MS PURVA KAPOOR vs SPLENDOR LANDBASE LTD

LARtR/', GUl?UGt?AM RE THE HARYAN REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Complaint no.: Date of complaint: 24.03.2022 Order pronounced on: 12.12.202+ e-1, Gurugram, Complainant 1150 of2022 M/S SPLENDOR LANDBAS Regd.

Office at: - Unit No.S Splendor Forum, Plot No.3, District Centre Jasola, Versus LIMITED 1_511,5t1, floor, New Delhi-110025 CORAM: Sh.

Vijay Kumar Goyal 1.

The present complaint section 31 of the Real short, the Act) read Wit Development) Rules, 2 11(4)(a) of the Act whe Respondent Member Complainant Respondent ORDER as been filed by the complainant/allottees unclcr te fRegulation and DevelopmentJ Act, 2016 [in rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate fllegulation ancl 17 [in short, the Rules) for violation of sccrion APPEARANCE: Sh.

Garvit Gupta Sh.

Ravi Agarwal (Advocate [Advoca in it is inter a/la prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all ligations, responsibilities and functions under thc. provisions of the Act or e Rules and regulations made thereunder or to thc allottees as per the a fi. ent for sale executed inter se.

Page 1 of29 complaint No.

1150 of 2022 ffiHARTR,q ffi eunuGRAM A.

Unit and proiect related details.

2.

The particulars of unit details, sale consicleration, the amount paid by thc complainants, date of proposed handing over the possession, delay periocl, if' any, have been detailed in the following tabular form: Sr.

No.

Particulars Details 1.

Name of the project Splendor Epitome, Sector-62, Gu 2.

Nature of project Commercial 3.

Rera registration 22 of 201,9 dated 26.03.2019 va 31,.1,2.2023 4.

Unit no.

SE-52-A 5.

Unit admeasuring 600 sq. ft. [carpet area) fas per page no.

19 ofrepl 6.

Application for provisional registration of unit 05.10.2011 fpage no.

30 of complaintl 7.

Date of execution of Builder buyer agreement Not executed B.

Due date of delivery of possession Cannot be ascertained as no ag was executed between the partir 9.

Basic sale price Rs.65,55,000/- [as confirmed by parties during proceedings dated 12.12. ted 12.12.2024) 10.

Total amount paid by the complainant Rs.

20,17,1.38/- (as alleged by respondent page Z0 of per the demand letter dated 20.05.20 56 reply and relief of refund sought b complainant of Rs.20 ,17 ,138 /-) 11.

Demand/Reminder letters I0.12.201 3, 1 8.0 1.20 1.4, 25.0 4.2 20.05.2019 and 11.07 .2019 lpase 55-60 of replvl 1,2.

Final reminder letter 1,5.07.2019 fpaee 61 of re 13.

Cancellation notice 02.08.20L9 fpage no.62 ofrepl 1,4.

Legal notice by complainant for refund 49.LL.2019 fpage 3B of complaint 15.

Refund Cheque issued by the respondent 02.08.2019 [Vide cheque Rs.6,31,1,94/- page 6 replyl irg*- I l idupto i rccmenI ES f reply, as 019 page by the 20L4, --t 3of Complaint No.

1150 of 2022 Page 2 of 29 ffiHARER,{, ffi GURUGRAM on Facts of the complaint: The complainant has made the following submissions: - I.

That the complainant is the allottee of the commercial unit bearing no.

Sll 52-A admeasuring super area ,6.00 sq. ft. approximately in a commercial building project of the respondent known as "SPLENDoR EPIToME" Sector- 62, Gurugram.

II. 'fhat the respondent attracted the public by offering the project for salc ancl by inviting them through various means such as publishing varior-rs brochures, posters, advertisement etc.

The complainant was lurcd by thc fancy offers and advertisements, decided to purchase one of thc unit in thc respondent's project for her personal use.

III.

That based on the representations made by the respondent, thc complainant made an application for booking a unit in the said projcct, which was offered at a total consideration of Rs.65,55,000/- through one of their agent M/s Neeraj & Companyvia agents Mr.

Chetan Sachdcv atrd Mr'.

Karan Pahwa.

That the complainant has made a payment of Rs.

5,00,000/- towards booking amount via cheque no.485632 dated 10.10.2011, along with an additional amount of Rs.

4,00,000/- in cash towards allotment of thc saicl unit.

At the time of making the application, Agency i.e. gency i.e., M/s Neeraj & Company via agents Mr.

Chetan Sachdev and Mr.

Karan Pahwa, was in communication with the complainant and at the behest of Mr.Chctan an additional sum of Rs.4,00,000 f -was paid in cash as per the demand of thc Complaint No.

1150 of 2022 16.

Amount paid back by the respondent to the complainant Rs.6,31,194/- (as per page 63 of reply, on2B.L2.20l9 confirmed by the complainant during proceedings dated 70.t0.2024) 1.7.

Occupation Certificate 26.t2.201.8 [as recorded in CR/924/2019 clisposed 08.08.2022) AS B.

3.

IV.

A/' Page 3 of29 ffiH ffic URUGI?AM ARER-& respondent.

At the time of accepting the application money, the respondcnt assured for the timely delivery of the commercial unit with specificd specifications.

V.

Subsequently respondent verbally made another demand to thc complainant for the payment of Rs.4,83,250/-, which was accordingly paicl by the complainant by way of cheque no.

4856 37 on 15.10.201 1 .

VI.

Further, the respondent vide demand note dated 17.11.2011 demandcci a sum of Rs.25,31,9/-which was in furtherance of the Service'fax at the ratc of 2.75o/o of the previous payments.

VII.

That the complainant herein had made further payment of l{s.9,U3 ,250l to the respondent on 01.12.2011, which was duly acknowledged vide receip[ dated 01.12.2011.

VIII. 'fhat the complainant was served with an Invoicc/Demand l,ettcr Cr-rnr Service Letter number EPI/00051 dated 02.01,.2012 for a net amount of Rs.50,638 /- inorder to clear the dues of the service tax of all the payntcnts previously made.

The complainant duly met with the aforesaid dentanci vide cheque dated 06.04.2012 for an amount of Rs.S0 ,638f -, clearing all thc dues of the service tax altogether.

