BABITA TIWARI AND YOGESH TIWARI vs BRAHMA CITY PVT. LTD.

{PHARERA #"eunuenntr a.m.lrrntNn 6?fi.f7074 BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM 1.

BabiraTiwad 2.

Yogesh Tiwari Both R/o: House no.-17, Cliiton Terrace APPIARANCE: 0 122 02.

674 ol2024 29.01.2025 l9 Manrsh Yadav {Advocate) Drnesh Yadav [Advocate) Karanjawala & Co. (Advocate, ORDER 1.

Ihe present complaint has been filed by the complainants/allottees u.der section 31 of the Real Estate [Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in shoft, the ActJ read with rule 28 ofthe Ha.yana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 [h short, the RulesJ for violation ol section PaBe 1of19 Nl/s Brahma C'ty Pvt.

Ltd Office aL - |loor10n, Tow Park, N1G Road, Gurugram- CORAM: Shri.AshokSang$an *HARERA d!-c,unrnnm,r s.

Complaint No.678o12024 11(4)(a) ofthe Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions unde. the provision ofthe Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottee as perthe agreement lor sale executed interse.

Unlt and pro,ect related details The particulars of unit details, sale co.sideration, the amount paid by the complainant, date ofpropos€d handing over the possession, delay p€riod, ii any, havebeen detailed in the following tabu lar form; ''Mnade Mile (lnspire) Sector-60.

Curugram, tlaryana .t DICI I irense License no.64 of2010 6.

Lcuer scnt by respondent I 16-05.2014 in ing objecrions for (As on page no.:9 ofcomplain, 5.

HRERA Rcgislered l ch3nges in demecalion ?.

Inamation about change in unil senl by respondenl lNote: f,arlier: Unit no.

10, Floor Sround.

Area- 507.41 sq.fi. vide registration no.

327 of20l7 Daled-23.10.2017 31.07.201E (As on page.o sl ofcomplaint) Detaih PHARERA S-cLninnnv Complaint No.670 of 2024 Now: Unir no.

50, FlooF Ground, Area:569.85 sq.frl E Accepiace of the abovesaid changes by 31.07.2018 (As on page no.54 of complainl) 08.01.20r9 (As on pase no.

69 of complaint) l0 j e no. l0 j e no.8l ofcomplaint) n w AI UI(L pase{ian afthe (ontu.rcial Uait as pet aereed telnt dkdcok.litian! ol ot belore 31.0.1.2022 unles Tpnent af the Project- II the tetion ol the prcjecl is .leldre.! due ta the aboye con.litiohs, thek the Al lonee dg.ees thdt the Prcnotet shdll be ekti e.l to the extehsiah 4 tine lbr deliyery aj passeslian al thc Contuerciot IEhphasB suppti.d] (A! ah pasc ho 88 o1tonptdin| 12.

Due dale olpossesion 0l l0 t02l tl *HARERA $-cLrnrcnnv ComplaintNo.6TSof 2024 131.03.2022 + 6 monlhs on accounr of Covid- l9l lNote: Vide proceedings dated 20.11.2024. the same has been inadv€rte.1ly mentioned as 3 r.03.20221 ll.

Toml sale considerarion R.s.16,66,44A-'771- (As p€r &count statement on page ll 6r{ ,164.69/- account statem€nt on page lNote r To be clariuedl t5 I)eed) l6 08.11.2023 (Ar on pase no. l4l ofcomplaint) t7.

18.

25.0t.2024 (As per the conveyance deed placed on record by the counsel tbr thc conrplainanc during procccdinss dated 29.01.2025) a. ractsofthecomplalnt 3.

Thecomplainants have made the loUowing submissionsr- *HARERA -db- cLnGnnrl l l That believing on the representation oithe respondent and allurement ol various specincation about their projeci "Miracl€ Mile"0NSPIRE) at Brahnla City, Sec 60, Gurugram, tlaryana, the complainants booked a commercial shop admeasurings07.41l sq.ft. and paid Rs.6,00,000/- vide cheque no.454208 and also made various payments in cash amounting to Rs.26,01,543/- i.e. in total paid Rs.32,01,543/'as provisional booking amount and $,as allotted a commercial shop bearing no.

