MEHTA DECOR THROUGH MR ANIL MEHTA vs ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.

Complaint No.

1872 of 2024 .\ RUGRAM | - | /WZ-1.7, GF,lwala him Vihar, Delhi- 110 2.

M/s.

Samyak Pro CORAM: APPEAMNCE: Himanshu Gautam [Ad Amandeep KadYan(R-1) Shankar Vij (R-2) The present complaint complainant/allottee unde RE THE HARY REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTH , GURUGRAM Complaint no.: Date ofdecision:- la72 ot 2024 23.07.2025 Complainant Respondent no.1 Respondent no.Z xsq, Shri Ashok Sangwan RERA Member Complainant Respondents ORDER 20.05.2024 has been filed bY the section 31 of the Real Estate [Regulation and \ t. /l itv r 1.

Page 1 of31 r' Mehta D6cor ough Anil Mehta 1.

Ansal Housing Limi Regd. office: 2"d Floor, An Near Vaishali Metro Statio Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh- I Plaza, Sector- 1, Vaishali. , Vaishali, 01010. .

Ltd. n, Antriksh Bhawan, 22, 001.

HAQERA B* GURUGRAM Development) Act, 2016 (in Haryana Real Estate (Regulati the Rules) for violation ofsecti prescribed that the promote responsibilities and functions or the Rules and regulations the agreement for sale execute inter se.

1872 of 2024 ort, the ActJ read with rule 28 of the n and DevelopmentJ Rules,2017 [in short, n 11(4) (aJ of the Act wherein it is inter a/ia shall be responsible for all obligations, s provided under the provision of the Act e there under or to the allottees as per A.

Unit and prorect related 2.

The particulars ofthe prorect, paid by the complainant, and delay period, if any, have sale consideration, the amount of pro ing over the possession een detailed in the following tabular form; Page 2 of 3l S.No.

Particulars Details 1.

Name of project "Ansals Hub 83 Boulevard" 2.

Location of project Sector-83, Gurugram.

3.

Nature of proiect Commercial shop 4.

DTCP License I License no.

71, of 201,0 Dated-15.09.2010 HRERA registered Registered Vide registration no.

09 of 2018 6.

Allotment Ietter Not on record 7.

Unit no.

F-163, Type-Shop, Floor-1$ [As on page no.

18 of complaint) B.

Unit Area 189.50 sq.ft. fcarpet Area] \RER RUGRAM l]As on page no.

18 of complaint) 9. plaint) 9.

Agreement for sale [Between coml respondent no.1 respondent no.1 \ confirming PartY) lainant, and ras the 23.10.2079 [As on page no.

15 of comPlaint) 10.

Possession clause ,g \r& 5.

Time is Essence The Vendor shall abide bY the tne p time schedule for comPteung voject as ilisclosed at the of reg istration of the ect with the Authoriv towards handing over the unit alongwith Parking (if (lgq-s le) to the vendee ana lmon oreas to the on of vendees or the nt authoriEl, as the t be, as provided under A of the Rules,2017.

BA at page no.25 of nt 11.

Due date of Posses GL a&E RU .12.2020- As mentioned on RERA's website + 6 months account of covid-19) 72 Sale consideration Rs.32,05 )2a.44 l- (As on page no.

18 of comPlaint) 13 Amount paid Rs.2a,20,819 l- [As per Payment receiPts) lt Occupation certifi :ate Not obtained Page 3 of31 tl Offer of possession Not offered B.

3. ffiHAREB SH eunuonnv Complaint No.

1872 of2024 Facts ofthe complaint: The complainant has made the following submissions in the complaint: I.

That the complainant i e., M/s Mehta Decor is a partnership firm comprising two partners: Mr.

Anil Mehta and Mrs Ashu Mehta Through a resolution letter daled 20.04.2024, Mr' Anil Mehta has been appointed as the authorised representative of M/s Mehta Decor' ll.

That the complainant provided painting services for both interior and exterior walls across various project sites of the respondent no 1 between 2015 and 2019.

Instead of fulfilling payment obligations for these services, respondent no.

1, offered a shop to the complainant on 3L.07.2019, in the "Ansals Hub 83 Boulevard" proiect located in Sector 83, Gurugram.

Accordingly, the shop bearing unit no F-163 having carpet area of 189.50 sq. ft. and super area of 358 01 sq ft was allotted to the comPlainant IIl.

That on 23.1'0. on 23.1'0.2019, the Builder Buyer Agreement [BBA) was entered into between the complainant and the respondent no 1' wherein as per Payment PIan providcd under Schedule-C, the complainant had to make payments as follows: (i) Rs.2,86,172.18/-, at the time of booking' (ii) Rs.8,58,516.55/-,60 days from the date ofbooking (iiiJ Rs.17,17,033.09/-, on offer ofpossession with AIIied Charges' IV.

That an amount of Rs.28,20,819/- has been paid/adiusted on part of the complainant till the present date which amounts to 98 50/o of the total sales consideration of the said unit' Page 4 of31 ffiHARE&, S* eunuonnvt Complaint No.

1872 of 2024 V.

That as per the details available in Form A-H of the above said project' available on the official website of the Authority, Gurugram' the said proiect was to be completed by 37'12 2020 and thus possession was also to be handed over by 37.72.2020, but even after a delay of almost 3 years and 2 months, the proiect has not yet been completed and the respondents are still not handing over the possession' VL That vide notice dated 0106.2023, the respondent no 2 asked the complainant to submit KYC documents and sign an unilateral' arbitrary and unlawful Addendum Agreement with respondent no 2 and threatened that if the complainant doesn't submit KYC documents and sign the Addendum Agreement within 15 days, their rights in the said project would be deemed relinquished' Vll.

That as per the notice dated 07.062023' the complainant visited the office of respondent no.

2 on the proiect site in June 202 3 and submitted hardcopies of their KYC documents to the staff members of the respondent no.

2.

