TANYA NARULA AND SANGEETA NARULA vs EMAAR MGF LAND LTD THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHER DIRECTORS NOW KNOWN AS EMAAR INDIA LIMITED

HARERA E GURUGRAI/ M/s Emaar MCF Land Office at: - llouse 28 New-Delhi-110001. !l CORAM: Shri.AshokSan APPEARANCEI Harshit Batra Lompla nt No.7812 of202l BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM 1.

Tanya Narula 2- Sangeeta Narula Both R/o: PTT-08'1001, Floor-10ft, Tower/Block-8, Palm Terraces at Palm Drive, I lAlZ ol2o22 | 19.02,2025 Complainants Complainants UGRAM ORDER 1.

The present complaint has been filed by the complainants/aUottees under section 31 ot the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short, the Acr) read with rule 28 ofthe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 [in short, the Rules) for violation of section 11[4)(a] of the Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter PaCe 1of 22 GUR *HARERA S eLnuennrv l'omplarntNo.

7812 of 2022 shall be responsible for all oblisations, responsibilities and functions under the provision ofthe Act or the rules and r€gulations made thereunder or to the allottee as per the agreement fo. saleexecuted interse. unit and proiect related details The particulars of unit details, sale consideration, the amount paid by the complainant, date ofproposed handing over the possessioq delay period, if any. have been detarled in the lollowinE labular torm: 2.

22 Sr.

1 "The Palm Terraces", Sector.66, 2 Vide registration no.19 of 2018 Licensc no 223 of 2007 dated 27.09.2007 License no.

93 of 2008 dated 5 P]-I 08-1001, FlooF10d, Tower-08 (As on pagc no.42 olconplaint) 2100sq.ft lsuperA.eal (As on pase no.

42 of complaint) Date of exe@tion of buyer's 74.06.2070 [As on pase no.

41 of complaint) (o) Tine o, han ttng @.. the Subject to terns ol this clause and the Altat.ee(s) havins conphed \|irh olt the terns ond conditians of this Aorenent ARERA URUGI]AI/ a.m.laintNo 7312 of 2022 ond not beiho in delottt undet ahr of rhe provkions ol thk Asreenent and uPon .onplyins with ol Provinons, fomolities, docunentotion etc., os pr. c., os pr.*ribed b! the DeteloPer , the Developet shall noke all efo.ts to hahdover pa$qsion of the unit (which folh \|ithin grcund plts lour loN tover/buitdins) withtn d p.no.t ol thtrrt 60) nonths ttun the .tdre ol comdencemqt ol .onsttucdoL and fot the Unir(\|hich tdus within etuund ptus thineen loot tower/butkinq) within o petiod oI thirty sit (36) tu@th' Irom the .tore of .@mencenent ol cDstocn , subject ro ceftain li tdtions os nay be p.ovided in thk Asreement dnd tinely conplionce of the provisions of this As.eenent b! the Allott@(s). the allatteek) asrces ond unde6tondr that the Dewloper sholl be ehtitled to o gr@e petiod of three (3) ddth5 lor oppui^g ond abtdinins the @upotion certifcate ein .espect to the Unit dnd/or (As on pose no 54 oJconploint) 24,09.2014 Icalculat€d 36 months lroo date of srarr ofconsiruction i.e.,24,06,2011 + 3 lNote: vide proceedings dated 22.01.2025, the saoe h.s b€en inadvertenly oentioned as 24.06,2014 Rs.1,31,11,204/- (as per s.o.A dated 18.11.2019 o. page Amount pard by the (omplarnant Rs.1,31,27,498/- (As per s,o-A dated 18-u.2019 on page *HARERA S"-cLrnticnnr,,l ComblainiNo.7a12ot2022 19.08.2019 (As on pape no.

TSofcomplaint) 19.10.2019 (As on pas€ no.83 ofcomplaint) 7?.12.2019 {As on page no.87 ofcomplainq B.

Facts ol thc conplaint 3 Thc complainants bave made the following submissions: L That the r.spondent, M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd. advedsed about its new project namely "Palm Terraces At Palm Drive" on thc 45.48 acres ofland, in Scctor 66 of the Gurugram and thereby invited applications from prospective buyers for the purchase oiunit in the said project. ll.

That the complainants while searching for a flat/accomrnodation was lured by such advertisements and calls from the brokers oi the respondent for buying a house in their project namely Palm Drive. alm Drive.

Relying on the various representations and assurances given by the respondent and on belief oi such assurances, the complainants booked a unit in the project by paying an arrount of Rs.10,00,000/ on 07.05.2010, towards the booking ofthe unit bearing no.

PT1 08 1001 on 10th Floor in Tower/8lock-8, having super a.ea measuring 2100 sq. ft. and the same was acknowledged by the I1l.

Thai thc rcspondcnt confirmed the bookjng of the unit to the original allottee for a total salc consideration of Rs.1,25,44,800/- along with car prrking and other specifications oithe allotted unit and provided the time irame for handing over possession oi the unit.