The respondent duly acknowlcclgcs the receipt of the said amount vide receipt dated 29.05.2012.

IX.

That the respondent did not send any further comnrunication anci completely disappeared after taking considerable portion of thc unit consideration. ideration.

There was no updates vis-a-vis the status of the project.

In starting year 201,1,, complainant has always made timely payments as pcr schedule, however, respondent completely disappeared and as statcd above, there was no updates etc.

X.

That the complainant has paid approximately Rs.24,17,1381- for thc saicl unit, However, complainant after paying such a huge amount, thc Cornptrint fVo. f f SO of ZOn I Page 4 of29 HARER& GURUGt?AM Complaint No.

1150 of 2022 respondent played clever dilatory tricks, false assurance and promiscs, leading to situation of uncertainly.

XI.

That the complainant has sent numerous mails as well as sent writtcn communication, asking respondent to update the status of the constructiop and fate of the said project and its progress.

However, the complainant dicl not receive any communication from the respondent company and all communications/requests/remainders fallen to deaf ears.

XII.

That the situation of uncertainty created by the respondent, complainant was compelled to issue a legal notice dated Og.ll.Z)lg through thcir Advocate, demanding the amount of Rs.

24,17,L38/- along with intercst (rD 1,Bo/o p.a. from the date of payments along with a sum of Rs.12,00,000 l- as damages towards, mental agony, harassment as well as loss of profits owing to the fact that the said property was bought for commercial purpose.

XIII.

That the respondent promptly responded to the aforesaid legal noticc vidg their reply dated 28.12.201,9 alleging that they have been sending rcgular communications and after waiting for default of more than S years sencl demand letter dated 20.05.2019 requesting to make the payment of tolal outstanding amount of Rs. zg,32,206l- as per payment schedulc. 'fhc abovesaid demand letter was followed by reminder letter dated 11,.06.2019 and thereafter a final reminder letter dated 15.07. ted 15.07.2019 giving Iast and final to make the payment of outstanding amount within a period of 15 clays failing which consequential action in terms of the application/provisional allotment letter/agreement.

The respondent further vide noticc clatccl 02.08.201,9 cancel the application for booking and earnest moncy amounting to Rs.

13,11,000 /- and service tax amounting to Rs.74,9 441- was adjusted forfeited against the total amount of Rs.20,17,1.381- paicl by thc complainant and the balance amount of Rs.6,31,1.94/- was renlittecl viclc ff,- cheque no.

000293 dated 02.08.2019 drawn of HDFC Bank.

Page 5 ol'29 ffi ridJih, ci&,L/ HAl?ER& ffiGURUGI?AM XIV.

The respondent in their aforesaid reply further alleged that they are agair-r enclosing herewith cheque no.

000368 dated 28.1,2.201.g for a refundablc amount of Rs.6,3 1,1,9 4 / -.

XV.

That the complainant on receiving the aforesaid reply notice, duly responded vide their rejoinder notice dated 16.01.2020, in which ir was clearly stated that the respondent has sent a letter, Ref: Sll/Epitome/g98 dated Sth October, ZOL6 on the new address of the complainant i.e., A- 29/1,6' DLF Phase-1, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002, stating that they will kccp complainant update about the progress of the project with imagcs o[ thc site development.

The said aforementioned letter dated 05.10.2016 was duly annexed with the rejoinder reply.

The complainant in the saici rejoinder notice clearly stated that complainant had made sundry oral apcl written requests to the respondent as well as M/s Neeraj & Company" to duly inform and update complainant as to the fate of the said projcct ar-rci the respondent besides having the new address within their databasc chose to send the various other letters including letters dated 0g.10.2016 12.10.20\7 and 16.07.2018 at the old address of rhe complainanr. mplainanr.

XVI' That the complainant had no idea about the fate and future of thc projcct and has lost a significant and considerable portion of hcr lifelong savings and had suffered a loss and damage in as much as they had deposited thc money in the optimism of getting the said unit for commercial purposcs, and complainant had not only be divested of her possessron of the saicl upit but also deprived of the benefit of price escalation as well as thc prospective return they might have received in the event they had not invested in the said project.

The complainant in the said rejoinder reply submitted that due to non- compliance and breach of terms of the agreement by the respondent, thc complainant is presenting the said cheque of Rs.6,3 7,rg4 l- datcd Complaint No.

1150 of Z02Z XVII.

Page 6 of29 ffiHARERn ffi eunUGRAM Complaint No.

1150 of 2022 28.1'22019 for encashment without prejudice to the other claims and thc same should be sternly considered as a part payment out of the originally claimed and liable amount of Rs.24,1 7 ,1,38 f -, which amount the respondcnt legally responsible to pay.

XVIII.

That the complainant herein in the rejoinder legal notice called upop rlic respondent to refund the balance amount of Rs.17,85,944f - along with ar-r interest @L80/o p.a. from the date of each payment to the actual datc of' realization on every installment paid along with a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- in furtherance of damages towards mental agony, XIX.

That the complainant had subSequently came rnat tne complalnant had subsequently came to know that the aforcsaid illegal tricks and tactics by the respondent, was a ploy to deprivc thc know original allottees of their allotted units by adopting dirty tricks so rhar rhcy seek refund of their original booking amount, Whereas, fact of the mattcr is that the respondent has been re-selling the said allotted units to pcw buyers in the open market at a much higher escalated prices, which has risen to many folds in the recent past. cent past.

XX.

As per the statement of account prepared by the complainant, she has paicl Rs.24,17,138/- minus the amount paid back via reply notice by thc respondent as such the amount stand paid is Rs.17,85,944/-.

XXI.

That, since 201,9 the complainant is contacting the respondent[s] telephonically and making efforts to get possession of the allottccl commercial space but all went in vain.

Despite several telcphonic conversations and personal site visits by the complainant, the rcsponcicnt failed to give the complete offer of possession of the commercial allottccl unit/space.

Also, requested to complete the project as per spccifications and amenities as per BBA and Brochure, but all went in vain.

XXII.

That due to the acts of the above and the terms and conclitions of thc Builder Buyer agreement, the complainant has been unnecessarily harassccl PageT of29 ffiHARERft ffi CunUGRAM Compf aint No.

1150 ol 2022 mentally as well as financially, therefore the respondent is liable to compensate the complainant on account of the aforesaid act of unfair tradc practice.