Staff members of respondent no 2 asked the complainant to sign the Addendum Agreement also but complainant refused to sign the addendum agreement as it was unilateral and had many unlawful terms and conditions which were contradictory to the provisions of Builder Buyer Agreement as well as orders of the Hon'ble Sole Arbitrator Justice A.

K Sikri' VIll. kri' VIll.

That after submitting KYC documents to respondent no 2' the complainant asked the respondent no 2 to provide them receipt acknowledgement of the KYC documents But instead of providing any acknowledgment respondent no 2 refused to recognize the complainant's rights as allottees on grounds that respondent no 2 is not a confirming party in their Builder Buyer Agreement This matter Page 5 of31 * HARER. #" eunGnnrv complaint No.

1872 of 2024 has also been put before the Sole Arbitrator lustice A K Sikri for his consideration and vide order dated 1'1702022, the Hon'ble Sole Arbitrator directed the respondents to sit together to resolve the dispute between them and also directed respondent no' 2 not to create further interest in respect ofthe shops sold by the respondent no 1' That repcatcd calls, mcctings and correspondences with the respondents and multiple visits to know the actual construction status not only caused loss to the complainants in terms of time, money and energy but also caused mental agony to him That the cause of action arose in favour of the complainants and against the respondents from the date of booking of the said unit and it further arose when respondents failed/neglected to deliver possession of the said units within a stipulated time period The cause of action further arose when thc respondents has not completed the said project with the assured facilities and amenities. lt further arose and it is continuing and is still subsisting on day-to-day basis as the respondents has still not rectified his defects and not fulfilled their obligations as per the Builder Buyer's Agrecment.

Hence, the present complaint is being filed' IX.

X.

C.

Relief sought by the complainant: 4.

1'he complainant has sought following relief(s):- ii.

Direct the respondents to pay interest for every month of delay the prescribed rate si nce 31.7'2. ce 31.7'2.2020 [due date of possession) as per section 18 (11 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016' Direct the respondents to complete the project in expeditious manner and offer the possession of the shop bearing no F-163 in the proiect "HUB 83 Boulevard" located in Sector 83, Gurgaon along with all the Page 6 of 31 GURUGRAM promised amenities and facilitics and to the satisfaction of the complainants.

Direct the respondents to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant with respect to the said shop' iv.

Direct the respondents to commit a date for offering the possession by submitting an affidavit before the Authority Reply fited on behalfof respondent no'1 : 't'he respondent no.1 i.e., M/s Ansal Housing and Construction Limited has made the followirlg submissions: l.

That the complainants had booked shop bearing no F-163 in their own name in an upcoming proiect "Ansal Boulevard"' Sector 83' Gurugram ofthe answering respondent Upon the satisfaction ofthe complainant regarding inspection of the site, title, location plans' etc a Builder Buyer Agreement was entered dated 23 10 2019 was signed between the parties as per claim of the complainant' IL That even if the complaint is admitted to be true and correct' the agreement which was signed in thc year 2019 without coercion or any duress cannot be called in question today' lt is submitted that the clause 7.6 of the builder buyer agreement provides for compensation in the event of a delay in giving possession However' the same clause also provides for the exception that the vendor shall not be Iiable to pay compensation in case of occurrence of "Force Majeure" and the present proiect is delayed due to force majeure and not because of the default of the resPondent lll.

That the respondent had in due course of time obtained all necessary approvals from the concerned authorities similarly' the approval for IIARERA Complaint No.

1872 of 2024 D.

5.

Y PaEe 7 of 3l Ill.

IV.

HARERA Complaint No. plaint No.

1872 of 2024 GURUGRAIU digging foundation and basement was obtained and sanctions from the department of mines and geology were obtained in 2012' Thus' the respondents have in a timely and prompt manner ensured that the requisite compliances be obtained and cannot be faulted on giving delayed possession to the complainant.

That the answering respondent has adequately explained the delay The delay has been occasioned on account ofthings beyond the control of the answering respondent.

It is further submitted that the builder buyer agreement provides for such eventualities and the cause for delay is completely covered in the said clause The respondent ought to have complied with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Puniab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No' 20032 of 2008' dated 16.07 .2012.

3L.07.201,2, 21'.08.20L2 The said orders banned the extraction ofwater which is the backbone ofthe construction process Similarly, the complaint itself reveals that the correspondence from the answering respondent specifies force majeure' demonetization and the orders of the Hon'ble NCT prohibiting construction in and around Delhi and the COVTD -19 pandemic among others as the causes which contributed to the stalling of the proiect at crucial iunctures for considerable sPells.

That the answering rcspondent and the complainant admittedly have entered into a builder buyer agrecment which provides for the event of delayed possession.lt is submitted that clause 7 6 of the builder buyer agreement is clear that there is nocompensation to be sought by the complainant/prospective owner in the event of delay in possession due to force maieure' VI.

That the answering respondent has clearly provided in the Page 8 of 31 * HARER, . ffi CnuenAr,,r Complaint No.

1872 of2024 consequences that follow from delayed possession lt is submitted that the complainant cannot alter the terms of the contract by preferring a complaint before the AuthoritY.

Vll. ritY.

Vll.

That the complainant had signed and agreed on Builder Buyer Agreement dated 23.10.2019 That perusal of the said agreement would show that it is a Tripartite Agreement wherein M/s Samyak Proiects Pvt.

Ltd is also a party to the said agreement' Vlll.

That the perusal of the Builder Buyer Agreement would show that M/s Samyak Projccts Pvt.

Ltd not only possesses all thc rights and unfettered ownership of the said Iand whereupon the proiect namely Ansal Boulevard, Sector 83 is being developed' but also is a developer in the said proiecl That the operating lines of the Builder Buyer Agreement are as follow: "The Developet has entered into an agreement with the Co.niirming Porty 3 i e' M/s Samyak Prcjects Pvt Ltd b i;intty promote' dev.elop and market the proposed- proiectbeing developed on the land qs oforesaid " rx. ffe sala M7s-.Samyak Prolect Pvt Ltd in terms of its arrangement with the respondent could not develop the said project well within time as was agreed and given to the respondent, the delay' ifany' is on the part of M/s Samyak Pro,ect Pvt Ltd and not on the part of respondent' because the construction and development of the said project was undertaken by M/s Samyak Project Pvt Ltd X.

