AVNEET DAKHA vs SUNRAYS HEIGHTS PVT. LTD.

, ffiHARERA ffi dunuGRAM BEFORE THE HARYANA REAI ESTATE REGUTATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Date of decision: 08.04.2025 Complaint No.

2907 oi 2024 and L9 others NAME OF THE BUILDER SUNRAYS HEIGHTS PRIVATE LIMITED I I I PROJECT NAME "63 Golf Drive" at Sector 63A, Gurugram, Haryana Sr.

No.

Case No.

Case title Appearance L. cR/2907 /2024 Sun Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Harshit Batra, Advocate 2. cR/1330/2024 ,' Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Gagan Sharma, Advocate 3. cR/2et2/202+ Shilpi Soni Vs.

Sunrays Heights Pvt.

Ltd.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Harshit fJatra, Advocate 4. cR/2612/2024 Subodh Kumar Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate ShriTushar Bahmani, Advocate 5. cR/26s8/2024 Sitesh Sharma Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Tushar Bahmani, Advocate 6. cR/1472/2024 Versha Srivastava Vs.

Sf,t VUaV P*"p Si,rgfr, Advocate Shri Lalit Kumar, Advocate Page 1 of31 DheerajArora Vs.

Ltd. ffiHARERA ffiGURUGRAM Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others 7. cR/2923/2024 Neelam Rawat Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate ShriTushar Bahmani, Advocate 8. cR/29LL/2024 Sonia Goyal Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Harshit Batra, Advocate 9. cR/24e3/2024 Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Tushar Bahmani, Advocate 10. cR/26s6/2024 Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate ShriTushar Bahmani, Advocate L7. cR/2973 Usha Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Harshit Batra, Advocate 1.2. cR/L33s/2024 Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Harshit Batra, Advocate 13. cRlL4B\l207t4, Chandra Kanta Sharma Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Lalit Kumar, Advocate 1,4. cR/L770/2024 Praido Mishra Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate ShriTushar Bahmani, Advocate Page 2 of 37 Rajendra Kumar Vs.

Pvt.

Amit |aglan Vs.

Shashi Kanta Vs.

Ltd, ffiHARERA ffi GuIUGRAM Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others Chairman Member Member CORAM: Shri Arun Kumar Shri Vijay Kumar Goyal Shri Ashok Sangwan ORDER 1.

This order shall dispose of the aforesaid 20 complaints titled above filed before this authority under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and 15. cR/2808/2024 Lalit Singh Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate ShriTushar Bahmani, Advocate L6. cR/28t8/2024 Rimpy Bansal Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate ShriTushar Bahmani, Advocate 17. cR/2120/2024 Sunr Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate ShriTushar Bahmani, Advocate 18. cR/7044/2024 Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Harshit Batra, Advocate 1.9. cRlr0701202+ Bhawna Vs.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Harshit Batra, Advocate 20. cR/2e7s/2024 Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate Shri Harshit Batra, Advocate Page 3 of31 Krishan Pal Singh Vs.

Kuntal Bishnoi Vs.

Ltd. ffiHARERA ffiouRllcRntrl Complaint No.

2907 ol 2024 and 19 others Development) Act, 20L6 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") read with Rule 2B of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred as "the rules") for violation of Section 11[a)(a) of the Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all its obligations, responsibilities and functions to the allottees as per the agreement for sale executed inter se between parties.

The core issues emanating from them are similar in nature and the complainant[s) in the above leferrerd matters are allottees of the project, namely, "Sixty-Three Golf Orive,, ffi.lfd at Sector -63 A, Gurugram being developed by the same respS-nd6_ryR..ii*orer i.e., sunrays Heights privare Limited. e Limited.

The terms ,pdo, lCond{Uang oi the allotment letter, buyer's i'- agreements and the fuicru# of the irrr. involved in all these cases pertain to failure on the part of thu;!.o.oJgr to deliver timely possession of the units j :, ". in question, seekin$tqg$.ssion ]bf the unit along wittr delayed possession charges.

I The details of the coffi,ni!, ,:.ht* of .1llr, uhit no., date of agreement, possession clause, due date of p=Q},flSii , total sale consideration, total paid amount, and relief sought are given,below: Proiect Name and Location "63 Golf Drive" at Sector - 63A, Gurugram, Haryana Proiect area 9.70t5625 acres DTCP License No. and.'fr:ilid 82 of 2014 dated 08.08.2014 Valid up to 37.L2.2023 RERA Registered or Not Registered Registered Registration no.

249 of 20t7 dated 26.09.2017 valid up to 25.09.2022 Date of approval of building plans 10.03.2015 Date of environment clearance t6.09.2076 2.

3.

Page 4 of 31 ffiHARERA ffieunuenn Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others Possession clause as per ttre buyer's agreement 4.

Possession "4.7 The developer shall endeavour to handover possession of the said flat within a period of four yeors i,e., 48 months from the date of commencement of the project, subject to force majeure and timely payment by the allottee towards the sale consideration, in accordance with the terms stipulated in the present qgreement." Possession clause as per Affordable Housing policy, Z0L3 As per clause l(iv) of the Affordable Housing Policy,2013 "All such projects shall be required to be necessarily completed within 4 yeors from the .approival of building plans or grant of envirotnmental clearance, whichever is later. "This dote shall be referred to as the ,,date of ciiynnencement of pioject" for the purpose of this policy.

The licenses shall not be renewed beyond the said 4years period from the date of com men cemen t o f p r o i ect. " Due date of possession !6.03. ion !6.03.202L (Calculated from the date of environment clearance being later including grace period of 6,months in lieu of Covid-191 Occupation certi ficate 31.12.2024 Sr.

Complaint No., Case Title, and Date of filing of complaint Unit no. & size fl 'Effil' + Date of execution of BBA Total Sale Consideration / Total Amount paid by the complainant Offer of possession t. cR/2e07 /2024 !

Sudhanshu Varshney Vs. .:' Sunrays Heights pft Ltd.

DOF225.06.2024 Reply: 26.1L.2024 356.18 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 69.84 sq. ft. (Page 34 ol complaint) 2016 [Specific date not mentioned at page 20 of complaint) 'BSP.Rs, 14,59,640/- l.-(Page 52 of reply) AP-Rs, 13,80,371/- fPage 53 of reply) Not 0ffered Final Reminder: 05.08.2024 (Page 49 of reply) 2. cR/L330/2024 Dheeraj Arora Vs.