30 on Eround iloor admeasuring 507.411 sq.fi. under the construction li.k payment plan fo. a basic sale considerahon of Rs.10,000/ per sq.ft. alons with preturcntiallocation charges at 150/o - 1'hatthe respondentwas inviolation ofthe licence and building bye laws and no progress occurred at the proiect with no fault on part ot lhe complainants and the license of the respondent was also revoked by D'lCP Haryana forviolation ofthe norms. the norms.

Later, the license was .esto red on 02.12.2015 by the DTCP l{a.yana.

Thal thc complainants wrote an email dated 14.08.2017 addressing their gri.vances sating that neither th€ respondent is starting any work on the project now repl],ing to the complain:nts and thus asked to refund the amoun! taken by the respondent.

Despite specjfic demand of relund otthe moncy, the amount was lot refunded by the respondent. lnstead, the complainants were asked to apply and fill new application rorn and the a mo u nt taken by the respond ent would be re adjusted in the new unit.

The rcspondent misused its dominant position and the complainant seeing no other option applied and filled new application form That the respondent changed the name of the Proiect and applied lor llRlR^ registration in the name of lNSPlR['at Sector 60, Gurugram but as thc project has got more publicity in the name of Miracle l.4ile . the respondent kept the earlier name also.

1t is pertinent to mention that thc Pagc 5ot19 complarnt No.

678 of 2024 l!

RERA UGRAIU H GUR project name Nliracle Mile" o./and "1nspire" denotes the same project developed by the respondent forallintents and purposes.

That the respondent intormed the complarnaDts about the change in the unit number and asked for the consent of the complainants pursuant to change in bLrilding plans and the complainants were compelled to f,ll new dpplication fonn and applied ai.esh ior unit No.58 on Ground Floor in Block M admeasuring 569.85 sq ft.

That dre respondent sent a letter dated 12.11.2018 to the complainants acknowledging allotment ofthe unit.

That the respondent also took lame excuse of non-acceptance of money from the complsinants without registration ofthc Agreement for Sale and even thrcatened them to cancel lhe allotmentand forleit the money. lhat the Agreement for Sale / Builder Buyer AS.

Buyer AS.eement was executed between the complarnants and the respondentand the compla,nants !!ere allotted a conrnrercialshop bearing no 58 admeasuring 569.85 sq.ft. on Cround Floor in Tower/ Block- M ,n "Miracle Mile"(lnspire) located at Brahma City sector 60 Curugram, for a total sale consideration of I1s.80,72,663/ along ivith other charges to be paid at the time ol According to clause 7.1 ol the Agreement for Sale/ Builder Buyer Agreement, the due date of handing over possession was on or befo.e 31.03.2022.

That the respondent/ builder has assured and promiscd to hand over possession of the un,t by 31.03.2022.

The respondent inforDed the complarnants about certain typographical errors and clarifications with rcspect to clause no.

19 ofAgreement to sale dated 08.01.2019.

That the respondent hilcd to hand over ihc physjcnl possession ofthe unlt .rs per the Builder Iluyer Agreemcnt, despite receiving substanti al amou n t from thc complainants.

That the complainants were finally offered VII vt I tomplaintNo 678 of2024 I\ HARER{ ComplarnrNo 678 o12024 possession of the unit by letter dated 08.11.2023 and certain demands were raised tbrthe instalment due towards the complainants.

X. l'hat thc complainants made various payments asand when demanded by the respondent so that the project does not get delayed on part of the complainants.

The complainants finally took possession of the unit and were asked to sign various documents befbre handing over of possess ion. xl.

Thal the respondent failcd to fulfil its obligations as agreed and has not compensated the complainants lor the delay in handing over the possession which has caused great financial loss and mental agony to the comphinants.'l hat the complainantwrote an enrail on 27 01.2024 to the rcspondent to fufther ascertain that the taking over of possession and signing of the various documents were under protest as the respondent rlcre not handing over the possession of the allotted unit to the complarDants without s without signing the documents and reserved their right to scek delay possession charges byapproachingthe appropriat€ fo.um.

