RISHABH NAGPAL AND SUSHIL NAGPAL vs VATIKA ONE ON ONE PVT. LTD.

ffr]alERA Seunuennu aompla'nino 15l7 of 2022 BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM 11220a2. ;l ,,n,l.F I CORAIvII )ra/ sl'ri.Sanjeev KumarA.ora MPnrh.r APPEARANCE: YE aeeY Sh.

Caurav Rarvatp.oxy Advocates lo. the.omnlar.,nrc GUR The present complaint has been nled by the complainant/allottees under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 [in short, the Act) read with rule 28 olthe Haryana Real Estate (Regutaoon and Development) Rules,2017 (in short, rhe Rulesl forviotation ofsedion 11(4)(a) ofthe Act wherein it is inter alia prescr,bed that the promoter 1537 ol2022 Date otfi lins comDlaint: 26,O4,2022 First date ofhearinsl 20,07,2022 30.05.2023 AM ORDER ?. *HARERA l$aLnrLennH,r Complaint no.

1537 of2022 shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and [unctions under the provisions of th€ Act or the rules and regulations made there underorto the alloftees as perthe agreemenrfor sale executed inter se.

Proiectand unit relat€d d€iails The particulars ofthe project, the details ofsale consideration, the amount paid by the complainanl date of proposed handins over the possession and delay period, jlany, have been d tailed in the iollowing tabular formi S, No Information 1 Name and location ol the sil fQIr one Phase- L. sectoF 16, village tkbPra\Gurusram 2.

3.

12.13125 rcres 4.

05 of201s dated 06.08 2015 at )a 202t 29 t7.2017 le no.18 olconrplarntl 534,5u floor, Block 3 fDaPe no r8 olthe conrDlaintl 500 sq.It. fDase no.18 orth. comDlaintl I t Executed buidare is not mentioned 10.

Duedateofpossession cannot be ascertained ll Totalsaleconsiderarion Rs.41,2S,000/ {Dase no.

26 of comDlaiDtl 12 Rs.41,20,000/- (tu alleged by complainant on pageno.10 B, 8. *HARERA S errnrnnnvr Complarntno.

I537 oi20Z2 tacts ofthecomplaint That the respondents approached rhe complainant aor investment in commercial unit in'Vatika 0ne on One' of approximately 500 sq. ly 500 sq. feetsuper area and handed overto the complainantprospectus enticinghim to invest in the project in as murh as assured rnonthly return and lease rentat was Assu.ed rctum dru\e As pet clduse 2 of ollotment leier That the payment ofyou. ossured return ol Rs 150.26/- pet sq. lr pe. nonth on super area will commence onty on receipt oI 100ok ol b6ic sale consl.leratioh by us lrom you, tn terms ol the poymett plon/schedule ot palDetr.as aSrecd/opred by you and wi and will be poi.l till the completion ol the constuction of the sal.l buil.ling-Post comDletion .onstruction ol the said & you will be paid commrrred ^of Rs 131/-persq.ft. permonthon areo lor up to threeyeors Jrom to oI construction oJ the soi.l e sai.l uait is put on leose o.Iier You will be enriil.d rentin respect olsaid unir t connnencemenr date in lease docunent as may h prospective tenant. lf -tree period on accountof ise, rhen you wrll not be d forrentduring rent f.ee pe.iod. {*A ir4 |.'/.'t* 2 I .ralq w hll 30.09.2018 75,21sl [annexure R3 plyl 14 #HARERA !l- cuncnnu Compla nt no 1537 of2022 9.

The respond€nt shared allorment letter to the complainant dated 29.11.2017 mentioning terms and conditions tor booking comme.cial space at One on One, Sector 16, Curgaon.

As per allotment letter, rhe respondent agreed to pay Rs 150.26l- per sq. ft. per month otsuper a.ea as assured return to the complainant rill date of completjon of bujlding.

On the basis of representations made by it the attottee submitted an ofa unit in the p.ojectin quesj 10.

