MR INDER NATH MS RAJ KUMARI AND MR CHIRAG MAHENDRU vs AGRANTE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD FORMALY RMS ESTATES PVT LTD

*HARERA S- cLrnrcnnu BETORE THE HARYANA ConDlaintNo 2466o12022 REAL ESTATE REGULATO GURUGRAM Complalntno.l First date of hea.irg: Order pranounced onl RYAUTHORITY, 1.

Mr.

Inder Nath 2.

Mrs.

RajKumari 3.

I\4r.

Chirag MahendrLr All R/o: - s51/6,Shastr, 250004 New Delhi- 110025 AlsoAt: 122, Sun city CORAM: ShriVijay Kumar Goyal APPEARANCEI Nagar.

Me 2466 ol2OZ2 22.09.2022 14,o1,2024 4 M/s Asrante Developers P as M/s RMS Estates Priva omce addressr DTI'7 Shri :{.rnish Chauhan (Advocate) Shr i.'l.r un llislvas (Advocatel ORDER 1.

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant/allotte€s under section 3l ofthe Real Estate (R€gularion and Development) Acl2016 (in short, the Act) read with rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (in short, the Rulesl for violation of section 11(al(a) of the Ast wherein itis inter olia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and t the Rules and 2.

Th€ particulars amouni paid by .1,,. of, {THARERA S-GURUGRAM tunctions as provided regulations made there sale executed lrter se.

A.

Proiectand unit related details of the project, the the complainant(sl, llottees as per the ComplaintNo.2466o12022 of sale consideration, the proposed handins over the )ossession, delay perio Note: - On proceeding some other case was ir present complaint are a d, ailed in the followine 23, the succrnct fact o n;)\. w S, N, I I en!f",secto.

107,curcaon ridComplq 1 23of2 012 dated 23.43.2412 DI ira Klmar Gupta & others 18.0625 acres 5 MinoFH/A/1001, 106floor lPaAe no.

22 of complaintl Unitareaadmeasurins 1300eq-ft.

IPage no.

22 of.omplaint] Date ol builder buye.

25.11.20t3 A HARERA ,000/.

Total sale consideration re(c'pt nformJnon ar pase 48 ro tl mplaint, further, durinB proceedrng 18.05.2023, the counsel ror the ent admit the same at Para no.4 Amount paid by the Rs.26,8 e(o) to othet tems ol th6 Qenenr, tn. enenr, tn.ludtng bur not parnent ol rhe fotol P ce, o er chorgd b! the port shall end.ator to sttr.tion oI the sot.t 2 (Forty4wo) no ths stoft ol .onsttctioa, some os .late oJ this e conpony wilt ollet the sotd Aporrnent ro the i ond when the Conpany receiv$ occupotian certilcate froh the canpeQnt Any deluJ bt the vendee(s) n n o[theSaid Aponnent tom f ollet ol passesstan, wautd ottoct br anr deloy of fu|t one nohth or on!

11 @4 '*t ru re.alculated from d.re of aSreement I r 2011as date or.ummcnremenl of cron rower rs not prov'ded by borh i.e.,25 {THARERA $-eunuennv ComplarntNo 2466of 2022 10 /+ t2 PHARERA $- eunuennl,l The complainants have made the following submissions in the complaiot: - a.

That in the year 2013 the respond€nt namely M/s RMS Developers private limited ( Now known as Agranta Developers Pvt.

Ltd.,) in the CohDIain!No,2466o12022 13 Facts oI the complaint B.

3 print and electronic media ga project "BEETHOVEN- 8 claimed it to be a drea dvertisement concerning their complete all th includinC compl for the same and ma r 107.

Gurugram-r22001 which am, with spectacular designs of the respondents, complainants d filed their application romplere all formalitiei ired under the scheme.

Thev c.

That on 25.11.2013, a builder buyer agreement entered between the parties concern,ng the flat/unit no.

MINOR-H/A/1001 in Bethoven-8 Gurgaon.

Clause Skofthe buyert agreement provided that the project would be completed in 42 months.

Complainants made payment of a total amount of Ps.26,89,505/- as per the scheme, payment Plan and builder buyer agreemenL The respondent has failed to fulfill its obligation to deliver possession ofthe flat within promised time.

The respondents conveyed change of name of the company from M/s ld ffiHARERA ft,clrnlnnnv 5. d.

Compl.rnr No.

2466or 20ZZ RMS Estates Pvt.

Ltd. to M/s Agran Developers Pvt.