That in the arbitral proceedings before the Ld Arbitrator lustice A K Sikri, M/s Samyak Project Pvt. has taken over the present proiect the answering respondent for completion of the proiect and the respondent has no locus or say in the present project' xl.Thatinordertogiveacomp]etepictureofthedisputeongoing,itiS relevant to brief out the facts of the case from the very outset' It is Pageg or{ ffiHARERA #"eunuennu Complaint No.

1872 of2024 submitted that M/s Samyak Projects Private Limited' is the title holder the plot of land, admeasuring 2'60 acres equivalent to 20 Kanal 16 Marlas comprised under Kewat No 101 Khata No 110 Rect No 5E Killa No.

2012 min (1-3), 20 I 1/Zmin (O-8)' 2L 11/1 lmin (2-9) Rect' No.

59 Killa No.

Killa No.

761112 (o-19), 16/Z/1 l2-11)' ZSll'12 min [5-17)' total land admeasuring 113 Kanal 7 Marlas and Khewat No' 292 Khata No.

316 Rect.

No.

59 Killa No.25l1/3min (0-5) 2Slzmin (0-8J' Rect' No.

62 Killa No.

5min (1- 1B) total land admeasuring 2 Kanal 11 Marlas and Khewat No.

293 Khata No.

3 17 Rect No 58 Killa No' Z0 l l l lmin(\- 8) Rect.

59 Killa No 16/1/1 (3-10J total land admeasuring 4 Kanal 18 Marlas situated in Village Sihi, Tehsil & District Gurgaon in Sector 83 of Gurgaon Manesar Urban Complex Master Plan' XIl.

The respondent no 2 approached the respondent no 1 for development of a commercial proiect to be developed over the said parcel of Iand, and pursuant to several discussions' negotiations and after bargain, respondent no 1 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding h'ith respondent no'Z on 1204'2013' for the purpose of development and construction of a commercial complex on the aforesaid Parcel of land' Xlll.AtthetimeofexecutionoftheMoUi'e,inApril2013'respondentnol also paid a N on-Refundable Security Deposit of Rs 4'00'00'000 /- to the respondent no 2 , as per the understanding ofthe parties under Clause 13 ofthe said MoU, receipt of which was acknowledged by respondent no.2 XIV.

As far as the revenue sharing between the parties was concerned' it was mutually agreed between the parties that revenue generated from this proiectwillbe at 5 5:45 betvveen respondent no'1 and respondent Page 10 of 31 ffi HARERI #-ounuonnrr,l Complaint No.

1872 of 2024 no.2 respectivelY.

XV.

The sharing ratio in the MoU was also framed/designed in such a manner, that for the first 75 crores received as sale consideration' respondent no 2 shall get 750lo of the same and merely 250lo comes to respondent no.1, as pcr Clausc 15 ofthe MoU The final sharing ratio was 450% to respondent no.2 and 55%o to respondent no 1' hence respondent no.1 was entitled to receive a substantial amount at the later stage of the construction.

XVl.

That the respondent no. ondent no.1 also had financially assisted respondent no 2 to the tune of Rs.32.5 crores, to get abovementioned parcel of land transferred from the erstwhile owner in its own (Samyak'sJ name' XVII.

That the respondent no.1 was constructing the p roject at a rapid pace' however, Samyak was causing regular impediment like delay in repayment of the advance of Rs 32 5 crores, and further not cooperating in the other compliances Also, in November 2016' when the Government oflndia banned the 500 & 1000 rupees note' the same made a huge impact on the pace of construction of any real estate project. lt is a matter of common knowledge, that major part of transactions, be it payment to contractors' labours etc are done through cash only and banning the same, adversely affected the construction in the year 2016-17 The Hon'ble Pun jab & Haryana High Court in the year 2oir2'20L5 had banned the ground water extraction in the reign of Haryana, reason of which the water supply completely stopped in the construction site This compelled the claimant to get the supply ofwater from tankers etc which goes without saying' was very Iess in supply if compared to earlier' XVlll.

In 2016, during the ]at Agitation in Haryana' trains and buses were Page 11 of 31 &HARER @ IL -eq GURUGRAI,,'l stopped & burnt, which not only prevented innumerous labours from reaching the site but also the tractors & trollies of suppliers which highly affected the Pace' XlX. lnApril 2015 & November 2015' and further in 2016 -18' the Hon'ble NationalGreenTribunalalsodirectedtostopconstructioninDelhi NCR to prevent emission of dust which made the construction at a standstill. xx, In addition to the abovesaid, the nation came to a standstill after the outbreak of Covid-19 in the entire world The period wherein the Iockdown was imposed and wherein the labourers migrated to their native places, made it impossible to have any kind of construction from March 2020 - August 2020 That' even after August 2020' the pace of the ace of the construction was not vcry rapid' given the fact that there was shortage of labourers and also since the Covid -19 was also at its peak, pace was much slower if compared to pre-corona times' XXl.

When respondent no 2 had enough of the share from the sale proceeds, in order to arm twist rcspondent no 1' sent a notice for termination dated 10 11'2020' and terminated the MoU dated 1?.04.2013. xxll.Pursuanttotheillegaltermination,respondentno.lapproachedthe Hon'ble Delhi High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, and sought an interim direction to restrain respondent no.2 from creating any third-party interest Simultaneously, respondent no 1 invoked the dispute resolution clause of thc MoU and approached the Hon'ble High Court for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, and wherein the Hon'ble High Court' appointed Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri' Former ludge' Supreme Court of Page 12 of 31 ffi HARERA #"eunuonnnl XXIII.

XXIV. xxv. claims, consented [by filing an application) to the proposal submitted by the respondent for completion of the balance construction work of project, in the interest of proiect' and to ensure that the dispute between the promoters must not hamper the interest of the proiect' XXVI.