C.

Reliefsought by the complainants: 'l'he complainants have sought follolving reliei(sl: Drrcct the respondeDt to pay delayed possession compensation at the prescribed rate of interest arom 31.03.2022 till the dale ofactual delivery of the possession i.e., 25.01.2024. l)irectih€ respondent to provide the copy oiConveyance deed.

Direct the respondent to providc the copy ofthe oc and CC olthe project.

1 5. ii. iii D, section 11(4J Reply by th€ hearin& the Authority explained to the respondent/promoter traventions as alleged to have been committed in relation to ta] ofrheActto piead guilry or not to plead guilty nthascontested the complaint on the following grounds: - lE.-]ARER GURUGRAN/ l.

I-hat the complainantvide provisjonalapplication lorm dated 11.01.2013 applied lor a commercial unit bearing no.

GF-30 admeasuring 507 411 sq.ft. in the project Miracle Mile" in 'Brahma Crty" srtuated at Sector60, Gurugram and accordingly paid a booking amount of,Rs.6,00,000/.

ILThat the unit subsequently got renumbered as M-58 and the size of the unitwasaltered and increased to 569.85 sq.ft which was int,mated by the respondent vide letter dated 3107.2018 and the complainant gave her consen! to the said change/aherat,on ol the unit vide letter dated 31.07.201ti. lll Thatthe complainants are UScitizens and have alw:ys been reluctant aDd raken her own swe.t time for making the payment olthe demands raised by the respondent as well as executing the documents.

The unit size was altered in 2018, however, the Agreement for sale was executed on 08.01.2019 and the €xpected due date of possession and the schedule of p.rynrents was aSreed between the parties. lv.

Tharas perclauseT.l of theAgreementforsaledated0S.0l.20l9,thedue date of possession of the unit was 31.0s.2022 sub,ect to force majeure events which might effect the regular development olthe project. e project.

V That the respondentoffered the possession olthe unit to thecomplsin.rnt in a time bound manner and without delay.

Furthe., it is submitted that the respo ndent is eligible lor the exemption ol6 months while calculatrng the due dnte of handover as per the AEreement.rs per the Authority .otification beanng no.

9/3 202A HARIRA/GGI{ (Adlnn] dated 26.05.2020 due to outbreak of Covid'19.

VL That the respondent between 09.01.2019 till 18.02.2020 sent several demand notices and repcatedly chased thc complainant to pay the outn.rnding amount as per the terns olthe agreement.

The complainant is a default€r and has always sought time to remit the outstanding , PaBe 8 oi19 complainr No.678oI2024 ..r REt- GURUGRAI/ vll.

That it is submitted that there were iDter se disputes between the respondent and its associate entities (brahma entities) on one part and "Krrish Realtech Pr,vate Ltd" and it associated entities (krish entitiesJ on the other part.

The issues resulted in CLB proceedings in,tiated by both sides asainst each other in the year 2011, the same came to be settled and .esolved ,n terms of the Settl€ment Agreement dated 06.01r.2012. \/lll.

Thereaftcr, in view ol the obligations/responsibilities under thc Settlement Asreement dated 06.08.2012 not berng met by the Krrish entiries, on account olintervening circumstances, an Addendum dated 31.10.2015 was executed between the parties to the Settlenrent Agrecment dated 06.08.2012.

IX.

In the beginnirg of the year 2015, the License no.64 of 2010 was quashed bythe orderdated05.02.2015 with direciion to the competent authoritjes to rcconsiderthe licenseapplication afresh.The respondent have vidc letter and enuil dated 24.02.2015 inlormed lhe complainants The DTCP vide office order dated 0 3.03.20 21 granted relaxation for the perlod i.e., 01.11.2017 to 11.05.2020 as "Zero Period" wherein approvals were withheld by tbe department within the saidperiod.

Vide lefter dated 02.12. ted 02.12.2017, the respondent intimated the complainants about the changes made in the allotment pursuantto approval oflayout cum demarcation plan, wherein the unit got renumbered as GF-58 admeasuring 569.85 sq.ft.