Ltd. a.d other chrnges vide let(er dated 03 06.201 5 greement, the project was to be nrhs i.e. nrhs i.e. laresr by lune 20I7 but the respondent company fails to co the BBA and fulfill its oblrgatron de payments due as per the scheme, h e interest end ,nv other suir.bl.

As per the clause 5k of the buyer's completed within a period of 42 m the deposited amount wi compensat,onlrelief as plete the project as per terms of pite the complainant mak,ng all nce this complaint ioe refund ol eehed fit in the fa.t. and .ircumstan.es olthe. e.

That late. on re a.

Direct the respo to attend phone caus ol I responding then somehow C.

4.

Reliefsought by the The complainant has sou re amount deposited by the d unit along w,th applicable interest from the date of D.

6.

On the date ot hearing, the authority explained to the respondent/ promoter about the contraventions as alleged to have been committed in .elation to section 11(4) (a) of the act to plead guilty or not to plead guilry.

Reply by the respondent.

The respondenthas contested thecomplainton the following grounds: and only alter intervention til PHARERA tS- eunuenav a.

That the complainants unit is booked in towerH, which is ready and the construction ofa building structure comprising fourteen floors is completed.

The ne.essary electricd winng and works pertain,ng to plumbing and sanitation are also reBdy.

Th€ promoter would be in a position in all probabilityto offerpossession ofthe flats intower'H in 10-12 months from the'date of filing of the present reply.

The promoter has incurred and utilized his own funds and loans towards aomplarnt No.

2466of 20ZZ construction of the proj the complaints pertaining to refunds are entertained a e it would jeopardize the fate of the prolect whrch wo hamper the valuable nghts or complainant. olobjects, reasoirs and preamble oftheAct makes applying for o wiUins to adj That the statement olobie.ts fu,oter is ln trre crocess or tower' I{. tower' I{.

The promoter is rents as computed lor delay e consideration ol the sron rn tower-H to the interest of the consumers of protect and safeguard ich th but also the promotion ofthe real estate with a view to ensure sale of plot, apartment etc.

The Authority is empowered not only to monitor the projects but also to ensure their timely completion where projects are held up or stopped and to take steps so the same are completed in tim€ and in the interest oi the allottees who are awaiting possessions ofthe units ,n the project.

It is not out of place to mention here that due to pending registration ofthe project with the Author,ty the promoter since the implementation of the Act was a HARERA GURUGRAM d. rapid construction had bee. a dete slowed down the pace of construcl that the promoter is undertaking cc pockets and is not demanding anl which is unprecedented by any otl unable to raise funds from its existi finance by selling unsold inventory 8 ng customers nor could it raise The shortage of funds to enable mining facior for the delay as it on considerably. lt is reiterated fs olconstructions from its own hing from the allottees, an act r real estate company, and it is ComDlaintNo.

2466of 2022 e interest of the consumers and hieve the mdimum good and That M/s RMS E Private Lrmrred was gr Town and Countrv Pl3nnr as "Agrante Developers license from Director |TCP") lor development of acre of land on which the 'eement dated 23.05.2013 . ("collaborator").

An area land spread over a rolal a 27.03-201,2 and Thzr subsequent ro at icense was granted on e license the promoter had measuring 10.218 acres out ofihe;foresaid total land was handed to th€ collabo.ator with absolute and exclusive rights for the purposes oi developing the same. lt is perlinent to ment,on here that M/s Sarua.am Infrastructure Pvt.

Ltd.

Pvt.

Ltd. himselfor through his nominee had proposed to bu,ld a separate proiect namely "ELACASSA" on that parcel of land with which the promoter has no association whatsoever.

Thus, resultantly there were two projects being developed under the same license by two distinct colonizers with ffHARERA 9D- cunucnnv (ompla'nt No.2466 of 2022 rights and liabilities strictly framod under the said collaboration agreement. lt would not b€ out ofplace to mention here that such agreements were in common practicethen.

The development/collaboration agreement dated 23.05.2013 stipulated stnct fiability on M/s Sarvaram lntrastructure Pvt.

Ltd. or his appointed nom,nee to be in compliance of all statutory compliances, byelaws applicable as per HUDA, DTCP etc. as appl,cable for his parcel of lani s Srrvaram Infrastructure Pvi l,td. wes lurther under thr to rem,t all the dues accrued to governmental authori der the agreement for the That M/s Sarvaram Inlrastructure Pvt.

Ltd., however, startcd vt.