DOF:09.04.2024 123, Tower D Carpet area- 604.83 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 95.10 sq. ft. (Page 32 of comolaint'l 201,6 (Specific date not mentioned at page 19 of complaint) BSP-Rs.

24,66,8701- (Page 14 ofreply) AP-Rs.

22,45,862/- (Page 15 ofreply) Not 0ffered Final Reminder: 14.05.2024 fPage ll otreply) Page 5 of31 ffi ffi mu{q frqi HARERA GUI?UGRAM Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others rinal Reminder: I t8.05.2024 I &gg-q? !f replv) ] Reply: 22.10.2024 3. cR/2912/2024 Shilpi Soni Vs.

Lrd.

DOFt25.06.2024 Reply: L4.1L.2024 119, Tower E Carpet area- 356,18 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 69.84 sq. ft. (Page 34 of complaint) 2076 (Specific date not mentioned at page 2l of complaint) BSP-Rs.

14,59,640/- (Page 55 ofreply) AP-Rs.

13,29,2801- (Page 56 of reply) Not Offered Final Reminder: 05.08.2024 (Page 51 ofreply) 4. cR/26t2/2024 Subodh Kumar Vs.

Sunrays Heights PvL Ltd.

DOF:06.06.2024 Reply: t2.72.2024 94, Tower D Carpet area- 361.89 sq. ft. ,, Balcony areal 69.84 sq. ft. (Page 32 of complaintJ 2016 (Specific date not t at 19 of BSP-Rs. t4,82,480/- (Page 63 of reply) AP-Rs.

1,3,50,228/- (Page 64 of reply) Not Offered Final Reminder: 05.08.2024 (Page 59 of reply) 5. reply) 5. cR/2658/2024 Sitesh Sharma Vs. .

I = DOF:06.06.2024 :k Reply: 12.72.20242 1L6, Tower D Carpet area- 361,89 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 69.84 sq. ft. fPage 36 of complaintl 2416 (Specific date not mentioned at page 23 of complaint) BSP-Rs.

14,82,480/- (Page 64 of reply) AP-Rs.

13,50,064/- [Page 65 of reply) Not Offered Final Reminder: 05.08.2024 (Page 60 of reply) 6. cP./1472/2024 Versha Srivastava Vs.

Ltd. ji I DOF:19.04.2024 .

Replv: 79.09.2024 47, Tower C Carpet area.

604.83 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 95.10 sq. ft. (Page 32 of complaint') 20t6 (Specific date not mentioned at page 1.9 of complaint) BSP-Rs.24,66,870/- (Page 57 of reply) AP-Rs.

22,45,862/- (Page 58 of reply) Not Offered Final Reminder: r4.05.2024 (Page 55 of reply) 7. cR/2923/2024 Neelam Rawat :: Vs.

Sunrays Heights PvL Lrd.

DOF:25.06.2024 Reply: 15.01.2025 26, Tower D Carpet area- 605.10 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 94.94 sq. ft. (Page no, 31 of complaintl 10.07.20t9 (As per stamp paper annexed to BBA at page 17 of complaint) BSP-Rs.

24,67,870/- [Page 105 ofreply) AP-Rs.

23,33,658/- (Page 106 ofreply) Not Offered Final Reminder: 05.08.2024 fPage 101 ofreply) B. cR/29tL/2024 Sonia Goyal Vs.

122,Tower F Carpet area- 613.31 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 95.10 sq. ft.

01.05.2017 (As per stamp paper annexed to BBA at page 18 of complaintJ BSP-Rs.

25,00,790 /- (Page 58 ofreply) AP-Rs.

21,t9,122/- (Page 59 ofreply) Not Offered Final Reminder: t8.05.2024 lPaee 52 of renlvl Page 6 of 3t ffi ffi {iqiq 6{i HARERA GUt?UGrlAM Complaint No, 2907 of 2024 and 19 others DOF225.06.2024 Reply: 26.11..2024 (Page no 17 of complaintl 9. cR/2493/2024 Rajendra Kumar Vs.

DOFt06.O6.2O24 Reply: 12.12.2024 74, Tower H Carpet area- 366.25 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 69,84 sq. ft. (Page L6 ofthe complaint) 21.09.2022 (As per stamp paper annexed to BBA at page L8 of complaint) BSP-Rs.

14,99,920/- fPage 64 of reply) AP-Rs.

1.

AP-Rs.

1.5,24,950/- (Page 66 of reply) Not Offered Final Reminder: t7.05.2024 (Page 61 of Reply) 10. cR/2656/2024 Amit Jaglan Vs.

DOF:06.06.2024 Reply: 12.12.2024 55, Tower I Carpet area- 361..89 sq. ft. ..l Balcony area- 69.84 sq. ft. ': (Page19 of co{n.plallr) 04.06.201.6 fPage 21 of reply) l BSP-Rs.

14,82,480/- (Page 67 of reply) AP-Rs.

13,50,064/- (Page 68 of replyl Not Offered Final Reminder: 05.08.2024 (Page 63 of Reply) 11. cR/2e73/2024 Usha : vs. ff Sunrays Heights PvL u DOF225.06.2024 'i Replv: L4.LL.2024 96, Tower F Carpet area- 613.

31 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 95.10 sq, ft (Page 17 of comnlaintl 06.02.201.7 (As per stamp paper annexed to BBA at page 18 of complaint) BSP-Rs,25,00,790/- [Page 58 of reply) AP-Rs.

22,41,,495/- (Page 59 of reply) Not 0ffered Final Reminder; 01.06.2024 (Page 55 of reply) 12. cR/t33s/2024 Shashi Kanta Vs.

DOF:08.04.2024 Reply: 09.10.2024 18, Tower F Carpet area- 613.31 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 95.10 sq. ft. [Page 34 of complaint) 04.02.2016 (Page 21 of complaint) BSF-Rs.

25,00,790 / - [Page 34 of complaint AP-Rs.

22,9t,604/- (Page 69 of reply) Not Offered 13. cR/1480/2024 Chandra Kanta Sharma Vs.

DOFt19.04.2024 Reply: 1,9.09.2024 85, Tower J Carpet area- 361.89 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 69.84 sq. ft. (Page 33 of complaint) 20r6 (Specific date not mentioned at page 20 of complaint) BSP-Rs.

14,82,480/- (Page 59 of reply) AP-Rs.

1,3,50,064/- (Page 60 of reply) Not 0ffered Final Reminder: t4.05.2024 (Page 57 of replyJ 14. cR./L770/2024 48, Tower G 04.02,201,6 BSP-Rs.

