued by the colonizer, a reminder may be issued to him for depositing the due iistalments within a period of 15 daysfrom the date of issue of such notice.

If the allottee still Page 27 of 38 ffi ffi ffiHARERA ffiGUtlUGRntr,t Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others defaul* in making the payment, the list of such defaulters may be published in one regional Hindi newspaper having circulation of more than ten thousand in the State for payment of du e am ou nt within 7 5 doys from the date of publication of such n of such notice, failing which allotment may be cancelled. ln such cases also an amount of Rs 25,000/- may be deducted by the coloniser ond the balance amount shall be refunded to the applicant.

Such flats may be considered by the committee for offer to those applicants falling in the waiting list." 24.The Authority observes that the respondent issued "Final Reminder Letter" dated L5.03.2024, directing the complainant to clear the outstanding dues amounting to <7,96,970/-.

It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had already paid.,*1.*!-q3o;lnt of 122,78,300/-(i.e., 87.1.50/o) against the total conside*l?lion, g,f :26,L1:259/- to the respondent by 25.0t.2022.

Perus"l "$.9'$j.*-$" 1evlal,s.tha: the demand raised by the respondent via letter, rlr.O 15.03.2024 wasjowards the payment of last instalment accompapied,with interes-t on delay payments.

Therefore, the rate of interest chargeabl*e {rom the a}lottee by the promoter, in case of default, if any shall be charg_g$ ^ ?u, ,,,h" prescribed rate i.e., 1l.1.0o/o by the respondent/promoter whiclj.lh"g,,:n-,,,n9 ra|-e,of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allott".':.-i:==.=lyf default i.e., the delayed possession charges as per Sectigr,.l_ fr(za),,9f the Act Also, the respondent is obligated to raise last demand only in accordance with the builder buyer agreement and as per Affordable Hgu_g1gg f?ti.l ,2,!13,and.shall not charge anything from the complainant which is not the part of the builder buyer agreement and under the Affordable Housing Policy, 20L3.

25.

Further, the Authority takes serious note of the conduct of the respondent in wilfully violating the directions issued to it vide order dated 23.04.2024 in M.A.

233/2024 in CR/1244/2022 titled "Sixty-Three Golf Drive Flat Buyers Association vs.

Sunrays Hetghts Private Ltd.", wherein a clear directive was issued restraining the respondent from cancelling the allotment of any Page 28 of 38 ffiHARERA ffiouRUGtlAM Complaint No. plaint No.6523 of 2022 and 23 others unit in cases where more than B5o/o of the sale consideration had already been paid by the allottee, and without adhering to the due process stipulated under the Affordable Housing Policy.

26.1t has been observed that the notwithstanding this express direction, the respondent proceeded to cancel the allotments of various allottees in I blatant disregard of the said order in complaints bearing no's. cR/1881 /2024, CR/5246/2023, CR/111.4/2024, CR/1722/202+, cR/1742/2024, CR/1788 /2024, CR/1.794/2024, CR/26g3/2024, CR/2779/2024 and CR/2781,/2024.

Such conduct not only amounts to a deliberate and conscious defiance of the Authority's directions but also reflects a lack of bona fide on the part of the respondent in its dealings with the allottees.

27.The Authority further notes that in complaint case no's.

CR/524612023 and CR/1319/2024, the respondent published public notices in an English- language newspaper, in violation of the mandate under the Affordable Housing Policy, 2013, which requires such publication to be made in a regional Hindi newspaper.

This act constitutes a further breach of procedural safeguards intended to ensure transparency and adequate public notice to affected allottees.

28.

The Authority further notes that the complainant has paid approximately 87o/o of the sale consideration, and the respondent was required to hand over the project by 1,6.09.2020 under the Affordable Housing Policy, 201,3, excluding the COVID-19 grace period.

Even with a six-month grace period in lieu of Covid-19 pandemic, the possession was to be handed over by 1,6.03.2021, however, the respondent has failed to complete the project.

Thereafter, the respondent has obtained the occupation certificate from the competent authority on 31,.1,2.2024.

The interest accrued during the delay Page 29 of 38 ffiHARERA ffioTJRLTGRAM Complaint No,6523 of 2022 and 23 others period significantly reduces the amount payable by the complainant. mplainant.

Upon adjustment of this interest, the respondent would, in fact, be liable to pay the complainant.

Despite this, the respondent chose to cancel the unit on grounds of non-payment, while neglecting its own obligations.