Also, the respondent is entitled to extension ofsix months as force majeure ior the outbreak olCovid-19. tofrplainr No.678of 2024 amount demanded by the respondenton the pretext that the funds have to be arranged from overseas which can be seen itl the email dated 03.06.2019.

1.

B HARERA -llb- cunucnnur 7 r omplarnt No.678of 2024 copies of all the relevant documents have been filed and Placed on the record.

Their authenticity is not ,n dispute.

Hen€e, the complaint can be decided on the basis ofthese undisputed documents and submission made by the parties.

E. [.1 9. lurisdiction of the authority 'lhe Authority obscrves that it has territorial as well as subjec! m.ltter jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint iorthe reasonsgiven below: 'I erritorial iurisdiction As per notification no.

1/')2/2017'7TCP dared 14.12.2017 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, the jurisdiction oiReal Estate Regulatory Authorjty, Gurugram sball be entir€ Gurugram District for allpurpose ivith ofirces situated in Curugram.

Ir the present case, thc Proiect,n question is silunted within the planning area oi Gurugram District, Therefore dris authoritr has con)plete territorial lurisdiction to deal with the present 0.ll subject matter iurisdictiod 10.

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

Section 11[4](al is reproduced as hereund€r: section 11(4Xa) Be respohsible ld dll oblisatit)ns, respanYbtlties ond lLnctions un.ler the p.ovjiansoln$ ALtotthe atles and regulotiohs nade thereuidqor ta the allattus os pe. tus os pe. the ogrcenent far sok, ot to the o$ociotion ofallofie* as the case no! be, till the conreyonce olall the opartnents, plots ot buitdingt os the cose hoy bc, ta the ollottees,ot the catunor oreos ta the osociatioh al allattees a. the canpetentouthaity,at the cae hot bel 11.

So, in view olthe provislons ofthe Act quoted above, the Authority has completc jurisd,ction to decide the complaint regarding non-comphance of obligations by the promoter.

SHARERA # crnGnnv complainr No.678 of 20/4 F.

Findtngs on the obiections raised by the respondent. f'.

I Obiections regardingforce maieure clrcumstances.

12. l'he respondcnt-promoter took a plea that period irom 01.11.2017 to 11.05.2020 should be considered as zero period" on the ground that as per the order dated 01.11.2017 ofllon'ble supremc Court in civil Appeal bea ring no. a977of2014 in crse titled as"loi Naroyon @lai Bhagwan &Ors vs The State ol llaryna & Ors" , thc Hon'ble Court had directed the CB1 for investigation with rega.ds to acquisition olland ialling in Sector 58 to 63 and (,5 to 68 of CMUC $,herein, application for extension/reDewal ol license of drc Appellant was withheld by the DTCP Department vide office memo no. cc"1185 |E(VA)/2020/7834-.15 dat€d 11.05.2020. l hereaf,ter the Hon'blc Supreme Couft in Nlrsc Applicanon No.

1955 of 201a and tvl.A No.

2240 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No.

4977 of 2014 has ordered that no turther monitoring is required and DTCP vide separate omce orde. dated l)3.03 2021 granted relaxation lor the period i.e,01 11.2017 to 1105.2020 ,rs zero period'lvherein approvalswere withheld by the department ivithin 13 Upon perusal of the documents, it is noled that the respondent issu ed several tlenrands to the complainants dated 03.12.2018 on "Start of, Excavahon", 24.01 20lgon CastingollowerBasementSlab,08.03.20l9on CastinSol Bround floor slab', 13.06.2019 on "Casting olsecond floor slab", 19.09.2019 on Casting oilifth 11oor",02.03 2020 on "Completion of civilstructu.e". tructu.e".l he respondent contends that construction was halted due to ongoing proceedrngs befbre the Apex Court.

Ilowever, the demand raised bv ihe ,E IARER Complarnr No.