XXIII.

That there are clear unfair trade practices and breach of contract anci deficiency in the services of the respondent party and much more a smell of' playing fraud with the complainant and others and is prima facie clear on the part of the respondent.

C.

Relief sought by the complainant: 4.

The complainant initially sought the relief of delay possession intcrcst.

However, oh 21.09.2023, the complainant moved an application for' amendment of the relief to refund of the paid-up amount i.e.

Rs.20 ,17,138f - along with interest.

Vide proceedings dated 12.12.2024 said application was allowed and the complainant has sought following relief[s) through amendment application: I.

Direct the respondent to refund the total paid up amount of Rs.20,17 ,1.38/-.

II.

Pass an order for setting aside cancellation letter dated 02.08.201.9.

5. .201.9.

5.

0n the date of hearing, the authority explained to the respondent/ promotcr about the contraventions as alleged to have been committed in relatior-r to section 11[4) (a) of the Act to plead guilty or not ro plead guilry.

D.

Reply by the respondent.

6. 'l'he respondent has contested the complaint by filing reply on the followin', grounds: - i.

That admittedly the booking of unit made by the complainant in subjcct project under reference had already been cancelled vide cancellation notice dated 02.08.2019 due to continuous and blatant defaults of thc complainant in making the due payments despite giving numerous opportunities to her to make good her default and the complainant had also encashed the cheque issued to her vide the said cancellation noticc Page B o[ 29 ffiHARER'r ffi eunuenArvr Complaint No.

1150 of ZO22 again sent to her vide reply notice dated zl.1,z.z01,g as su complainant has been left with no right, interest, lien, claim or con any nature whatsoever in respect of the said unit and any documents issued by the respondent in respect thereof.

As su complainant is no longer the allottee as defined in the Act,2o1,6 a no locus to file the present complaint.

The present compliant is liabl dismissed on this ground alone.

That the complainant has failed to bring to the notice of the Authority that it was in fact the complainant who has repeatedly defaulted in mal<ing payment as per agreed payment plan.

That the complainant at one hand has enchasecl the refunci chequc sept l-o her upon cancellation of her booking and on other hand secks restoratiop of her booking which is not permissible under the law ancl the rules maclc therein and also since the complainant has never sent the signed spacc buyer agreement despite receiving the letters sent by the respondcr. respondcr.r[, admitted by the complainant, without any reason, there is no delay in thc present case and without admission the legal notice sent tty thc complainant at the best can be said to be request for cancellation of hcr. booking.

Thus, the refund of the amount after deduction of earncst rnoncy by the respondent was as per the terms of the allotment and tlic provisions of the Act and rules made therein.

That admittedly the complainant in her rejoinder notice dated 76.0i.ZOZO had admitted having encashing the cheque of Rs.6,3 1,lg4l- sent to hcr upon cancellation of her unit and called upon the respondent to ntakc thc remaining payment of the alleged amount alongwith interest @ 1,8% p.a. however in the present complaint the complainant is seeking restoration of the allotment of the unit in the project in reference.

The complainant cannot sail in two boats at the same time.

There is not a whisper or Page 9 of29 -t l hc of he hc AS be cht cern oft cht ndh le to ii. iii. iv. ffiffiHARERA ffioURUGRAM Complaint No.

1150 of 2022 request regarding restoration of allotment of said unit in the rejoindcr notice dated 1,6.01.2020 sent by the complainant and now after a period of more than two years the complainant is seeking restoration of the unit which is not permissible. v, That the complaint is barred by the law of limitation also.

As pcr thc provision of Act and Rules made therein only in the case if the prornotcr does not have clear title over the project land only then the law of limitation does not apply but the same intention of the legislature is noL reflected in any other provisions of recovery and compensation clauses of the RERA Act and rules made therein. 'l'herefore, in the present case whcn the complainant slept for more than nine years and despite repeatcd request admittedly received by her did not bother to send the signed space buyer agreement to the respondent for more than 5 years thereforc, complainant cannot seek either compensation nor refund and t fund and thc complainant cannot be said to be bonafide allottee or unit buyer and thc claim of complainant for refund or compensation and possession of thc flat after nine years of default and inaction is clearly barred by law of limitation and also the same is barred by law of estoppel. vi.

That because of allottee like the complainant who did not adhere to [hc payment plan and continuously defaulted for years after years causing serious injury and hardship to the project of the respondent and thc complainant cannot be allowed to allege that merely because of his non- payment and default the same could not have affected the construction because each and every time payment from each allottee is sine qua lton for development of any such project and each and every default by thc allottee/unitbuyer need to be seen seriously and prejudicial to the entirc project and such allottee/unit buyer need to be dealt strictly by the Authority for overall development and upkeeping of the project and to Page 10 of29 HARER& ffi GURUGI?AM Complaint No.

1150 of 2022 protect the honest homebuyer who pays their all dues in timc. 'l'hereforc, such defaulted allottee/unit buyer cannot be treated at the par with thc allottee/unit buyer who has not even defaulted once in their payment and has followed the law and terms and condition of the agreement strictly. vii, That the complainant in order to mislead the Authority has falsely statcd in her complaint that the project is unregistered and has falsely sought relief against the respondent for non-compliance of thc registration process and violation of the law/rules/notification etc. of the Authority related to the project and its development ancl compliance. viii.

That the complainant has falsely mentioned in the complaint that thc construction is at infant level. ant level.

The complainant who has not even bothercd to sign the space buyer agreement despite repeated reminders adnrittedly received by her, she cannot be allowed to make any comment upon thc construction stage of the said project who is responsible for any slowdown in the said project because of her default and fraud played upon thc respondent for more than nine years.

Had complainant being bonafidc, thc complainant would have sent the signed space buyer agreement to thc respondent promoter and would not have filed the false complaint ancl would not have remain silent for more than nine year and reacted through Legal Notice when a cancellation letter was sent to her at her purportccl old address. ix.

That the complainant on the one hand had alleged in the prcscnt complaint that date of execution of BBA is 31.10.2015 and on the othcr hand has falsely mentioned in her complaint that thc due datc of' possession as per BBA 28.09.2014. 'l'his in itself transpires the vcracity of the tall claim mad by the complainant in the present complaint.