That as per clause 2 o assured return to the pr dared 29.11.2017, the sq.lt. of super area as completion of building. f 0(tober 2018. po it il ed assu.ed return lr.m obtained the 0C in respect of block 3 ofcommerclalbu or 16, Gurgaon where the booked unit is situated t te.

Tl mplainants had already paid Rs 41,20,000/- out of total sale considerahon olRs 41,25,000/- as and when 11. complainants. plainants.

However, rhe respondent has failed to abide all the obligations of him stated orally and under the buyer agreement duly executed between both th€ presentparties.

12.

Therefore, the complainants a.e forced ro file presentcomplaintbetore the authority under section 3l ofReal Estate Regulation and DevelopmentAcr, demanded by respondent on a timely basis.

That the complainants had invested their hard-earned money in the *HARERA S-arnLrcnnv Complarnr no 1517or2022 2016 read with Rule 28 of Haryana Reat Estare (Regulation and Developmentl Rules, 2017 to seekredressal of thesrievances asainstthe C.

Relief sought by the complainants: The conplainants have sought following relieiGJ: i.

Direct the respondent to pay agreed assured return charges of Rs.

29.

On the date o 67,621/- pet mofih a complainants accrued offer ofpossession alon ii.

Directthe resp er€st at the prescribed rate to the nth ofOctober 2018 to the date of $fuc construction works and ed to the respondent/ have been committed in pla D.

Reply by the respon i-es9 guilty o. not to plead guilty.

The respondent has contested the complaint on the lollowinggrounds. a.

That the conrplainant has got no locus slandior cause olnction ro lilr the complainL The complaint is based on an e..oneous inrerpreration ofthe prov,sions ofthe Act as wellas an incorrect understanding ofrhe terms and conditions of th e BBA dated 20.07.2020. as shall be evident from the submissions made in the follow,ngparas ofthe presenrreply. b.

That ,t is pertinent to ment,on that the presenr complaint is not maintainable before the Authority as it is apparent from the prayers sought in the €omplainr.

The buyer's agreement dated 20.07.2020 does lPHARERA # GURUGRAM nrisdirected themselves a above captioned complaint before the authoritv as the reli imed by him cannot be said to lall within thc realm ofjurisdiction ofthe authority. authority.

Ir is humblv subnrirted that upon the enactmcnt of the Banning of tjDregulated Deposir Schemes Act, 2 019, the'asiiidd return' and or any "co mmirted returns" Conplarntno.

1537of 2022 not contain any assured return clauses further there has been no addendumtotheeffectofassuredretu.ns.Further,therespondenrhas also dulycompleted the construction, applied for occupation cerrificate and received the same on 06.09.2021, thus the complainr ought ro be dismissed outrishtly.

That at the very outset it is submitted that the complaint is not maintainable or tenable in the eyes oi la!v.

The complainant has on the d epo sit schem es have been banned.

The respondents havins not taken registration from SEBI Board cannot run, operate, contrnue an Depositsl Rules, 2014, resulted in making the assured reiurn/committed rerurn and similarschemes as unregulated schemes as being within the defioition of"deposit". d- As per section 3 ofthe BUDS Act, all unregulated deposit scheme has been stricdy banned and deposit takers such as builde.s, cannot, direcdy or indirectly promote, operate, issue any advertisemenr soliciting pa(icipation or enrolmentin or accept deposit.

Thus, secrion 3 ofthe BUDS Act, makes the assured return schemes. of the builde.s and promoters, illegal and punishable under law.

Further as per rhe assured return scheme.

The imDlications oa enactmenr ol BUDS Act read with the Companies Act 2013 and Companies [Acceptancc oi *HARERA S- grrrunnnl,r Complaint no.1537 ot 2022 SE B I Act, 1992, collechve investment schemes as defined undersection 11AA can only be run and operated by a registered person.

Hence, the assured return schemes have become illegalby theoperation oflawand the respondent cannot be made to run a scheme which has become infructuousby law.ltis also important to relyupon clause 35 ofthe BBA dated 21.07.2011 which specifically caters to the situation where certain provisions of rhe agreement become inoperable due ro applicat,on oi1aw. ,on oi1aw.