I EN default,ng in his compliance oi statutory duties and contractual obligations.

The promoter had on several occasions issued written requests and even served legal notices to M/s Sarvaram Infrastructure Pvt.

Ltd. to rectify the said delaults ira€r-dlia payment oi EDa and IDC charpes.

The ensure compliance of statutory obligations as non_cornpliance by M/s Sarvaram Infiastructure P!t.

Ltd. would directly preludice th. promoter's project compl€tion having the common license- 1t is submitted that th€ license for the land lapsed due to non renewal, and n cannot be renewed until outstanding EDC & IDC charges along w,th penalty is not cleared lor the total land jointly by the promoter and M/s Sarvaram lnfrastructur€ Pvt.

Ltd. in proport,on to their respective projects.

Needl€ss to mention here that the promoter is ready and willing to pay its share of EDC and IDC charges for the purposes of renewal ol license. er had taken every step to I /A ComplainrNo. mplainrNo.

2466oi2022 lSHARERA S- eunuennu That the bona-fides of the nromotei can be furtler gathered by the fuct that the promoter Is runnind post to pillar and has ffled a representation before financial cofmissioner (Haryana) seeking a bifurcation of the llc6nse ln two plrts for two proierts respedively and pursuing the same sincerely. ltls pertinent to mendon that only after renewal of I'cense the promlter will be mmpetent ro obtain RERA registration.

The promoter has undenaken every possible measure ln his armory to g{ffidf, project and complete the same. rrre process for biturcarrJffiffiis still under consideration.

It is submitted thar tbr.ffi{q nrea tor HREflA re$stratton ,ra" o.a". r.*,.64d{i$tC},proiect on rhe said rand ;:::J::::ffi:ffiY*fl;:[IJT:::: r,". r,*"a -181, *("Sfnl[nkldja"," *a runl"" rr. -o ',. **,\iiXl'rhl",ll,'{#i/ be paid by the M/s su-,,. rnr,"",,\$$,{sful[S[{"nt to menrion here that rhe diredors or M/s)#h flEEBfrre pvr r-ta. are lodsed in iair g presently The promoter is crjppled in the correspond with them, which could perh results.

Moreover, insolvency proceedihgs are pending against them beforetheHon'bleNationalCompanyLawTribunal.

That due to non-registrat,on v/ith HRERA the promoter is unable to sellits proposed units in its project.

More particularlythe applicant is crippled nnancially as no demand can be raised by th€ promoter from its existing members.

It is to be kindly cons,dered by this Court that the promoter has a€cordingly not raised a single demand from its members and has not collected more than 40% of total sale n iTHARERA 4t- cuRUGRAM cons,deration ofa unit from any ofits members. on the conkary the promoter has undertaken the tedious task of completing the construction otthe project from its own finances and loans so as to offer possession and is also remitting the interests on subvention scheme on behalf of customers so as to prote€t them from further )oss. ther )oss.

The overall conduct of the promoter plays a vital part in deciding the complaint such as the present one.

The promoter is ConDlaintNo.2466o12022 faced with peculiar circumsbn hich would require mutual co op€ration irom rts membe ce to mention one similar That, it would b€ o deal with srmi horityWherein similar issues were beinS under HARERq had the opportunity to divided the r4o2/2074, ses on the basis of agr )rity i complaint no.

826l2018, passed common ord€rs. these complainis were similar to the applicanfs iss,,.s also r\e origrnal lnpn.pe I'4l\ -ri!"ri r-r'uJ' 1343 /2 lnlrastructure Plt Ltd. a iointventure comprising of two groups Seth and Mittal Croup who had subsequently divided/assigned development/markeling rights into five separate lands holding to be developed separately pursuant to which similar issues arose which are beingfaced bythe applicant.

ThisAuthority in that complaint had passed its conclusions and recommendations, particularly th€ recommendation to Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana stressing the grave importance that DTCP must divide /4 ComDlaintNo.

2466 of 2022 THARERA S-cLnGnmir license into five parls. once the liclnse is biturcated separate RERA registration would be permisslble besldes t}ls Authority had also pertinently recommended $at DTq should defer recovery of their overdue EDC so as to leave some cash now in the hands of the developers lor investing in th€ pfoiecl, Therelore, rhe promoter prays with folded hands to refer th4 present maner to the Authority in light of the aforementioned cafe hw as cited so that similar recommendations can bg{qqffi)gtrbehalr or the promoter to rown :::::::,"'"':::'"m : J ;l'.::rilH.j ::: *l:::,ffi sta'[es the tunctions or ,n",,,r,r,,,/f4, u"oiI#,isi\Q\vr o. r e panaem ic r,as ,* -*", " ,[A[ .,,i"ilY",JI"&i,]#1",",", n o,",,"*, l;:;il'" iirr;* k. delay. lt was after sincere efforts ofthe prcmote. e prcmote. that the workforcc could be again mobilized and presently the works are being carried CoDies of all the .elevant documents h:ve b record.