Such actions by the respondent displays bad faith, as it failed to adjust the delay period interest.

29.

Additionally, as per Clause 9.2 of the Agreement for Sale, annexed as Annexure A to the Rules, 20 1,7, the allottee has the right to stop making further payments if the promoter defaults on its obligations.

The relevant 9.2 In case of Default by Primoter under the conditions listed above, Allottee is entitled to the following: (ii) Stop making further payments to Promoter as demanded by the Promoter.

If the Allottee stops making payments, the Promoter shall correct the situation by completing the construction/ development milestones and only thereafter the Allottee be required to make the next payment without any interest for the period of such delay;or... (Emphasis Supplied) 30.

In the present case, the respondent-promoter was obligated to complete the construction by 16.03.2021, including a six-month extension due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

However, the respondent-promoter failed to complete the project within this timeline.

Thus, in accordance with Clause 9.2, the allottee was fully justified in stopping further payments.

31.

Considering the above findings, the cancellation of the allotment is deemed invalid and is hereby quashed as issued in bad faith.

Thus, the respondent is directed to reinstate the unit allotted to the complainant.

32.

Herein, the complainant intends to continue with the project and is seeking delay possession charges at a prescribed rate of interest on the amount Page 30 of 38 ffiHARERA ffiGuRUoRAM already paid by him as provided under the proviso to Section 1B(1) of the Act, which reads as under:- "Section 18: - Return of amount and compensation 18(1). ion 18(1).

If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot, or building, - Complaint No.

6523 of 2022and 23 others Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the projecl he shall be paid, by the promoter, interestfor every month of delay, till the handing over of the possessfon, of such rat-e_ =as may be prescribed." 33.

Due date of handing over pospe;qsion: As per clause 4.1 of the BBA ... t,:nj./.,,,{,!\t \',\' ,. executed inter se parties, the .eq*m.U#$ proposed to handover possession ,.,,1;. =.trgs".1'+},, of the subject unit wirhr4 qfif;ro,, Ii/iiPyears i.e.

48 months from the date of commencemept$lbropSL It is pertlnent to mention here that the .'' i_ project was to be ffilo$ed unilEr- ffib Affordable Housing Policy, 201,3. i 1:-1' t However, the resp$r"i$eht hap chosen to disre$ard the policy provision. i."; Clause 1(iv) of the $,ffiabtb FIbuSinBPolicy, 201.3 deals with the date of possession of the unit4nd egmfletion of the proiect.

The relevant clause is ''irir. ; ;;t i.,i "7(iv) All such projects shh'll,&=f.9}[ir,ed tb be necessarily completed within +"ypa,yp frOm t W.'-qp4pvolptbailditg plans or grant of environmgntal ,gleyance, whichever is later.

This date sholl be re.;ferredio ffi the "dqte of comiiencement of project" for the pfl.

6 oithls poltcy.

The liceqcq;ihall not be renewed beyond thesdl id,,4,yeaniporiod ft om the date of commencement of project." (Emphasis supplied) 34.

In the present case, the date of approval of building plans is 10,03.2015, and the date of environment clearance is 16.09.2016.

The due date of handing over of possession is reckoned from the date of environment clearance being later.

Therefore, the due date of handing over of possession comes out to be L6.09.2020.

Further as per HAREM notification no.

9/3-2020 dated Page 31 of38 ffiHARERA ,l[{i ffiCunUGttAM Complaint No,6523 of 2022 and 23 others 26.05. ers 26.05.2020, an extension of 6 months is granted for the projects having a completion date on or after 25.03.2020.

The completion date of the aforesaid project in which the subject unit is being allotted to the complainant is 76.09.2020 i.e., after 25.03.2020.

Therefore, an extension of 6 months is to be given over and above the due date of handing over possession in view of notification no.

9 /3-2020 dated 26.05.2020, on account of force majeure conditions due to the outbreak of Covid-19.

As such the due date for handing over of possession comes out tg pe iO, A3.}OZL. ,"i'ri,'t,;',",.1 1.,.

35.

Admissibility of delay Oessessi,ffi gly.lges at prescribed rate of interest: The complainant is seeking d"]ry no_i!"grrion charges till the date of delivery of possession to the comptitrll lrovisg to Section 18 provides that where an allottee does not int_end to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by .r :1. the promoter, interest 1o. .---I3,t; "...q3ntn of O"lr_y,,.- till the handing over of possession, at such i"t" as may.be prescribed and it has been prescribed under Rule 15 of the R;l3s,,P,,lO '!-ule 15 has been,reProduced as under: i "RuIe 75.

