GAGAN DEEP SINGH vs IREO GRACE REALTECH PRIVATE LIMITED

Compla nrNo 2475 or20ll 2475 of2022 11,O1.2024 04,o2.2024 ShriGagan Deep Singh s/o Sh.

DeedarSinsh R/o: - House No.

58, Hemku.t Colony, UtF, Greate.

Kailash-1.

New Delhi- 110048 Versus M/s lreo Grace Realtech Private Limited Regd.

Olficer C-.1, 1n Floor, Malviya Nagar, 110017 CORAJY; Shri Vil.ry Kumar Coyal APP}:ARANCE: Ms Sangita Culati (Advocate) Shri !l.K Dang (Advocate) New Delhi l he present complaint has been filed by Scction 31 ol the Real Estate (Regulation Complainant Respondent complainant/allottee und€r Developmentl Act, 2016 (in ORDER l shofl. rhe Acr) read with rule 2c of 'he Haryafa Real Esr,re [Resulation dnd Developmenrl Rules, 2017 (in shoa. lhe lulet lor vroldrion of sectron I l{4 tldlof rhe Ad wherein it is inter dlia prel(ribed that the promoter rhdl! be r"sponsrble ror.ll obliCations. re5ponsibllirics and luncrlons under the provrsion or rhe A.r or the rules and recuht,tns m,de rhere under or to the allouee d5 Der lhe dqreement tor sale execuldd inter se.

IARERA GURUGRA[/ BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM IL *HARERA S- eunuennv A.

Unitand proiect related details anmDla,nt Nn 24?q.f 2022 2. lhe paniculars of unit details. ,ale considerft,on. the amount paid bv the complainanr, dale ofproposed handrng over {he possessron, delay per,od. rf any, have been detailed in the followins tabulLr form: 37.5125 aftes 12722013 (As pe. proiecl details) at sector 67A, Curgaon, Group Houeng Colony 05 uI2013 ddLcd 21.U2.21111 20.42.2021 RERA rc8istcred/not .,lr.rs Pvt l,td and S others Registered in :l phases vidP 17a nf2017 dar.d07.12.2417 vide 371 012017 ddted 07.t2.20r'7 1J 2) 3l 30.0 31.1 903, tPas 03.04.2014 (Page no.20 ;q ild, r:I v \t1e 379 0t ZO1 7 d^ted 07.12.2017 231)1.2013 -'mplJ rrl d2l 172691sq ft.

07.08.2013 Date of environment t1 Da a8 27.1,12014 IA, CompLarntl!o.

2475 o12022 *HARERA S- crnrcnlr,,r Due date oldelivery ol 23.O',t.2077 bujldinBplans) the date of approval Instalm€nt 29.032015.

15 Rs.1.73,08,251l. lAs Der D. lAs Der D.ydent plan on paPe no. complaintl k.48,45.910/l Oslps cancefhtion letts o PaBe 2104 2015 ForFifth lnstalmenL 29.06 2416 22.07.2416 13.

Possessiol aDd Holdlng Charges Subject to lorca hojeure, os delned hetein ond fu.thet subject to the Allattee hoving canplied ||ith all itt olligatiohs under the terns ond conditions oI this Agreenent ond not having defoult uhder qny prcvbians oJthb Agteenent but not limited to the timely poyment ol oll dues and .horges inclrding the total sale cohsiderorioh, ftgistldtion chdrcs, stdnp duqr ond ather charges and obo subjed to the dllottee hoving canplied with oll the Iarmo lities or.!o.u nento tlon o s pre s$i bed by th e con pa n !, the conpony proposes to oJIet the po*ession al' the sald apoftment to the dllottee within a petiod oI 42 nonths [rom the .ta.e oJ opprowt of bdanns ptans add/or lutfitment ol the pncohdttions impos.l thereunder (Comnitnent Period).

The Allottee lifthet agrees onel uhderctonds that the company sholl odditiona y bq endtled to o penod of 180 doys (Grue Penodl, alter the erptry ot the 'atd conhitment lenod to ottow Ior unlnreseen delats betond the reotanoble rontal ol the (Emphasls supplied) t4 1i A Complarnt No.2a75 of 202 Z *HARERA -&- cLnuennu lhent 12.08.2016, 28.07 2016 (Page no.

51 oi complaino 2?.O1.2A22 01,09.2016 Occupation certifi.ate on paSe no. s9 ofreplyl B. tacls ofthe complaint complainant has madethe lolloving subMissions: _ 'Ihat the complainant beingpersuaded by the advenisements issued by the respondent,n theleading ne\rspapers of lndia regarding a proiect narr,ely "The Corridors", situated in sector 67A, in the revenue estate of Village Dhurnaspur arld Maidwas, Tehsil& District Gurugram, applied ror allotment ol an aPartment !,1de apPlication ddt"d 22-032013. ln pJr \uant e ol rhe sard application. (he re+ondent allolled rn apartmcnl bednng No. c03 on Od floor, in A4, Tbwer havinq d Super Ared ol 1726.91 sq. ft. to him. t. to him.

Therefore, in resppct ofthe said apartment, both tne pdrlip\ had entered in ro a flat buyef agreement on 03.04 2014 for , r.ril .onsrderarion of Rs.r.73.0a.261 / 1.

That tbe complainanthad opted const.Uction l,nked payment plan and paid a sum of Rs.48,46,909/- to the resbondent as per their d€mands That as per clause 13.3 of the agreement, the possessioD of ihe apartment has been handed over by the respondent to thecomplainant with in a period of 42 months with a grace period of 180 days which lurtheradds to a total of48 months or 4years from the date ofexecution ofthe asreement.

Therefore, as perthe sEid clause, the respondent have 3.

The I.

II T 18 19 zo tl Complarnt No.