1,4,59,640/- Not Offered Page 7 of31 ffiHARERA ffiGuRUGRAM Complaint No.

2907 of, 2024 and 19 others Praido Mishra Vs.

DOF:07.05.2024 Reply: 26.09.2024 Carpet area- 356.18 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 69.84 sq. ft. (Page 31 of complaint) (Page L8 of the co-mplaint) (Page 60 of reply) AP-Rs.

13,29,280/- (Page 61 of reply) 15. cP./2808/2024 Lalit Singh Vs.

DOF:11.06.2024 Replv: 15.01.2025 27,Tower E Carpet area- 605.1 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 94.94 sq. ftr'. (Page 34 of,. complaint) 20r6 (Specific date not mentioned at page 21 of BSP-Rs.

24,67,870/- (Page 111 ofreplyJ AP-Rs.

22,45,777 /- (Page 1L2 ofreply) Not Offered Final Reminder: 05.08.2024 [Page 107 ofreply) 16. cR/ZBLB/2024 Rimpy Bansal Vs.

DOFt 1.1..06.2024 Reply; 15.01.2024 Ly area- sq. ft" r34of rlaintJ 2016 rc*.^^:f:^ l^.^ BSP-Rs.

24,66,870/- (Page 159 ofreply) AP-Rs.22,46,085/- fPage 160 of reply) Not 0ffered Final Reminder: 05.08.2024 (Page 155 of reply) not mentioned at page 20 of 17. cR./2120/2024 Avneet Dakha Vs.

Ltd. : DOF: 16.05.2024 Reply: 30.09.202+ Not executed BSP-Rs, 1.5,08,280/- (Page 63 of reply) AP-Rs.

9,66,304 /- (Page 64 of reply) Not Offered Final Reminder: 77.05.2024 (Page 59 of reply) 18. cR/L044/2024 Krishan Pal Singh Vs.

Lrd, DOF:26.03.2024 Reply: 01.08.2024 96, Tower C Carpet area- 604.83 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 95.10 sq. ft. (Page 30 of complaint) 04.02.2016 (Page 17 of the complaintJ BSP-Rs.24,66,8701- (Page 44 of reply) AP-Rs.

22,45,862/- (Page 45 of reply) Not Offered 19. cR/L070/2024 155, Tower A i2.04.201.6 BSP-Rs.

1+,82,480/- Not 0ffered Page 8 of 31 -l _l ,64;ToWEr G Carpet area., 368.34 iq,,ft Betconilareai "$p.Qf sq;fr f$l(As per, :' allotmont letter at page, no.

18 of : Comnlaintl ffi ffi HARER& GUl?UGl?AM Bhawna Vs.

DOF226.03.2024 Renlv: 0tJ8.2024 Carpet area- 361.89 sq. ft.

Balcony area- 69.84 sq. ft. (Page 30 of the complaint) (Page 18 of the complaint) (Page 42 of reply) AP-Rs.

1.3,50,064/- (Page 43 of reply) 20. cR/2975/2024 Kuntal Bishnoi Vs.

DOF:79.O4.2024 Reply: 79.092024 63, Tower E Carpet area- 613.31 sq.ft.

Balcony argd;, 95.10 sq. ft. :' (Page23 oi;l:, complaimt)"n'"i .,tl: ,,ti1i l.i ',1. .' 11..1t.201.6 (Page 23 of complaint) BSP-Rs.

25,00,790/- fPage 54 of reply) AP-Rs. ly) AP-Rs.

22,41,4951- (Page 55 of reply) Not Offered Final Reminder: 01.06.2024 (Page 53 of reply) The complainant herein is se€king the following reliefs: 1.

Direct the respondent to pay interest @ 8,650/o p.a. at prevailing MCLR plus 2% on paid amount for delay period starting fiom 15,03.2021 till actual handover of physical possession or offer of 2.

3. possession plus two months after obtaining 0C, whichever is earlier.

Direct the respondent t$ hgndover actualpossession ofthe booked unit to the complainant.

Direct the respondent tb $CIt the copy of application for OC as such the respondent claims that they have applied for 0C.

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

They are elaborated as follows: Abbreviation Full form DOF Date of filing of complaint DPC Delayed possession charges TSC Total sale consideration AP Amount paid by the allottee/s CD Convevance deed Complaint No, 2907 of, 2024 and 19 others 4.

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

Out of ths*aho,V entloned cases, ;the particulars of lead case CR/2907/2024 titled as "Sudhanshu Varshney Vs.

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

Proiect and unit related details The particulars of the project, the details of sale consideration, the amount paid by the complainant(s), date of proposed handing over the possession, delay period, if any, have been detailed in the following tabular form: Page 9 of31 A.

5. ffi ffi ne{q nr{i HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.

2907 oi 2024 and 19 others 907 /2 024 -"Sudhonshu Varsh Vs.

Heights Private Limited Sr.

Particulars Details 1.

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

Proiect area 5.9 acres 3.

Nature of the proiect Affordable Group Housins 4.

DTPC License no. and validity 82 of 20L4 dated 08.08.2014 Valid upto 07.08.201,9 5.

Name of licensee Sunrays Heights Pvt. ights Pvt.

Ltd., Smt.

Kiran [{f/o Dharam 6.

RERA registration detailir?'', He[istered ,,2.49'of 2017 dated 26.09.2017 7.

Allotment letter 01.10.2018 fPage 19 of complaint) Builder Buyer Agreement 201,6 (No specific date is mentioned at page 20 ol complaintl B.

Unit no.

A-721, Tower A (iiaee 34 of complaint) 9.

Unit area admeasuting Carpet Area- 356.18 sq. ft Balcony Area- 69.84 sq. ft. fPage 34 of complaint) 10.

Possession clause 4.

Possession "4.7 The developer shall endeavour to handover possession of the said flat within a period of four years i.e., 48 months from the date of commencement of the project, subject to force majeure and timely payment by the allottee towards the sale consideration, in accordonce with the terms stipulated in the present agreement." *As per affordable hou - "1(iv) All such projects shall be required to be necessarily completed within 4 years from the approval of building plans or grant of environmental clearonce, whichever is later.

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

The licences shall not be renewed beyond the said 4 years period from the date of com m ence ment o f p roj ec t. " Page 10 of31 WHARERA ffiGURUGRAM Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others 1,1,.

Date of building plan approval 10.03.2015 (Page 43 of reply) 1,2.