Their authenticity is not in dispute. decided on the basis of these undisputed nade by the part,es. lurisdlctlon of the authorlty 7 Hence, the complaint can be documents and submission u.

A ffiHARERA S- clRuGRAtr/ 9.

ComDlajntNo 2466o12022 The application of the respondent reg rding rejection of complaint on sround oi jurisdiction stands rejected. territorialas wellas subject matter juri complaint forthe reasoN given below. he authority observes that it has diction to adjudicate th€ present [.

I Territorial iurisdi.tion As per notification no.

1/92/2017-1,7 P dated 14.12.2017 issued by Town and Country Planning Departme t. $e jurisdidion of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugr entire Gurugram District lor all purpose with offices situate gram.

In the present case, the project in question is sit e planning area of Curugram Distnct.

Therefore, thi territorial jurisdiction to 10.

Section 11[4][a) Sect,on 11[4)[a) is reproduced as hereu I loi tnn \ n ode thteu n det areos to the associatioh of ollotrees or the conpetent authonE, as the secri on i 1.

Fu i ctions ol the Au th o nry : 34A ol the Act pmvids to ens!rc conplionce oI the obligotions cost upoh the pronoters, the ollottds ond 01e reol estote ogents unde/ this Act and the rules ond resulotions no.le thmunder A 11.

So, in view of the provisions of the Act quoted above, the authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non-compliance ofobligations by the promoter leaving aJide compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer if pursued by the complainants at a *HARERA S-r,rrnLrcnml CofrDlaintNo.

2466of 2022 passed by the Hon'ble Apex C( in Newtech Promoters an.l 12. s an.l 12.

Furth€r the auihority has no hitch in proceeding with the compla,nt and to grant a reliefofretund in the present matter,n view ofthe judgement Developers Private Limited ol u.P. and ors. (supr1) and tetLeroted tn care ol M/s Private Limited & other Vs Union ol India E o 12.05.202z\|hctci delaled delivery oJ pasi W05 oJ 2020 declded on ro\', o detalletl refer ce has been dicorion delineoted wtth the ncer, whot fnauy cuth out L inct dpresions lile lelund , Dnjoint reoding ofSections B des ta rclund ol the onoun, ne paynent of inteAt lot oha interest rhereon x bthe amrnPand dztPninP thP u, 1a ond 19 oths than compenetion as dvisoged, ilertended to the odjudicoting ofrcet as prdled thoi ih otr viev not intend to dpond the ohbit ond sope ol the poeeB ond functions ol the odju.ticatins ollcet under Section 71 an.l that would be agoinst the hdndate ol the Act2016." 13.

Hence, ,n view ot the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cas€s mentioned above, the authority has the A HARERA GURUGRAIV [. jurisdiction to entertain a complaint se€king .efund of the amount and interest on the refund amounL Flndlngs on the relletsoughtby the complalnatrt F.l Direct the respondent io make.efund otthe amouDtdeposited by the complainants against booking of th€ allotted unlt along with applic.ble iDterest f.om the date ofdeposit ofthe motrey till date of In the present complaint, the complainants intend to withdraw from the project and are seeking return olthe amount paid by them in respect of that aPorlnQnL plot, bu ConDlarntNo 2466of 2022 ived by him in re.pect ol .ase mo! bQ. with interest ot 14 subjcct unit along with intercst at the prescribed rate as provided under section 18(ll of the Act.

Sec. he Act rs reproduced below for su.h rate o! noy be pres.ribe ih th. tnanhet os prarided under Pt.vtd.d tllat where dn dllattee tf lncluding co pen tion entl to withdraw lron the tercst lat ever! nanth af , ot such fote os no! be ptes. ti bed. s. ti bed. (Enpha sis su pplied ) 15.

Clause 19(a) of the agreement provide! for handing over of possession and is reproduced below: Subject to other terns oI thb ogreenent/ogree t including but not linited to tinelt paynent of the total ptice, stnnp duty and other charyes bt the vendeeb), the conpan! sholl erdqvour to cmptct th.