2475or2022 GURUGRAI\,] toofferthe possession oa the apartment to thecomplainanton orbeibrc 02.04.2018.

However, the respondent has failed to comply the sard clause oi the agreement.

The respondent has failed to olfer the possessron to the complai.ant till date i.e. after 8 years of agreemenr exccuted between the parties.

IV.

Ihat since 2018 onwards, the complainant visited several times to ofice ollhe respondent ior obtaining the possession olthe apartment however the respondenthas lailedtooffe.thesame tothecomplainant.

The respondent has failed to iulfil its contractual obligation i.e., to dcliver the possession to the complainant, which is in violation oi .q ron r oirheALr 2016. rlhJr .r i. dn Jdm.rred la.r ihdr rhe corqpla,nrrr hdd dpprod, hed rh. respondent for purchasing the unit rn the year 2013, and the respondent has lailed in complying with its cont.actual obUgations 'lhereibre, the respoodent was deficient in complying with therr contractual oblgation6 tjme and again.

Further, the respondent aLso tailed to oifer the possession to him af provided under the buyer's .,greFmenr HF nr' J.reddy pdid a \um nr R\.48.4bqoq.. ro ,l', respondent in theyear 2013, and the coryplainant has not been offercd the possession till the filing ol this complaint. complaint.

The said delay is considerable and inorldinate in offering the possession, which clearly anrounts deficiency ofservice.

In this regard, the complainant through his counsel issued a legal noticc dated 23.0a-2azl tot relunding irn anrount ot Rs.48,46,909/ along with paynrent of delay conrpensation.

1lowcv.r, thc rcspondent has fajled to comply the terms ot thc sard notice aaier receipt the same.

Hence, the complainant is entitled to rctund as claimed as per section 18 ofthe Act or2016.

C.

Reliefsought by the complainant: l^ Cnn'nhLnl No 1475 of 2!22 c&* L-.t A Df n T /1I\L \ d$ c I c )^v '^' 'nr' 'r \o r ( of') rr 'lhe complainant has sought following reUe(s). !.

Direct the respondenr to relund the amount of Rs.48,46,909/ to the complainant along with jnterest @24% per annum. ri. 'lo pass and award of Rs.50,00,000/ ln favour ol the complainant against th. respondent on account of delault in compliance the terms and condition oithe agreement, damages on account olstruggle, alonB with interest at the rate oi24% perannum. on the date olhearin& the authority explained to the .esponde nt/pro moter aboul lhe contraventions as alleged to hsve been commitled in relatron to sectlon l1(4) (a) ofthe Act to plead guilty or not to plead gurlry.

Reply by the respondent Thc respo ndcnt co ntested lhe complaint on the following grounds: - r. 'lhat the complaint is heither maintainable nor tenable and is liable to bc outrishdy dismissed.

The apartnient buyer's agreement was executed betlvecn theparties prior to thf eh2.fmFnr.frhe a.r n|2016 and the provisions ofthe said Act cannot be enfo.ced retrospectively. ii.

Ihat the complaint is not maintainable for the reason that thr agreement co.tains an arbitratton claufe which refers to the disPuLe resolunon mechanism to be adopted by the parties in the event ofany dispute r.e., clause 35 olthe buyer's agrement. iii.

I'hat the complainant has not app. s not app.oached this authority with clean hands and has intentionally suppressed and concealed the mnterial facts in the present complaint.'lhe present complaint has been liled by him maliciously with an ulterior motive and it is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process oflaw.

The true and correct iacts are as follows Page 6 or2'l t) I l Compla'niNo.

2475of 2022 HARERA Cun"ennm [tu'd""' ,"*?s"t'] .

That the respondfnt is a reputed real estate companv havinc 'mmense coodw,lt comprised or ltw abidins and pea(e.loving persons rnd hrs alway\ believed in providing belt services io its cultomers.

The r+spondent dnd ils a5soc'rle companiel have developed anddelifered several preTigious protects such as'Crand Arch', Vi(toryValldy', Skyon dnd'Udlown'erc. and in mosr ofrhe\e p.o;"cr, r".g" n,.Ler or ramilies hale already shiited aiter havins taken possession and resident welfare associations have been rormea wtrrcrr are {tine c,.u or*"0[r,o 0", n""0, or rhe drrorrec\ of the respective ploiects. .

That based on the said dpplloatlon, fespondent vrde its allotment ofter letter dateq 07.08.2013 all$red to lhe complainant rn apartmenr no.CD.+a 09-903 hating ientative superarea ol l72b c I sq. it tor a sdle conslderation ol Rs.1.73,08,26I /_ which was exclu\ive olapplifbie taxes, stamp duty, resrstraHon charse\ err.

The apartment blryeds agreemen! was executed between lhe prrt,es on 03.0a.2?14 The complaifnr acreed to be bound bv the terms contdin€d ii the apanmembub/€rs dsreement . rtrat responaent J,sed paymeotaeJunds fro- tne complainant,n accordance .ith tlre aereed rerms afid condlnons of the rllotment as well as ol the pLymmt plan. vidt paymenl request ietrer ddred r4.04.2011. the rtsponden' raised [he demand rn respect oI the recond 'nsrallmenF ior the nel pdyible amount ot Rs-16,969t2/ n"*ever. onry parlt-pay.ents were fredited after three remrnder\ drted r4.05.20r1.

28.05.2013 and 02.09.2013 issued by the respondent. . pondent. .

