RAJENDERA KUMAR vs VATIKA GROUP
Party Details
- RAJENDERA KUMAR
- VATIKA GROUP
Case Summary
RAJENDERA KUMAR filed Case No. RERA-GRG-1545-2019 in the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against VATIKA GROUP. The case has undergone 20 hearings over 3 years and 9 months. The case was disposed of on 4 Jul 2023. 21 orders have been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (20)
- 4JUL 2023Hearing
Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA
Order pronounced allowing the rectification requested by the complainant allottee under section 39 of the Act on 15.12.2022. Detailed order will follow. Matter stands disposed off. File be consigned to the registry.
Stage: DISPOSED
- 16MAY 2023Hearing
Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA
The aforesaid complaint was disposed of vide order dated 25.08.2021. The complainant -applicant filed application for rectification on 15.12.2022 and seeking following amendments:- Sr. No. Directions as per order dated 25.08.2021 Changes proposed 1. i. The allottees have already paid a sum of Rs. 16,84,169/- to the respondent/builder. So, they are entitled to that amount beside interest @9.30% per annum from the date of each payment. ii. The respondent is directed to allot a new unit. A suitable unit in the project shall be offered to complainant by the respondent within a period of 2 months after adjusting the amount paid by the allottees besides interest accrued thereon by way of delay possession charges and that would be counted as settlement towards the allotment of the new unit. iii. It is considered significant that the developer shall take a lenient view in this context. i. The complainant-applicant submitted that interim relief granted on 28.07.2021 shall also be incorporated in final order dated 28.08.2021; w.r.t. incorporation of relief that “the respondent is directed to make efforts to allot an alternative unit to the complainant if the booked unit in not available with the respondent at the same price and same size.” The counsel for the respondent states that the application for rectification has been filed under section 152 of CPC 1908 seeking amendment in the final order passed on 25.08.2021 which is not maintainable. Further, the relief sought amounts to review of the order and is not admissible and has placed on record a copy of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that once the final order has been passed, all the interim orders ceases to exit. However, the counsel for the complainant states that application has been filed under section 39 of the Act, 2016 and no fresh directions are being sought as the same is only for the incorporation of interim orders of the authority passed from time to time. The counsel states that Hon’ble Apex court has held that “it is true that final decree is always required to be in conformity with the preliminary decree but that does not mean that a preliminary decree, before the final decree is passed, cannot be altered or amended or modified by the trial court in the event of changed or supervening circumstances even if no appeal has been preferred from such preliminary decree”. Arguments heard. Order reserved. Matter to come up on 04.07.2023 for pronouncement of order.
Stage: RESERVED
- 2MAY 2023Hearing
Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA
The aforesaid complaint was disposed of vide order dated 25.08.2021 by Shri Samir Kumar and Shri Vijay Kumar Goyal – Members. On 15.12.2022 the complainant -applicant had moved an application for rectification of the order dated 25.08.2021 seeking the following amendments:- i. The allottees have already paid a sum of Rs. 16,84,169/- to the respondent/builder. So, they are entitled to that amount beside interest @9.30% per annum from the date of each payment. ii. The respondent is directed to allot a new unit. A suitable unit in the project shall be offered to complainant by the respondent within a period of 2 months after adjusting the amount paid by the allottees besides interest accrued thereon by way of delay possession charges and that would be counted as settlement towards the allotment of the new unit. iii. It is considered significant that the developer shall take a lenient view in this context. Shri Samir Kumar member has demitted the office on 26.10.2021 and the matter needs to be re-heard in pursuance of the application for rectification of the order dated 25.08.2021. Accordingly, the authority is of the view that the matter be re-heard and placed before the full bench on 16.05.2023.
Stage: PENDING
Orders (21)
- 4JUL 2023judgementView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 4JUL 2023orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 16MAY 2023orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗
HARERA P.* GURUGI?AM BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORYAUTHORITY, GURUGRAM ORDER 1.
An application under Section 39 of Act, has been filed by the complainant on 15.12.2022 for rectification of order dated 25.08.2021, passed by the Authority.
Following directions were passed vide order 25.08.2021 of Autho rity: i.
The ollottees hove already poid a sum of Rs.
16,84,169/- to the respondent/builder.
So, they are entitled to that amount beside interest @ 9.300/o per onnum from the date of each poyment.
Complaint No.
1.545 of 2019 : 1545 ofz0lg : L5.12.2O22 t O4.O7.2O23 Complainant Respondent Member Member Member Complainant Respondent Complaint no.
Date of application Date of decision Rajendera Kumar R/o: F-439, Mahilpalpur, New Delhi-110037.
M/s Vatika Ltd Address: Vatika Triangle,5th Floor Sushant Lok - l,Block A, ,Mehrauli Gurgaon Road Gurgaon -722002.
CORAM: Sh.
Vijay Kumar Goyal Sh.
Ashok Sangwan Sh.
Sanjeev Kumar Arora APPEARANCE: Complainant in Person with Sh.
Rajiv Kumar Khare Sh.
Pankaj Chandola /r- Page 1 of 6 HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.
1545 of2019 ii.
The respondent is directed to allot o new unit.
A suitoble unit in the project sholl be offered to comploinont by respondent within a period of 2 months after adjusting the omount poid by the ollottees besides interest occrued thereon by way of deloy possesslon chorges ond that would be counted settlement towords the allotment of the new unit. iii.
It is considered significant that the developer shall take a lenient view in this context.
Upon perusal of the document the Authority gives the following finding.