Thus, int deserues to be dismissed ar the very outset, wthout w s time olthis.uthor v to gain the u the fair rdJu forc the autho.ity with clean hands n just_qo harass the .espondent a nd (o mentron here that for ed by them .equire detailed cross examination.

Thus, only the cases requrred detailed re the Authonty srrh Lrnclern mplainants just to harass the respondent and to gain uniust enrichment.

The acrual reason fo. fi1ing ofthe complaint stems from thechanged fi nancial valuation ofthe real estate sector, in the past iew years and the allortee malicious intention to earn some easy buck.

Th e covid pandemic has given people to thinkbeyond the basic ]egal way and to attempt to gain financially at the cost of others.

The complainants have instituted rhe presenr false and vexatious compla,nt against the respondent who has already fflaltERA S, crnrcn,qv Complr'nt no.1537 or Z02Z fulfilled its obligation as deffned under th€ buyert agreement dated 20.o7.2020_ g.

That the complainants entered into an agreement i.e., buyer,s agreementdated 20.07.2020wjth respondent owirg to th€ name, good will and reputation of the respondent.

According to the rerms of the buyer's agreement dated 20.07.2020, the construction oi unit was oject has already been received on 0b.09.2021 The present complain illcd understanding of 2016.

The legi derstand,ng the catalytic for housrng ied theRERA Act,2016 aiming the promoter/developer, section 19 provides the rights and duties of alloftee.

Hence, the RERA Act, 2016 was never intended to be biased legislation preferring the allottee, rather the intent was to ensure thar both the allottee and the developerbe keptat parand either ofthe parry should not be made to suffer due to act or omission of part ofthe other. on the basis of incor.ect f enactment ofthe REM, Act certain responsibilities on both. s on both.

Thus, while sections 11 to section 18 ol the RERAAct,2016 describes and prescribes the function and dutres ol eal estate sector jn lulfi lling the needs and demnnds frastructure in the country, and the absence ol a ovide professionalism and st:ndardization ro rhc 'esr rlllhe, on.er n5 orborh buyer. dno promorer. *HARERA S-arnucnm,r Complarnt no.

1537 or202Z h.That it is brought to the knowledge of rhe Authority that the complainants are guilty of placing untrue facts and is artempting ro h ide thetrue colourofthe intent,on of the complainants.

That before buying the property f.om theerstwhile allotrees, the comptainants were aware ofthe status ofthe projectand the factthatthe com merc,at unit was only rntendpd ror lease and never Ior phy(i.rlpossessron. i.

That the complainant i ing to seek an advantage ol the :or, and it is apparent from the facts of the present rdse rhrr t ose ol the present complaint is to igniting fnvoiou5 rssues with dents Thus. dre p,eser ! action has ar,sen tilldate 30.

Copies of all the r record.

Their authenti nts and hence, the complarnt .\ flm nt"a "na pacea on ttre e.

Hence. the complarnt Lan be E.

Jurisdictionoftheauthorlty 31.

The respondenthas ralsed pieliminary objection regard ing ju risdictio n of authority to entertain the present complaint.

The authority observes thar it has territorial as well as subject matter jurisdiction ro adjudicare the present complaint for the reasons given below.

E.

I Territorial iurisdiction decided on the basis oithcsc undisputed docunrents and {bnrissron Lrde ftHARERA 4,cLrnLGn,c[/ CohDIaintno.

1537of 2022 32.

As per notification no.1l9212017.1TCp dated14.12.2017 issued byTown and Country Planning Department, Haryana the jurisdiction ofReal Estate Regulatory Authority, Curugram shall be entire Curugram Djstrict for all purposewithofficessituatedinGurugram.

Inthepresentcase,theproject in question is situated within the planning a.ea of Gurugram D,strict.

D,strict.

Therefore, this authority has complere territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint.

E.Il Subiect-matter iu ris 33. section 11[a]ta) of the .esponsible to the a Section 11(4ltal is Part al the bu de. buyer's uA.lotcd....,.