Date of environment clearance L6.09.2016 [Page 49 of reply) 13.

Due date of possession L6.03.202t (Calculated from date of environment clearances i.e., 15.09.2016 being later, which comes out to be L6.09.2020 + 6 months as per HARERA notification no.

913-2020 dated 26.05.2020 for projects having completion date on or after 25.03.2020, on account of forc.e majeure conditions due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic) t4.

Sale consideration 'H$it3,go ,37 7 /- i($p.., per Payment Detail Report dated i.+,tt.ZOz+ at page 52 of reply) 15.

Rsr:X4,59,64A/- ,{as.i per Fayment Detail Report dated lA,.I,!'.2024 at Dase 53 of replv) 1,6. eplv) 1,6.

Final Reminder letter sent by respondent to complainant 05.08.2024 fPage 49 of reply) 1,7.

Occupation certificate (Taken from another file of the same project) (Applied on 08.12.2023) 18.

Offer of possession ot offered B.

6.

Facts of the complaint The complainant hasinaae following submissions',in the complaint: a) That in 2015, tne*Cftplaifiant got information about an advertisement, in a Iocal ne*rpAper about affordable housing project "Sixty-Three Golf Drive" situated at Sector 63 A, Gurugram, Haryana.

The marketing staff of the respondent showed a rosy picture of the project and invited the complainant for site visit.

The complainant visited the project site and met with local staff of respondent who gave an application form and assured that possession would be delivered within 36 months as it is a government project having fixed commencement of project for the Page 11 of31 Amount paid by the complainant ffiHARERA ffiGURUGRntrl Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others purpose of this policy.

The licenses shall not be renewed beyond the said 4-year period from the date of commencement of project, payment instalment is to be given every 6 months and on the date of last instalment, the possession would be delivered.

That the complainant applied for a 1-BHK residential unit vide application bearing no SGDGO103 in the said project of respondent and paid an amount of 175,000/- towards booking.

The respondent acknowledged the paymenrarr$$fpged payment receipt.

Subsequently, the complainant was allott.{$It through a draw of lots.

That on 01.10 .20L8, ttrg ffieht issued allotment letter against the allotted unit A-121#ffi$hE[i: 6,t4 sg. ft., including a balcony area rf r Ilry .,lY 1 - of 69.84 sq. ft. fleg-?rit''ilras'bo0kddrrihdel thb time linked payment plan as per the man$hte tindel the affordable housing policy 2013 for sale consideration "tft#,F*rlA!of. ,F*rlA!of. , That in the year'#@'L6l a,nr*pninted, unilateral, and arbitrary buyer's agreement for allottp t$;1 wrS executed between the parties.

As per clause 4.1, the respond8nt hia_to complete the construction of unit and handover the po$'e,,..-Sloq=Wit+'in,+ llearslfrom,the date of commencement Of pfOjeCt. :':' ' :r- ""' i'' :::: rr I '' That till date thef-bgn$entha- raised a demand of {13,80 ,73Lf -,which has been paid by the complainant.

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

That it was promised by the respondent at the time of receiving payment for the unit that the possession of fully constructed unit as shown in newspaper at the time of sale, would be handed over to the complainant on and after the payment of last and final instalment These instalments Page 12 of 31 b) c) d) e) HARERA Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others GUttUGl?AM were due every six months from the commencement of construction work and the respondent was obligated to deliver the completed project as and when the respondent takes the last instalment or by maximum till 29.09.2020. g) That the facts and circumstances enumerated above would lead to the only conclusion that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the respondent and as such, they are liable to be punished and compensate the complainant.

Further, duetoibgve acts of the respondent and of the terms and conditions of tne:bil$li$lS,'gg.uement and Affordable housing Policy 20L3, the complaipant ha.s bebn unnecessarily made liable to pay interest on the *prflll,; tnii* ',i {,ambunts to unfair trade practice. h) That as per sectioff +,61 ttie heal'Esiate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 (hereid#er referred to as,the Act) the complainant has fulfilled \! .;.4".,1 lr{ a '' his obligations iR*a"tnect to making timely payments.

Therefore, the complainant herd\flis'idpt in ff . pt in ff .dtt of any of the terms of the agreement.

It is the ..rpona#ffio"ir auiiberately and wilfully refraining from raising the final demand, ?l.Fet the amended construction linked p aym ent plan of Se ff alry1a,e6, 5d'abh Po I i cy,, 2 0 L 3.

C.

Relief sought by the-complainant 7.

The complainant hagi'sdy$trt thefu|oWing relieffs): I.

Direct the responaent 1s'pay-i'hierest @ a.OSoZo p.a. at prevailing MCLR plus 2% on paid amount for delay period starting from 1,5.03.2021 till actual handover of physical possession or offer of possession plus two months after obtaining OC, whichever is earlier.

II.

Direct the respondent to handover actual possession of the booked unit to the complainant.

III.

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

Page 13 of31 ffiHARERA #h GUttUoRAM Complaint No.

2907 oi 2024 and 1.9 others 8.

0n the date of hearing, the authority explained to the respondent/ promoter about the contraventions as alleged to have been committed in relation to Section 11(4) [a) of the act to plead guilty or not to plead guilty.

D.

Reply by the respondent 9.

The respondent has contested the complaint on the following grounds. a) That the complainant applied to the respondent for allotment of the unit vide an application form no.

SGDG-O103 and was allotted a unit bearing no.

A-t}Lin tower A, having carpet area of 356.18 sq. ft. and balcony area ...,.,.. of 69.84 sq. ft. vide allotmeriti.H ri hted 01.10.2018.

The complainant represented to the respondeht that they should remit every instalment on time as per the payment plan.

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

The agreement was consciously and voluntarily executed between the parties and terms and conditions of the same are binding on the parties. e parties. c) That as per clause 4.1 ofthe agreement, the due date of possession was subject to the allottee having complied with all the terms and conditions of the agreement.

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

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

The possession clause of the agreement is on par with clause 1[iv) of the Affordable Housing Policy, 2013. d) That the building plan of the project was approved on 10.03.2015 from DGTCP and the environment clearance was received on 16.09.201,6.

Thus, the proposed due date of possession, as calculated from the date of Page 14 of31 ffiHARERA ffi GURUGRAM EC, comes out to be 2L.08.2021.

The Ld.

Authority vide notification no.9/3-2020 dated2605.2020 had allowed an extension of 6 months for the completion of the project the due of which expired on or after 25.03.2020, on account of unprecedented conditions due to outbreak of Covid-19.