That a Buyer's Agreement was executed between the allottces and respondent on 14.06.2010. ffHARERA S- GURUGRAN/ IV.

Iu.ther, the complainants having d.eam oi its ow. residential unit iD NCR signed the agreement in the hope that the unit will be delivered on or belbre by 2014. ]'he comphinantswe.e also handed over one detailed payment plan which was construction linked plan.

As per clause 14[a) oi the buyels agreemenl the respondent had to deliver the possession olthe unit by 24.06.2014 (i.e.,36 months from the commencemenr ol consrructioD dared 24.06.20111 alongwjth a grace period of 90 days for applying and obtaining the Occupatron Certilicate.

V.

As per the demands raised by the respondent, based on the paymeDt plan, the complainants have already paid a sum of Rs.1,31,27,498/- against the ,.ril.-le.on.rdcr"Inn oiR..l 7c.r4.800/- VI That dre complainants received the offer oipossession on 19-08.2019 afte. lany requests and ema,ls. lt is pertinent lo note here that along with the above said letter ofoller ofpossession, the respondent raised several illegal denrnnds which were actually not payable as per the Builder Euyer Vll.

Euyer Vll. 'lhat the conrplainants sent various reminder to respondents stating and raising various grievance lvith respect to delayed possession charges, air conditioncrs, grid power supply, car parkin& solar panels, golf range, palm drive condominium association and HVAT.

Furthermore, stating that solar panels has been installed in phase-1 of the project not in the tower of the complainants, as per the agreed terms ol the booking and name of the protect itselfindicates that !here ilillbe gollrange but tilldate respondents have lailed to provide the same. 'l'hereafter, various reminder emails and letters were sent to the respond.nts on the above mentioned issues but till datc respondent failed to provide any satisfactory response to the PaEe a ol22 HARERi, GURUGRAIV aomplarnt No.

78I2 of 2022 Vlll.

That the complainants requested th€ respondent to show/inspect the unit berore payrng any lurther amount and requested to provide the car parking space but the respondent failed to reply.

That the respondent asked the complainants to sign the jndemnity bond as pre-requisite condition for handing over of the possession.

The complainants raised an objection to the pre-requisite condition of thc rcspondcnt as no delay possession cha.Bes was paid to the complainants but inslead ol paying the delay possession charges, the respond enr clearly refused to handover. lX.

That aitc. clearing all the dues and fulf,lling all one'sided demands and formalities as and when demanded by the respondeDt, the conveyance deed \!as executed in favour of the complainants oD 17.12.2019.

That the complanrants are getting depressed because €veryone is aware that golf view apartments are premium apartnents and the complainants intend to stay within the :mid oi greens.'their dreams are getting shattered as respondent is nol giving the Colf course at the specific location which was carmarked for the golf course.

The complainants request the Authority to make sure that the . that the .espondent give golfcourse at the same location.

C.

Reliefsought by the complainants: The complainants have sousht following relief(s): a) Directthe respondent to pay delayed possession charges. b) Direct the respondentto deliver the golfdriving range at the designated location as promised at thc time ofbooking. .) Dilcct thc respondent to provide the amenities and golfdriving range at the designated location as per brochure and layout plan provided at thc time ofbooking. d) lnitiate penal proceedinSs aSainst the respondent on account of v,olation olvarious provisions of the Act, 2016 and for not getting the project registered.

RA RA[/ \RE RUG _l H G a.mnLrlniNn 7al2.f 2022 e) Set aside the one sided indemnity bond and settlement agreement signed by the respondent fronr the complainants under undue influcDce. on the date ofhearing, the Authority explained to the respondent/promoter about the contraventions as alleged to have been committed in relatjon to s.ction 11[4] (a) oitheActto plead guilryor not to plead guilty. aeply by the respoDdeDt.

The respondent has contested the complaint on the following grounds I L That the complainants approached the respondent and expressed their interest in booking an apartment in the residential group housing colony dcvelopcd by the respondent known as "Prem'er'lerraces at Palm Drive" situated in Sector 66, Urban tjstate Curgaon, Haryana.

Priorto the booking, the complainants conducted extensive and independent enquiries with regard to the project, only after being lully satisfied on all aspects they rook an indcpendcnt and informed decisron, uninflLrcnced in any nlanner by the respondent and booked the unit. ll lhat thereafter the complainants, v,de an application iorm dated 07.05.2010 applied lor provisional allotment of the unit in the project.

I'juEuant the.eto, unit bearing no PTT-08 1001, located o. the Tcnih Floor, 'l ower'08 admeasuring 2100 sq. ft. was allotted vide Provisional Allotment Letter dated 21.0S.2010.

1.0S.2010. lll.

Iherealter, a Buy.r's Agreement dated 14.06.2010 was executed berween thc conrplainants rnd the respondcnt.

As pcr Clause 14(a) of the Buyer's Asreemcnt, the delivery of possession of the unit was proposed to be within 36 months lrom the date of start olcommencement ofcoDstruction r.e, 24.06.2011 and a grace period of 3 months, i.e., 2 4.09.2 014.