Accotdtnglr, ) b h9 o tD n s/rc rpoh si bt t i t e s The pravdon of osured dgteenent, o5 pet clouse entalassuted returns os ptovided I cri o n 3 4 - Fu n.rion s ol t h e Au rn on ar : 344 oI the Act provides to fisure conpliance of ke obligotions cost upon the ptunot^, the ollottees ond th. rcal estote agents underthisActond the rulesond r.gulations node thereunder 34.

So, in view of the provisions of the Act of 2016 quoted above, the authority has complete jurisdiction to decide rhe complaint regarding t all abliootioh\ tP on\l SHARERA S*eunuG,aAM Complarnr no 1537or2022 non-compliance ol obligations by the promorer leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicating ofticer if pursued by the cornplainant ata larerstage.

F, Findings on the relief sought by the complainantsl 35.

The comrnon issues witi regard to delayed possession charges, assured return and Utigation charges areinvolved in both the cases.

36.

The complainant has sought i clruse 2 of the allotme on monthly bas,s as per Rs.

150.26l- per sq.ft. of super a.ea per month ti building.ltwasa or completion ffi "o.."..i,r ,nit i.\,$' .""rona"n, rrr. no,)tf; f construction of ihe said allotmentletterthatthe . super area ofthe said ree years from the date uilding or till the said arlier. lt is pleaded that the terms and conditiobs ot the ofthe Banning of thregulated Deposii Schemes Act, 2019 (here,n alter reierred to as the Act oi 20191.

But thar Act does not create a bar for payment of assured returns even after coming into operation and the payments made in th,s regard are protected as per section 2(4)(iii) ofrhe above-mentioned Act. ioned Act.

However, the plea ofrespondenr is otherwise and who took a stand thatthough it paid the amountofassured rerurns upto a8reement.

Though for some hme, the amount of assured rerurns wirs paid but later on, the respondent retused to paythe same by raking a plca ffHARERA 9P- eLrnrcnml Complaintno.

I517ot2022 the year 2018 but did not pay the same amount after coming into force of the Act of2019 as itwas declared illegal.

37.

The Act of 2016 defines "agreement for sale" means an agreemenr entered into between the promoter and the allottee [Section 2(c]1.

An agreement for sale is defined as an arrangement entered between rhe promoter and allottee with freewill and consent of both the parhes.

An after comlng inffi Ii.e., agreement defines the ri promoter and th€ alloftee relationshiD between t "agreement" entered be India & ors., ( 'rei\tSitt i" the mean,ns or the ryr ,\f{ *o +*".*, o ,n" e fafiF!: Rre "agreement lor sale" ks the start of new contracrual ctual relationship gives rise to hem The.liif..enr klnds or 016 does not rewrite the nd allottee pnor to com,ng into 'ble Bombay High Court in case te Ltmited.'nd Anr. v/s Union ol Since the agreement defines the buyer-promoter relationship therefore, it can be said that the agreement for assured returns between the promoter and allottee a.ises out ofthe same relationship.

Therefore, it can be said that the real estate regulatory authority has complete jurisdiction to deal with assured return cases as the contractual relationship arise out ofagreement for sale only and between th€ same *HARERA ($- eunLrcnltvt Compla ntno 1537 of20Z2 parties as per the provisions ofsection 11(4)(a) ofthe Act of 2015 which provides that the promoter would be responsible lor aU the obligations under the Act as per the agreement for sale till the execution of conveyance deed oathe unit in favour of rhe allottees.

Now, rhree issues arise for considerano. nsiderano. as to: ii Whetherauthority is within thejurisdiction to vary its earlier stand regard,ng assured retums due to changed facts and to allow assured returns 38.

While taking up Singh & Anr.

Vs.

Yeneta r.

M/s Londmork f 2018), and sh.