Finding by the Authority The Authority observes that the complainant initially filed an application u/s 1,52 of CPC for rectification of order dated 25.08.2021 and submitted that the direction given by the Authority in earlier proceedings dated 28.07.2021 relating to same price and same size have not been incorporated in the final order passed by the Authority on25.08.2027.
5.08.2027.
The respondent filed a reply to said application on 01.05.2023 wherein challenging the maintainability of said application on ground that the same is filed under Section 152 of CPC and thus, is not maintainable.
Thereafter, an application under Section 39 of Act was filed on 15.12.2022 was filed by the complainant for rectification of order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the Authority.
The section 39 of Act of 2016 provides as under: Section 39: Rectilication of orders "The Authority moy, ot ony time within a period of two yeors from the date of the order made under this Act, with a view to rectifuing ony mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by il and shall moke such amendment, if che mistoke is brought to its notice by the porties: 2.
A.
J.
4.
5. rL Page 2 of 6 HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.
1545 of2079 Provided that no such amendment shall be mode in respect of any order against which an appeol has been preferred under this Act: Provided further that the Authority shall not, while rectifying ony mistake opparent from record, amend substantive port of its order passed under the provisions of this Act 6.
The aforesaid plea of the respondent is not-tenable as no doubt initially the application u/s 152 of CPC was filed but atter that application under Section 39 for rectification was also liled on 15.1.2.2022.It was in pursuance of application dated 15.12.2 022 only, the matter was fixed for hearing on 13.04.2023 and email in this regard was sent by Authority on 1.3.03.2023 to both the parties.
Further, during the course of proceedings dated 13.04.2023, the said objection was raised by the respondent wherein challenging the maintainability of application on the ground that an application under CPC is not maintainable before this Authority and also that the above amendment would amount to review of order which is not permissible under the Act of 2016.
It was further pleaded by it that application under section 39 was not received to it. ved to it.
In view of aforesaid circumstances, directions were issued to the complainant to supply the copy of same to the other party.
Now the respondent has filed the reply to aforesaid application on 01.05.2023 wherein again taking the same plea that the said application u/s 152 of CPC is not maintainable.
The Authority is of considered view that when it has already bought to the knowledge of the respondent vide proceedings dated 13.04.2023, that another application dated 75.1.2.2022 under Section 39 of Act has already been filed after such application under Section 152 of CpC which was earlier filed by the applicant, Now at this stage any such Page 3 of 6 HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.
1545 of 2019 plea by the respondent is mere delay tactics and nothing else.
Thus, keeping in view the fact that the application later filed under Section 39 of Act was well within the knowledge of the respondent, and is within limitation period prescribed under section 39 of the Act,201,6.
The said plea ofthe respondent is hence, rejected.
The respondent submitted that the relief sought amounts to review of the order and is not admissible and placed copy oforder passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that once the final order has been passed, all the interim orders ceases to exit.
0n the other hand, the counsel for the complainant states that application has been filed under section 39 of the Act,20L6 and no fresh directions are being sought as the same is only for the incorporation of interim orders of the Authority passed from time to time.
The Authority observes that the complainant initially booked the subject unit in 2011 and till date no possession of same has been handed over to him.
Thus, exercising the liberty under Section 18(1J of Act, the complainant filed a complaint before the Authority wherein seeking possession and delay possession charges against the same.
Vide proceedings dated 28.07. ted 28.07.2027, the direction were issued to the respondent to allot an alternate unit to the complainant if the booked unit is not available with the respondent at the same price and same size.
The complaint was thereafter disposed of vide order dated 25.08.2021 of Authority wherein allowing delay possession charges to the complainant-allottee, which continued with direction that the 7.
9.
Page 4 of 6 HARERA ffi- GURUGRAM respondent was further directed to allot a new suitable unit to the complainant and further such amount to be adjusted towards DpC be counted as settlement towards the allotted unit.
It was after disposal of aforesaid complaint that the respondent offered alternative unit to the complainant at the prevailing market rate prices.
The Authority observes that it is an undisputed fact that the prices of property has changed with the rate of inflation from many folds from 2011 to 2021, and it is respondent-builder who is at fault and has failed to handover the possession of the allotted unit to the complainant resulting in making him run from post to pillar to secure the amount paid by him.
In cases where the complainant approaches the Authority seeking refund of the amount paid against allotted unit, an interest component is awarded to equalize the amount paid by the allottee at time of booking/allotment or any other milestone titl date of refund of such amount.
But it is a case where the complainant has approached the Authority seeking delay possession charges and wishes to continue with the project.
Thus, at this stage of time the complainant cannot be asked to make payment of property at new prevailing prices with no fault at his part.
Even otherwise, if the same is not taken into consideration then it would result in a scenario where respondent-builders would pool refund from innocent buyers at the initial stages of the project and later, as soon as the market rates improves would make one or other excuse to alienate/tran sfer the property. property.
Thus, it is fair and justified interpretation of the present Complaint No.
1545 of2019 10.
11.
Page 5 of 6 ffiHAREBA ffi. euRueRnu Complaint No.
1545 of2019 complaint that the proceedings dated 28,07.2021 be read as part and parcel of order dated 25.08.2021,.
Therefore, the order dated 25.08.2021 is hereby clarified that the new unit of the same size shall be allotted to the complainant-allottee at the same price as per the terms and conditions of the original buyer's agreement.
Y^Y*dr^, Member Haryana Real Estate Regulatory [uthority, Gurugram Dated: 04.07 .2023 Page 6 of 6