I\'lhedelrveryolposscssionwassubjecttothelb,.e,rolerrec,rcumstances.

Further, the respondent faced ccrtain other force t]raieur€ events including hur nor linited to non-availabilitv ofraw materialdue to various orders ol D, eomplarot No.

7812 of Z0?2 ' l-.lADEDi. |/-1t\f r\- t .."rr,;, N",?sr;;;or--l CJR-CRAI/ I{on'ble lrunjab & Ilaryana lligh Court and National Green Tribunal thcreby regulating the mining activities, brick kilns, regulation ol the construction and developm€nt activities by the judicial authoritres in NCR on account ofthe environmental conditions, restrictions on usage ofwater, etc.It is perlinent to state that the National Grccn Tribunalin several cases related to Punjab and tlaryana had stayed mining operations including in o.A No.

17112013, wherein vide order dated 2.11.2015 mining activities by the newly allotted mining co.tracts by the state olHaryana was stayed on ihe Yamuna River bed.

These orders in fact nrr€r.olia continued till the ycar 2018.

Similar orders staying the mining operations were also passed by the Hon'ble High Court and the National Green Tribunat in Punjab and uriar Pradesh as well.

The stopping of mining activity not only nrade procurement of malerial dirircult but also raised the prices oisand/gravel exponcntially. lt was almost 2 years that dre scarc,ty as detailed aforesaid continued, despite which 311 efiorts were made and materials were procurcd at 3-4 times the rare and the construction continued without drftrng any extra burden to the custome.. custome..'lhe time taken by the rcspondent to develop the project is the time taken to develop a prolect of such a large scale and despite all the /orc? maieure circumstances, the respondent completed the constructjon of the project diligently and timely, without imposing any cost imPlications ol lhe aiorementioned circumstances oD tlrc complainants and demanding the prices only as and when the construction was beingdone.

That hom the facts indrcated above a per,od of 1 66 days was consumed on account ofcircnmstances beyond the power and control ofthe respondent, owing to the passing oforders by the statutory authorities.

Vl.

That dcspite the delault caused, the respondent applied tor Occupation Certificate in respect oi the said unit on 11.01.2018 and the same was PaEe a ol22 IARERA GURUGRAI/ to the complainants.

Vll.

That the respondent has credited Rs.14,50,000/- as compensation due und.r the suhv.ntion s.heme.nd profiting, which was duly accepted total amount of compensation ot to alleged delay and R5.6,92,755/- Rs.17,340/- on account of a.ti. by the complainants wlthout any fl.mDlrrntNo 7312.f 2022 thereafter issued on 08.08.2019. lhat on the receipt of the occupatjon certificate, the complainants were offered possession of the unit on 19.08.2019.

Ihe complainants were called upon to remit balance payment including delayed payment charges and to complete the necess:ry formalities/documentation necessary for handover ofthe unit in questio. dcmur or protest.

Vlll. lhai drcreafter, an indemnity cum undert?king for possession of the Lrnit was executed bctween thc complainants and the respondenl on 24.08.2019 whereby the complainants have declared and acknowledged that they have no ownership right, titl€ or interest in any other part ofthe pro,ect exceptin the unitarea ofthe unit in question Ix. 'Ihat thc complainants took ihe possession ol the unit on 19.10 2019 and consequently, the conveyance Deed was executed o1 17.72.2019.

Thar mor.

Thar mor.ovcr, after the execution ol the conveyance deed, the contractual rclationdrip between the Parties stands lully satisfied and comes to an end.

That there remains no cl3,m/ grievance of the complainants lvith respect to the Agreementorany obligation olthe parties thereunder. x.

That after the cxecution olthe conveyance deed, the parties are estopped trom mirking any claims at this instance.

Ihat after the execution ot the Con!eyance deed, the contractual relatjonshrp between the parties strnds lully satisfied and comes to an end.

That after the execution of the conveyirnce deed, the parties 3re estopped from making any claims at this HARERA GJRUGRAI\/ (omplarnt No.

78r2 of 2022 record.

Their authenticity is not in disput€.

Hence, the complaint can be decided on the basis ofthese undisputed documents and submission made Iurisdiction of the authority The Authority observes that it has territorial as well as subject matter lurisdiction to adludicate the present complaint ior the reasons given Xl 'lhat thc ofler of possession ol the unit was issued ro the complainant on 19.08.2019 and the present complaint was filed on 14.72.2022, i.e., after a delay ol 1213 days (3 years 3 months 2s daysl.

After the offer ol possession, no causc olaction pertrins.

Morcovcr, the physical possession is given to the complajnants and conveyance deed was execured over 3 years ago and heDce the present complanrr is barred by limitation.

Thar moreover, the delayed interest if any has to be calculared only on the amounls deposited by the conrplainants towa.ds the basic principal .n)ount olthe unit and not on any amount credited by the respondcrt, or .ny paymenl made by the complainants tolvards delayed payment charses .DPLI ur drr rd\c\/srarLrory pdymenrs. etc XIl.