PrescriUe&,,$7teti"f;,ln$gy,g ;J,.| royiso -{, section 72, section 78 and sub-sig.liiotu @ififfi;"Weation (7) of section 791 (1) For the purpose of proiba"To section 72; section 78; and sub' sections '{,,fl Wd tZ) 06 seg,tig.!

79, the "i.lttprest at the rate prescribd" s"fiol!'be thi SmdfrBank of India highest marginal cost of leiiiitiff! i'ite'izio., ' : fiqv-ided th,rii in cotr' the State'Bank of tndia marginal cost of lehditlg'rate $t[e'llR)'ts.ribt irt use,'it shall be replaced by such benchmark lending rates which the State Bank of India may fixfrom time to time for lending to the general public." 36.

The legislature in its wisdom in the subordinate legislation under the provision of Rule 15 of the Rules, ibid, has determined the prescribed rate of interest. interest.

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

Page 32 of 3B HARERA Complaint No.6523 of 2022 and 23 others ffiGURUGRAM 37.

Consequently, as per website of the State Bank of India i.e., https://sbi.co.in, the marginal cost of lending rate [in short, MCLR) as on date i.e., 08.04.2025 is 9.10%.

Accordingly, the prescribed rate of interest will be marginal cost of lending rate +20/o i.e., 11.L00/o.

38.

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" meons the rates of interest payable by the promoter or the ollottee, as the case may be.

Explanation. *For the purpose of this clause- (i) 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. (ii) the interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the amount or ony part thereof till the date the amount or part thereof and interest thereon is refunded, and the interest poyable 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;" 39.

Therefore, interest on the delay payments from the complainant shall be charged at the prescribed rate i.e., L L.lO o/oby the respondent which is the same as is being granted to them in case of delayed possession charges.

40. arges.

40.

On consideration of the documents available on record and submissions made regarding contravention of 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.

4l.ltis the failure of the promoter to fulfil its obligations and responsibilities as per the buyer's agreement to hand over the possession within the stipulated period.

Accordingly, the non-compliance of the mandate contained in Section Page 33 of 38 HARERA OURUGl?AM 2076.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others 11[a)(a) read with Section 1B(1) of the Act on the part of the respondent is established.

As such the complainant is entitled to delay possession charges at the prescribed rate of interest i.e., @ 1,1,.1,00/o p.a. w.e.f.

1,6.03.2021 till the offer of possession plus 2 months or actual handing over of possession, whichever is earlier as per provisions of Section 1B(1) of the Act read with Rule L5 of the Rules, ibid.

G.III Direct the respondent to handover actual physical possession of the booked unit.

42.1n the present complaint, the grievance of the complainant is that the physical possession has not been handed over by the respondent to the complainant.

4.1.

The authority observes that the respondent-promoter has obtained occupation certificate of the said project from the competent authority on 31.1,2.2024.

Further, Section 17(1) of the Act of 2016 obligates the respondent-promoter to handover the physical possession of the subject unit to the complainant complete in all respect as per specifications mentioned in BBA and thereafter, the complainant-allottee is obligated to take the possession within 2 months as per provisions of Section L9[10) of the Act, 44. e Act, 44.lnview of the above, the respondent is directed to handover the possession of allotted unit to the complainant complete in all respect as per specifications of buyer's agreement within a period of one month from date of this order after payment of outstanding dues, if any, as the occupation certificate for the project has already been obtained by it from the competent authority.

45.

Further, the respondent promoter is contractually and legally obligated to execute the conveyance deed upon receipt of the occupation Page 34 of 38 HARERA Complaint No.

6523 of 2022 and 23 others ffiGUI?UGRAM certificate/completion certificate from the competent authority.

Whereas as per Section 19(11) of the Act of 201,6, the allottees are also obligated to participate towards registration of the conveyance deed of the unit in question.

In view of above, the respondent shall execute the conveyance deed of the allotted unit within a period of 3 months from date of this order, upon payment of outstanding dues and requisite stamp du$ by the complainant as per norms of the state government as per Secti on '1,7 of the Act, failing which the complainant may appro,qchitl1e adjudicating officer for execution of order. i liffi i-'. .1 " - r <. -:., .r!

G.IV Direct the respondenlto .itiE'i,T$'demand as per Affordable Housing Policy towards consideration, of the said unit in order to make payment. *j I ]I"" ., ' G.V Direct the respondent to provide bank account of the complainant in which last demarid must be deposited as such the escrow account is being freezed by the Authority.

