ESSEL HOUSING PROJECTS PVT LTD AND PLATINUM TOWER MAINTENANCE LLP vs RANBIR SINGH

*HARERA d-b- crrnrcnnv HATYANA REAT ESiATE REGULATOIY AUTI]ORIIY EftqrEn tqq<r Ff{qrr6 crE6{q rJrIrq PROCEEDINGS OF THE DAY 89-116 Complaint no.

2649, 2627, ?639, 2637, 2644, 262A, 2663, 2615, 2616, 2645, 2623, 2636, 2630, 2529, 2640, 2635, 2625, 2646, 2666, 2634, 2627, 2647, 2617, 264A, 2638, 2650, 2664 and 2665 o12024 All Cases titled as Essel Housins Prcjects Private Limited and Platinum Tower Maintenance LLP VS Ranbir Sinsh and I,I,P Tuesdav and 20.05 2025 I sh" st.htllY"lilld,".:I o t.os.zozd Alay Yadav l-t.*-,.,J,"t *"F". ""*," and Pla hn (m T0wer M aintena nce Represented throuSh 5lLfl Garuit r,upta AdvoLJte Rrnbrr srnSh and Arry YadJv Respond.nt\ Representcd b. t oceedms Recorded by h i,;;"d, -dtrud-; @ RA.'eldenffi;dn r ,k .016 Proceedings'cum order The above mentioned complain(s) hdve b€en nled bv the compldrnarts/promoter ot Ihe proiecr namely 'Plafnum ToweB" situated rn se(roF 28.

Curugrdm on 07.06.2024 and seek'ng iotow'nB rel,ets:_ r.

Drrect the Respondenrs to make rhe paFlent 4r rhe due amount towards cAl,rl charSes ol Rs.2.70888/_ tor the penod from Apnl,2023 to Iune 2021 alons w(h interesl @ 12 0,6 p.d. w.e f dLle drle up to reahzation in ravour of Complarndnts.

Direct the respondents lo continue ro ply thF CAM charges as per the M.

Mehta r.tuitu.<tu, ft. {r.i mx. fi!

6 tu rftfllr, l5rrq *HARERA -.s* eunuenlv The respondents have filed an "nrlication rf. dlsmrssal of complainr on 30.01.202s in whi(h rhe respondenrs reluestet to dlismissed rhe complainr on rhe Bround that mulliple litigations perurning lo thF samc subieft matter are gorns on berwecn the comntainrnr and the r$wndent tn Distrift couns as well rs Hon'ble Hrgh Coun. details o! wh,ch are as utdei' t. cs/13J2/2024 in the Court of sh vr$am feet AclM, Gurusram (AJ.v Yddav v/s Essel). t cs/castzo24 n the coun or sh. vire4 xa4vrn cl lD cutuSram (Arav Yaddv V/s Esrel) Resard,nS common Maiftenatrce charges i.e., cAM charses.

M charses. which is srill sub rud,ce and tle co!nselolthe complanant hds rl\o appeared lll CoMl/308/2021 m rhe c@rl or Ms. lDhuinan, ,Mlc, curusEm (Arav Yadav v/s M/s Eselard 06.) lv. cwP No. ?Oas of 2022, Ranbn ShPh aid Air' v/s state ol Hary.na and others, pendinsbetorerhc Hon ble Pun,lbanb Harvana Hithcoun' v cwP No. t24gg ot 2022.

Essel v/s s[re bendrns belorc the Hon'ble Puntab and Haryana HiSh Courl. invoices raised for the period from theper d ADnl,2023 onwards.

Drrect rhe Rerpondents to take possession ofthe said apaftment allotted to them by the Complainants by clearingt the respondent to pay the outstandrng com is still sub'ludice in the Court of Sh.