Since thc complainant did not ever sign and sent the said space buyer agreement to the respondent without any reason therefore, there is no dclay Page 11 of29 ffiHARER,rt, ffi eunuenAM whatsoever in the present case and the cancellation of the allotment of thc said unit was as per the law and rules made therein and as per thc tcrms of the allotment letter.

That the affidavit filed by complainant is also false as the complainant has mentioned in her complaint that date of filing of the present con-rplaint is 23.02.2022 and the verification is dated 06.02.2022 and, affidavit is darcd March, 2022 and the vakalatnama is dated l1.oz.zoL2. 'l'herefore, thc complainant has signed the verification much before she had engaged hcr advocate and also much before she has signed her affidavit thus thc averment in complainant and vakalatnama filed by the complaint is lalsc and nothing but utter abuse of process of court and the present complaint complaint ought to be dismissed on this ground alone.

That the Act of 2OL6 has been made fully operational with effcct from l st of May 201,7.

In State of Haryana, Haryana Real Estate (li.egulatlon ancl Development) Rules, 20 1,7 cameinto force with effect from '28.07.2017.

At this stage it is pertinent to submit that any new enactment of Laws arc l-o be applied prospectively as held by the Flon'ble Supreme Court in umptccn no of cases, in particular, in the matter of 'CIT vs.

Vatika 'l'ownship [p) Ltcl', it has been held that the new legislation oirght not to change the charactcr- of any past transactions carried out upon the faith of the then existing law. xii.

That it is further respectfully submitted that recently in the marter ol Nccl Kamal Realtor Suburban IP) Ltd.

Vs. t]01 &Ors. the Ilon'ble I-ligh Courr of Judicature at Bombay, held that the provisions of REttA are prospectivc in nature and not retrospectively. xiii' That the complainant had made booking of unit no.052A admeasuring 600 sq. ft. of super area in the commercial project titled "SPLIINDOR Ilt,ITOM Ij" at Sector -62, Golf Course Extension Road, Gurugram, comprising.'fhe total sale consideration of the unit booked by the complainant was complaint No.

1150 of 2022 x. xi.

Page 12 of 29 ffiHARERn ffieunUGRAM Complaint No.

1150 of 2022 Rs.72,00,000 /- which is inclusive of basic sale price of Rs.6 1,,77 ,OOO /-, pl,C of Rs.3,00,000f -, EDC/IDC of Rs.2,40 ,oo0/- and EEC of I1s.30,0 ool-, FIic of Rs.4'5,000/-ARF of Rs.30,000.

Service tax / GST and other taxes, levics, charges as applicable from to time as per applicable laws was payablc by the complainant additionally.

Against the aforesaid total sale price of' Rs.72,00,000/-, the complainant had deposited Rs.20, 17,1.38/- including Service tax of Rs74,944/-.

The complainant has as such made a falsc statement before the Authority that it has paid approx.

Rs.24,17,13g/- ol the total sale price. ale price.

In fact, the complainant had defaulted in making payment of the outstanding amount as per agreed construction linkccl payment plan since Decemb er 201,2 as is evident from the various cicnrar-rcl letters annexed by the Complainant and as admitted by her in thc complaint. xiv.

That in pursuance to the application of the complainant, the respor.rclcpt sent demand letter dated L0.12.2013 to the complainant on her address Il- 215, D.L.F.

Phase-1, Gurgaon-lzzo0z to make payment of rhe rhcn outstanding amount of Rs.7,99,8 061- as became due on start of excavation.

Since, the complainant had not made any payment after receipt of the saicl demand letter, the respondent sent reminder letter dated 18.01.2014 ancl reminder letter dated 18.01.2014 to the complainant at her acldress B-'215, D.L.F.

Phase-1, Gurgaon-122002 to make payment of outstanding installment of Rs.7,99,806/- as per payment plan opted by them, but thc complainant failed to make any payment.

On 25.04.2014 the responclgrr further sent a reminder letter to the complainant on her address Ii-2/5, D.L.F.

Phase-1, Gurgaon-1,22002 demanding the above saicl amount but went in deaf ear. xv' That the respondent vide letter dated 14.04.2014 sent the spacc buycr agreement on her address B-z/5, D.L.F.

Phase-1, Gurgaon-lzzooz and A/ Page 13 of29 I{ARER& ffi GURUGRAM Complaint No.

1150 o12022 requested her to execute and deliver the same to the respondent but thc complainant did not execute the same without any reason. xvi.

That after approval of building plans of the said project there had bccn abnormal delay in receipt of statutory environment clearances fronr thc Ministry of Environment and Forest and Haryana State Pollution Control Board and after receipt of consent to establish with lots of persuasion, thc Respondent had to revise the plans of the said project to improvc thc circulation of main tower of the said project, parking area and bettcr aesthetics. esthetics.

Further, when the application for approval of revised building plans of the said project and change of developer in respect of liccnscs oi the said project was pending for approval with the office of Director, Towr.r & Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh, all approvals/sanctions, relatccl with the projects falling in Sector-S8 to Sector 67, Gurugram wcrc put on hold because of some Administrative orders issued by Attorney Gencral of' Haryana in pursuance of which CBI had also ceased files of thc various project falling in the said sectors.

This embargo had caused delay of morc than one year in release of aforesaid approvals.

Owing to the delay causcci by this embargo, the respondent could also not avail the term loan it hacl got sanctioned from SIDBI to part finance the construction of the said project. xvii.

That though the construction of the said project was going on constantly, the respondent vide letter dated 05.10.2016 sent to complainant at her addressee A-29/16-A, Block A, DLF Phase-1, Gurgaon-1.22002 informcd the complainant about the progress of the project and again requested hcr to execute the space buyer agreement but the complainant despitc receiving this letter dated 05.10.2016 as per her own admission ncvcr executed the said space buyer agreement without any reason.

A/ Page 74 of 29 ffiHARER& #* GURUGRAM Complaint No.

1150 of 2022 xviii' That the respondent vide letter dated 16.07.2018 sent to complainant at her address B-2/5, D.L.F.

Phase-1, Gurgaon-122002 informed her aboLrr the development of the said project. xix.