46.

The Authority, vide fu$ffioae. dated ZB.aq.ZOZ4, had:already directed the de- freezing of the r.rpbp={efl1;r Urnf.'accounts to a limited extent, rhereby permitting the receipt oF{!-coming funds and authorizing the respondent to nounts from the escuo* ,.count for the specific purpose of discharging statuto4i tipUititn*rffiffi$i"gihenewal. gihenewal. of license, furnishing of b ank guarante"r, "nd pry- uilt o?rit$ n neTOr i r.

47.

Accordingly, the corip!fllrtant ii {irected to deposit the amount raised in the last demand by the respondent, if any outstanding dues remain after adjusting the amount towards delayed possession charges.

G.V Direct the respondent to get the copy of OC as such the respondent claims that they have applied for OC.

48.

As per the additional documents placed on record by respondent on 03.04.2025, the Authority finds that the respondent has obtained the occupation certificate for the said project on 31..72.2024.

Page 35 of 38 ffiHARERA ffi eunuennrrr 49.

As per Section L1(4)(b) of Act of 2016, the respondent is under an obligation to supply a copy of the occupation certificate/completion certificate or both to the complainant-allottee.

The relevant part of section 11 of the Act of 201,6 is reproduced as hereunder: - "77(4).... @) fhe promoter shall be responsible to obtoin the completion certificate or the occupancy certiftcate, or both, os applicable, from the relevant competent authority as per local laws or other laws for the time being in force and to make it available to the allottees individually or to the association of allottees, as the cose may be." 50.

Even otherwise, it being a public document, the allottee can have access to the it from the website of DTCP, Haryana.

H.

Directions of the authority 51.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 Complaint No.6523 of 2022and 23 others Section 3a(fl: I.

The cancellation is hereby set aside being bad in the eyes of law. l'he respondent is directed to reinstate the subject unit.

Further, the respondent is directed to pay interest on the amount paid by the complainant at the prescribed rate of 1,1,.10o/o p.a.

10o/o p.a. for every month of delay from the due date of possession i.e., 1.6.03.2021 till the offer of possession plus 2 months or actual handing over of possession, whichever is earlier.

The arrears of interest accrued so far shallbe paid to the complainant within 90 days from the date of this order and interest for every month of delay shall be paid by the promoter to the allottee before 1Oth of the subsequent month as per Rule t6(2) of the Rules, ibid.

Page 36 of 38 I l{ARER4 GURUGRAM III' The rate of interest chargeabre from the arottee by the promoter, in case of defaurt sha, be charged at the prescribed rate i.e., 1 1.10% by the respondent/promoter which is the same rate of interest which the promoter sha, be liabre to pay the arottee, in case of defaurt i.e., the derayed possession charges as per section Z(za)of the Act.

IV' The respondent is directed to issue a revised statement of account after adjustment of derayed possession charges, and other reriefs as per above within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.

The comprainants are directed, to pay outstanding dues if any remain.s, after adjustment of aetay'f ossession charges within a period of next 30 days. v' The respondent is directed to handover the possession of the arottecr :::: ::r:u romprainant comprete in arr aspects as per specifications vv r.r qrr qJptrLLs as per specifications :lly-u:'s agreement wirhin one rnonrh from date of this order, as rhe occupation certificatp in rach^^+ ^c .t \,.-LupdLr,n ceruficate in respect of the project has arready been obtained by it from the competent authority. vl' The respondent shall execute the conveyance deed of the allotted unit within a period of 3 months from date of this order, upon payment of outstanding dues and requisite stamp duty by the comprainant as per norms of the state government as per Section 17 0f the Act, fairing which the complainant may approach the adjudicating officer for execufion oforder. n oforder. v'' The respondent sha, not charge anything from the comprainant which is not part of the buyer's agreement and the provisions of the Affordable Housing policy, 201,3. t' ;Tj::::'", sharr muratis mutandis apprv to cases mentioned in para 3 of Page 37 of 38 ffiHARERA ffi* aliUGRAM Complaint No.6523 of 2022 and 23 others 53.

The complaints stand disposed of.

True certified copy of this order shall be placed in the case file of each matter.

54.

Files be consigned to the registry. v.t 2) (Viiay Kumar Goyal) Member Haryana Real Estate Dated: 08.04.2025 .r:iiL,: Page 38 of 38 ,tuw