678 of 2024 GiJRUGRAI\/ respondent sufficiently demonstrates that fact, ongoing during that period. .onstru.tion activities were, in 14. on consideration of the afo rementioned facts, it is manifestlyclear that zero period isexpressly designat.d fo.thelimited purpose ol l,cense renewal and does not alter or dinlinish the obligatjons set iorth ir the buildeFbuyer asrcement.

The respondent's rel,ance on zero period to justiry the delays in (he handrng over possession ofthe unitand the arguments proffered by the respondent lacks merits and the respondenfs assertrons.egardlng the 2ero period grant.d by the Directorate ofTown and country Planning (DTCP) is c:tegorically dcnied.

15.

The respondent-pronloter has raised the contention thatthe construction of the project was delayed due to reasons such as Covid_19 outbreak.

The respondenfs invocation of the force majeure clause, citing the COVID'19 pandemicas ajustincatioo for non performance , is iustified to that extent as the Agreement fbr sale was execut€d between the complainants and the respondent on 08.01.2019' As per clause 7.1 of the agreement dated 08.01.2019, the respondent undertookto hand over Possession ofthe unit to theconrplainants by 31.03.2022.TheAuthority, th.ough notification no9/3' 2020 dated 26.05.2020, had provided a six month extension, for prolects wrth completion dates on or after 25.05.2020, due to force maieu'e (onditions caused by the Covid pandemic Since this extension has ahcadv been accounted for, any further delay beyond the specified period is unjustified.

Findings regarding rcllefsought by the complalnants: Pate 12 of19 \ILE!A RUGRA[/ I U H G G.

I U H G G.

I p Dlrect the respond€nt to credit delayed possession charges at the prescrlbed rate of interest from the due date of possesslon lill the dale ofactual physical delivery oi the possession. the present complaint, the compla,nants intends to continue with the ject and are seeking possession ol the unit and delayed possess,on rses as persection 18[1) of theActand thesameis reproduced belowior "Section 1A: - R.tumola ountondtumpqsodon ftO) tJ the pro oE. foik ra onptete ot E |rlbte to sive poesion of an opottnen, ploa or building p;i:"i:ii") i"l "+"," ii lii*"" *es noti^knd.a ||ithdnw ro the prcje.t, h. shott be pnid, by the pronotet, inte@t lot eery nonth oJ delot, til rhe hoding over ol the posesian, ot tuch rot, os naln.Nesnbel.' CompLdint No.

678 ol 2024 17 .

Whether the complainants can clalm delayed possession charges after execution ofthe conveyance deed? ln order to comprehend the relationship between the allottee and the promoter, it is essential to uoderstand the definition ola "deed." A deed js a lornral, written document that is executed, signcd, and de)ivered bv all partres involved in the contract, namely th e buyerand the seller.lt rs a legallv binding document that incorporates terms enforceable by law For a snle deed to be valid, it mustbewritten and signed by both parties Essentiallv,a .onveyance deed involves the seller transfcrring all rights to legally own, ..tain, and enioy a particular asset, whether immov.rble or movable ln thc prcsent case, the asset in question is immovable property.

Bv signing a cotrveyance deed, the original owner transfers all legal r,ghts pertaining to lhe property to the buyer in cxchange for valid consideration, rypicallv nronetary.

Thus, a ".onveyance deed' or sale d.cd' signifies that the seller lormally transle.s allauthority and owne.ship of thc propertyto the buyer' That the execution ofa conveyance deed transfers only the title and inte.est in the sp. in the sp.crfied itumovablc pro Per!y Iin thiscase, the allotted unit).

However, &IARERA theconveyance deed does not terminatethe relationship betlveen the parties or absolve the promoter of their obligations and l,abililies concerning lhe uni! despite the transfer of title and interest to the allottee upon execution oathe conveyance deed.

19.

The allottees have invested their hard earned money and there is no doubr that the promoter has been enjoyinS benents of and the next step is to get their title periected by execut,ng theconveyance deedwhich is the statutory right oi the allottees.

Also, the obl,gat,on of the developer-promoter does .ot end with the execution ofa conveyancedeed.

Therefore, in furtherance to the Iton'ble Apex Court judgeDent and the ]aw laid down in case titled as Wg.Cdr.