Thar rhe respondfnt vide its paymbnt request dated 180J.2014 tui\ed rhe th'rd rrinaumcnr demanq ior Rs.rq,e7186./ Howeve, PaCeT o 21 A LomplrLnr No.2,1?5.r rnr 2 ti;;;,*";;;;;; t L' s were credited by the complainant after three 1.04.2014, 04.05.2014 and 29.08 2014 issued by re respondent vide its payment request dated he fourth installmentdemand for Rs.19,77,121l ninders dated 29.03.2015 and 23.04.2015. nt vide its payment request dated 02.06.2016 tallment demand for Rs.16,96,343/- Howelet, iled to make payment despite remrnders dated 07 -20t6. nr vide its payment request dated 18.07.2016 :allmentdemand fbr Rs.16,96,3a3l- as wellas hjs )n iailure ofthe complainant to make paym.nt, ued reminder dated 12.08.2016.

Yet again, the t make any payment uponwhich the respondent ) dated 28.07.2016.

Respondent vide its payment rB 2016 r.ised tho seventh installment demand along with previous arrears. nonJulfillment of the contractual obligations by despite several opportunities extended by 0tment ofthe complainant !ras cancelled and thc rposited by lhe complainant along with other ited vide cancellation letter dated 01.09.2016 in ause 21 read with clause 21.3 olthe apartment :and the complainant is now left with no right, lterest whatsoever in respect ol the sard :.

Despite failure olthe complainant to adhere to rcrrron\ ol mdkrng pdymenl\. rhe rr.pondell \ F *HARERA *@-- cunltcnnl,l 03.03.2015 raised 29 062O16 and 22 for Rs.16,96,343/- A ConDlaintNo.2475oI2022 HARERA CLnLennrt'l !:'-"'P""*"''5#tl - - .".r,"," *" -J""ction or the ro[er rn which rhe unir dllotred to the compiainantlwas located. . rhar ac.ord,n8 to lcreed clauses ot[he bookins app[canon form dnd the aparlmdnr buyer's agr+menr, timely payment of instrllmenls withil rhe agreed hme schedulc was thp c\scncc of allotmen'. rhe comPlainant,s a realettate invcsior who had booked rhe unir inquestionwithaviewtoearf qurckprofi I'nashorr period.

However. .

However. his calcdanons went wroig on dccounl of slump ,n the rerl esrare market and the complair\Lnr drd nor possess suii,c,ent funds ro honour er commiunaors.

The complainant was never ready and willing rf abide by his confa ual obtigar io ns and he also did not have the reLuislte nrnastolJnour nrscommrtments. .

Thdt even though the compldinant has nothrng to do with lhe constructron yet tia' tlte responde+t has already completed the ,.n<rru.rion of J" m*e. in whiJh the cancelled unrt ot the co.ptainant was flcated.

The respofdent applied tor Lhe grant ol rtre occupation ceftilrcate vide appllcatlon dated 10 09.2019.

The .on."-.a ,,rr'orln". granted the Lrcupation certificare ror the tnwer in ouesrion Jn 27.01.2022 .

That the rmplemetlianon of the said project was hdmpered due to several torce mhjeure tuctors llike inability to undeflrke ,onsrru.tion tor approximately f-e monrhs aue to cenrrat cove rn mencs nouhcat io n resardins hemonetization, orders passed bv the Ndtional c[een rribunal, "ln-r"rrn"n, ol instalments by ,rl.nees sucrr as rl" mmplainant. hfary rainrall rn cursdon in Ihe yedr20l6and untvorablewearheriondrtrons, fi lincotseveral ralse and fr,volous co+plaints by the &taultins allottees berore the DrcP, Hdryana. thand'cdrn and dutbreak or covrd-le dnd rt.

Pdge9nl24 A/ ComplaintNo.

2475 of 2022 THAILIiA $-eLnuennu F"'d*'-'il*'l subsequent waves.Thesaid events aJd conortrons wer€ beyond the control or rhe resptndent and materlally affected and conrrruflion and prosress ofthd project. ,v. rhdr rhe compld,ndnt l,r* .rr, . *rfh". rer out ot the conctuded contract on hrshly flimby and baselesssrbunds. such malahdetacrrc5 of rtre comprarnanr cannJr ue u,,o-.0 'o "u1.."0.

Copres of dll the relevant documents have Peen flled dnd pldced on rhe record.

Their aurhenri.iry is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can be decided on the basis ol thele u nd,snu.ted docUments and submrssrons made by the partre!. e partre!.

Wrlnen submlsslons by tfe respondentr The respondenr ha\ filed rle written submisd,ons on 15.01.2024. whrrh rre rdken on record.

The addiribnal tacts apart irdm the reply has been stdred by ttre oanres rn wrinen subJtssions are mentiJneu uetow. .

Thlr rhe respondent Fepr on raislng Paymenr demands from rhe . omplarnant in accordqhce wilh the agre+d terms and conditions of lhe dllotmenr as well ". d" p"yor"n, plan but due to constant delaults (ommrtted by the colDblabad ln compbing'rith hrs obligalion\, rhe '"'ponaent was constrlined to cancel th+ allotment ot the complarndnt vrde rs rdncellaiion letter dated 0i.09.2016.

The complainant commiued blaranr bre+, hes of the termf rnd condrr,ons of rllotment.

That 18 reminders +re sent ro the Eompldrnant ro pay the due in(allmenrs but the c{mplarnanr inrentlonally did not do so dnd rhe allorm€nr or rhe unit kas rightiy canceftea ty rhe respondent Fven desp ire cancella( ion oflhe unir, the complainant did not lake any aciion dnd rhp present coniplarnt tas been filed on 2505.2022 as aA atterthousht much afttr the expiration of the llmitation period No reason for delay in Rl[ns the complainf has been mentioned by the complarnant.

A Pdce lo nl24 Ly 1.

E, complaintNo. z475of 2022 *HARERA $- Cunrep*rtl t'"'d"il" N"r4's "r ')ortl .