That the respondent after receipt of registration certificate for the said project from the Authority had sent demand letter dated 20.05.2019 ro thc complainant apprising her about the then construction status of thc said project and requesting her to make payment of outstanding amount of' Rs.29,32,206/- as per construction linked payment plan out of total receivable amount of Rs.49,49,3441- after deducting Rs. ucting Rs.20,1 7 ,138I - already received from the complainant.

It may be added here that whilc raising the said demand the respondent had not added any interest on thc delayed payment of the previous outstanding amount.

Vide said lettcr, thc respondent had also requested the complainant to execute the agreemo'rt for sale in respect of the unit booked by him and get the samc registcrecl aL the earliest.

The complainant had failed to make any payment or sencl any response to the said letter due to which the Respondent had sent remindcr letter - 1 dated 11.06.2019 to the complainant to make the payment of thc aforesaid outstanding instalment of Rs.29,3 2,206 / -.

Since the complainant had again failed to make any payment or scnd any response to the said letters, the respondent had sent final remindcr lcttcr dated 15.07.2019 to the complainant giving him last anci final opportur.ri[y to make payment of the aforesaid outstanding amount of I{s.

29,32,'2061- within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the said letter falling which it was informed that the respondent shall be constraincd to tal<r: consequential action in terms of application/provisional allotment lettcr.

Since, the complainant continued with their default and again failcd to make payment of the aforesaid outstanding amount of Rs.29,3'2,206l even after receipt of final reminder letter dated, the l{espondent was Page 15 of29 k ffiHARTRE ffiGUilUcRAM Complaint No.

1150 of 2022 constrained to cancel the booking of the said unit made by thc complainant and remit the cheque of the refundable amount aftcr deduction of earnest money and the service tax vide cancellation noticc dated 02.08.2019. xxi.

That after receipt of the said cancellation notice the complainant had sent a legal notice to the respondent to the complaint raising vague, sham and concocted allegations against the respondent.

The respondent vide rcply notice dated 28.1.2. ed 28.1.2.2019 had duly replied to the said notice making it clcar thatthe issuance of the said legal notice on the basis of false and fabricatccl assertions has been done in utter disregard of the admitted docunrcnts and correspondences between the parties and is without any factual or legal basis.

Vide the said reply it was made clear that as a consequcncc of the said cancellation, earnest money amounting to Rs.13,11,000/- ancl service tax amounting to Rs.74,944/- was adjusted / forfeited against thc total amount of Rs.20,17,1,381- paid by thc complainant ancl the balancc amount of Rs.6,31,,194/- was remitted vide cheque no.000293 clatccl 02.08.2019 drawn on HDFC Bank.

Vide the said notice, it was again informed that the complainant left with no right, interest, lien, clainr or concern of any nature whatsoever in respect of the unit booked by her-in the said project under reference and in any of the documents issued by thc respondent in respect of thereof.

Vide the said reply notice [hc complainant again sent cheque no.000368 dated 28.12.201g f'or refundable amount of Rs.6,31,194/- as mentioned above, which had becn duly encased by the complainant. xxii' That the complainant has never updated to the respondent company th;rt A-29/16-4, Block-A, D.L.F.

Phase-1, Gurugram, Haryana is the only addrcss of the complainant and the address given to respondent company at thc time of booking and thereafter is no more her correspondence addrcss.

Page 16 of29 ffiHARER*,, #* eunuenArv The complainant deliberately did not update her any such addressee with the respondent to be her sole address as she did not bother to even sign the space buyer agreement and return the same and she was ncvcr interested in adhering to the payment plan as per the terms and conditions of the allotment.

It is only at this stage when after givirrg numerous opportunities to the complainant to make good her dcfaults and after waiting for a substantial period, complainant did not make a singlc payment an payment and kept quiet and did not even bother to update the address and kept on receiving some notices at purportcd new addresscc and somc at purported old address, respondent cancelled the booking of the saicl r:nit. 'l'hereafter, the complainant issued a concocted legal notice raising falsc allegation and then demanded the refund and when respondent resent thc refund amount, the complainant enchased the same and filed the prcscnt case for possession. xxiii.

That since the complainant did not make the payment for morc than 9 years and continuously defaulted in it and deliberately did not sign the space buyer agreement despite repeated requested, thereforc, thc complainant is not liable for any relief from the Authority. xxiv.

That the complainant has not filed any document to show that thcy havc ever updated the respondent that complainant has changed her address and all further correspondence shall be done at their new address.

Just because one letter has been sent to purported new address ol thc complainant cannot be sole evidence that the complainant intendcd to change her correspondent address and the purported new address is thc only correspondence address of the complainant.

That the complainant has alleged to have paid cash amount ol Rs.4,00,000/- without producing any evidence to that effect and this kind of false allegation clearly shows that the complainant has not approachcd Page 77 of 29 Complaint No.

1150 o12022 xxv. wHAR[Ri:, ffi eunUGRAM Complaint No.

1150 of 2022 the Authority with clean hand but has approached the Authority only to extort money from the respondent without any basis. xxvi.

That the complainant had chosen to remain silent about her changc of address, if any, for more than nine years and only at the time when thc allotment of complainant was cancelled, the complainant sent the legal notice to the respondent and when the respondent resent the refund amount of Rs. unt of Rs.6,31,,1,94/- through cheque along with reply notice, the complainant on one hand encashed admitting the cancellation of hcr booking of the said unit and now after a period of more than two ycar-s filed the present complaint for possession. xxvii.

That the complainant has herself accepted that she has not macle any payment after 2012-2013 but at same time complainant has not cvcrr uttered a word that when did she change her address and il she cvcr informed the company about the change of address.

Merely bccausc shc has provided an alternate address for sending only one correspondencc cannot be said to be communication for change of then correspondencc address of the complainant for all further communication. xxviii.

That the admission of the complainant that she was sent only onc communication on her purported new address further shows that shc was in continuous touch with the people of company and she knowing that all other communications are being sent to her purported old address renrain kept quiet and only when the said unit was cancelled after waiting for 10 years, she sent a legal notice.

That even for the sake of argument if the allegation of the complainant is admitted to be true then also, she after receiving such communication as admitted by her did not send the signed copy of space buyer agreement to the company and kept the same without any reason and to misguide thc Authority mentioned execution of agreement on 30.1,0.2015. 'l'hus, when xxix.