Viren Yadav v/s Essel) resardjng Common Mainten complarnant/promoter has llled the complain seekrng directions a8ainst After considerins the above, th€ au ohserved that the rea maint€nance charges, this regard, CS/985/2024 handirs over oi possession and to pay the GS .I dy n, cl lD, curusram (Ajay harses and CwP No.7095 of 2022, Ranbrr Singh and Anr V/s Srate of H a and others and CWP No '\2499 of 2022, Essel V ls State are still pendin re the Hon'b1e Punjab and *HARERA S- cLrnLrcnnu,t HAIYANA tEAT ESIAIE IEGUIATOIY AUIHOTITY qrQ6wr, X6qrc Haryana tligh Court ior handing over ofthe pos In view ofthe above, subseque.t complaint on the same parties of the matt€r aheady su competentjurisdictionisclearabuseof thepm' principle of res sub-judice as provided under Procedure, 1908 ICPCI Section 10, CPC is r€ snn,Ery . lll '1A.

Stuy ofsuiL No Coutt shall p roceed wi in\tiutetl suit between the ehe porti6, o they or ony of them clainlirigating undert pending in the ene ot an! othe. court in U th,t rcliel cloined, or in ony Coufi beyohd t ot cantinued by lthe cennol Govennent' or befole [the suprcne cou/t].

ENplanonoh. -The pendencr olo suit in o the courB in lndid) ftom trying o suit under the act if such provision is based r t cause or action berwen lice before the court of frraw ana s tarrea tr ttre fn 10 or the code the code or cNil luced as under ror ready m trt t i't tft na er n 6tue stlsodwrtlYtnd subst trialafon! suit in |9hich ly in ksue ino previouslY e title where such suit is ove iuAsdictton ta grant Pcn harties under whon Further, the authority is oi view that thoug Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPCI is, as such, not established principles ofCPC as mav be necess Moreover. there is no bar in applving provh provisrons of the Code of icable to the proceedings ts al !ndiol estobhshed d havtng like )unsdictnn, r rr to do comPletelustice. d un Ihe sone cou'e t the CPC. which have b€en s provided therein are the ound by the principles of consider and adopt such cauft does nat precl'de under thc Act,saveand exceprcertain provisi specrfi.rlly incorporated rn the Acr'vet the pri ,mporunr gurdLng lactoG rnd the Authorirv b natural justrce, equiry and good conscience Th.

Authoritv further observes that as pe. oration Agreement dated i;-'Mrd"dq snqald$.

Rcd Erlk lI of CPC to the proceedings juslice, equity and good HARYANA REAt ESIAIE REGUTAIORY AUIHOIITY Eftqrqr { fiqfl liftqllro clltfllr, 'JtqFl frHARERA -db- cltnltcnnv rli ii,r tu.to*,.ryi !rc5,6u4€6 H.ryft tr 'ii.q * E r fl fra' dq I@ inm - 01.02.2016 executed between Ranbir Singh and Parmeshwari Devi and M/s Essel Housing Protects P!t.

Lld. lhe respoodents are lornt owners in po(\essron or ldnd bearing Rectangle No.l8 Killa No.l Al\?'o) and23/2(7'o) rorrlnS 14 kanals siluated in the revenue estate of Village SukhrdliTehsil and Drstnct Curugrrm.

Respondenr no I owns a }n share. while respondent no.2 ow.s a % share ofthe land.

As per clause 6 ofthe Collaboration Agreement, the respondents herein are entitled to 45% o{ the salable area in respecl ol aforesaid land which are re'produced for readyr€fetence !

6 rhat 45% (IoO fve, perent) ol *'q sotEbte area in respecr ol alorc@d lond iclusve ol thP ptoportqnot? obligotion ol ptoviding ELonon\otlv Weaker SP. on: IEWSI opqdnqit wtlh ptoport@nol?. mdivtded. mdivtded. ;nd1stbtc o, npadiue oqne$kq rishts n th. tond uademeoth thP ratd.onPt"r 'ncludns.bdnla o'eas \hallbetona ta ond bc owned bt de OWNERS (hq4n rAJcrdd to os o$/NERS ALLocATtoNlond fierenothks 5s% AIO fi+ perce )buttt/uabutu :oleable ot?o ot the \att conple, tbtetiQ' wnh P'opodiooate urdyd?d, iadubtbt. or mpotltbb o+ne5bq righrs n th' lond uftetacoth fte etd .onple, ord.ohnba olfos toclud,ns the entne ,aadon iactt ,r\ ot de ctub Nur\ery slloot F4d connrfriat (herctn t"lprred toth?