Thdl rfrhe comphinant rraa any gnevanc{, ti, remedy was to challenge ihe cancellation wjthrd the prescribed $eriod ot Irmitation Le. three years.

The Acr. of 2014 was not enacted to give life to dead dnd \rale clrms.

The limildtion tp claim retund by the complarnanl starled way backrn 2016 when the Jnitallottedto him wascancelled.lt iss€nled ldw thrt once Irmitdtron p+iod besins, it dofs not stop.

The compldinrnr deliberately chose to sl+ep overtle man!r and the p resent complaint rs rime barred on the facF ot rt as rhe conlplaint has been rrled only on 2505 2022 i.e atteralr ost6vearstromthedateof cancellauonleller. . rhar secflon 3 oithe Lilnrur,on acr. ur,on acr. rsol manoates that no court shall srant any relret whi(h ls barred by limrSrion even ri no delence wrth resdrd ro Ihe lim,l3tioi is raised.

It hss deen ldld down time and agarn that even rhoush the larf of limttatoq mly harshly affecl a partv but I hrs ro be applred wth hl lts risour wherl the statutes so prescnbe and rhe courrs have no po[,", t" exteid Orl period ol hmrtdlron on any grou n d w h a r 'oever.

Th+refore,i duB.is cls! 'rpon the cou rts/d uthorrr res to relect such cldims w4,ch are ttme barrld on the face otit. lurisdiction ofthe autho ty The durhoriry hrs .omelef terntorial and fubiect maner iurisdi.rion to rdtudrcate the present codplatnr for the rea+ns Siven below.

F.I rerritorlallurlsdictiol As per nor,ficdrion no. tl9f/20t7-1rcP dattd I4.12.2017 issued bv Town and Country Plrnnins Deplrtmenr, Hrryana rfe iurisdidon otHaryana Rerl Ertate Reguldrory Authorit[.

Gurueram shallbe enttre Gurugram distrrct Ior all purposes. ln lhe preselt case. rrre prcpc{in queshon is situated wrthrn rhe plannrns "rea or cufugram districr. fheretore, Lhrs authortty has .omplete rerritondl iurisdl[tion to aeat *itt' itre present complaint.

F. ll subiect-matter lurisdftion nw Prse rr or24 t0 ComplaintNo.

2475of 2022 ITHARERA $-Cunrennu ta".d,il',N"r4ilt l sectron Il(4llaJ or the Afr.

20lb proviae] rrrar rhe promorer shall be rFsponsible ro the allonee as per agreemenl for sale.

Section llta)(a) is reproduced as hereunder: Sqtion 11 t+lm" p,o.ot", tnolt ta t be rc\ponabtart att obnaat,,"' , "lo.^,0,r,,"' o.a r"*u.* un.tpt tnp prci\iolt oltht\ a. t or th? +tps ond r?gu|ot,on\ aadp lheeundet ot to rlle ottoiees ot per.h+ ogre@ent lor tule. or to theo,:octouonolP orues os the.ose ia! be. nttrhe.ooveyance olott thp opodn?fb. ptots o. buldtns\ a\ the,o.p nor be to the atto.tees ot the cohnoi at@ uthe os!o. ionon ol ottokas or .hp @hpetent oudorltr os the cos. nqr bel se ion j1.Fun.!as olrhe authdrt./l 34tD al ,h.

A,t plov't|?\ to ensuft ro4ptiance ol the obhsatton, . hsatton, .o,t upoq ie prohoe\ the otton.er lnd the eot e\b@ as"n^ Lndpr t h6 Act ond he tulps ond regnla4ons dode rhe, eundet So. in vrew ol the provisilns of lhe Act qudred above, the authonty has ,omplere iurisd,chon to de[rde rhe comelairl resardins non.comphancc or oblisrion< by the promoler leavlns aslde fonpensation which rs to be de(,ded by rhe ddtudicarind omcer ii puEue4 by the compldinant rt a later staqe. rindlnEs on ihe obje.don![.lr.a uy,t ".r"ppna"n" c.l obie.tion resardlDB hldsdlctlon ofdre +omplalnr w.r.l the aperiment buyeis asreenetrt exdoted prlor to codhg lnto rorce otthe AcL The respondenr submltted]that the complaiir is nPither maintarndble nor renable and rs I'able lo bloutrichtly dismrCsed ds rhe apanment buvers aqreement wds executed bEtween the partre+ pnor to the enactment ol lhe Acr and the provision ofrhtsaid Acrrannot beapplied retrospechvely.

The authoflty rs of 'he liew that the provisions ot the Act are qua\i rerroacflve to some exterl ln operat,on anh would be applrcable to rhe d8reements ,or sale enlerf inro even prior to com'ns inro operation ol rhc P'ge l2 ol24 V 11 12. ll c.

14 ComplaintNo 2475ot2022 L compla,nrNo 2{7s or2o22 are still in the p;ocess of complet,on.

The Act be so construed, that all previous agreements coming into rorL or the Act.

Therefore, the "na "e."".unt h]r" to u" read and interpreted t",r. '"" n,o!ia"a ror dealins w,th cenain ,n in a spec'fic/tranrcuiar manner, then thar n "..o.arn." -iti tt " a.t and the rules after the rfthe agreements made betlveen the buyersand L has been upheld in the landmark judgment oi bot, M.

LtlI Vs.

UOI and otheB. (WP 2737 ol t7 and which provides as under: 6i.ns ol Section 13, the aeh! in honding aver the ld be counted fram the dote mentianed in the ,ole entere.l hto b! lhe pronlotet ond the ollanec ;trotion under RERA Undet the prcvctans of RltM, siven o laeitiq to t4vke the dote of.odpk.oh.l |o. k.oh.l |o.e the lone under Sectian l fhe RER4 does not nrkihs aJ conioct between the flot pur.hdse. uhtl ' dkc^led that obori stated pravisions ol the RL P.A )ctNe in nature.