Page 18 of29 ffiHARERA ffieunuenArrl the complainant herself did not comply with the basic requirement ol RERA Act to sign the said space buyer agreement despite number of communications admittedly received by her, she is not entitled for any relief from the Authority and the cancellation of the allotment of said unit of the complainant was justified and as per the law and rules maclc therein. xxx.

That the complainant has falsely mentioned that complainant has paicl Rs. paicl Rs.24,17,138/- to the respondent company and the complainant need l-o be put to the strict proof of the same.

The question of any restoration of' allotment of unit or payment of delay possession charges as sought by thc complainant does not arise since the complainant himself is a defaultcr and also not entitled to any relief n view of the provisions of Section 51 of the Indian Contract Act.

It is clear that since the complainant was unablc to continue with the allotment of the said unit and wanted to evade rnaking payment towards the said unit, they have filed the present complaint.

Therefore, the Authority ought to dismiss the present complaint on this ground alone.

7.

All other averments made by the complainant were denied in toto.

E.

Written Submission filed by complainant.

B.'l'he complainant filed written submissions on 0g.12.2024 andmade following submissions: a) That the complainant booked a unit in the project of the Respondcnt namely 'splendor Epitome' situated at Sector-62, Gurugram vidc thc booking application form dated 05.10.2011 and Unit no.

SII-52-A was allotted in favour of the complainant. b) That the respondent failed to send the copy of the agreement and thc same was never executed between the complainant and the respondent.

Also, the respondent failed to send update on the status of the complction Complaint No.

1150 of 2022 Page 19 of29 ffiHARER,T ffi eunucRAM requesting the respondent to do the needful. cJ Furthermore, even if the unsigned agreement dated 1,1.04.2014 is to bc taken into consideration, as per clause g.z of the said unsigned agreement, the due date of handing over of possession lapscd op 1,1,.04.201,8, calculated as 48 months from the date of execution of, agreement. d) That the complainant had made total payment of Rs.24,17,138/- (withor-rt cash component, the payment made was lls.2 0,L7,13g/-). e) That the subject unit was cancelled vide cancellation letter datccl 02.08.2019.

2.08.2019.

The address of the complainant was changed in thc ycar 201,3, from B-2/5.

DLF Phase-I, Gurugram to A-29/1,6, DLIi phasc- I, Gurugram.

0 All demand notices and reminders have been sent to the earlier addrcss and not at the new address.

Hence, payment demands ancl remindcr-s were never received by the complainant. g) That the respondent was aware of the new address is evident from thc letter dated 1,7.12.2015, letter dated 05.10.2016 and reply ro the lcgal notice dated 28.12.2019 issued by the respondent. h) Further, at the time of cancellation, the respondent paid the amount of Rs6,31',1,94/- and cheque was sent to the new address. 'fhe respondcnt had itself admitted that there was a delay on its part vide its letter datcd 17.12.2015.

On account of delay, the complainant had vide legal noticc dated 09.1,1.2019 had sought refund of the amount paid along with interest. il That the said cancellation letter and the demands or the reminders wcrc never received by the complainant. 'fhe complainant sent a letter t6.01.2020 and pointed out that the respondent had earlier sent lettcr Complaint No.

1150 of 2022 of the project despite the numerous reminders sent by the complainant Page20 of 29 ffiI{ARERE ffi eunuennM dated 05.10.2016 to the complainant on the old address and yet have failed to send the reminders and cancellation letter at the new addrcss.

The complainant had also sought refund of the balance amount.

Amount of Rs.6,31,,1,94/- enchased only as part-payment and the same was informed in Para 11 of the Legal notice sent by the complainant.

Written Submission filed by respondent.

The respondent filed written submissions on 18.04.2024 and macle following submissions: a) That the complainant paid an amount of 11s.20,17,1,38/- including scrvicc tax of Rs.74,944/- against the total sale price of Rs. ice of Rs.72,90,000/- till December 201,2 and thereafter did not make any further payment despitc sending several reminders and demand Ietters with request to exccute thc buyer's agreement/agreement for sale and get the same registerecl. b) That the complainant despite above said several requests nerther maclc the payment after December 2ot2 nor executed spacc buycr- agreement/agreement for sale.

Complainants had not made a singlc payment towards all such demands since the year 2013-2014 upto ZOlg. c) After issuance of final reminder letter dated 15.07.2019, the respondcnt cancelled the subject unit vide cancellation notice dated 02.08.2019 ancl further sent a cheque dated 02.08.2019 of lls.6,3 1,194/- towarcls rhc refundable amount after forfeiture of earnest money and service tax in terms of the application for allotment read with letter datecl 14.04.2014, which was duly received by the complainant. d) The complainant thereafter sent a legal notice to the respondcnt apcl letters dated 05.10.2016 and 16.07.2018 whereby the respondcnr has updated the status of the project in question to the complainant. e) That the respondent sent a reply dated 28.1.2.2019 along with a frcsh cheque dated 28.12.2019 of Rs.6,31,,194/- towards the balance amount Complaint No.

1150 of 2022 F.

9.

Page 2l of 29 $ffi HARER,.t ffi ounucRAM Complaint No.

1150 of 2O2Z after adjusting/forfeiting the earnest money and service tax vidc abovc said cancellation letter dated OZ.OB.ZO19.

0 That the complainant encashed the said cheque dated 28.L2.2019 of Rs.6,31,,1,94/- and filed the present complaint for restoration of allotmcnt of the above said commercial space and later complainant instcad of withdrawing the said complaint filed an application dated Zl.Og.ZOZ3 for amendment of relief sought claiming the refund of 11s.20,17,138/- with interest by setting aside cancellation letter dated 02.OB.ZO19.

2.OB.ZO19.

Also, thc complainant has encashed the balance amount sent to her after deducting earnest money in the year 20t9 itself therefore nothing remains to be paicl to the complainant. g) 1'hat the complainant has never updated to the respondent company that A-29116-4, Block-A, D.L.F.

Phase-1, Gurugram, Haryana is the only adcircss of the complainant and the address given to respondent at thc tinrc of booking and thereafter is no more her corresponclence address.

Thc complainant deliberately did not update her any such address with thc respondent to be her sole address.