That in compliance of the 0rder dated 13 10 2021 of the Arbitral Tribunal, the physical possession of the pro'ect site was handed over by respondent no 1 to respondent no 2 on 14'110'2021at 3:00 P M' The entire records ofthe project' viz' Customer Ledgers' Builder Buyer Agreements, 'litle Deeds, Fire NOC' Building Plans etc were shared with the respondent no'Z via Google Drive' vide Email dated 2t.10.2021.

1872 of 2024 lndia, as a Sole Arbitrator' The Petition u/s 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996' was converted into an Application u/s 17 of the Act' and the interim relief which was sought before the Hon'ble High Court was therefore sought before the Learned Sole Arbitrator' During the pendency of the abovementioned mentioned application' the Arbitral Tribunal vide Procedural Order No 04 dated 05 03 2021' directed both the parties, to submit their respective proposal for taking over thetaskofcompletionofthebalanceConStructionworkoftheproiect' ln compliance of such direction, both the parties had submitted their respective ProPosal(s) Although, respondent no 1 itself was competent enough to complete the proiect on its own within a period of fifteen months' as assured by it through its proposed plan ofaction' but since respondent no 2 had proposed to complete the balance construction within a period of 10 months, Ansal, without preludice to its legal rights' remedies and PaEe 13 of y * HARER. #"eunuonArrl Complaint No.

1872 of 2024 xxvll.Furthermore,itwasundertakenbyrespondentno2'whichis recorded in the Order date d 02'09'2022' that the overall construction of the proiect shall be completed within 9 months' i'e ' by the end of June 2023.

XXVlll.

During the proceedings held in 11 10 2022' respondent no 1 had informed the Arbitral Tribunal, that some ofthe allottees ofthe subject project are approaching it with the grievances' that respondent no 2 is not recognising their rights as flat buyers' and is instigating those allottees to file cases against respondent no'1 On such information' respondent no.2 made a baseless excuse' of there not being a Tripartite Agreement (between the Samyok' Ansal and the Allottee) ' and therefore, the respondent no 2 is not recognising the allottees' This fact is recorded in thc Order daled 11''10'202?' xxlx.

Pertinent to mention, that in terms of the MoU daled 1'2 '04 '?013 ' respondentno.lwasauthorisedtoenterintoAgreementIs)withany allottee, and there was no requirement for ratification of the respondent no.2, being a landowner' At the threshold after the execution of the MoU, there were some agreements' wherein' respondent no.2 being the Landowner' had also affixed its seal in the Builder - Buyer Agreements; however' after sometime' respondent no. ondent no.1 was executing Bilateral Agreements with the Allotees' on the strength of the MoU, as respondent no 2 was not cooperating Furthermore, those allottees have also made the payments through banking channel to rcspondent no 1' and all these details' be it the Builder Buyer Agreement and the Customer Ledger' are already provided to respondent no 2 vio the Google Drive sent through email on 21.10.2021- ' Page L4 of 3, L trHARER #" eunuenntr Complaint No.

1872 of 2024 XXX.

A perusal of the Order dated 11 10 2022' makes it abundantly clear' that the Arbitral Tribunal, had explicitly directed respondent no Z to not create any third party rights over any unit' until and unless this issuc of bilateral agreement is resolved XXXI.

Furthermore, on 04.05 2023, in order to resolve the abovementioned' it was further directed by the Arbitral Tribunal to respondent no 2 to visit the office of respondent no 1 on 08 05 2023 at 11;00 am' and to satisfy itself with the gcnuineness of all bilateral builder buyer agreement.

On the directions of the Arbitral Tribunal' the Representatives of the respondent no 2 also visited the Office of respondent no,1 on 17 05 2023; however' despite verirying all the documents, neither any clarity was given by respondent no 2' nor respondent no.2 desisted from its mala fide aclions' XXXII.

Pertinent to mention, pursuant to the meeting held on 17 05 2023' despite not finding any Iacuna on any transaction' started persuading the allottees to sign an Addendum ngreement with respondent no 2 The attempt to sign addendum agreements with allottees by respondent no 2 is unnecessary and unwarranted At the time of handing over the proiect site to respondent no 2' it was expressly mentioned, that respondent no 2 shall be entitled to only enter into agreements with new allottees and not with existing allottees The agreements entered by respondent no 1 with the existing allottees are valid and subsisting, and therefore' there is no requirement signing anY add ng anY addendum agreement' XXXIll.

The Arbitral tribunal in its Order dated 02'09 '2022 'has made it clear' that responclent no'Z shall communicate with the existing allottees only to the extent of collecting sale considerations from them The act Page 15 of 31rl * HARER/\ dS" eunuonnu Complaint No.

1872 of 2024 ofrespondent no.2 to execute addendum agreementwith the allottees goes completely against the Order(s) and undertaking given to the Arbitral Tribunal XXXIV.

Again, during the hearing held on 29 07 '2023' it was directed by the ArbitralTribunal,inordertoresolvetheissueofbilateralagreement' to send a list of all the allottees, along with all necessary particulars to respondent no.2.

It was further directed that respondent no Z within a week of receiving such information, shall submit its comment with respect to those allottees, to which the dispute remains' XXXV.

Undisputedly, the said list, along with all necessary credentials were supplied to respondent no 2 vide email dated 16 09 202 3' however' till date, i.e., almost 7 months since supplying of such information' it has not replied or filed any comment citing ob)ection to any such allotment.

Hence, since it is unrebutted, it means that respondent no 2 has admitted all the allotment' xXXVl.

Despite the abovementioned, respondent no 2in a blatant violation of theOrderdatedlT.lO.2022,andallfurthersubsequentorder[s)'have not only started to cancel the units, but have also started to create third Party rights over the same XXXVII.

