SAMAR MADAN AND SAKSHI MADAN vs CZAR BUILDWELL PVT LTD

HARERA L.

Samar Madan 2.

Sakshi Madan R/o: E-214, Sector-18, Rohini, New Delhi.

M/s Czar Buildwell Pvt.

Regd.

Office at: 30 Sector-43, Golf L22009 CORAM: Shri Ashok Sangwan APPEARANCE: Sh.

Saurabh Aggarwal None !

GURUGRA[/ BEFORE THE HARYAN REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHO ;GURUGMM Complaint No.

1994 of 2024 Complaint no.: 7994 of2o24.

Dateofdecision: 07.O5.2OZS Complainants Respondent Member Complainant HARERA ORDER 1.

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant/allottee under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short, the Act) read with rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,2017 (in short, the Rules) for violation of section 11( ) (a) of the Act wherein it is inrer a/ia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, PaEe I of lZ m W$LW HARERA GURUGRAI/I Complaint No.

7994 of 2024 responsibilities and functlons under the provision of the Act or the Rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale executed infer se.

A.

Unit and proiect related details 2.

The particulars of unit details, sale consideration, the amount paid by the complainants, date of proposed handing over the possession, delay period, if any, have been detailed in the following tabular form: S.

N.

Particulars 1.

Name of the project "Mahira Homes", Sector-104, Gurugram, Haryana.

2.

Nature of the proiect Affordable Housing Scheme Project, Multistoried Towers.

3.

RERA Registered/ not registered Registration revoked 4.

DTCP License 66 of 2021 dated 07.09.2021 valid up to o6.o9.2026 6.

Allotment letter o?.12.2021 (As on page no.

25 of complaint) 7.

Unit no.

T8-1603, Floor-16, Tower-T8, Type- lBHK-Type-4 [As on page no 25 of complaint) 8.

Unit area 337.66 sq.ft. [Carpet-Area] (As on page no.

25 of complaint) 9 Environment clearance 27.04.2022 Page 2 of 12 HARERA GURUGRA[\4 Complaint No. plaint No.

1994 of 2OZ4 (As per website of SEIAA, Haryana) Builder-Buyer's Agreement Not executed Possession clause In the absence of the ogreement under Affordoble housing project, the possession clause given under the Affordable Housing Policy 2073 would prevail, Section 1 (iv) of Alfordable housing policy 2013 which provides shalt be required to be rekrred to as the date project "Jor purposes of period from the dote of ff' ,1l.rf Due date of possession 4 years from the date ofE.C] of complaint) [As per S.O.A dated 28.04.2023 onpage no.

41 of complaint] Occupation certificate /Completion certificate Offer of Possession Page 3 of 12 11.

13.

Total sale consideration ] ns. f S,fS,OzO7- 14. lAmount paid by rhe complainant Not offered ffiIAREBA ffi eunuenRvr B, complaint No.

1.994 of 2024 Facts ofthe complaint: The complainants have made the following submissions: - L That the respondent launched an Affordable Group Housing Colony under the name "Mahira Homes 104,, Village-Dhanwapur, Sector_ 104, Gurugram on the area measuring 10.44325 acres under the Iicense no.

66 of 2021 dated 07.O9.202L lt is relevant to mention herein that the said license was granted to the respondent by the DGTCP Haryana under the Affordable Housing policy, 2013 issued by the Government of Haryana under the provisions of Section_94 of the Haryana Development & Regulation of Urbans Area Act, 1,97 5.

Further, providing the details of the project, confirming the allotment of unit no, T811603, admeasuring 333.66 sq.ft. in the aforesaid project, confirming the allotment of the unit for a total sale consideration of Rs.13,95,070/- including the basic price, car parking charges and development charges.

That the complainants have paid Rs .69,753 /- at the time of booking and then Rs.69,063/- within the 15 days of the issuance of the allotment as per the payment plan.

The respondent had to deliver possession of the unit within a period of 36 months from the date II.

I II.

IV.

That the complainant afplied for a residential unit under the affordable housing scheme in the above mentioned project launched by the responddnt on 29.10.2021.

That the complainants w[re allotted residentia] flat in the pro,ect vide allotment Ietter dated 03.12.2021 against their application no.

MH104-071.

PaEe 4 of l2 HARERA S* GURUGRAM VII.

VI. of allotment.

Though the payment to be made by the complainant was based on the payment plan but unfortunately the demands were not corresponding to the factual situation on ground.

That the complainants were shocked to know about t}le proceedings initiated against the respondents by the Authority for submitting forged and fabricated bank guarantees.

That the complainants contacted the respondent on several occasions and were regularly in touch with the respondent but the respondent was never definite about the delivery ofthe possession.

The complainants were in utter shock and dismay when they came to know about the cancellation of their unit by the respondent for non-payment.

The coinplainants had never received any reminder/reply related to their due payments.

Vlll.