The complainant did not ntakc a singlc payment and kept quiet and did not even bother to update the address and kept on receiving one letter at purported new address and somc at old address therefore, the respondent cancelled the booking of thc said unit. h) Moreover, the complainant has not filed any document to show that shit had ever updated the respondent that complainant has changecl hcr address and all further correspondence shall be done at their new addrcss. |ust because one letter has been sent to purported new address of thc complainant cannot be sole evidence that the complainant intendcd to change her correspondent address. i) That the complainant had chosen to remain silent about her change of address, if any, for more than nine years and only at the time whcn thc Page 22 of 29 ffiHARERn ffi oUnUGRAM allotment of complainant was cancelled, the complainant sent the legal notice to the respondent and when the respondent resent the refund amount of Rs.6,31,,1,94/- through cheque along with reply notice, the complainant on one hand encashed admitting the cancellation of licr booking of the said unit and after a period of more than two years filecl thc present complaint. jl That the complainant has herself accepted that she has not macle any payment after 2012-2013 but at same time complainant has not cvcp uttered a word that when did she change her address ancl if she cvcr informed the r rmed the respondent about the change of address. k) That the admission of the complainant that she was sent only onc communication on her purported new address further shows that shc was in continuous touch with the people of company and she knowing that all other communications are being sent to her purported old address renrain kept quiet and only when the said unit was cancelled after waiting I'or six year, she sent a legal notice.

10.

Copies of all the relevant documents have been filecl and placed ort rccord. 'l'heir authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can bc dccidccl o, the basis of those undisputed documents and oral as well as writtcp submissions made by the parties.

G.

Objection raised by respondent.

G.l Obiection w.r.t signing of vakalatnama, affidavit and averments being false.

11.

The respondent submitted that the instant complaint was filect op 23.02.2022, while the verification is dated 06.02.2022, the affidavir is darcd March 2022, and the vakalatnama is dated 18.02.2022.

Based on these datcs, the respondent contended that the complaint is false and constitutes an abusc of the process of the court, as the complainant signed the verification bcforc engaging an advocate and also before signing the affidavit.

Complaint No.

1150 of Z02Z Page 23 of 29 ffiHAI?ER* ffi cunuennM 12.

Upon perusal of the documents on record, the Authority observes that thc complaint was, in fact, filed on 24.03.2022. l'he affidavit filecl alongsirie thc complaint is dated March 2022, and the val<alatnama is dated l8.O2.2OZZ. 'lherefore, the Authority finds no inconsistency or error in the complainant's filings, as the complaint was filed after the execution of the vakalatnama by the complainant.

Accordingly, the objection raised by the respondcnt is dismissed being devoid of merit, and the averments made by thc rcspondcnt are found to be false.

H. )urisdiction of the authority.

13.'l'he authority observes that it has territorial as well as sr. ell as sr.rbject ntattcr jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint for the reasons given below.

H.l Territorial iurisdiction 14.As per notification no.

119212017-ITCP dated 14.12.2017 issuecl by 'fown and Country Planning Department, the jurisdiction of Real l:statc l{cgulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purposc with offices situated in Gurugram.

In the present case, the project in question is situated within the planning area of Gurugram District. 'l'hereforc, this authority has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with the prescnt complaint.

H.ll Subiect matter iurisdiction l5.Section 11I J[a) of the Act, 2016 provides that the promoter shall bc responsible to the allottees as per agreement for sale.

Section 1t(+)[aJ is reproduced as hereunder: Section 11.....(4) The promoter shall- (a) be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale, or to the association of allottees, as the cose moy be, till the conveyance of all the apartments, plots or buildings, as the case may be, to the allottees, or the common ereas to the ossociation of allottees or 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 obtigatrons cosf upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder.

1150 of 2022 (v Page 24 of 29 HAl?Etl$, GUt?UGl?AM Complaint No.

1150 of 2022 16' 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 complainants at a larer stage.

I.

Findings on the relief sought by the complainant.

I. ainant.

I.I Direct the respondent to refund the amount paid by the complainants along with interest.

I.lI Pass an order for setting aside cancellation letter dated OZ.OB.Z01-1.

17"I'he abovementioned reliefs are dealt togethcr as being interconnectecl, l-B"l'he complainant vide application for provisional registration of unit datccl 05.10.2011 applied for a commercial space in the project of the respondcnt.

Thereafterl a unit no.

52-A admeasuring 600 sq. ft. was allottecl to thc complainant in the project "splendor Epitome" situated at Scctor-62, Gurugram.

Same is evident from the demand note dated 17.11.2OIj issuccl by the respondent.

The complainant has paid Rs.20,17,138/- against thc subjccr unit.

19.

The complainant through instant complaint submitted that she rried to contact the respondent through various means asking status updatc ol thc construction of the project.

However; the respondent never gave any responsc to her.

Therefore, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 0g.ll.Zo1g demanding the paid-up amount along with interest.

20.0n the other hand, respondent submitted that complainant has only paid arr amount of Rs.20,17,1381- against the total sale consideration oi Rs.72,00,000/- and several reminder and demand notices werc sent by thc respondent to the complainant on her address i.e.

B-215, DLIr l)hase-1, Gurugram.

Also, a letter dated 14.04.2014 was sent to the complainant for execution of space buyers' agreement but the complainant did rrot executc tlrc said agreement, Subsequently, a final reminder letter dated 15.07.2019 was Page 25 of29 ffiHARERFI' ffi eunUGRAM Complaint No.

1150 of 2022 sent to the complainant giving last opportunity to pay the outstanding clucs amounting to Rs.29,32,206/-, following which a cancellation letter dated 02.08.2019 was sent to the complainant.

21,.On consideration of documents available on recorcl and submissions made b. ns made b.v both the parties theAuthority is of view that on the basis of provisions of thc allotment, the complainants were allotted above mentioned unit for a salc consideration of Rs.72,90,000/- as apprised by the All of the respondcnt during proceedings dated 1,2.1,2.2024. 'fhe complainant paicl a sum of 11s.20,17,1,38/- to the respondent against the allotted unit.

FIowever, no IIBA was executed in this regard.

2Z.'l'he complainant, through her written submissions, has raised a contcntio. regarding the demand letters and payment reminders being not sent to hcr- updated address, i.e., A-29/ 16, DLF Phase-1, Gurugram.

She submitted that slic never received any payment reminders or demand letters at this new aclclrcss.