0n 14lO.2023,when the project site was handed over to respondent no.2 for the balance construction work' respondent no 2 was obligated to raise its own funds for the said purpose' and shall not dependent upon the sale receivables ofthe allottees Furthermore' the scope of the entrusting the balance work to respondent no 2 was very limited. y limited. and it does not entitle respondent no 2 to issue cancellation letters to the allottees By issuing these cancellation letters to the allottees, respondent no 2 has violated the Order datedOZ09'2022 of PaEe 16 of 3\/,/ BA RAM HARE GURUG the Arbitral Tribunal' XXXVIll.

Cancelling allotments are nowhere aiding the pace of construction' and is not only creating havoc amongst the allottees The respondent no.2 was obligated to only complete the construction' and the project hasnotbeenhandedovertorespondentno2;however'respondent no.2 being the flagbearer of contemptuous acts' is deeming the subject proiect as its own project and is flouting the order(s) of the Arbitral Tribunal, as the order(s) doesn't matter at all xxxlx.

The act of respondent no 2 to cancel the allotments and create third party rights is beyond the authority given by the Arbitral Tribunal' and therefore, all the acts of respondent no 2 to cancel the allotment and the creation of the third-party rights may be held as void' and illegal E.

Reply on behalf of the respondent no'z i'e" M/s' Samyak Proiects Private Limited 6. 'Ihe respondent no.2 i e, M/s Samyak Proiects Private Limited has made following submissions: L That the present application filed by the complainant under section 36 of the Act, 2016 with respect to unit no F-163 having carpet area of 189.50 sq. ft. and super area of358 01sq ft in the said proiect i e "Ansal Hub 83 Boulevard." That the application is liable to be dismissed at the outset as the complainant has no cause of action against the respondent no.?. ll.

It is pcrtincnt to mcntion that no Builder Uuyer Agreement was executedbetweentherespondentno.2andthecomplainantandthere is no privity of contract between the complainant and respondent no 2' PaEe 17 of 3 1 I complaint No.

1872 of 2024 * HARERi #-eunuenRn,t III.

That a ;ell" was executed bogus "Agfeement to ! between respondent no.1 and the complainant wherein the respondent no. ondent no.

2 was neither a party to the agreement to sell nor the same was executed in thc presence of respondent no 2 Hence, no cause of action accrued in the favour ofthe complainantas against the respondent no 2 It is submitted that there are no financial transactions in the books of account with respect to the above mentioned unit' That as per the receipts issued by the respondent no 1 it is evident that the same are certain adiustments made by respondent no l The complainant did not paid even the booking amount towards the alleged unit' That the respondent no.z has no obligation / liabilities towards the complainant as there is no financial transactions in the application is maintainable in the eyes of law' as the complainant has not paid even the 100/0 of the total sale consideration of the said unit to the respondent.

Moreover, there are receipts of only adiustments made by respondent no.1 which reflects the ill and malicious intention ofc and the Iiability/onus to prove the same is on respondent no'1 Vll. l'urthermore, respondent no.z is neither confirming party or the recipient of any amount, thus there is no privity of contract between the complainant and respondent no 2 in the present case' VIII, That it is Submitted that the respondent is not even a Confirming party to the agreement that is pressed into service by the complainant More Page 18 of 3 Complaint No.

1872 of 2024 lv. books of accounts of respondent no.2 with respect to the said unit and settled proposition of law that without consideration an "Nudum Pactum" i.e. void ab initio Vl.

That neither the complaint filed by the complainant nor the present hence, It is a agreement is I 1/ HARER Complaint No.

1872 of 2024 IX.

GURUGRAM so, the complainant has approached this Authority with unclean hands and has impleaded the respondent no 2 without any cause ofaction' That it is submitted that it is a bogus transaction and so-called adjustments made by rcspondent no 1 are not considered to be any so rt o ny so rt offinancial transaction pertaining to the unit allotted in the proiect and thus the complainant and respondent no 1 are acting in connivance with each other for the fulfilment of their ulterior motives and harm the reputation of the respondent no.

2 for the reasons best known to the respondent no.

1 and complainant It is therefbre most respectfully prayed that keeping in view the aforesaid acts this Ld.

Authority may be pleased to dismiss the present application and make only respondent no-1 liable towards the complainant.

Copies of all the relevant documents have been filed and placed on record' Their authcnticity is not in dispute llence, the complaint can be decided on the basis of these undisputed documents and submission made by the parties. lurisdiction of the authority: The Authority jurisdiction to below. observes that it has territorial as well as subiect matter adjudicate the present complaint for the reasons given Territorial iurisdiction As per notificatio nno.Ll92/2017-1TCP dated 1'4'72 2017 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, the jurisdiction of Real Estate x.

7.

F.

8. t'.

I 9.

Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all PaEe 19 of 3l M HARER *H eunuonRrv purpose with offices situated in Gurugram.

In the present case, the pro,ect in question is situated within the planning area of Gurugram district' Therefore, this authority has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint.

F. tt Subiect matter iurisdiction Section 11(4)(a) of the Act, 2016 provides responsible to the allottee as per agreement reproduced as hereunder: Section 11(4)(a) Complaint No.

1872 of 2024 that the promoter shall be for sale.

Section 11[aJ(a) is Be responsible for oll obligations, responsibilities an(l functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations mqde thereunder or to the 'ollottee as per the agreementfor sale, or to the ossociation ofallottee' as the cqse may be, till the conveyan e conveyance of all the apqrtments, plots or buildings' as- the cosi may be, to the ailottee, or the common qreas to the associotion of allottee or the competent authority, os the case may be; G, G.l 11.

10.

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 later stage.

Findings on obiections raised by the respondents Obiection regarding delay due to force maleure circumstances The respondent no.1 has raised a contention that the construction of the project was delayed due to force maieure conditions such as various orders passed by the Hon'ble Puniab and Haryana High court' Hon'ble NGT, shortage of labour, demonetisation, outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic' Since there were circumstances beyond the control of respondent' so Page 20 of 31 v THARER Complaint No.

1872 of 2024 ffi"GURUGRAM taking into consideration the above-mentioned facts' the respondent be allowed the period during which his construction activities came to stand still, and the said period be excluded while calculating the due date ln the present case, the'Builder Buyer Agreement was executed betlveen the parties on 23.10.2019.