The!noyto sone ettent be havtns quasi retooctive effect btt then on thatsround the ptovisions of REM cannot be chollehpe.l The canpetent .nough to legitlote low hovtng retroattive elfect.

A ta|| can be even fratued ta ollect sttng .antru.tuol .ighB betueen the porttes tn the ercn we da not hove ont doubt tn out nihd that the iomeA tn the larser pubh. thtetestaltet o thanrqh rean dode at the highen level b! the Stundins I tpl?i I. nittcp whnh \Lhhntud it\ detotled the Act and the rules.

Numerous provisions of would be re-written after provisions of the Act, rules harmoniously.

However, i specific provisions/situati situationwill be dealtwith date of coming into force o the Act save the provisions sellers.

The said contentio N eel kom o I Reoltors Su bu *HARERA & eunuennu A.t where the rran...rion nowh€re provides, nor ca Zo I 7 ) decided on 06-12-20 122.

A HARERA GURUGRAIV 15 Also, in appeal no.

173 of 2 lshwet Singh Dohiyd, in o 16.

Thc agrcemcnts are sacro hrve been abrogated by th Appellate Trjbunal has obs various heads shall be paya :grccmentsub,ell to the c plans/permissions approv authorities and are not .esulatjons made thererln The retpondenr submitte n2rure HenLe. rn rhe lghto rcspondent w r r tunsdicti c, tl, obicction regarding 17. reason that theaSreement Compla'nrNo 2a75 or 2022 1a r rled as Magt Eye Developer Pvt- Ltd- Vs. der dated 17.12.2019 the Haryana Real Estare .lkcussion, we orc ol the ions oJ the Ad ote euosi dons of the asr*ne4t lo4ote the ottottee\hatt be ond unreotuable nte ofco penetioh nentiohed and wnl b? ooplroble ta the delay tn the olfet/ddlivert ofposs$ian os per the intercst/detoyed posssion chotses on the of iht rcst os prcvidPd in Rute 1s of the tules ond r far saleis lioble ta be ignored " anct save and exaept for the provisions which noted that the builder A builder Act itsell Further, it is n executed in the manner that rhere is no sLope otiate any of the clauses contained therein. r of the view that the charges payable under )le as pe. the agreed tems and conditions ofthe ndition thatthe same are in accordance with the :d by the respective departments/competcnt n contravention of any other Act, rules and ler and are not unreasonable or exorbitant in above-mentioned reasons, the contention of the omplainants ie in breach otaSreement for non_ inv...iion ofarbitra that the complaint is not maintainable lor the ontainsan arbitration clause wh ich reiers to the A Complarnt No.

2475 of 2022 ffHARERA db c rorrc;av F;.!-----t--; f di<pute resolunon mechanism to be adopted by the parties in the event of dny drspute dnd the sdme ij reprodu(ed beloli/ for the ready reference: '3s.

D pute Resohu)n bt, arbtto on 4 at ory aitpLte' odtlns out ot bt,hns ukon r telouon to th" @d\ al ,n' as*..^, . ,x,"l'.or'on,n.tudhs I nwprctationond ntidto ol t h" tet n\ t hct eot ond thl e\pee|e 4shts aiqobhgotto\, ofihe pa4tes thott bp attpd anrdbtt bv Putuot d^ tsrca\ Ialhns |9hnh .he ,aae shatt be set,kd ,\.augh alercncb to a 'al? a.b robt Ao be oppotnted bt o,aotunon ot.he Boo.d ot D,re@,| oJ Lhe conponr. whbv dptisnnshott be jnot ord bnd,ns upon ne poftit-rhp otto p" h?ebt,onftds that \hanharcno oorann a tr,e appatlaar of ,uch sote efitoror nen r tte p-,on "o oppoiated- i. oa cnptd,?c ot Advo.ote ot lhc aoapanr o.

B othetu\e rcrrc,ted toth. codp{a\ ohd rtg Atloba nFreb! o',pps ond osea that r\r otoae ,hah not conl re a srcund lot thluens" to he n.tepehdeace ot ,npa ntny ot the *,[ *t" e,r'a"., bbndu.t the orbiLtouon- rhp o, bn, otor prcceedinrtEho b.sovemedb' tle Atbntutbr ond condha oh 4't ]e t.d oN:totu4tv ai dnents/ ndifiohons thq?to antt shott be held at the coapaay't blIt, ?\ ot ot a locauqn detgnared b! tnp totd 'ot" Arbnrotot ncrtso lhe t,nsuose ol the otb rcdon poteed'ass ord the Ar d.hah be i Enstirl rhe @hponr ahd 4e o o. hd 4e o o.Eeh,tt'haethpl?sot the Arbttoror tn .quol lroponion" The author,W is ot the opiiton tt at tle jurisdiaion of the rulhor,ty cannot beleuered by rheexisrenctot"n ".t,t "tionJa,,se in the buyersasreemenr d< ii may be nored Lhdr sehtion 79 of rtl!

Ad bars lhe iur,sdiction o[ civil ,oufl sabout rny matterwfich fallswi6ln Elepun'lew of rhis authonty or rhe Real E\rare Appellate Trlbunal.

Thus, fhe intenlion lo render su(h dr5pur"s ds non-arbitrable [""r" ," t" a*r. [r.", *ction 88 or rhe Act rays rhdl the provi\ionsorthis4ct shallbe in addiiion to and not in derogatron ol rhe provrsrons of rnv orhfr law lor lhe rime be,ng in rorce.

Furrher. the authonry puts relirn.e 04 catena or rudgments ol the Hon'ble Supreme aourt, partrcularly t lationat see(ts loryoration Llmtae(t v.