The complainants after thousand of efforts and requests were finally given an option ln which they were then asked to take another unit in lieu of the above mentioned unit as the respondent had already allotted the above mentioned unit to a third party.

IX.

The complainants left with no other option and in order to safe guard their interest and money already paid agreed to this offer of the respondent and gigned an affidavit stating that the complainants wants to transfer their unit from T8-1603 to T8-1810 and the amount paid would be adjusted in the new unit.

Thereafter, the complainants were again issued a new allotment letter for the new allotted unit and were asked to fulfil the new raised demands.

As per the demands raised by the respondent, based on payment plan, the complainants had already paid Rs.6,97,533/- towards the Complaint No. plaint No.

1994 of 2024 Page S of 12 &HARERA S[ eun-uennl,r Complaint No.

1994 of 2024 said unit against the total sale consideration of Rs.13,95,070/- which is almost 5070 ofthe amount.

The respondents have violated Section 13 of the Act, 2015 by demanding more than 10Yo of the amount without the execution ofthe BBA.

X.

That the complainant sent various communications to the respondent raising various issues in relation to the said unit and asking the reasons for delay in.execution ofBBA and the possession of the unit but the respoh.ce. ii! dll date has failed to provide any satisfactory response to the same.

Relief sought by the complaiqAnt: .L..

C.

4.

The complainant has sought following relief[s): 6. a.

Direct the respondent to refund the amount paid with interest in respect of the allotted unit with interest at the prescribed rate.

The present complaint was filed on 1,5.05.2024 and registered as complaint no.

1994 of 2024.

As per the registry, complainant has sent copy of the complaint along with annexures through speed post as well as through email.

The matterwas adjourned on 04,09.2 024,27.11.2024, 26.02.2025 and vide proceeflings dated 07.05.2025, no one appeared on behalfofthe respondent and hence, the respondent is proceeded ex- parte.

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

Their authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can be decided based on these undisputed documents and submission made by the complainant.

Jurisdiction of the Authority: 5.

D.

Page 6 of 12 ffiLIAREBA ffi eunuennvr 7.

8.

9.

Complaint No.

1994 of 2O24 The Authority observes that it has territorial as well as subject matter iurisdiction to adrudicate the present complaint for the reasons given below.

E.

I Territorial iurisdiction As per notification no.

1,/92/2017-1TCP dated L4.12. ted L4.12.2017 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, the jurisdiction ofReal Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose with offices situai..Q i4'Gurugram. [n the present case, the project in question is situateil within the planning area of Gurugram district.

Therefore, this authoriB/,h4s complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint.

II Subiect matter iurisdiction Section 11(4)[aJ of the Act, 2016 provides that the promoter shall be 11(a)(a) Section 11(4)(q) Be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made there der or to the ollottee as per the ogreement for sale, or tp the ossociotion of allottee, as lhe cose may be, till the con\eyonce ofoll the oportmenls, plots or buildings, as the case may be, to the allottee, or the common areas to the association of allottee or the competent authoriq), as the cose may be; Section 34-Functions of the Authority: 34(l) of the Act provides to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoter, the allottee and the reol estote agents under this Act and the rules ond regulations made thereunder.

10.

So, in view ofthe provisions ofthe Act quoted above, the Authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non- compliance of obligations by the promoter Ieaving aside compensation Page 7 of 12 is reproduced as hereunder: ffiHARERA ffi arnuenlH,r 11.

1994 of 2024 which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer if pursued by the complainant at a later stage.

Further, the Authority has no hitch in proceeding with the complaint and to grant a relief of refund in the present matter in view of the iudgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited Vs State of U,P, dnd Ors. , dnd Ors." SCC Online SC 1044 decided on 71,77,2021 and followed in M/s Sana Realtors Private Limited & others V/s Union oI India & others SLP (Civil) No.

13005 of 2020 decided on 12,05.2022 wherein it has been laid down as under; "86.

From the scheme ofthe Actofwhicha detailed rekrence has been made and taking note. of power oI adjudicotion delineated with the regulatory authority and adjudicating oJJicer, what finolly culls out is thot olthough the Act indicotes the clistinct expressions like 'refund', 'interest', 'penolty' and 'compensation', a conjoint reading ofSections 18 ond 79 cleorly manifests thotwhen it comes to refund of the amount, and interest on the refund omount, or directing payment of interest for delayed delivery of possession, or penalq) and interest thereon, it is the regulatory outhoriq) which has the power to exomine and determine the outcome ofa complaint.

At the same time, when it comes to o question of seeking the relief of adjudging compensation and interest thereon under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19, the odjudicating olficer exclusively has the power to determine, keeping in view the collective reading of Section 71 read with Section 72 of the AcL if the odjudication under Sections 12, 14, 1B and 79 other than compensation as envisagecl, ifextended to the adjudicating officer os proyed that, in our view, may intend to expand the ambt ond scope of the powers and functions of the adjudicating offrcer under Section 71 qnd thatwould be qgainst the mondate ofthe Act 2016." Hence, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited Vs State of U,P, and Ors, and M/s Sana 12.