As per clause 5 ofthe Agreement dated 23 10 2019' the due date for offer of possession of the unit 5.

Time is Essence The Vendor sh./ll abide by the time schedule for completing the project as disclosed at the time ofregistration oJthe projectwith the Authority and towards iiiairg or", the soid unit alongwith porkiig [tf oppltcoble) to th.e ve'ndee and the commo'n areas La the ossociotioi of vindees or the compeLent authority' as the cose may be, as ptovi(led under tlule2(1)A of Lhe Rules, 2017' IEmPhosis suPPlied] 12.

Plied] 12.

As per the details available on the website, the date of completion of the project as disclosed at the time of registration of the project with the Authority is 3L.L2.2020. 'Ihe Authority vide notification no' 9/3-20?0 dated26.0s.2020haveprovidedanextensionof6monthsforprojects having completion date on or after 25 05 2020' on account of force majeure conditions due to the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and the same is also allowed to the respondcnt in lieu of the notification of the Authority.

Thus, the due date of possession comes out to be 3 0'06 Z0Zl' 13.

The respondent no.1 have submitted that due to various orders of the Authorities and court, the construction activities came to standstill The Authority observes that though there have been various orders issued to curb the environment pollution, shortage of labour etc but these were for a short period of time and are the events happening every year' The respondents were very much aware of these event and thus' the promoter/ respondent cannot bc given any leniency hased on the aforesaid reasons Page 2l of 3l * HARER # eun[enetrl Complaint No.

1872 of2024 G.lt Obiection regarding no privity of contract between the respondent no.2 and complainant and that neither the respondent no'Z is a confirming party to the agreement for sale nor has ever received any consideration from the complainants' 14.

The respondent no.z has raised an obiection that the respondent no 2 is not a party to the agreement and the agreement was executed between complainant and respondent no 1 and thus' there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the respondent no 2 The Authority observes that a Builder Buyer Agreement has been executed between the complainant and the respondent no'1 and the respondent no'2 is not a confirming party to the said agreement lt is observed that the complainant has not made any monetary payments towards the allotment of the subject unit, either to respondent no 1 or to respondent no 2 The no 2 The payment receipts annexed with the complaint appear to be mere internal adiustmcnts nlade by respondent no 1 in lieu of services rendered by the complainant to respondent no l lnstead of making payment for the said services, respondent no 1 allotted the subject unit to the complainant and issued receipts accordingly As per the proceedings dated 1903 2025' respondent no.1 has submitted that it has no objection to the reliefs sought by the complainant.

However, Iearned counsel for respondent no 2 has objected to the said receipts and contended that the amounts reflected therein pertain to adjustments against an allotment made by respondent no,l in a sepdrate Proiect' 15. 'Ihe Authority is of the view that there is no privity of contract between the respondent no.2 and the complainant and thus no directions are granted by the Authority against the respondent no'2 and it is solely the PageZZ of31 , tr HARER slh- eunuonnll responsibility of respondent no 1 to complete and handover the unit to the complainant and also pay delayed possession charges to the complainant' H.

Findings on the reliefsought by the complainant' H.I Direct the respondents to pay interest for every -month of delay --'- it " p."...iUed rate since 31'\z'zOzo (due date ofpossession) as p"rl".tlo" 18(1) of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016.

H.llDirecttherespondentstoCompletetheproiect.inexpeditious manner and offer the possession ofthe shop bearing no' F-163 in t-tt" p.o|".t 'HUB 83 'lloulevard" located in Sector 83' Gurgaon along with all the promised amenities and facilities and to the satisfaction of the complainants' H.III Direct the respondents to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant with respect to the said shop' H.tv Direct the respondents to commit a date for offering the ^- - possession by submitting an affidavit before the Authority' 1(:. rity' 1(:.'l'heabovesaidrclicfsareinterconnected'thusarebeingdealttogether'ln the present conlplaint, the complainant was allotted a shop bearing no F- 163, on the First Floor, in the proiect "Ansal Hub 83 Boulevard" situated in Sector 83 of the respondents for a sale consideration of Rs 3 2 '0 5 '728 441' .

The Agreement lror Sale dated 23 70'2}lg was executed between the complainant and respondent no 1 wherein respondent no Z was not the confirming party.

As per clause 5 of the Agreement dated 23 10 2019' respondent no 1 was obligated to complete the construction ofthe project and hand over possession of thc subject unit by 31 12 2020 'Ihe occupation certificate for the proiect has not yet been obtained by the Complaint No.

1872 of 2024 the comPetent authority.

2(land owner) and respondent no 1(developer) dated 12.04.2013 whereby the development and respondent from 17.

The resPondent entered into a MoU no.

Pa1ez3 of 31 4/ HARER Sh ounuonnr,l marketing of the proiect was to be done by the respondent no' 1 in terms of the license/permissions granted by the DTCP' Haryana' Upon failure of respondent no.

1 to perform its obligations as per MoU and complete the construction of the project within the agreed timeline' respondent no 2 terminated the said MoU vide notice dated 10 11 2020 and issued a public notice in newspaper for termination ofthe MoU The matter pursuant to the dispute was referred to the Delhi High Court under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and vide order dated 22'012021 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi appointed the Hon'ble lustice AK Sikri' former ludge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia as a sole arbitrator of Arbitral Tribunal L8.'t'he complainant (respondent no 1 herein) in the petition sought various reliefs including to stay the operation of the termination letter dated 10.11.2020 and the public notice dated 1'6122020 till the final arbitral award is given. is given.

The Arbitral 'l'ribunal vide order dated 31'08 2021 granted no stay on termination notice dated 10 112020 and no restraining order in this regard was passed against the M/s Samyak Projects Pvt Ltd' Further, vide order dated 13 10 2021 ofthe sole arbitrator' respondent no 1 was directed to handover the aforementioned proiect to the respondent no.