Hence, the proposed due date of possession comes out to be 16.03.2021. e) That the offer of possession was also subject to the incidence of force majeure circumstances uJrder clause L6 of the agreement.

That additionally, even before noimalcy could resume, the world was hit by the Covid-19 pandemil: tni Ministry of Home Affairs, cOI vide notification dated }vlhrph ?/,, 2020, bearing no.

40-3 /2020-DM-l (A) recognized that fndi #as threatened with the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic and "fiti*q[ a complete lockdo*n'in ihe entire country for an 1ry i initial period ot"#W:,",,&yswhich startedion March 25,2020.

By various subsequent notihJ6tib,ilr;, tnb N{intstry of Home Affairs, Got further extended the lockciffiin flom'.time tb filne.

Virious State Governments, including the Government [F Ur.yrna, have also enforced various strict measures to prevgnt th e pandemiq. pandemiq.including imposi ng curfew, lo ckd own, . , ,t stopping all commefcial activifies, stopping ali- construction activities.

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

It is pertinent to mention, that considering the wide spread of Covid-19, firstly night curfew was imposed followed by weekend curfew and then complete curfew.

That during the period from 12.04.202t to z4.oz.zoz1 (103 days), each and every activity including the construction activity was banned in the State.

It is also to be noted that on the same principle, the Haryana Real Estate Page 15 of31 Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others HARERA ffiGU|?UG|IAM Regulatory Authority, Gurugram granted 5 months extension for all ongoing Projects vide Order/Direction dated 26th of May, 2020 on account of 1st wave of COVID-19 Pandemic.

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

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

0 That as per license condition, developer are required to complete these projects within a span ?,fi,a.i[g,ars from the date of issuance of environmental clearance si$iiffilffiftll in the category of special time bound project under, tl* I[ Uf th1 Haryana Development and Regulation of Urba"{ffietlc,ltlf.,si a normal Group Housing Project there is no suchnrffition applied hence it is required that 4 years prescribed neriffi completion of construction of Project shall be hindrance free $,il; U any [rohibitory:order is passed by competent authority like NaHAlaf,,f-reen Tribunal or Hon'ble Supreme Court then the same period sna[ :l*deA fr.om the4 years period or moratorium shall be given in respect offfitlifbribd also. s) That it is safely.$,frgi |,fl#hat&e. ,fl#hat&e.9aid,delay of 422 days in the seamless execution of the Ffr3-JbctWes 0u616,genuine force majeure circumstances and the said per[bdShall notbe added while computing the delay.

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

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

Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others Page 16 of31 ffiHARERA ffi GtlRtlcRAM Complainr No.

2907 of 2024 and i.9 others That in a similar case where such orders were brought before the Ld.

Authority was in compraint No.

3890 of z0z.r. titred ,,shuchi sur and Anr. vs' M/s' venetian LDF Projects LLP" which was decided on 1.7.0s.2022, wherein the Hon'bre Authority was preased to ailow the grace period and hence, the benefit of the above affected L66 days need to be rightry given to the respondent.

That even the UpREM Authority at Gautam Budh Nagar has provided benefit of L76 days to the devef@ on account of various orders of NGT and Hon'ble supreme cou.i$ ing ban on construction activities in Dethi and NCR, L0 davs for iliffiEtilia ot.r1,.zo18 to L',.r.zor',4days for2670.2019 r {ir to* 3i,10.ZOte,.: EldgXs fur the period O4.LL.z01.g to 08'1'1"2019 and d#+dt rmm" period o4.rr.zot9 ro T4.oz.z0z0.

The Authority was arsoi,r.rr., 19 .onr,uer and oo"r,o.o benefit of 6 months to the developerbh'aicount of the effect of coVID also.

That the Hon'b,.\,r , ,Tfiat at,Lucknow wh,e deciding appear No.

54i. of }oll in the matter of Arun chauhan Versus Gaur sons Hi- Tech Infrastructure pvt Ltd *;tautta.rdated 02.LL.2021 has arso granted the extension of L 1 o f co n stru c,, " : f :f :.::il1.TF*i:ilffi;J1 ,xj H TJ.T : Environment Pofluti-o.1 {pfby-ention Affitrol) Aurhoriry as well vide order of Hon'ble Suprem. le Suprem. aou., ,r,.0 ,n.r:;.;r*.

That Karnataka RERA vide notificarion No.

K-REM/secy /04/z0.g-20 and No' REM/SEc/cR-04/zolg-zohas also granted 9 monrhs exrension in lieu of covid-19 pandemic.

Moreover, this Ld.

Authority had in similar matters of the had auowed the benefit of covid grace period of 5 months in a no. of cases. h) il k) Page 17 of31 HARERA ffi" GUI?UGRAM Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others l) That despite there being several defaulters in the project, the respondent had to infuse funds into the project and have diligently developed the project in question.

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

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

35 Crores from the said loan amount towards the project.

The respondent has already received the FIRE NOC, LIFT NOC, the sanction letter for water connection and electrical inspection report. m) That the respondent has applieU,ior occupation certificate on O}.LZ.2Oz3.

Once an application f3l S,l+ of olcunation certificate is submitted for approval in the offisa fjthb.'staffilory rutiioriry concerned, respondent ceases to have ,nyibrrrol over the same.

Therefore, the time utilized by the statu,o.y "u1i iry ,o g.inf grcuparion,cergificate to the respondenr is required to bL,.rtrraea from .orputrtiain f r rhe time utilized for implementation ahd development of the project. n) That the complaiil##a" Ugpn allotted unir under rhe Affordable Housing Policy, 2oL3 *h ilrder claus. iliiilqu), clearly sripulated the payment of consid$atio! q,f ther-unit, in six equal installmenrs.

The complainant is liablti to'make the payment of the installments as per the government polirylundgr' which the unit is allotted.

At the time of -.# application, the complainant was aware of the duty to make timely payment of the installments. tallments.

Not only as per the policy, but the complainant was also under the obligation to make timely payment of installments as agreed as per clause 3 of the BBA. o) That the complainant has failed to make any payment of installment at "within 36 months from the due date of Allotment,, arong with partiar payment towards previous instalments.

The complainant cannot rightly page 18 of31 HARERA GUl?UGl?AM complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others contend under the law that the alleged period of delay continued even after the non-payment and delay in making the payments.