That thc complainants have sought relielagainst the .espondent ro deliver thc Golf l)'iving Range to them, which cannot be enterrained.

It is denied that the brochure boasted any extensive recreation facilities. acilities.

It h submitted thirr the Gold Driving Range was a proposed amenity and did not form part ol thc contractual obligation of the respondent mentioned in the Euyer's Agreement.

That the Euyer's Agreement does not mentio. any such amenity to be provided to the complai.ant hence, any obligation on the part oi the promoter cannot be create 7. {:opies ol all the relevant documents have been tiled and placed on the E. *HARERA #" eunuonnv Conplarnt No.

7312 oi2022 E, I Territorial iurisdiction As per notification no.

1/9212077-7ICP dated 14.12.2017 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulato.y Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose with oftices situated in Gurugram. ln the present case, the project in question is situated w,thin the planning area of Curugram District, Therefore, this authorty has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present co mplaint.

E.

U Subiect 6atte. iurisdiclior 10.

Section 11(a)(al of the Act, 2016 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as pcr agreement ior sale. sectio.

1l(al(al is reprodu..das hcreunder: section 11(4)ta) Be responsible lor ollobligotions, respannbilities ond fLnctiohs undet the pnvirhns ol thit Act or thc tules and regulations nade theteuntler o. to thc dllottees os pet the asreunent lor sale, at to the associoti@ ol otkrtte.s, o! rhe.ae no! be, till the convelonce ololl the dportnent' plnts or buil.lhss, as the.ae ndt be, to tha allauee\, ot the connon oteas ta the o*adation al allnrLees or the ca petent orthoriry, os the 1l So, in vi.w of the provisions of the Act quoted above, the Authority has conrpletc jurisdiction to decide the complaint rcgarding non-compliance ol obligations by the promoter. t.

Findings onthe obiections raised by th€ respond€nt. r'.I whcther the complaloanLr can claih delayed possession charges after execution of the.onveyance deed?

12. deed?

12.

The respondent stated that the conveyance deed of the unit has al.eady been executed in lavour oi the complainants on 17.12.2019 and thc transactior between the parties stands concluded upon the execution of .onvevan.e deed.

HAREIIA GURUGRAI/ 3.

The respondent has argued that upon the execution olthe conveyance deed, the relationship betlveen the parties is considered concluded, pre€luding any further claims or l,abilities by either party.

Consequently, the complainant is barred from assert,ng any interest in light oi the circumstances otthe.ase.

14. ln order to comprehend the rel:tionship betwecn the allottee and the promotcr, rt rs essenlial to Inderstaod the dciinition ot a "deed." A deed is a lbrnral, writt.n do.umeDt lha! is execuled, signed, and delivercd by all p:rrties involved in thc contract, namely the buyer and the seller. lt is a le8ally bindiDg docum.nt that incorporates terms enforceable by law.

For a s.lc dced to bc valid, it must be ivritten.rnd signed by both parries lisslntially, a conveyance deed involves th€ seller translerring all riShts to legally own, retain, and enjoy a particular asse! whether immovable or movabl..

In the present case, the asset in question is immovable property.

Ily signing a conveyaDce deed, the original owner translers all legal rlghts pcrta'n'ng to the property to the buyer in exchange ior valid consideralion, typrcally monetary.l'hus, a "conveyance deed" or "sale deed" signifies that the seller formally transfers all authority and ownership ofthe property to i5 'lhat the execution ofa conveyan.e deed transfers only the title and interest in lhe speclfied immovable property (in this case, the allotted unitl. llo$rever, the conveyance deed does not terminate the relationship behveen the parties or absolve the promoter of their obligations and liabilities con.crning the unit, despite the traosferoftille and interest to the allottee upon execution ofthe conveyance deed.

16. deed.

16.

The allotrees have invesied their hard earned money and there is no doubt that the promoter has been enjoyulg benents of and the next step is to get therr litle pertecled by executing the conveyanc. deed which is the Pase 12 rl22 HARERA GURUGRAI/ C.m.lri.tNo 7a12of 2022 statutory right of the allottees.

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

Therefore, in h'rtherancc to thc Hon ble Apex Court judgement and the law laid down in case ritled as l.yr.

Cdr. ,4 rilur Rahmm Khan and Aleya Sultam and Ors.

Vs.

DLF So thern Homes PvL Ltd. (nour known as BEGUR O R flomes Pvt.