Following the directive outlined in the order dated L3'10'2021 ofthe Solearbitrator,respondentno.lhandedovertheprojecttorespondent no.

2 via a possession letter dated 14':10'2021- ' for the purpose of undertaking the remaining construction tasks Subsequently' on o2.og.lozz,thesoleArbitratordirectedrespondentno.2tofinalizethe project within the stipulated timeline' specifically by the conclusion of lune 202 3 and to collect funds from the allottees with a condition that the amount so collected shall be put in escrow account Page24 of 3+ I Complaint No.

1872 of 2024 *HARER' ffi eunuonnt',1 Complaint No.

1872 of 2024 19. 'Ihe Authority is of the view that the Builder Buyer Agreement dated 23.102019 was signed by the complainant and the respondent no 1' The respondent no 2 is not a confirming party to that Agreement The AuthorityfurtherobservesthattheoCcupationCertificatefortheproieCt is yet to be received and the project is not yet complete' 20. 'fhc Authority observes that, in the present matter' thc complainant- allottee has not made any direct monetary payment towards the allotment of the subject unit.

The payment receipts placed on record by the complainant, as annexed from page nos 52 to 60 of the complaint and amounting to <2820 '8L9 l-, have been issued by respondent no 1 and are titled as 'Adjustment Receipts' These receipts pertain to adjustments made by respondent no.1 in consideration of services rendered by the complainant in connection with other projects undertaken by respondent no. ondent no.1, and not in rcspect of any actual payments made by the complainant towardstheallotmentofthesubjectunit,Foreg',paymentreceiptdate d37.07.?O\9 annexed on page no 52 of complaint remarked as " Adiustment Receipt.

ADVANCE BOOKING OF SHOP No F-763"' the payment receipt dated 12.0u 2019 annexed at page no 53 ofthe complaint is remarked as "Fresh Booking' Adiustment ReceipL Adjustment from 17 M WO: ALW773 PA'151847" ' payment receipt dated 72'082019 annexed at page no.

54 of complaint remarked as " Adiustment Receipt' Adi. lrom 4M WO:2450130 Sec'86 PA'161709" ' Payment receipt dated 12.08 2019 annexed at page no 55 of complaint remarked' as" Adiustment Receipt . adi' from 1 M WO:7470073 Sumanglam PA'76170" 'Paymenr receipt dated :2.OA2Olg annexed at page no 56 of complaint remarked as "Adiustment Receipt' Adi' from 12RA WO : ALW'173 PA'756417" ' Payment receipt dated 12 Ot) 2}:.g annexed at page no 57 of complaint Page?9 of 3l a., ffiHAREI #- eunuenRu remarked as " Adiustment Receipt, Di' From 3 M WO: 2420757 Sec-92 PA- 7 6 77 0 8", P ayment receipt dated 14 1 0 20 19 annexed at page no 58 of complaint remark ed as "Adiustment ReceipL Adi' from MWO 2450252 PA-763604 sec-86", Payment receipt dated L4'L0'2019 annexed at page no.

59 of complaint remarked as " Adiustment Receipt' Adi' frm 5 M WO 2450730 PA'763607 sec'86",Payment receipt datcd 06 12 2019 annexed at page no.

60 of complaint remarke d as " Adiustment receipL Adiustment from 73/F MWO:ALW 773 PA-164696" 'ltcanbe clearly construed from the abovc that the said payment receipts were mere adjustments and no actual money was paid by the complainant so there arises no question of holding respondent no.Z responsible for something that has been done without its involvement in it, here the services were offered to respondent no.1 and in furtherance ofthe services, the subject unit was allotted to the complainant bY resPondent no 1' 21. no 1' 21.

In view of the above facts and circumstances as well as the fact that the arbitration proceedings between respondent no'1 and respondent no 2 are still ongoing, the Authority is of the considered view that the liability under provisions of Section 18[1) ol the Act & Ru]es read with builder buyer agreement shall be borne by respondent no 1 and the liabiliry to handover the unit shall also lie with the respondent no'1' 22.'Ihe complainant intend to continue with the proiect and are seeking delay possession charges interest on the amount paid' Proviso to section 18 provides that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the proiect, he shall be paid, by the promoter' interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of possession' at such rate as may be prescribed and it has been prescribcd undcr rulc 1 5 of the rules: "section 1B: ' Return of amount qnd compensation Page 26 of 31 , complaint No.

1872 of 2024 ffi HARER, , #-eunu-enntit as may be prescribed." Complaint No.

1872 of2024 (Enphosis suPPlied) 18lt).

I the promoter foils to complete or is unoble to give oossbssion of on oporlment plot, or building ' 'r",-- in oirordoinr" with the terms ol Lhe ogreement for sole or' 'n! , hn ,or" .ov b", dulv completed by the dote specilied therein; oritt due to discontinuonce of his business os a developer on ilrorni iftrtprntion or revocqtion of the registrotion under this Act or for onY other reoson, i" tniu ti tioot" on demond to the ollottees' in cose the ottitii *itn"t to*itndrow from the proiect, withoutpreiudice to iny itn", ,"^"ay oroilable, to return the amount received by iil^ in ,""p""t o7 tnat opartment, plot, building' os the case '^on'i"l, inn i"riu"t ot such rqae os mqy be prescribed.in lh is 't'"iotf iiniauaing ,o^pensotion in the monner os provided under this ict: -irorii"a tnot. ii"a tnot.n"r,,n allottee does not intend to withdrow from thi prolect, he shall be paid, by the promoter' interest for every ^iitn'ifaioy, til tne honding over ofthe possession' ot such rate paeez7 of 3t +/ 23.

Due date of possession and admissibility ofgrace period: As per clause 5 of the agreement dated 23 10 2019, the possession of the allotted unit was supposed to be offered within a stipulated timeframe that has been disClosed at the Authority,s webSite i.e., 31.12.2020.

Further, a unqualified grace period of 6 months is granted to the respondent over and above 31.72.2020.

Hence, the due date comes out to be 30 06 2021 including grace period of 6 months on account of Covid-19' 24.