A Complaint No 2466 or2022 ffiHABERA S- eLnuennv nr thi. der.en.nL The cadpont w l ofer po$estion ol the soid dparment to the verdee(s) ds and when the conpany receivd the occLpotian ceftifi.oE lron the conpeDnt authotity(iet.

An! d.loy b! the vehd.e@ in taking postesion of tle said opartnent lron the.lote alofer ol posse$ion, wottd otttoct hotdins chorses @Ps.0s (FNe) Pa sq. lL per nonth hr any detar ollull one nonth ot ony paft thereaf" 16.

At the outset, it is relevant to comment on the preset possession clause of the agreement wherein the possessio. has been subjected to all kiDds of terms and conditions ot this agreement and application, and the complainants not be,ng in default under any provisions of these agreements anil compliance wlth ;ll provisions, lormalities and documentation as p.escribed by the promoter.

The draating ofthis clause and iDcorporation of such conditions aIe not only vague and uncertain but so hcavily loaded in favour of the promoter and against the allottee that even a single defauli by the aUottee in fulfilling formalities and documentations etc. as prescribed by the promoter may make the possession clause irrelevant for the purpose ol allottees and the commitment date for handing over possession loses its meaning The itrcorporation ofsuch clause in the buydr's agreenrent by the promoter is tust to evade the liability towards timely delivery of subject unit and to dep rive ihe allottee of h is right accruing after delay in possess ion Thi s is tust to comment as to how the builder has misused his dominant position and draftcd such mischievous clause in the agreement and the allottee 's lefi with no option but ption but to sign on the dotted lines.

Admissibility of r€fund along with prescribed rate of interes! 'lhe complainants are seeking refund the amount paid by them at the prescribed rate oiinterest.

However, the allottee intend to withdraw fronl the proiect and is seeking relund ofthe amount paid by him in respect ot 17. l\ *HARERA S- cLrnLrennt',l 18.

The legislature in its wisdo provisLon of rule 15 of the interest.

The rate o[ ConDlaint No.

2466of 2022 the subject unitwith interest atprescribed rate as prov,ded under rule 15 oithe rules.

Rule 15 hasbeen reproduced as under: Rule 15, Prscribed rute of ink.est' IProvie to Yctioa 12, sqtion ,8 ond sub-s..tion (1) oa.t stbt ctioi (7) olsection 191 (1) For the purp^e of proviso to srtioh 12: sectjan lai ond sub' vctions G) ond (7) of ection 1e, the ihterest ot the tute prscribed shol be the Stote Bonk ol Indio highest natginot cast oflendihs rate +2%.: ordinate legislation under the ermined the prescribed rate ot d by the leg,slature. is rescribed rate oainterest of default.

The Provided thot in cose rhe State Bonk ol tndio lehding rute IM.LR) is not in ute, n sholl be benchhotk lendins rates whlch the Stote Bonk reasonable and if ensur€ uniform pr 19.

Consequendy, as date i.e., 18.01.2024 will be marginal costof le ' ;H::'il: Ii"$c:iffitrffiU#:H;";:',#l: ;; ;: relevant section is reproduced belowl "(zo) 'inrerst" neans ke rotes of inrercst Pdyoble b! the Pronoter ar the allouee, os the cog not be.

Erptono on- For the purposeolrhatlouse- ltr the rote ol nkt est .horgPoble loh the ollodee br th? p,o4oter. tn tov ol delouh- shotl b" equol b the rcte ol tn@re! wh h the oqotet thall be hoble o poy he alto e? ntoseol.lPfotk- trl ihe ,nreest pa\obte by the Drcnotet to the atlo e? shatt be Jrod the dote th. pronotet re@ived the ahount or onv Port thqeof till the date the onount or pofi nqeof ond inter$t thteon is rcIunded, ond the intercst p. ntercst p.tyobb by the ollottee to the pronotet sholl be Iron the date the allottee dehults in potnqt to the prohotet till the dote it is pdid: 21.

On considerahon of the documents available on record and submissions mad€ by both tbe parties regarding contravention of provisions of the AcL the authority is satisfied that the respondent is in contravention ot the sect,on 11t4)(a) oftheAct by nothanding over possession bythe due MHARERA gP- GURUGRAI/ Complainr No.

2466 of 2022 date as per the agreement.