Arilur Rahman Khon onil Aleyo Sultono dnd Ofi" Vs, DLF GURUGRAI/ so thcrn llom?s fvt.

Ltd. [now knownos BECUR OMR ComplaintNo.

678of 2024 Ltd.) ond Ors. (ctvll oppeal no.

6239 ol 2019) dated 24.08.2020, rhe relevant paras are reproduced herein below: '34 Th! tllvllopet ht. nat dcputed.h.se.ohhrntudons Thaugh the dre faur onntunt.atons ssued by tj! dewlapea the oppelloha enbntted tho. rhey dte not ituldetl ob( tianr but lit a the poietn.

The developer does nar lak rhot t war wlhng.a allet tht lot pur.ha\eB pare$ion al thetr floa ond the ight La ex?.uE .anvetond al tht llo5 whnz rcseNtns thttr Ltain lor .ontpenntiaa far Ltehr on nt? ontoty, the krat oJ the .aNr u nicaror t iDd n ot?' thot whi t pxtLnn, $e De.t\ al LrrnvLyo nd, rhe lot hufe^ w? r e hl.nned that no latn al ptok* ar tffionon woutd be n..tptnbte. rhe lor brtis furt esertioll! pte5ented |9ith on unldit choi@ ol elthq readtntns thet ngha b pursw th?tr cbn t (in ||hich event the! @utd tut ser possstan ar nde in the nedntine) at to l.tsoke rhe .tains in atdet to peiect then dnet b th. fots lat whith they hove po;d rdtrabte .arsi.t.ntian lr this bockdrca the sinple qwsdon |9hi. sdon |9hi.h w need ro oddrcs 6 whether o lldL bulet ho espauses d cloin ogainst the devetap{ for deloyed posssio aldor\ sa be.anpetted ta deier th. tisht ta obtain a Lonrqonle to pdled.her nde tt waahl, n ou riev be nanl{tlJ t ?tsonuble ta *ped tnt i order b pu6ue o .tarn tat to"ryerfltior lot detoyen huh.tin! oler aJ possestoh, the purchoser tnus indel tut! del! abta tin! a .anvetdn.e af rhe pfth$es pufthoed or, il they seek ta obkin o Deed ol Conlelonce to la&ke the risht to tlath conpensation Thisbosico , is a pNition rn Nhieh the NCDRC hos espaued We turnaL.aunrenonce t|1d. vicw.

20. ]'he Aulhority has already taken a view in Cr.

No.

4031/2019 and others titlcd as vdrun Gupta V/s Emaar MGF Land limited and others and observed that rhe execution of a conveyance deed does not conclude the relationship or marks an end to the liabilities and obligations ol the - RE|I Complaint No.

678 of 2024 i GURUGRAI,4 promoter towards the subiect unit and upon taking possession, and/or executing conveyance deed, the complaints never gave up their statutory right to seek delayed possession charges as per theprovisionsofthe saidAct.

21.

Upon reviewing all relevant facts and c,rcumstances, the Authority determines that the complainants/allottees retain the right to seek compensation for delays in possession from the respondent-promoter, despite the execution of the conveyance deed.

22.

Clause 7.1 of the Agreement for sale (in shor! the agreement) dated 08.01.2019 provides for handlng over possession and the same is .eproduced below: '1\o anat?tds:uftstohoNlovetpasesionolnleCotnnercialuhtraspetogftedternsdnd .arditioDsonotbelorc31,03.2022uhlesthePkdelovdueta'lor.el4o)eure'counutde4 sovnnon potny/ltui1etinT, tttLnions allectirs thq resuttt devetapnent of the ha)td tt ttu tanpl.tion ol rhe pOed is d?tartd due ta th. abare Lonln)ons, then the Allad* uqteet thnt tht Ptonokr shutt be.rtittetl to the ertensian al tine lol detiver! oJ p6es@ aJ the hartrt.idlunit" lEmPhasis suPPliodl 23.

Pliodl 23.