I{oweve4 two letters dated 17.12.2015 and 05.10.2016 were sent by thc respondent to her updated address, i.e., A-29 /16, DLF Phase-I, GurLrgrant.

0p the other hand, respondent submitted that the complainant has never updatccl to the respondent that A-29/16-4, Block-A, D.L.F.

Phase-1, Gurugrarn, Ilaryana is the only address of the complainant and the old address is no morc hcr- correspondence address.

23. tlpon examining the documents submitted by both parties, the Authority observes that the complainant's application for provisional registration of the. unit, dated 05.10.2011, mentioned her address as B-zls, DLF phasc-1, Gurugram.

All payment and demand letters were issued by the respondent to this address.

Furthermore, after submitting the application for provisionarl registration on 05.10.2011, the complainant made payments up to '2012.

Howeve4, she has failed to provide any evidence of communication informing A/ the respondent about the change in her address or inquiring about the sratus Page 26 of 29 ffiHARERTi ffi eunUGRAM Complaint No.

1150 of 2022 of the project before 09.11..2019, when she requested a refund of the amount paid after a gap of eight years from the date of the application.

24.

As per the cancellation letter dared OZ.OB. red OZ.OB.2OI} the earnest money deposit and service tax stancl of Rs.20,1,7,1,38/- paid by the complainant.

Upon perusal of documents on record, various reminders were sent by the respondent to the complainant before cancelling the unit to clear the outstanding dues and to execute thc space buyer agreement but neither the complainant paid the outstanding ducs nol, executed the buyer agreement.

The respondent sent a cancellation lcttcr on 02.08.201,9 due to non-payment.

It is observed that as per Section 19[6) & [7) of the Act, 201,6, the allottee was under an obligation to makc timcly payment as per the payment plan towards consideration of the allotted unit.

The respondent sent demand/reminder letters on 1OJ,Z2OI3, lB.0l.ZO14, 25.04.201'4, 20'05.2019 and 1,1.07.2019 to the complainant regarding rhc outstanding dues for the subject unit.

Floweve[ the complainant did not pay, the outstanding dues.

25.|n view of the above findings the Authority observes that thc complainant is not entitled for setting aside of cancellation letter being the relief sought.

As, the subject unit of the complainant was cancelled by the respondcnt aftcr- issuing proper reminders, Therefore, the cancellation letter dated 02.08.2019 is hereby held to be valid in the eyes of law.

26.1t is also pertinent to note that an amount of Rs.6,3 1,,194/- has already becn refunded by the respondent to the complainant after cancellation of thc subject unit and same has been confirmed by the both the parties through thc written submissions filed by them respectively.

2T.Ifowever; the issue with regard to deduction of earnest money on cancellatio. of a contract arose in cases of Maula Bux VS, Union of India, (1970) 1 SCR 928 and sirdar K.B.

Ram chandra Raj urs. vs. sarah c. urs., (201s) 4 scc annexed on page 62 of reply, forfeited against the amount Page27 of29 ffiH ffiG At?ER& URUGRAM Complaint No. plaint No.

1150 o12022 736, and wherein it was held that forfeiture of the amount in case of breach oI contract must be reasonable and if forfeiture is in the nature of penalty, thcn provisions of section 74 of Contract Act, 1872 are attached and the party so forfeiting must prove actual damages.

After cancellation of allotment, the flat remains with the builder as such there is hardly any actual damage.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissfons in CC/435/201g Ramesh Malhotra vs.

Emaar MGF Land Limited (decided on 29.06.2020) and Mr.

Saurav Sanyal VS.

M/s IREO Private Limited (decided on 12.04,2022) and followed in CC/2766/2017 in case titled as Jayant Singhal and Anr.

VS.

M3M Indio Limited decided on 26.07,2022, held that 10o/o of basrc salc pricc is a reasonable amount to be forfeited in the name of "earnest moncy".

Keeping in view the principles laid down in the first two cases, a rcgulation known as the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority Gurugram (Forfciturc of earnest money by the builder) Regulations, 11[5) of 20!8, was farmcd providing as under- "5, AMOUNT OF EARNEST MONEY Scenario prior to the Real Estate (Regulations and Development) Act,2016 was different.

Frauds were carried out without any fear as there was no law for the same but now, in view of the above facts ond taking into considerotion the iudgements of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, the authority is of the view that the forfeiture amount of the earnest money shall not exceed more than 100/o of the consideration amount of the real estate i.e. apartment/plot/building as the case may be in all cases where the cancellation of the flat/unit/plot is made by the builder in a uniloteral manner or the buyer intends to withdraw from the proiect and any agreement containing any clause contrary to the oforesaid regulations shall be void and not binding on the buyer,, 28. uyer,, 28.

So, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court and provisions of regulation 11 of 2018 framed by the Flaryana Ileal Ustate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram, and the respondent/builder can't retair.r more than 1,0o/o of sale consideration as earnest money on cancellation but that was not done.

Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid factual and legal provisions the respondent is directed to refund the paid-up amount of A Rs.20,17,1,38/- after deducting the earnest money which shall not excecd thc { d,/ I - page}BofZg HARER& W GURUGI?AM 1,00/o of the sale consideration.

The amount already refunded by thc respondent shall be adjusted from the refundable amount and shall return thc balance amount to the complainant along with interest at the rate of lll}o/o fthe State Bank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate IMCLR) applicable as on date +20/oJ as prescribed under rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate fRegulation and Development) Rules, 20L7, from the date ol cancellation letter i.e.

02.08.201,9 till its realization within the timelir-res provided in rule 16 of the Haryana Rules 2Ol7 ibid. entrusted to the authority undcr section 34(fl: directed to refund the paid-up amount i.e.

1150 o12022 Rs.20,17,138/- to the complainant after deducting loo/o of the salc consideration being earnest money and after adjustment of amoLrnL already refunded along with interest at the rate of 11.100/o p.a. on such balance amount from the date of cancellation i.e.

02.08.2019 till its realization.

A period of 90 days is given to the respondent to conrply with the direction given in this order and failing which legal consequences would follow.

30.

Complaint stands disposed of.

31.

File be consigned to registry, L-r- a2 Vijiy Kffiar Goyat Member (Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram) Dared: 12.L2.2024 Page 29 of 29