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

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

The respondent reserves the right to claim damages before the appropriate forum. p) That it is the obligation of t",l1e.,ffi nant under the Affordable Housing Policy, 2OL3 (as on the date.,g$lflll ent) and the Act to make timely payments for the unit.,l;,,.rtp,qQJdefault by the complainant the unit is Iiable to be canceilffif, ,ryilfffiff,,ptdable Housing Policy, 2013. q) That the comptaiffiffffina'b in''ae'ftilltt of payments as per the payment f& r) s) plan.

The respondent sent various demand notices dated 2B.O9.2OlB, 12.1,0.20L8, 07.02.201.9,04.05.2019, 16.05 .201,9 and 20.0 1,.2022 to the complainant to pay the instalments.

Th final reminder letter dated 05.08.20 24 and 07.08.2024 were also sent to the complainant.

However, the complainant failed to adhere to these letters and make the outstanding payment.

That the complainant has not only in breach of the buyer's agreement but also in breach of the Affordable Housing Policy and the RERA Act, by failing to make the due payments for installments.

The unit has been cancelled, and this complaint is bound be dismissed in favor of the respondent. espondent.

That without prejudice, assuming though not admitting, relief of delayed possession charges, if any, cannot be paid without adjustment of outstanding instalment from due date of instalment along with interest @15o/o p.a.

That, moreover, without accepting the contents of thc Page t9 of 131 ffiHARERA ffi GURUGRAM Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others complaint in any manner whatsoever, and without prejudice to the rights of the respondent, the unit of complainant can be retained only after payment of interest on delayed payments from the due date of instalment till the date of realization of amount.

Further delayed interest if any must be calculated only on the amounts deposited by the complainant towards the sales consideration of the unit in question and not on any amount credited by the respondent, or any payment made by the complainant towards delayed payment ctrargei or any taxes/statutory payments, etc. ". : i 10.

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

Their authentictry tl ld! j,Il$pute.

Hence, the complaint can be decided on the basis of thC$ unilispiltrid documents and submission made by the parties.

E.

Jurisdiction of the auth:.try.

11.The authority obseffiUl;|f,pt it,ha1 territorial as well as subject matter ". t : ! t: jurisdiction to adjudi4dilffi present complaintfor'the reasons given below. kE I " E.I Territorial iurisdiction 12.

As per notification no.

7/9212077-7TCP dated 74.72.2017 issued by Town and Country Plannrn ,,Frr, O^rtme,gt,the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, GurugranlKhffill5e entiie Gurugram District for all purposes with offices situated in Gpffi-grami Inltherpresent case, the project in question is situated within the plhnning ii6a-"of'Gurugram District.

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

E.II Subiect matter iurisdiction 13. iction 13.

Section 11(a)(a) of the Act, 2016 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale.

Section 11( )(a) is reproduced as hereunder: Page 20 of31 ffiHARERA ffiGURUoRntrl Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others Section 77,,,. ft) The promoter shall- (a) be responsible for all obligotions, responsibilities and functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations mode thereunder or to the ollottees as per the agreement for sole, or to the associqtion of ollottees, as the case may be, till the conveyance of oll the apartments, plots or buildings, as the case may be, to the ollottees, or the common areas to the ossociation of allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be; Section S4-Functions of the Authority: 34(f) of the Act provides to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulaiions made thereunder, 14.So, in view of the provisionr -oJ.thuAgt quoted above, the authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the fpmllaint regarding non-compliance of obligations by the promol*f t.r;1ing aside compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicating- offiger if pursued by the complainant at a later stage. i.. +:r F.

Findings on the obiections raised by the respondent.

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

15. tt is contended on behalf of respondent that due to various circumstances beyond its control, it iould not speed up the construction of the project, resulting in delays such as y11ioy1 orders passed by NGT and Hon'ble Supreme Court, lockdowrr dug t9*outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic.

16.

The Authority, after_Ca.eful consideSation, finds that in the present case, the project falls und"r *lhg--,+ffor{able Housing Policy, 2013, which contains specific stipulations regarding the completion of the project. e project.

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

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

The licenses slral/ not be renewed beyond the soid 4- year period from the date of commencement of project' Page 21 of31 ffiHARERA ffiGURUGttntr,i Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others 1,7.The respondent/promoter, having applied for the license under the Affordable Housing Policy, was fully aware of these terms and is bound by them.

The Authority notes that the construction ban cited by the respondent was of a short duration and is a recurring annual event, usually implemented by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in November.

These are known occurring events, and the respondent being a promoter, should have accounted for it during project planning.

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

Hence, all the pleas advanced in this regyd, except for that of Covid-19 for which relaxation of 6 months is,allowgd by the authority are devoid of merits.

G.

Findings on the relief sought Wthe complainant G.I Direct the resp0dfleiit to pay intCrest @ 8.650/o per annum as per the prevailing MCLR plus 2olo on the paid amountof Rs.13,80,37L/- for delay period startingi from 15.03.2021 till the actual handover of physical possession or of,fer gf posgession,plus 2 months after obtaining OC, whichever is earlier, as per the provisions of the Act.

18.

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

A-121-, Tower A admeasuring carpet area of 356.18 sq. ft. and a balcony area of 69.84 sQ.

69.84 sQ. ft;, in the respondent's proiect at basic sale price of 14,59,640/- under the Affordable Group Housing Policy 2013.

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

The possession of the unit was to be offered by 76.03.2027 as delineated hereinbelow.

The complainant paid a sum of 13,80,371/- towards the subject unit.

19.

During the course of proceedings dated 08.04.2025, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complainant has instituted proceedings before the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Delhi Bench in Case No.

IB-48 of 2025, seeking a refund along with interest at the rate of 24o/o per annum.

It was further submitted that in the said NCLT proceedings, Page22 of3l HARERA GUl?UGI?AM Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others the date of default has been stated as 31.03.2023, whereas in the present complaint(s) before this Authority, the complainants have asserted the due date as L6.03.2021 and have sought relief in the form of delayed possession charges and delivery of possession.

In response, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the matter before the Hon'ble NCLT is at the admission stage and that no order has been passed therein as of yet.

20.