Page I of 12 E.

HARERA Complaint No.

7994 of 2024 Realtors Private Limited & others V/s Union ol lndia & others (supra), the Authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint seeking refund of the amount and interest on the amount paid by him. id by him.

Findings on reliefsought by the complainant; F.l Direct the respondent to refund the amount paid with interest in respect ofthe allotted unit with interest at prescribed rate.

The complainants applied for the allotment in the affordable housing project i.e., "Mahira Homes-104" located in Sector-104, Gurugram being developed by the respondent i.e., M/s Czar Buildwell PvL Ltd.

The respondent issued an allotment letter dated 03.72-2021in favor of the complainants and thereby intimated to the complainants about the allotment of unit no.

T8-1603 in Tower-TB for a total sale consideration of Rs.13,95,070/-.

The unit was cancelled by the respondent on account of non-payment, without sending any reminder related to the due payments.

Thereafter, the complainants were given an option to take another unit in lieu of the above mentioned unit as the above mentioned unit was allotted to a third party.

The complainants signed an affidavit stating that the complainants want to transfer their unit from T8-1603 to T8-1810 and the amount paid by them be adjusted in the new unit.

The respondent failed to execute Builder Buyer Agreement despite several requests of the complainants. the complainants wants to withdraw from the project.

It is pertinent to mention that the Authority on 28.05.2022 initiated Suo-Motu action against the promoter under section 35 ofthe Act, 2016 based upon the site visit report submitted on 18.05.2022 wherein it is clearly stated that only excavation work for tower 2, 3 & 4 was started 13.

14.

Page 9 of 12 RA RA[/ ARE URUG H (?

1994 of 202+ at site.

Moreover, on L7 .05.2022 the Director Town & Country Planning blacklisted the said developer from grant of license on account of submitting forged and fabricated bank guarantees and also forged signatures oF the bank officials on the bank guarantees being submitted by M/s.

CZAR Buildwell Pvt.

Ltd which was subsequently withdrawn by the department on 21.07. on 21.07.2022 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.

Also, on 19.07.20 22 all the accounts *"." f."ffbith" Authority due to non-compliance of the provisions of the Act, 2016.

On 06.09.2023 the Authority initiated suo-moto revocation proceedings under section 35 of the Act, 2016.

Thereafter, the Authority vide order dated 11.03.2024 revoked the registration certificate of the project under section 7(1) ofthe AcL,201.6 and accordingly the respondent company shall not be able to sell the unsold inventories in the project and also, the accounts are freezed therefore, this amounts to discontinuation of business of the respondent.

15.

The Authority considering the above mentioned facts opines that although the due date ofpossession has not lapsed yet, section 18 ofthe Acl, 2016 is invoked if the promoter is unable to handover the possession of the unit as per the terms of the agreement due to discontinuance of his business as developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or any other reason then the complainant shall be entitled for entire refund of the amount paid to the respondent along with the prescribed rate of interest.

The relevant portion is reproduced herein below for the ready reference: "Section 18: Return of amount & compensation: Page 10 of 12 ffiHAREIA ffieunuenRH,,t Complaint No.

1994 of 2024 (1) lf the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession ofan apartment plot or building,- (a) [n accordance wtth the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein: or (b) due to dlscontinuance of his bustness as a developer on account ofsuspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect ofthat apartment, plot, building, os th ing, os the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under thIs Act:......." 16.

The Authority is ofthe view that since vide order dated 11.03.2024 the registration certificate ofthe prorect stands revoked under section 7(1) of the Act, 2016 therefore, the promoter cannot carry out the business in presence of the said circumstances, also due to the promoter's serious violations, there seems no possibility of completing the said project by the due date.

Thus, the Authority is of the view that the complainant is entitled to his right under section 19(4J to claim the refund of amount paid along with interest at prescribed rate from the promoter.

Accordingly, the Authority directs the respondent to refund the paid-up amount of Rs.6,38,816/- received by it along with interest at the rate of l7.l0o/o p.a. as prescribed under rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,2017 from the date of each payment till the actual realization of the amount.

Page 11of12 ffi& GURUGRAM LIABEM F.

Directions ofthe authority: 17.

Hence, the Authority hereby passes this order and issue 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 34(0: 18.

L9. a.

The respondent /promoter is directed to refund the amount i.e., Rs.6,38,816 /- received it along with interest at the rate of 11.100/o p.a. as prescri e 15 ofthe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and D Rules, 2017 from the date of each payment on ofthe amount. b.

A period of 90 to comply with the legal consequences directions gi would foll Complaint File be consigned GURI GRAM Page 12 of t2 Ernpt"tr, N.Jrr4 "f ,orf --------------- --J *4^6{- H a rya na Rea I Es ta te Re gu I a to ry Ar., ".r*,Hlr?il- Dated:07.05.2025