Ltd.) and ors. (civil appeal no.6239 ol2019) dated 24.08.2020, the r.l, vdll p.r.,s are n produ.Fd l.e-ein beluh ho\ rar di:pu..d ,,eJ? ..,,,trir.nnoir Thauoh thlse uk lout .ahh)uni.!.ans Lsred br rht dewtapet, the oppeltona suh")ned thot they ote not aakted obe ddont but lt )nb the pat@tu The developer does n.t !ut. thot t \9ds wilins ta olet ,r /rit pr,.rosers po$.rsro, o/ then faB ond rtu nsht ta exe.uE .onv.yontu oJ th? ltoa whrte r.\pNinlr thetr .tain) l.t ton'pensotion fat d.ta! or the .ontrur!, the terat rl the .a"tnr r.. ton\ r nat.ate s tt)ar whi le ex{uti ns the ,?pd\ al .nDvua nc., the llot bu!.tt \|ete nrlnnwr Lttu ra lotrt al p.otoa Lr kseNr.an \eauht b. a..?ptdbte rhe lot bur$ w?tp e*trrdlly prt:ent.t1tlth un unlnr tho@ oleth{ reta)nn! rhei nshB b pu6k ttretr .ktihs 0n th)dl tv?nt the! wouttt rat tet poslssian ar dtte tn rh! heondne) u b fu&ke tt). ctonns h ordet b pe*et th.ir ti.l6 k the lats lor hi.h thq have poid rdluable .anildetaron ]n this backdtup, th. sinpl. quesian qhich ||e nee,l to addtest i5 wheth{ o llat huret \rha e\pa6es o tloin aooinst the develap?. fot delayed po@rian .on o: o dp.tu r? af d.ire y b? anpethd ta deler the nsht ta abta)n o rcNeyome b p{l"t thzn nth k \!aultl, tn autvres, be nanf?il!un.!d:anablc ta ?tp?.tthortn anl.t ta pa. l.t ta pa.!ut a da", lar tanllKtoh fut ttrltkt hunttin!

LV{ al ,a\t$bn, rhe pot.ttur.r n)u! n ?rnikb Ltpltt abtanins o.onk!an.? olthe pteh^es prr.hus.d or, iJthey eek h obLort o D*Lt ol a)nvplona to laNke the tiljht to .latn anlpensdoo lhis bosicdllt E d psntar in whtth the NcDRc hus 4pout.r.

We.annor tuuntenan.e nn. tE .

17 Thc Authority has al.eady taken a view in Cr.

No.

4031/2019 and others litled as voru, Gupta V/s Ema MGF Land linrited and others antl observed that the execution of a conveyance deed does not conclude the relatjonship or marks an end to the liabilities and obligations of the promoter towards the subject unit and upon takinS possession, and/or cxccuting conveyance deed, thc complaints never gave up their statutory nght to seek delayed posscssion charges as per the prov,sions of the said 18.

Upon r.vi$ving all relevant facts and circumstances, the Authority dctcrmincs that thc complainants/allottees retain the right to seek : REI , GURUGRAN/ complarntNo.

7812 ot202Z compensation for delays in possession arom the respondent-promoter, despite the e{ecution ofthe conveyance deed.

Ir.ll Whether the complaint is barred by limitation or not?

19 On consideration oi the documents available on record and submissions Drade by both the parties regarding contravention oiprovisions of the Act, the Authoritv has observed that according to the terms ol the agreemcnt, possession ot the unir was to bc offered h,ithin 36 months from the dare of start ofconstruction plus an additional 3 months grace period is allowed ro thc respondent, in terms of the agreement.

Therefore, the due date for possession, considering the srace perjod was 24.09.2014.

The respondenr oblrined dre o..upari()n cc(illcltc lbr thc rele\.m tow.r on 08.08.:019 An oller ol possession $as made to rhe complainals on 19.08.2019. and $c unir $as lorn,!ll)' handed over on 19.10.2019, as indicated by the handover lelter dir.d 19.10.1019 20.

0.1019 20.

1hc Authority is cognizant oi the view that the law of l,mitation does nor slrictly apply to the Real Dstate ltegulation and Development Authonty Act o12016.

However, the Authority under section 38 olthe Act ot2016, is to be gutried by the principle ol natural ,ustice.

It is unjversally accepted maxinr rnd the laiv assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep ovcr their rlEhls. lherefore, to avoid opportu.istic and frivolous litigation a reasonable period oftime needs to be arrived at for a litigant to agitate his nght. lhis Authority olthe view that three years is a reasonable time pe.iod tor a litigant to initiate litiSation to prcss his rights under nornral 21 lt is also observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Cou( in its order dated 10 01.2022 in MA NO.21 of 2022 of Suo Moto Writ Petition Civil No.3 of 2O2O havc hcld that thc pcriod lrorn 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shallst.nd $xi'IARER GUl?UGRAI/ CoddlrintN.

7a12ol2{r22 excluded for purpose oflimitation as may be prescribed under any general o r special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-jud,cial proceediogs.

22.

In the present matter the cause of action arose on 19.0a.2019 when the offer of possess,on was mad€ by th€ respondent.

The complainants have filed the present complaint on 14.12.2022, the Authority is ofthe view that the present complaint has been 6led within a reasonable time period and is not barred by the limitation.

F.lU.

Obiection regardlng force mai€ure circumstan€$.

23.