M.

Madhusudhon Reddr & 4nr. (2012) 2 scc s06. wherern It hds been held Compl.rntNo 2475 of 2022 HARERA C"nLGRn[a !:"-'Pr""'N"t'5".,o,-.l the remedres pro,rala under rle contume.

Protedion Act are in rtron to ana notin aerog[nonot theotherfaws ln lorce, consequently the ,onty would nor be blund ro refer earlies to ,rhitDhon evcn ir ihc iement between the patieshad an arbitrltion clause. obiections resa.dinr[oEe maieuE re'pondenrs-promoter] has raised the cohtention that the constructron he tower rn which the unir of rhe co.pl,,n,nts is situated. has been ,yed due to force .,J,* .'*,,n,"*[ such as orders passed by ronar cree"rntu"ar ro lropconstrucdon Iurins2015-2016-2017-2018, ,ule wirh contractor, non+aymert of rnsLalmenl by allottees and ,onetiza on. rhe plea ofrhe respondenr r[gardrng various orders orthe I dnd demonetisation b+t allthe pleasadvlnced in rhis resard are devoid rent.

The orders pdssed by NCT banning 4o nstrucLion in $e NCR regron . a. , ,", .nou 0",,o[ or rtme and thuJ cannot te said to impact the )ondent.builder reaainl to sucru a.tl i" tr'e complehon.

The plea ,,aine aemoneusatron ls also devoid oi Jerit.

Also. rit.

Also. there may be cdses :re allottees has not 4aid in(ra)ments lecularly but all the allonces no, l" "rp".t"a to ,rd.. because of few]allonees.

Thus, the promoler pondent cannor be civefany ieniency on fased oraroresaid reasons and well seRled principle tlatapersoncannot takebenefi t of hisown wrong I oulection regaraiog lnaln talnabili iy or [om plalnL .counsel lor the respbndent hrs raiseh an obiccnon in its wrirtFn 'mi\sion thatthe compllinr is barred by lif ihnon ds the complarndnr has ,rorched the compla'nt' has admittedly flled the complajnt in the vear :2 and the cause olactidn accrue on 0L0912016, as the allotted unit ofthe PaCe r6ot24 rtt S-c add,t agre€ C,III of th dela, Natic dispr NCT .egar itisr G.IV The 202" ft) fd Comnlaint No.

2475.1 2022 &-]ARER -&*o-ltCnlu 'olo'in'\o 4- '"J / complainant was cancelled.

Therefore, the complaint cannot be filed before this Authority alter almost 6 years from the date ofcancellation letter as the same is barred by limitation.

On consideration ol the documents available on record and submissions madc by the party, the authority observes that the buyer's agreement w.r.t. the unir was executed with the allottee on 03.04.2014.

As per clause 13 oi the buyer's agreemen! the possession ofthe subject unit was to be offered with in a period ol42 months from the date of approvals of building plans and/or tuLfilment ofthe preconditions imposed thereunder.

The du. date of posscssion can be calculaterd ftom the date ofapproval of building plans i.e., 23.07.2013. which comes out to be 23.01.2017. llowever, the said project ofthe allotted unit is an ongoing project, and the r, fondcnr/promoter has lriled Io apply dnt obrdn,ng the CC/p.rr LL I ll onrr A\ pcr prurr\o ro ce(don 3 of A.t oI 20Ib. ongoing prole.ts on lnP ddre ol this Act i-.., 28.07.2017 ior which complEtion certificate has not bcen r,\J"d. en r,\J"d. rhF frornolpr shal maie an applrcdlron 'o lhF "uil'onry lur rcgistration ofthe said project w,thin a period ofthree months from the datc ofconrnrencement of this Act and the relevant part of the Act is reproduced 'Pro ded that prcte.tsthotore ongoins an the dote aJ cannenLeneht olths Actond for ||hich the conpletbn certiJi'oiP ho' n'n he'h i(rPtt the promoter sho ll nake on app|.otion ta the Autharny lot teqtstradon aJ the ratd prctect within o Petiod ol three nantht l.on the doQ o| .. n nE n ce m e n t oI thb Act.

The legrslatron is very clear in this aspect that a proiect shall be rega.ded as an bngoing project" until receipt of completion certilicate Since no Pagc 17oi24 )) q tompr nlNo 24-5 of lu.l 8 !A?E? @G_RGRA[4'.onp'1.\o/4',or,].. conrpletion certificate has yet been obtained by the pronroter-builder with rcsards to the concerned projecL Moreover, it is observcd that the allotted unit of the complainant wns cnncelled on 01.09.2016, the respondents have iailed to refund the amount to thc conrplainant so lar, which clearly shows a subsisting I'ability.

Ftrrthc., the la$ oflimitation is, as such, not applicable to the pro.eedings under die Act and has to b. secn case to case.

Thus, the objection of thc respondent w r.t. the complaint being barred by limitation stands .ejected.

Entitlement of the complainantl H.l Dircct th. respondent to refuod the amount of Rs,48,46,909/ to the complainant along with interest @24olo peranrum. l hccomplnrnanthas booked the residential apartment rn th. prorect nanr.d as 'The Corridors situated at sector 67A for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,73,08,26il 'lhe complaiDant was allotled the above_mentioned un'i vilc allormenr lerter dated 07.08.2013.

Thereafter, the apa.tment buyer ngreement was cxecuted between the pa.tief on 03.04.2014.

As Per clause 13 olthe agreement, the respondent was required to hand over possess'on of the unit within a period of 42 months from the datc ol aPprov. ol aPprov.rls oi building plans and/or fulfilment or the preconditions rmposed thereunder lco rnntmentpcriodl witha gracep.riodof 180daysaftertheexpiryof the said comnitnrent period to allow ior unforeseen delays.