TheAgreementlorSalewasexecutedon0S0l-2019 Asperclause7.1 oithe .rgreemcnt, the respondent was to ofier the posscssion oi the unit to the allottees on or before 31.03.2022.

The respondent has stated,n its replv that lhs construction of the project was aftected due to the outbreak ofthe Covid_ 19 pandemic and the lact ihat the outbreak olCovid_19 was a force majeure conditioDs and was beyond the reasonable control of the respondent' Tht Authority vide notification no.913'2020 dated 26.05.2020 have provided an extension of 6 months for proiects having the completion date or after 25.05.2020, on account of force ma,eure conditions due to the outbreak of covid -19 pandemic.Thus, after addingthe 6 months ofextension on account ol covid-1g, the due date of possession comes out to be 31.03.2022 +6 months i.e., 01.10.2022. 'Therefore, the due date comes out to be o1.10.2022.

GJRUGRAI\/ 24.

Admissibility ofdelay possession charg€s at prescrib€d rateofintercst: The conrplainants are seeking delay possession charges however, proviso to section 18 provides that where an allottee does not intend towithdraw irom the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, irterest for every month of delay, tillthe handing over olpossession, atsuch raie as maybe prescribed and it has been prescribed undcr rule 15 oi the rules.

Rule 15 has beer) reproduced as underl Rule 1 5.

Prescttbed rrte ol interest- IPrcvis. to settior 12, s?.tton 1a ond sub' section (1) and subsectkn (7) oJ sectioa 191 (t)rr he puqif al pnv tosedion 12: settan t3:ond:ub s?dions (4) oD'i t7) oJse ian 19,tli lntere{ ot tltt e pres..ibetl'slldll be the state Batk al tndia highp* narltntal eae ol lendhg tue +2%-: ttutrt..t thdt 11 .dse .tE stote BorkoJtndio nolsinat.o*aJtPndinq ra.e (McLq n not h 8e t sttdll be Eptoced bv such benchnotu l.ndiry nte\ which the $on Bank al hrtu rta! fx liotn tuE ro tinte lartendins totheltnetut pubL.

25. pubL.

25. l'he legislature h its wisdonr in the subordinate lcgislation under the provisioD of rule 15 of the rules, has determined the prescribed rate ol interest.'lhe rate ofinterest so deiermined by the legislature, is 'easonable ,n,l if ihe said rule is lollowed to award the interest, it will ensure unitbrm SIARERA complarnt No.678ol20l4 prrchce rn all the cases.

26.

Consequently, as per website ofthe State Bank oflndia i.e, the margrnalcost oflending rate (in short, MCLRI as on date i.e.,29.01 2025 '(n) "in?nt' neort th. rotes of ihtet n Nrobte bv the Explonotian.

Fot the purpose olthis claue- pronoter ot th. dllotte, os is 9.10%.

Accordingly, the prescribed rate oiinterest will be marginal cost oflcndjng rate +2% i.e.,11.10olo 27 lhe definition of term 'interest as defined under section z(za) of the Act provides that the rate of interest cbargeable from the allottee by thc promoter, in case oldefauh, shallbe equalto the rate olinterest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case ot default' Th€ rclevant section is reproduced below: *HARERA (t (i0 a.m6laintNo.

678 o12024 the rote ol inrere* chotseobte ltuh rhe ottattee by the prcnote. in aft oJ deJonk shall be equol b the rcte of hietee '|hkh the ptuno.er shall be lioble rn po! de the ntersr polobte by the ptunotur ro th. allottee rhntt be Jrun th..loE tte ptanatet ftceiled rh. o ount ot ohy poft k*eoftill the dde th. o ounto. p..t thetuol ontl in@rest theteon k ftltnded, and the interest Poyobt. by de ollofiee 14 the ptanater shott be hon the date the ottottee defoutB in poynent ro the P@okt 2a on .onsideration ol the documents availablc on record and submissions nrade by both the parties regarding contravention of provisions ofthe Act, thc Authority is satisned that the respondent is in contravention of the not handrng over possescron by the due date aqreement.

The Authority has observed that the Agreement was GURUGRAIV executed on 08.01 2019 between thecomplainants and the respondent. espondent.