Upon considering the submissions made by both parties, the Authority is of the considered view that the compiaint filed before this Authority is with i: respect to the statutory nrovislg$s*U11$er the Real Estate [Regulation and Development) Act, 2OL6 y)):|,fi-a el Act to regulate and promote the real estate sector and to=e'nS'ii le of,plqt, apartment or building, as the case may be in an efficient and tranipardnt,matter and to protect the interest of consumers in the reail, tite sector, It ishoted that the objective and scope of the Insolvency ana fu(trltruptcy Code, 2OL6 tlBC) are distinct and serve a different legal purp$. gal purp$.:lqi:lifurth6r observed,that the matter before the Hon'ble NCLT is preseild$ at the s[agg of admission and no order initiating Corporate Insolvency Resotiition Prote'ss ICIRP) against the respondent has been passed as on daf . mhgrgforre, at this juncturg there exists no bar under any law that prevents ttris Authority from proceeding to adjudicate the present complaint(s) on merits.

2t.ltis pertinentto note that a final remina".letter dated 05.08.20 24wasbeing sent to the complainant-allottee to make a payment of t3,50 ,883 /-, thereby affording him an opportunity to clear the outstanding dues.

22.The Authority notes that the complainant had already paid an amount of t13,80,377/-(i.e.,94.50/o) against the total consideration of 114,59,640/- to the respondent.

The respondent was required to hand over the project by 76.09.2020 under the Affordable Housing Policy, 2013, excluding the COVID- Page 23 of31 HARERA Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others ffiGURUGRAM 19 grace period.

Even with a six-month grace period in lieu of Covid-L9 pandemic to 16.03 .202L,the respondent failed to complete the project.

More than three years later, the project remained incomplete, and the respondent has obtained the occupation certificate from the competent authority on 37.L2.2024.

The interest accrued during the delay period significantly reduces the amount payable by the complainant.

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

23.

Additionally, as per Clau se 9.2 of the Agreement for Sale, annexed as 'f:.

I r .t' Annexure A to the Rules, 20L7, the allottee has the right to stop making ';i\i i1. . :) " .! further payments if the p1pTotg.,,9g{rut.s gl its obligations.

The relevant portionisreproducedP:.},"'...ryL,-.ii''fl"'i";:...

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

Promoter.

II the Allottee stops making payments, the Promoter shall correct ,!he situation by comp_leti,ng th,e construction/ development milesto4es ond only thereafter the Allottee be required to make tlhe next payment without any interest for the (Emphasis Supplied) 24.lnthe present case, ,lr" p*.o.Lflte;w,9s obligated to complete the construction within four years frgpn;hg_ dgqe of either the environment clearance or the building plan approva|, whicheyer.ivas later, i.e., by L6.09.2020.

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

Even after granting a six-month extension due to the Covid-L9 pandemic, extending the deadline to 16.03.2027, the promoter did not complete the construction.

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

25.

Herein, the complainant intends to continue with the project and is seeking delay possession charges at a prescribed rate of interest on the amount Page24 of 3l HARERA GUl?UGI?AM Complaint No.

2907 oi 2024 and 19 others Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interestfor every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed." 26.

Due date of handing over possession: The proiect was to be developed under the Affordable Housing Folicy1 2013, which clearly mandates that the project must be delivered withirt*$$e*S'from the date of commencement of project (as per clause 1(ivJ of effoidable Housing Policy, 20t3, all such projects shall be requited,to be,necessar,ily completed within 4 years from the approval of U$ildini plans or grant of 'environmental clearance, whichever is lateri lThis date shall be referred to as the "date of commencement of pipipit" for tt u purpoie of this policy).

However, the respondent has chosen I-o glsregard the policy provision. provision.

Clause 1(iv) of the Affordable Housing Policy, ZOLZ is reproduced as under: "7(iv) All such projects shali@tequiied to be necessarily completed within 4 years from the approval of buitding plans or grant of envirdy.tmlntalflearancoi whlchever is later.

This date shall be r"eferred to as the "date of commencement of project" for the purpose of this policy.

The licence.s sha/l not be renewed beyond the soid 4years periodfrom the dote of commencement of project.

27. the present case, the date of approval of building plans is 10.03.2015, and the date of environment clearance is 16.09.2016.

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

Therefore, the due date of handing over of possession comes out to be t6.09.2020.

Further as per HAREM notification no.

9/3-2020 dated 26.05.2020, an extension of 6 months is granted for the projects having a already paid by him as provided under the proviso to Section 1B(1) of the Act, which reads as under:- "Section 78: - Return of amount and compensation 18(1).lf the promoterfails to complete or is unoble to give possession of an apartment, plol or building, - Page 25 of 31 ffi ffi {q'tE wrd HARERA Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others GU11UGl?AM completion date on or after 25.03.2020.

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

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

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

As such the due date for handing over of possession comes out to be 76.03.202L.

28.

Admissibility of delay possession charges at prescribed rate of interest: i:. ::.t l The complainant is seeking dul--rf*p,,-tfl:rjio, charges till the date of delivery of possession to the compl. the compl.Sjrrnt, Proviso to Section 18 provides that where an allottee does not intendto wjthdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for evev..mpnth.,of delay, till the handing over of possession, at such =.r!". as may. be prescribed and it has been prescribed under Rule 15 of theR.1{e;f ibid.

Rule 15 has been reproduced as under: "Rule 75.

Prescrihgfi,rdl,p, of inierest- [Proviso to section 72, section 78 and suh-section (4),and subsection (7) of section 791 (1) For ehe purffi\"gf proiiso to section:72; section 78; and sub- sections 1+1 afid,"ff)Fof section 19, thb' "interest at the rate prescribed" shall ffe the Siaie Bank of India highest marginal cost of leading rate +Zoh; Prou];led that in case the State Bank of Indio marginol cost of leiidiufi r6te'(MfrLP/) is not ii.usg it shall be replaced by such bench,raggk lendjng rqtes w,hich the State Bank of India may fixftom time,io time for lending to the general public." 29.

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

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

30.

Consequently, as per website of the State Bank of India i.e., https://sbi.co.in, the marginal cost of lending rate (in short, MCLR) as on date i.e., 08.04.2025 Page 26 of 3l ffi ffi flqq{ ilqi HARERA Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others ffiGURUGI?AM is 9.1070.

Accordingly, the prescribed rate of interest will be marginal cost of lending rate +2o/o i.e., 1!.Llo/o.

31.

The definition of term 'interest' as defined under Section Z(za) of the Act provides that the rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default. f default.