The due dirle ol possession calculatcd hom the date of apProval oa building Plans 'e, 23.072013 'lherefore, the due date of possession comcs out to be 11.01.2018. b '." to. ,o 24.

2\ II, Complaint No.

2475 or2022 dated 29.03.2015 & 23.04.2015 29.06.2016 & respectively raised the demand towards lourth, xd raised demand for making payment f.om the respondent has also sent a rinal note on lant and requested to pay the outstanding dues led to pay the same.

Ilue to non-payment ofthe rndent has cancelled the unit vide letter datcd espondent threatened the complainant to forieit iained th€ occupaqion certificate in respect oithc latnant on 27.01.2022- The complainant is a make payment as per the agreed payment plan rl opportunities Were given to the comPlainant was cancelled vide letter dated 01.09.2016 nr failed to abide py the terms ofthe agreement rties by defaulting in making payments in a time ther this cancellalron is vdhd or ug "r-"",[1"^, *r,i.r, *,.auly sisned by ord thaf the complainant booked the paymeht plan and paid an amount of rderaiiln or Rs.1,73,08.26rl- which )nsldertion and he has paid the last Pale rg ol21 p. )t rsi eI th f ht rllr Ll *HARERA S-alRiJGRA[/ The respondent vide letter 22.07 .2076, aad r2-04.20r( fifth and sixth instalment, a complainant.

Further, the 28.07.2016, to the complail but the complainant has fai outstanding dues, the resp 01.09.2016 videwhich ther the entire amount paid byl That the respondent has ob allotted unit of the comf defaulter and has failed to Various reminders and ffn and thereafter the unit Accordingly, the complainz to sell executed inter'se pa bound manner as per payn Now, the question before tl The authority has gone thr both the parti€s, it is mal aforesaid unit under the il Rs. the il Rs.48,46,910/- towards constitutes 28%r of the tc 26.

28 14 Comd r nr No 2475.12022 ;;;L-, N;t;,;; l L 4.

The respondent has obtained the occupation allotted unit oi the complainaot on 27 -Ol-2022- ') olAct of 2016, the allottee is under obl'ganon consideration ofallotted unit as per agreement As per the payment plan respondent started complainant.

The respondent vide letter dated and towards fourrh in.telment ,nd due to non ainant it sent reminder on 29.03.2015 and ari ou s instalments fo r payments were .a ised bu t ay the same.

Further the respondent sent final xd thereafter the respondent has cancelled the 20t6.

4 of the buyer'q agreement, the respondent rcelthe unit in casEtheallottee has breached the C between both the parties.

Clause 7.4 of the rced as under fori ready.eierencel oble to po! snple n&resr an eeery detoled palnenL ' olnun trom the dnte thot it is due lor poyment I potnent thercol ln coe the Allaxee delatks tn d u e i ns to I i m ent ( i n.lud i hg po rti o I d elal lt) beyon d a m the du. dote, th. company shdll be entitle4 lor eonrcl the Allntnent ond teminote this D thercolter n ac.otdohce hercwith. ttowever, the irely, in it! sate distrctian, tnsteod deade h ehlorce E5 fron the Allattee by eeking Specilic Perlatmdne utther, in everJ such care al aeldyed poyneht, e ol Puyheht Plan, rhe subsequent .tedn aJ su.h 'polnents olang with delared tnteten in de d.count I not ho||evet canstitLt. wa|er af the lght ol p.ein otut \holl ol||oys be ||ithaut preiudice ta thc ta tetnnote thk Agreeneht in the nannet prav ed Ar' i}HARERA -&-cLrnLcruv payment only on 15.05 20 As per section 19[6] & 19( cerrficare rn respect of the to sale dated 03.04.2014. raising payments from the 03 03 2015 raisPd the dem payment from the comp 23.04.2015 and thereafter the complainant tailed to norice dared 28.07.2016, a unit vide letter dated 01.09 Further, as per clause 7 /promoter has a.ight to ca agreement to sell execute agrc. cute agrc.ment to sell is reprod to make payments toward 74 Th.

Alkmeesholl beL a.m.,rnt N.

2475.12022 a.mo, nI N" r475,,r l0rl clause provides that the promoter has right to respect of the unit upon default under the said t/promoter issued demands letter and lurther, ration letterto th€ complainant.

The respondent complainants after giving adequate dehahdr )ondent company has already obtained the e protect ofthe allotted unit on 27.01.2022.

Thus, Ithe subject unit is valid and the reliefsought by Leclinedasthecomplainant-allottee has violated :6) & (7) ofAct of2015 by deiaulting in making d payment plan.

However, there is nothinS on alance amount after deduction as per relevant en refunded back to the complainant.

1n view oi s, only relund 6an be granted to the complainanr prescnbed under law. eduction of earngsl nroney on cancellation ol a tada Bux vg Unibn oJ tndia, (1970) l SCR 928 Cm Raj Urs, VS.

Sorah C.

Urs., (2015) 4 SCc 136, rat forfeiture of the amount in case ol breach of e and ifforfeiture is in the nature ot p.nalty, then Contr:ctAcl1872 ar. attached and the party so ldamages.

After cancellation ofallotment, the nat such there is hardlyany actualdamage.

National F!\dl aonmrYron. .^ cL/4t\/2a1e RamP\h A/- ISHARERA tS- eunuennv 30.

That th€ above mentioned terminate the allotment in agreement.

The responden issued finalnote cum termi cancelled the unit of the notices.

Further, the res the cancellation in respect thecomplai.ant is hereby thc provrsron of section 19 payments as per the agre record to show that the clause ofagreement has b the aforesaid circumstance alter.ertain deductioDs as 31.