The !ossession of the subjectunitwastobeolTered on orbefore31 03.2022.

The (41(a) or the Act by Authoriiv vide notiflcat,on no.9 /3-2020 as per notificanon no.9/3-2020 cxtension of 6 months for projects h ving the completion date or aater 25.05.2020, on account of force maieure conditions due to the outbreak of covid -19 pandemic.

Thus, after adding the 6 months oiextension on account of covid 19, the due date of possession comes out to be 3103.2022 +6 nronths i.e..

01.10.2022.

29.

The occupation certificate in respect to the subject unit has been obtained by lhe respondent on 16.08.2023 lrom the competent authorities and the offe' of posses sion was made to the complainants on 08.1 1 .2023 The respo ndent has lailed to handover possession ofthesubiec! unit on the due date.

30.

Vidc p.oceedings dated 29.01.2025, the counsel for the complainant submitted a copy ofthe possession lefterdated 25 09.2024 andConveyance deed executed in favour ofthe complainants on 25.01.2024.

3I The Authoriry dated 26 05.2n20 have provrdcd an drtcd 2605.2020 lor rhc projects having completion date on or after 25.03.2020, has alreadv allowed lhe grace period of6 months to the respondent.Therefore,there is no reason *HARERA S-c.rnusqnru ComplarntNo 678of2024 why this benefit cannot be:llowed to the complainants/allottees who arc duly aflected during above such adverse eventualities and hence a relieiof 6 months will be given equally to both the complainants/allotttees and the respondent and no interest shallbe charged by either party, during the said 32 Accordingly, it is the failure of the respondent/promoter to lulfil its obligations and responsibilities as per the agreement to hand over the possession ivithin the stipulated period.

The Authority is ofth€ considcred vierv that there is delay on the part oithe respondent to offer oi possession ofthe allotted unit to the complainants as Per the terms and conditions olthe Agreement dated 08.01. ted 08.01.2019 executed between the parties- Further, the Authority observes that the respondent obtained the occupation certiflcate on 16.08.2023, offered possession to the complainants on 08'112023 and the conveyance deed was erecuted on Z5 0l 2024' 33.

Accordingly, the .on-compliance ofthe mandate contained in section 11(41 (a) read with sect,on 18(1) of the Act on th€ part oi the respondent is cstablished As such, the complainant is entitled to delay possession chdrges [email protected]%p.a we'i:01 10'2022 tillthedate of offer oi possession plus two months after obtaining the occupation ccrtificatc as per proviso to section 18(11 ofthe Act read with rule 15 ofthe G.ll.

Direct the respondent to handover the original conveyance deed to the complainants.

G.lll Dlrect the respond€nt to deliver c€rtificat€ and completion ceftincate 34.

As per clause 19(5) of th€ Act, 2016 the necessary documents lrom the respondenl the copy of the OccuPation ofthe ProiecL allottee is entitled to have the Thus, the respondent is directed PHARE&I S- t JRUGRAI\/ lt.

ComplaintNo.678ol2024 to handover the above said documents to the complainants within a period oi30 days from this order.

Directions ofthe authorilyr - Hence, the Authority hereby passes this order and issue the following drrections under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon thepromoteras pe. the funciions entrusted to the authority under sec 34(0 oltheAct:- i. 'lhe respondent/p romoter shall pay i nterest at the prescr,bed rate i.e., 11100/0 lor .very month of delay on the amount paid hy the complainanis lrom the due date of possession i.e., 01.10 2022 nll the date ol oller of possession plus two mo.ths after obtaining the occupation certificate, as per provlso to section 18(11 oithe Act read with rule 15 ofthe rules. ii The respondent is her eby directed to provide lhe copies of. copies of.onveyance deed, Occupation certilicate and completion certificate to the complainants within a period of 30 days lrom this order' 36.

Complanlt as well as applications, ifany, stands disposed oi 37 I,ile be consisned to the registry (Ashok an) Datcd: 29.01.2025 Haryana RealEstate RegulatorrAuthority, Gurugram