By virtue of clause 19 otthe agreement dated 25.11.2013, the possess,on ol tl apartment was to be delivered within a penod ot42 months te ofstart ofconstruction which is Dot the same as date he due date is calculated 42 months arom date of bsen.e of date ofstart ol construction) i.e-, { ue date of possession ention over here that om the date of BBA till th rhe rllotted unit has .p],lte offer of possession or $loh*" ty the respondent /promoter.

The authority w rh.r rhe ,llottee .annot be complainant has paid almost 41% of total consideration till 2016.

Further, the authority obseryes that there is ro docum€nt placed on record from which it can b€ ascertained that whethe. the respondent has applied for occupation certificate/part occupation certificate or what is the status ofconstruction of the proiecl ln view of rhe above_mentioned expected to wait endlessly ior taking possession ot the unit whrch is which he has paid a considerable amount ol onev towards the sale consideration.

1t 6 A *HARERA S- cLrnucnnn,l 22 consideration and as obseNe 5785 o12079, decided on 23.

Furth€r, the Hon (supra) reiterated other vs Ulio,t ol tndio ComplaintNo.

2466of 2022 e Supreme Court of lndra )nrreo anna &ors., civil appeal no.

State ol U.P. and Ors. tors Private Limited & able even os an date, whtch to ottees connot bc nade to 'nLt ollotted ta then, nar the cases o/ rvew,ecrr facts, the alloftee intends to withdraw from the project and are well within the right to do the same in view o in view ofsechon 18(1) ofthe Act,2016.

Moreover, the occupation cert,fi catelcompletion certificate of the project where the unit is situated has still not been obtained by the r€spondent/promoter.

The authority is of the view that the allottees cannot be expected to wait endlessly fortaking possession ofthe allotted unit and for which he has paid a considerable amount towards the sale absolute right to the ollottee, jf the prcnotet fails to gire poe$ion of the opotnent, plot or buildihg within the tine stip\lated uhde. the terns of the asreenent rueordtess ol uJoBeen evenE or stdt orde6 ol the Coutt/Tribunol, which is in eithet |/o! not otfibutable to the ollattee/hane buyer, the pronotq is ur.lq on oblisation to /efuhd rhe dnouht on denond wib intercst ot the rate prestibed by the state cavernnent inclu.lihg conpenstion in the nann praidetl undet the Act with the prcviso rhot il the ollattee does not \|ish to withdmw lran the project, he shall be entitled fot interest lot the period of dela! till hondingover possessioh at the rate pretcribed.

No.13005 oJ 2o2o dec)dttl n nat dependent on any A ComplaintNo.

2466 oi2022 24.

The promoter is respons,ble for all obligations, responsibil,t,es, and rhe provi\ion\ or rhe A,r of 20lb o rh, rJ,, rnd regulations made thereunder or to the allott€es as peragreement for sale under section 11(a)(a).

The promoter has failed to complete or unable to MHARERA S- GURUGRAM G.

26. give possession otthe unit in accordance with the terms olagreement ior sale or duly completed by the date specined therein.

Accordingly, the promoter ,s liable to the allottee, as he wishes to withdraw ftom the p.oject, without prejudice to remedy available, to return the amount rece,ved by him rn re e unit with interest at such rate as may be prescribed.

25.

Accordingly, the non- ate contained in section part of the respondent itled to reiund of the ate of,nteresr r.e., @ 11(a)[a] read with t0.850/o p.r.

850/o p.r. (the S nal cost oi lending rate (14CLRl appl,cable as ed ubder rule 15 of the Haryana Real Esrate (Reg pment) Rules.20r7 from rhe Directions of the authority IRAM Hence, the authority hereby passes thls order and issues the following d,rections under section 37 ofthe Act to ensure compliance ofobligations cast upon the promoter as per the function entrusted to the authority under section 34(0: i.

The respondent/promoter is directed to retund the entire pa,d'up amount i.e., Rs.26,89,505/- received by it from the complainants alo.g with interest at the rate of 10.85% p.a. as prescribed under date ofdeposiihllits realization within the timeljnes provided in rulc l6 olthe Haryana Rules 2017 ibid.

IA PHARERA ($- eunuennr,r The respondent burlder is drrecte against the unit before complainant. lf, any tran unit, the receivable 27.

The complaint stan 28.

File be consigned t 19.07.2024 ComDlaintNo.

2466of 2022 rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate [Regulation and Development) Rules,2017 fron the date oieach paym€nt till the actual realization party right paid by the A period of 90 days is given to th directions given in this order and ail,ng which rty shall be first to comply with the ii.v umarcoyal) Regulato rY Auth oritY, Curugram GURUGI]?AN