The respondent-prornoter has raised; &ntention that the handover ofth€ Lnir $.,\ JplilpLl dJ, ro force mdjeure 'ondrrrons .uch ds vaflous orders frssed by thc National Green lribunal, & Controll Authority and stoppage oi work due to the order of various authonties.

Since there were circumstances bevond the control ol respondent, so takirg into consideration the above mentioned facls, rhe rcspond.nt bc allorvcd the period during which his construction activities canrc to stand still, and the said period be excluded. excluded.

The Authority is ofthe vics th.t thoush the.e have been various orders issued to curb the cnvironn,cnr pollurron. bur rhe(e were lor a short penod of nme So the circumstances/conditions Jlic, thdt prnuJ .rnt he taken int. consideration lordelay in completion ofthe project. c.

Findings regarding reliefsought by the complainantsl c.l Direct the respondentto pay delayed possession charges.

24 Vide proceedings dated 22.01.2025, the respondent and the complainants were granted an opportunity to file written submissions and in compliance oithe same, the respondent filed written submissionson 11.02.2022.

Inthe wri$en submissions, th€ respondent have made a submission that the [nvr] nnmcnt lollution tPrevcnr on HAllERrr GURUGRAI/ complainants have not sought the reliel of delayed possession charges however during the proceediogs on 22.01.2025, the complatnants alteged that delayed possession charges be paid and have not sought the said relief in the complaint.

The Authority obserues that the rel,efwith respect to the delayed possession charges have been sought by rhe comptainants in the ''IORM-CRA" at page no.

4-5 of the complaint and thus, the Arthoriry is adjudicaling on the said reUet 25.

In the present complain! the complainanrs intends to continue with the project and are seeking possessionr;f the unir and delayed possession charges as per section 18Jr; of ttre Aialand the same is reproduced betow ror readv reference: ttowt"tl thor where on attoiee daes har ntend to Nithdtow Fan the pruje.t, he sln1ll tu pom, bt the ptanatet, nto oe lDt erery kLnth idetoy, tillthe honding aw olthtp*estrn,otsu.lt ntt o:n)d), be prttu iL?tt " (Enphosbsupptied) 26.

Clause 14[a) of the Buyer's Agreement [in short, rhe agreemenr) dated 1.1.06.2010 provides for handirg over possession and the same is reproduced below: ufu)rnhe nJ honding ovet the Poseston 'strblcd ro rernx ofrliLs dause and thc AllotteeG) hrvill3 conptied with all the ternE and .ond nons oflhis &reementa. &reementa.d not bei.gin dehultundsrany ofthe provurons olthn fureeDrnt and upo. ..oplyins wrth all provislons, formalities, d pres. lied bt the D.vcloper thc Dcv?loper shall nake trll effors to handover possossol ot th.

Lltrir (wlrich falk wnhrtr grotrnd pLus bur noox tower/buitding) wirhin a penod o, thiq (.r0 I n'oill* ,io ' the dtrte Dr .onmcn.eDr.N or.oNluction, and ror rtrr unn (r'hrh,aLls i rh tr Bround pL16 thnsn floors towcr/buildiir8) within: period ofth,ny slx 136) Donrhs fronr the date ofcomn€nc.n.nr of.onstruction, subied ro.sraitr L'mtr.t'onsasmayb.providediDrhsigreementandnm.ly.omplianceofrhsprovLsotrs or ths As.eenrent bl the AllotreeG) The lllotteeGl asrfts and undeGknds thar rhe DeveLoper n,all bc .nritled to ! grace period of thr€€ {31 months, for applyLns rnd oblrnrn!d,.o..up3non.efrLncateir respedoldretrnira d/orrhePror..r secritn le:.

Retutn oI onount ond conpe,sotion )31)) tl rtE p,tnatet loils tu .onptete ot x urabte to stw pase$nn af an dponnt!nt, rlot, at building ?E GURUGRA[/ 27.

The Buyer's agreement was executed on 14.06.2010.As perclause 1a (a) oa the agreement, the respondent was to ofer rhe possession ofthe unit to the allottees within 36 months from rhe date of commencement of construction.

Ihe dare of commencement oi const.uction of the unit is 2.1.06.2011 as evident from the Statemenr of accounts annexed at page no.

8.1 ol complarnt.'lhus, thc Authority have .alcutared 36 months from the drtc ofcommencenrent of consr.uction, also rhe grace period of 3 moDlhs is allowed to the respondent/promoter.

Therefore, the due date comes out ro l)e 24.09.2014.

28 Admissibility of delay possession chargcs at pr€scribed rate of interest; Ihe complainants are seeking delay possession charges holrcver, proviso to s.ction 18 provides that wher€ an alloftee does not intend to wuhdraw from the project, he drallbe paid, by the promoter, jnteresr lbr evcry month ol delay, till rhe handing over of possession, at such rare as rnav bc prcscribed ,nd it has ,nd it has b.en prescribed under rule 15 ol the rules.