DE|L.LOPER-\ ALLOCATOINI shilllatt to the share olthc DEvELOPER ocanaderct,on aJ the obhgFtionF undertaken bv tt undel the'e prp\enda4d thott belong toond b+ownfd btthe DEyELoPER. tt ^.tonfied that n th?ent nottub 6eol'ttute.l tn the.onplextobe devctoDe(! ot th? soid Lond the prcpfuio4oe orco IFAR) ot the prMng ctub fulline' n th.odiotenl buqdnglbto.k being buttt a tatat IAR o120698-246 s9 nL coftespo4ding to 2e2 a.te\ ol tand oo orc rato bo'i, ||ttt bc deducted noa thelat?dble orco ol the OWNERS 'At LofAllON a\ "ped[Pd hcrcn obov".41e ol/NER rha be4tidedto rccover 7 tharge (lub denbe$htp lntt the ollottes out ol tts own Funher. the prermble ol th€ Act of 20I6 ilsell saT rhat the Acl was enacled for regulrrron and promotion ol rcalestate setcbrFnd to protect the interest ".Jo. ana nor to resolve the r.e.. allottees rn the redl esute s disDutes be(ween the licensee dnd lhe promqler. [he preamble of lhe Act is Dd '"1 x. 'rr 6 tu *HARERA S-b* ounusnnv HARYANA REAI ESTAIE IECUIAIOIY AUIHOSITY ERqrqr T liFsl liFqr.ro erEfl"r. .Jwrq disputes between the licensee and the promo reproduced below for the ready reference: he preamble of rhe A.r "An Atr tu $tablith the R@l Estote R.suloto.y Auhanq fot regulotion ond ptohonon of the rdl *tate yctot on.l ta ensure &le al plat, aporrha. or buitdtns, as the case nat be, ot sole ol reol enote proie.t, in an 4lcient ond tohspordt nanr{ ond to p. ond to p.atect the interest of consumeB in the reot esroE sectur ond b eobtish ah odjldicoth! uhonisn Jot speed, dispuz retlrcsnl and ale to *toblish the AppelloE Tnb@ot to h r dppqb fon the deckians, dircctions af arde6 ol the Rql Esrate Regulotory Authoit/ dhd th. odju.licottns offcer ond for nort6 connected thqewith or incidental thereb." As per the Act of 2016, the allottee is a person to whom a plot apartment or building is allotted, sold orotherwise rransferred.

At this stage, it is importani to stress upon the definition of term allotte€ under the Ad, the same is reproduced below lor ready reference; "2(d) "allorke" in relotion toa realestat' pro definition ofthe promoters.

Therefore, the Authon obseryes IhaI the dispute whon o plat, oportnent or building, os the allaued, sald (whether os Jieehold or le transfefte.l by the prcnote. and inclu subvquently acquires the id ollotmelt th otheNie but doesnotinclude a pe6on to wh or buildinq, os the cose doy be, is tiven on ren .ase no! be hos been sehol.lt or oLheNise n such ploa oportnent Thus in the present case, the respondents herein are not covered under the dcfinition ofallottee as neithe. any booking application Iorm, allotment letter and buyels agreement had been executed between the parties herein norany specific units number has been allotLed by the complainant/promoter iu favouroi the respondents As per Collabo.ation Agreement dated 01.02.2016, executed betweeD the parties the complainant/promoter h:s allocated 45% (forty five, percentl of the saleable area to the respondents and as per the section 2[zk] of the Act, 2016, both the parties are covered under the *HARERA !ill:li,l'^'"'^' -db- CLlnUennUl En-qr"n t-sq.r Fqf covered under the definition of allottee a (Resulation and Development] Act,2016.

Thus as legal provisions, the present complaint maintainable.

File be consigned to the registry. ),t- ,/q 1r.("x s{'y-*rv '{*^-- (Arun Kumarl Chairman 20-05. man 20-05.2025 rl laryana Real Estate of the factual as well lismissed being not v-l ray KLimarcoyal)