The relevant section is reproduced below: '(za) "interest" means the rates of interest payable by the promoter or the allottee, as the.cgse may be, Explanation. -For the piypbse oftltis clause- @ fhe rate of interest char-geablefron'the allottee by the promoter, in case of default, Srl:rfi![r'be equal to thte rate of interest which the promoter shall fuSffie t-o. pay llle.q,lJotpeti)"tn case of default. (ii) the interest p$aple ffi'the promotff ta the allottee shall be from the date the Srdi oug,Vr received tne dmoint ii ony part thereof titl the date the tiinbunt or part thereof ond interest thereon is refunded, a,'{,1d ihd interest payable by the allottee to the promoter shall be frqm the date the allottee defaults in payment to the promoter t{/ ftt, date it is Qaid;" 3 2.

Therefore, interest oT0,., ..1*_rlfirur, paymentsJrom the complainant shall be charged at the prescribed.rate i.e,, 17t0 o/o by the respondent which is the same as is being granted to themjl:3se of delayed possession charges.

33.

On consideration ,f#l& d"gqlryH 6vaitabfifi on record and submissions made regarding contravention kbffonBvisions'. sf the Act, the Authority is satisfied that the resp"ondent is in,contravention of the Section 11(a)(a) of the Act by not handing over possession by the due date as per the agreement.

34.

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

Accordingly, the non-compliance of the mandate contained in Section 11[aJ(a) read with Section 1B[1) of the Act on the part of the respondent is established.

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

L6.03.2021 till the Page27 of3l w ffi T'{{A Wd HARERA GURUGl?AM Complaint No. plaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others offer of possession plus 2 months or actual handing over of possession whichever is earlier as per provisions of Section L8(1) of the Act read with Rule 15 of the Rules, ibid.

G.II Direct the respondent to handover actual possession of the booked to the complainant.

35.

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

36.

The authority observes that $.e* f.sspondent-promoter has obtained occupation certificate of the said,piOmet from the competent authority on 3L.L2.2024.

Further, S: XZU) ,of ihe, ect of 201.6 obligates rhe respondent-promotergti'5@gef, fre ptiysical possession of the subject unit to the complain"rt.Offiili,dtu i, "i[*espect as pqrppqcifications mentioned in BBA and thereaftef,.;,{-K9 co4plainan$allotteb is obligated to take the { i::{ :: possession within Zfuhtdrlffis as ger'ilrovisions of Section 19(10) of the Act, 37.lnview of the above, thJ r, ipp;affisairected to handover the possession of allotted unit ,o*rhf complainant completl in all respect as per specifications of buyer'r#H;*-,ent wiihiqr neriod of one month from date : after 4Tt f;fit or Sulltrnaini il*t, if any, as the occupation certificate for ttre pr&irict has alieady been obtdined by it from the comperent authority.

38.

Further, the respondent promoter is contractually and legally obligated to execute the conveyance deed upon receipt of the occupation certificate/completion certificate from the competent authority.

Whereas as per Section 19(11) of the Act of 201.6, the allottees are also obligated to participate towards registration of the conveyance deed of the unit in Page 28 of 31 HARERA ffi.* GURUG|IAM Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others question. question.

In view of above, the respondent shall execute the conveyance deed of the allotted unit within a period of 3 months from date of this order, upon payment of outstanding dues and requisite stamp duty by the complainant as per norms of the state government as per Secti on 1,7 of the Act, failing which the complainant may approach the adjudicating officer for execution of order.

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

39.

As per the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent, the Authority finds that the respondent has obtained the occupation certificate for the said project on 31.1,2.2024.

40.

As per Section L1(4)(b) of Act of 201.6,the respondent is under an obligation to supply a copy of the occupation certificate/completion certificate or both to the complainant-allottee.

The relevant part of section 11 of the Act of 20L6 is reproduced as hereunder: - "77(4).... =tl to obtain the completion @) rhe certificate or the occupancy certificate, or both, os applicabl,e, frgm the relevant competent outhority as per local laws or other laws for the time being in force and to make it t allottees individually or to the association oi allottees, as the case moy be." 41.

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

H.

Directions of the authority 42.Hence. the authority hereby passes this order and issues the following directions under Section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the promoter as per the function entrusted to the authority under Section 34ffl: Page 29 of 37 HARERA GUl?UGl?AM Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others I' The respondent is directed to pay interest on the amount paid by the comprainant at the prescribed rate of LL.1,00/op.a. for every month of delay from the due date of possession i.e., 76.03. e., 76.03.2021 ti, the offer of possession prus 2 months or actuar handing over of possession, whichever is earlier.

II' The arrears of interest accrued so far shall be paid to the complainant within 90 days from the date of this order and interest for every month of delay shall be paid uy ilrgrpib,so,l€-r to the ailortee before 1,grh of the subsequent month as per Rule 16( |,u,le 16(2) of the Rules, ibid.

Therateof ' 'Ii r I 'interest chargb4'b16,#o* the a,ottee by the promorer, in case of default rM6q ihaigea at the prescriberi rare i o 11 1^o/_ .^-- ry. :t:'o*r snf.ttlble-liable ro pay the ailonee, in case of defaurt i.e., the delayed possesiion charges as per Section 2(za)of the Act. '"1r rr::onauljlir.directed io isrre , .*rria statement of account after adjustment b,f a_e1yea pors"rrion charges, and other reriefs as per above within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.

The clmnta]nan*#r: dirlcted,l" .lry ourstanding dues if any remains, after adjustm,#ntbr a;irytf bssesrion charge, *,,n,n a period of nexr r.+.rll"r L'rrruLer wnr'n',Is the same rate of interest which the The respondeniir di.uci.jiollirnaover the possession of the a1o*ed unit to the comprainant comprete in ail aspects as per specifications of buyer's agreement within one month from date of this order, as the occupation certificate in respect of the project has arready been obtained by it from the competent authority.

The respondent shar execute the conveyance deed of the ailotted unit within a period of 3 months from date of this order, upon payment of page 30 of31 V. u. ffiFNRERA ffi oultUGRAM this order.

44.The complaints stand dis Complaint No.

2907 of 2024 and 19 others outstanding dues and requisite stamp duty by the comprainant as per norms of the state government as per Secti on .J.7 of the Act, failing which the comprainant may approach the adjudicating officer for execution of order. of order. ul' The respondent shail not charge anything from the comprainant which is not part of the buyer's agreement and the provisions of the Affordable Housing policy, 2013.

43.

This decision shall mutatis mutand qpply to cases mentioned in para 3 of placed in the case file o 45.

Files be consigned to 1tt{ (Vijay Kilmar Goyat) Member Haryana Real Estate Reguta,"r:11il#fi .r.rsram Dated: OB.O4.ZOZS Page 31 of31 4l-rv