Rule 15 has been reproduc€d as under: Rute 1 s, P,escrihed rnt. ol lnterest- lPmvie to seetion 12, s.c oa I an t sub section (1) ond etbsedto, (7) olsection 191 (r t:at rlk puryos. aJ pt att*t la \.d0r 12:te4tan 18, xnd \ub...dans (4) onn {7) olet.M 19, thc irkre!rt rht tute prcs.ribed" shatlbe the stote Bdnk oft,dto h r! h la tn a Bi n d t.a! ol t.ndng ta te + 2 % Prorhe.l t|n. in ate ie State Bankoltndio norsinolco!altehtlns rob (MCLR) is natn L.e, itslloll bereplaced by sueh benchnotk lending rdtes *hich $e Stote Bonk aJtatttu nt) |ix lioD tine to titne fa. ten.tida ro th?sen?ro]puhtn 29.

The legislature in its wisdonr in the subordinate lcgislation under rhe provision oi rulc 15 of dre rules, has dete.nrincd rhe prescribed rate ol interest.'lhe rate olinterest so determined by rhe legidature, is reasonablc and it drc said rule is lollowed to award the interest, it w,llensure unifornr practice in allthe 30.

Consequcntly, as the marginal cost of lendins rate (in State Bank ollndia i.e., https://sbi.co.in, short, MCLR) as on date i.e.,19.02.2025r PaCc l7 \ 122 Com.laintNo.7al2of 2072 HAIlENA GURUGRA[/ is 9.10%.

Accordingly, the prescribed rare of interest will be marginal cost ollcnding rate +20lo i.e., 11.10ol0.

The deturition ol term 'interest' as delined under secrion 2(za) of the Act provides that the .are of interesr chargeable irom the allo$ee by rhe promoter, in case oidefault, shallbe equalto the rate ofinreresr which rhc promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of,defaulr The relevant section is reproduced below: '(za)'ni?re!

DeoN ttt rotusolntere* pojdbte b!.he plonateror the ouosee,os tt tp I r nan a n. - t:a t r tr ? putpo te af thi s doue- ti) ttu atu al aiekn dat a.abt. trrt th? utto ee br tt). ],totroit,incdsealdefdutt, slratl bequat ra th?nreoltrtcte! hr.h the pn,natet\ha| bc lioble to pa), th? att.a.!, ir. a \e ol Lttlau t t | ) the )nErc! palabte b)! .he ptonokr ro th. okr ro th. otadte shott be Jan the dar. the pto,lotet receNed the odount ar any patt thereal .il I .he da tz the o nou.t ot pa i thpt.afond intelen .reon is reJurded, ond the intercn pdjdbte bt the ottoiee to the pnDbkr shdll be lron th? dat? th? atlonee delaults in potn.nt ra the pto"toter ti tl th. dat. it is potd, 0n consideration of the docunrents available on record and submissions made by both the parties regardjng contraveDtion of provis,ons ofthe Act, the Authorjty is satisfied that the respondent is jn contravention of the section I t(41[a) of the Act by nor handjng ovcr posscssion by the due datc as per the agreement.'lhe Authoriry has observed that the Buyer's Agreement was executed on 14.06.2010 between the complainants and the respondent. 'lhe possession of the subiect unit was to be ofiered within a period of36 months from the date ofcommencement olconstruction plus a grace peliod of 3 months.

The Authority calculated due date of possessron irom the date olcommencement ofconstruction i.e.,24.06.2011 along with a grace p.riod of three monrhs wh,ch comes out to be 24.09.2014.

The occupation certificate in respect to the subject unit has been obtained bv the respondent on 08.0U.2019 irom the compctent authorities and the offer ot possession was made to the complainants on 19.08.2019.

The 31 l2 ,IARERC GURUGRAIV respondent has failed to handover possession 33 ccordingly, ir is rhe failure of rhe respondent/promorer to futfit its obligations and responsibilities as per rhe agreement to hand over the possession within the stipulated period.

The Authority is ofthe considcred v'eN that th.rc is del.ry on the parr of tbe resl)ondenr to offer oapossession ot the allotted uDit to the complainants as per the lerms and coDdinons ot lhc Buye.s Agre.ment dated 14.06.2010 executed between the parties. |urfier, th.

Authority observes rhat tbe respondent obtained rhe occupation ccftificnte on 011.08.2019 and ollere.l possession ro rhe conrplainants on 19.08. on 19.08.2019 and the conveyance deed was executed on 17.12.2079_ 34 The rcspoDdent has paid 11s.18,50,000/' as compensation due to the delay ind Rs.6,92,755l- under thc subvention scheme aDd Rs.17,340/ on account of anti profit,ng and the same is reflected in the Statemeni ol nccount nnd il any interest is payable to the complainants it has to be calculated only on the amount deposned by the complajnants towards the basic principal anrount ol lhe unit and not on any amount credited by rhe 35.