The issue with regard to contract arose in cases of o(.upaIon (ertifi cate for th ondsirdorK-8.

Ram Chan provrsions or sec0on 74 of iorfeitine muslProveactu and wherein it was held t .onba.t must be reasonab remains with the builder a Consumer Disputes Red Complarnr No 2475 of20ZZ lrHARERA &-c p nrav F*p*^" ''5"i'04 ;;,;;;"r;.";-",, ""F Land Limited @lcded on /s.06. on /s.06.2020) on(t Mt. saumv stnyat vs.

M/s tRlo Private Linitt tdecided on 12 04.20221 atd Iotlo'9?d in CC/2766/2011 h cose tttbd 4loyont stnghot ond Ant. vs.

M3M tndta Ltntted dectufd on 26.07.2021, held thar 10% of basi( sale pn, e is rcdsonrble rmounlro be rorleited,n the name of'earnest monev .

XeFping in view the princille( laid down rn tie firsr two cdses. r regularron knosn a\ the Haryana Real Es(dte Regfldlory Aurhoriry Gurusram (Forrerrure ol cdrne\r monlr bv the builderl degLrlat,ons.

I I {5) ol20l8. wds farmed provid,nqas underl ,. o*ou^ o, ^*narnor, s. "na, o p, tot b the Rht E tare (kart o|s ant Dewtop*nt) Act zan wo. di ltere rro ud' v+rc, o ed out wthoitt o at la t o, ther e wo' na tow tor thp vac but novtnvp\| ol$e obove lo.qt ond rokins htorcnrdctanon th" tudqpnpnb olHoh bl?

Natonot .onsmqlDnpuet nedt 6\ot cann s'on ord thp Hon-bte $p.4e t outL olt4dia, the 4 hot iA a at rh. vEw .hat ,hc tuneture ohomt d t tAporne:t noney *dl hot exceed moe thon 10% oJ the .onsrle.arion ahount ol the eot stot4 12. apdrtm.nt/ptot /bull. n0 os the @se noy b" n oh co\es wh.rc the ,on.ellonon oJthP ftorruh'volot t' dode by Lhe butaet h a uhlaremt nannq ot ne burq h,.ads ta wthd,aw hn ie praiTt ond 4.y os,eedent ,oito nina ant - ta* @nttoa to the ovor?\otd requtottons lholl be vo'd and not btnd as on hP huvet so, keppins in vrew tfre lbw lard down by the Honble Apex.ourt and provrsrons of rpgularion l]l ol 2018 frame{ by the Haryana Real E<rrre Requla(ory Authoriry, GurLeram. and the responoent/burlder cdn l relarn more rhdn loqo ol sale cor]r,a.ratio" ,. ""rrr"rt.oney on cancellation bur rhrr sJ\ nor done so, thF respondent/builder is dtrecred ro retund the amourt received lrom rhd compiaindnts dffer deductrng l00b of rhe (ale consid€ration and return tl," *".4r r,.*+ r"r, *ith interest at the rate or I085qo (lhe Sldre Brnt( oi lndia highest marSinal cost ol lendrng rate 32. ff.lr,.rl aeericabre as on late +2%) as elscribed ** 1::r;:l: ComhLa nt \.. hLa nt \..

2475ot2022 & HARERI\ .od.r nr\.

14 l,or l0l- P c ).cll^N/ Haryana Real Estate IRegulation and Development) Rules,2017, lrom the datc of termination/cancellation 01.09.2016 till the actualdate of refund ol the amount within the timelines provided in rule 15 of the Haryana Rules 2017 ibid.

H.ll To pass and award of Rs.50,00,000/- in ravour or the .omplainant against the respondetrt on account of d€f.ult in compliance th. tcrms and condition ofthe agreehen! danaSes on account olstru&ile, alo.g with interestat the rate of24yo per.nnum, 33. lhe complainant is seeking relief w.r.t. compensation in the above mentioned reliefs.Iior?te Suprene Court ol India in mse title.l os M/s Nev/tech Promoters ond Deeelopers Pt L Ltd.

V/s State ol Up & Ors. (2021' 2oZZ(1) RCR(C) 357), h?s held that an allottee is entitled to clann compensation & liiigation charges under sections 12,14,18 and section 19 lvhich rs to be decided by the adiudicating olficer as per section 71 and thc quantum oi compensatlonl & litigatro. expdnse shall be adjudged by the ad,udrcating officer havinC due regard to thl iactors mentioned in section 72.

The adjudicat,ng officer has exclusive iurisdiction to deal with the ,ont,l,,nr\ r1 r..pp,i oi (ompensdlron I le8al experse\.

Th"r"for..'ur clainling compensation under sections 12, 1i, 18 and section 19 ofthe Act, ,r,c, umplarnJnt. mdy file a \Fparate compld nr b"tor- Ad,udrcrlrre Olr. .r under section 31 read with section 71 orihe Act and rule 29 ofthc rules L Dir€ctions ofthe authority 34.

Hcnce, the authonty hereby passes this order and issues the ibllowing dircctions under section 37 olthe Act to ensure complisnce of obligations cast upon the promoteras perthe function entrusted tothe authority under s.ction 34[i]: 4 ,"r' ,, ,,n 35.

36.

HARE D- GURUG Rs.1,73, 10.85% (14cLR) Comphint Llated: 08 0 .2424 pondent is Rs. ent is Rs.48,4 ,910/-after Real Ertdte ( 8,251l- bein (the State i\t No, 2475 ol 2022 d the educting 1090 i the ng with k of Ind,a highes n date +z%) as p nterest at the rate of cost of lend,nS rare under rule 15 of the t) Rules,2017, from 9.2016 I' g whi )-t-z-- lray Kumar Goyal) RE RUGR Gurugram