Payment of delay possession charges at prescribed rate of interest: The complainant is seeking delay possession charges at the prescribed rate ofinterest l)roviso to scction 1t] provides that where an allottee does notintendtowithdrawfromthepro;ect,heshallbepaid,bythepromoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of possession' at such rate as may be prescribed and it has been prescribed under rule 15 ofthe rules.

Rule 15 has been reproduccd as under: ffiHALER ffieunuonRl,l Rule T5 Prescribed rate of interest' [Proviso to section 72' section 1B ond suh-section (4) ond subsection (7) oJ section 191 (1) I;or the purposi of prori\a to section 72: section 18; ond sub' sections (4) and (7) af section 19' the "nterest ot the rate prescribid; shall be the State Bonk of tndru highest morginal cost oflending rate +20/o : Provided that in cose the State Bonk of Indio marginal cost of lending rate (MCt R) is not in use' ft sholl be reploced by such benchmork lendinct rotes which the State Bonk of lndio may lix JNm Ltm' lo t tme li)r lcndin-u to IhP gencrol public- 25. 'Ihe legislature in its wisdom in the subordinate legislation under the provision of rule 15 of the rules, has determined the prescribed rate of interest. interest.

The rate of interest so determined by the legislature' is reasonable and if the said rule is followed to award the interest' it will ensure uniform practice in all thc cases Consequently' as per website of Complaint No.

1872 of 2024 the State Ilank of lndia i.e., ht! i.co.in. the marginal cost of Iending rate (in short, MCLR) as on date i e ,23'07 '2025 is9'10%o' Accordingly' the prescribed rate of interest will be marginal cost of lending rate +2o/o t'e" 7t.1-Oo/o.

26. 'Ihe definition of term 'interest' as defined under section 2(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 Iiable to pay the allottee' in case of default The relevant section is reProduced below: "(za) "interest" means the rates of interest payoble by the promoter or the allottee' as the case maY be' Fxplonolon -Fot Lhc purpt'se ol lhis 'lause - O Lhe rate ofinterest chorgeohle t om t-he ollottee by the promoter' " in cose of default' shallie equal to the rote of interestvrhich the promotir siolt b'e liable to pay the allottee' in case of default; til Lhe interest payable by the promoterto the allottee shall be from the dote the promotir reciived the amount or any port thereof till the date the amount or part thereof ond interest thereon is refunded' and the interest payabte by the -all,ottee to the promoter sholl be from the date the a.llottee defaults in poyment to the promoter till the dote it is paidi' Page 28 of 31 ry, *HARER #- eunuen tr,r Complaint No.

7872 of 2024 27.'l'herefore, interest on thc delay payments from the complainant shall be charged at the prescribed rate i.e., 1 1.10%io by the respondent/promoter which is the same as is being granted to them in case ofdelayed possession charges.

28. arges.

28.

On consideration of the documents available on record and submissions made by the parties regarding contravention as per provisions of the Act, the Authority is satisfied that the respondents are in contravention of th" section 11(4)(aJ oftheAct by not handing over possession by the due date as per the agrecment.

By virtue of clause 5 of the agreement dated 23.10.2019, the possession of thc subject unit was to be delivered within stipulated time schedule i.e., by 31.06.2021.

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

29. 'Ihe Authority is of considered view that there is delay on the part of the respondent no.1 to offer of possession of the allotted unit to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 23.10.2019.

Accordingly, it is the failure ofthe respondent no.1 to fulfil its obligations and responsibilities as per the agreement to hand over the possession within the stipulated period.

30.

Accordingly, the non-compliance of the mandate contained in section 11(4)[a] read with secrion 18(11 ofthe Act on the part ofthe respondent no.1 is established.

As such, the allottee shall be paid by the respondent no.1 interest for every month ofdelay from the due date ofpossession i.e., 31.06.2021 till the date of valid offer of possession plus 2 months after obtaining occupation certificate from the competent authority or actual handing over of possession, whichever is earlier; at prescribed rate i.e., Page 29 of 31 ER UGRAII ffir- S"e 11.10 r the ru Complaint No.

1872 of 2024 t authority or actual s obtai ing occupation The poss ing occupation certifica of interest chargeablr ofd resp ult shall be charged a dent/promoter which I.

31. p.a. .

31. p.a. as per proviso to on 18(1) ofthe Act read with rule 15 of ns ofthe authority Hence, the Authority hereby passes this order and issue the following directions under section 37 ofthe Act to ensure compliance ofobligations casted upon the promoters as per the functions entrusted to the authority under section 34[f): The ndent no.1 is at the prescribed rate of 1 1.1 p.a. for every month m due date of possession i.e., 31.

2021 till the date ofvalid ion plus 2 months after han hichever is ea prescribed rate i.e., 1 1.10 p.a. as per proviso to on 18(1) ofthe Act read with rule 15 of rles. pondent no.1 is dir ion of the unit to the actual physical thin 2 months after promoter, in case rate i.e., 11.100/0 by rhe e of interest which the pro tcr shall be liable to p y the allottees, in case of default i.e., the dela d possession charges per section 2(zal ofthe Acl v.

The c plainant is directed pay outstanding dues, if any, after adj ent of interest for the ayed period. vi.

The arr ars ofsuch interest ed from 31.06.2021 till the date oforder by Authority shall be pai by the promoter to the allottee within a Page 30 of 31 4,' ER RUGRA[I of 90 days from date this order and interest for every month ofd shall be paid by the romoter to the allottee before 1Oth of the 16(2J ofthe rules.. subs uent month as per rul ent no.1 is di to execute Conveyance Deed in favour of od of three months after obtaining the payment of the requisite stamp duty, the c plainant within a pe cha etc.

L87Z of 2024 ything from the complainant 0 tion Certificate, on pondent no.1 shall not thc part of the 32.

Compl t stands disposed, of.

33.

File consigned viii.

The which latory Authority, Dated; 23.i 7 UGRAM to registr !

Page 31 of 31 I