Thc Authority is ol the view that an allottee becomes entitled to delayed ofthe subtect unrton the due payment,nterest only on the amount actually paid by the allottee as the allottee has suffered pecuniary loss only on th,s amounL The Authority further relies on the ludgement dated 15.03.2022, passed by the Hon'ble Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in appeal bearing no.

234 of 2021 titled as Emoar MGF Land Lad.

Versvs Anubhav Cupto, a\d the relevant portion is reproduced lor ready reference: 43 The deloted possession inreest is not potable on conpensarion al@dr credited in the occount of the .espon.lent ollottee.

This pleo of the o pllant is curect and IARLRA GURUGRAIV lognol. |herehre, in iew ol the aforeeid discu$ions, t is held rhfi th. appellont is lioble to po! the interest ot delaled possession chorget on the omount i.e., (Rs-1,1s,02,318/. tuihus Rs.6,23,447/- = tu.LOA,7A,e77/-) from 07.0320t6 ti th. h a nA i ng ove r ol th e posession 45.

Thus, keeping in view out olorcyid dit.Nion, th. appeal fb.l bt the appellont is paftly allowed os pu the abote eid obseMtions ond the inpryn d odet ol Authoriqt is nodiled ta the ettent thot the oppellont shall pot the deldted po*$sion intercst @9.3% per onnun on the anount of Rs.7,0a,7a,a71/- ,on the dte dote al possession i.e., 41.03.2416 till hdndins ovet al the po$etsion, fhe ihter*t an the onouna ifont, ||hich hos been poid ofter the due dote oI po$6si i.e,01A3. i.e,01A3.2016 sholl be payable fton the date on which the onount has be.n poitl till the honding In Ight of the above, the Arthoriry is of the vierv rhar the allottee is hable tor delayed possession charges on the anrouDt Jctually paid by thc complainant and not on the compensation/rebatc give! by the respondent 37 Accordingly, the noD-comlriance ofthe mandrte cont.rined in sectior 11[4] [l] read \\,ith section 18(1) of the Act on tlrc palt of the respondent is enabljshcd.

As such, the complainant is entitled to delaypossession charges rt ratc ol th. pr€scribed interest @ 11.100/o p.a. w.e.l 24.09.2014 till thr datc of offer ol possession plus (vo months afie. obtairing the occupation certiflcat., aiicr adjustment/dcduction of thc amount already paid, rI.rny kNards delay in handing over ofpossession as per proviso to section 1u[1J ol thc Act read with nrle 15 ofthe rules.

6.11.

Di.cct thc rcspondcnt h d.livc. thc golf drivi,rB mtrae at the desiAtrnted location a s pmm iscd at the ti me ol bookin8.

G.lll Direcr dr€ rcspotrdent to provide the .menities and golf driving rangc 11 the des,gnat.d location as pe. brochure an.l layout plan provided at the time of C IV lnidat. pen.l proccedings against the respondenl on account of violation of various provisions ofthe Act,2016.nd for.ot Ecrtirg rhc project r€aisicred.

6.v Sctaside tho one sided ind.nrnity bond and settlemen t asreement sianed by thc resDondent from thc comllainants unde. unduc ihfltr.nce.

HA[Enri GURUGRAM ComolaintNo.

7312.f 2022 0ncc the conveyance deed is cxccuted and accounts have been setrlcd, no cLaims renlains.

So, no directions in this regard can be effectuated at this 38.

The Authority has already taken a view in Cr.

4031/2019 and others titled as yaru, Gupto V/s Emaar MGF Land llmlted onil others and observed that the execution of a conveyance deed does not conclude the relationship or marks an end to $e liabilities and obligarions of the promoter towards the sub,ect unit and upon tak,ng posses ,ng possession, and/or executing conveyance deed, the complaints never gave up their statutory right to seek delayed possession charges as per the provisions ofthe said 39.

Thererore, after execution of the,cohveyance deed th€ complainants- allottees cannot seek reliefs other than statutory benents if any pending.

H.

Di.ections ofthe authorityr' 40 llence, the Authority hereby passes this order and issue the Iollolving dircctions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance ofobligations .rs1 upon the promoter as per the iunctjons ent.usted to the authority 'rrder sec 34(l') ofdre ct:- i Thc r.spondent/promoter shall pay interest at the prescribed rate ie., 11.10% for every month ol delay on the amount paid by the complainants from the due date of possession i.e., 24.09.2014 till the date of offer of possession plus two months after obtaining thc occupation certificate, after adjustmenr/deduction of the amounr already paid,fany towards delay in handing over ofpossession as per proviso to section 18(1) ofthe Act read with rule 15 ofthe.ules.

The respondent is directed to pay arrears ol interest accrued, rf .rny , aiier adjustment in statement olaccount, within 90 days from the date olrl'rs order dr oer rule l6[2] otthe Acl PaCeZl ol22 !ARER S"GanGRANl 41.

Complaint as well 42.

Filebeconsisned ifany, stands disposed ol ,L re.rlors.\,rf,.t Mefi6er Haryana Rfal Estate I(egulatory Authority, PaEc 12 ot 22