Rharan cts LLP (complaint no 175 ol :,,1 **".fI.ftRB [tA-,:-very, it was h€id 0v ueautnonrv that tt nas no tuflsdrcEon lo oeatwru cases ot assured '"** r*,'G[rlRuffi,AM,".,red returns was involved to be paid bythe builder to an allottee but at that tlme, neither the tull facts were brought before the authority nor it was argued on behalf of the allottees that on the basis of €onFactual obligations, the builder is obllgated to pay that amounL However, there is no bar to take a different view from the earlier one if new tacts and law have been brought before an adiudicating authority or the court.

There is a {THARERA #eunucnm,r Complarnt no.

1517 of 2022 doctrine of "prospective overruling,, and which provides that the law declared by the court applies to the cases arising in future onty and its applicabilty to the cases which have attained finality is saved because the repeal would otherwise wo.k hardship to rhose who had trusted to its existence.

A reaerence in rhis regard can be made ro the case of Sorwon Kumor &Anrvs, Madan Lol ACEaNal Appeal (civitl 1058 ot 2003 decided on 05.02-20 observed as mentioned .b main(ainabrliry of the co and parcelofbui terms and conditions herein the hon ble apex courr the plea rarsed with regard to e face of earlier orders oi the take a different view froh ts rnd law and rhe nitl, then thebu,lder is liable to pay that amount as agreed upon and cant take a pten thar ir js not liable to pay the amount ofassured return.

Ilroreover, an agreement for buye. relationship.

So, it can be said thar rhe returns be&veen the p.omoter and allotree arises out of the same relationship and js marked by rhe original agreement for sale. for sale.

Therefore, it can be said that the authority has complete jurisd,ction with respect to assured return cases as rhe contractual relarionship arises out ofthe agreement for sale onty and between the same contracting parties to agreement for sate_ In the case e land.

It is now well ssured reiurns is part there is a clause in that um ofunderstanding or law that when Davme *HARERA !$- cunucnnttt ComplaLntno 1537oI2022 in hand, the issue of assured returns is on the basis of contractual obligations arisingbetween th€ panies.

Then in case of PioneerUrbdn Land and lnlrostructure Llmlted & Anr. v/s Union ol Indio & Ors.

Urtt Petition (Ctvtl) No.

43 oJ 2019) decided on 09.08.2079, i\ was observed bythe Hon'bleApexCourtofthe land that"...alloBees who had entered into "assured return/committed returns' agreements with the5edevelopeE. whereby, ent ofa su bstantial portion of the total srle.onsrderanon up time ofexecution of agreemenr, the developer undertook ain amouDt to allottees on a monthly basrs from agreement till the dare oi handing over of t wes lurther held that tu.n schemes had the .me .leer from the t raised was shown as al costs".

As a resulr such ors" within the meaning of allottees were held to ;IJ::::::TTroHSHffi ;::":';:"J::":: pronouncemenr fqlislftf"l Ftf?pfkff^t,,eton Routevnd tpo nnents wefa reY*)#1i,\7,1)6,.)'# ivacc 0 ndto) Ltd. o,ti ors. l24.0s.2ozt-sc)t MANU/ sC/0206 /2021, the same view was followed as taken earlier in the case of Ploneer Urbon Land Inltostrucntre Ld & Anr. \Nith regard to the allottees of assured returns to be financial creditors within the meaning ofsechon 5(7) ofthe Code.

Then after coming into force the Act of 2016 w.e.f 01.05.2017, the v.lopers unde. assu i . borrowinp' whi *HARERA S-cLnLnnntt,l Complaintno.

1537of 2022 builder is obligated to register the project with the authority being an ongoing project as per proviso to section 3[1] of the Act o12017 read with rule 2(o) olthe Rules,2017. ules,2017.

TheAct of 2016 has no provision for re'writing of contractual obligations between the parties as held by the Hon'ble Bombay Hieh Court in case Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Private Limited ond Anr. v/s Union of lndia A Ors., (supral as quoted eadier.

So, the respondents can'ttake a plea that there was no contractual obl,gation to allottee after theAct of20 ount of assured returns to the berng executed wjth lorce or that a new agreement,s n there is an oblisation of unt ofassured returns, 39. lt is pleaded on Unresulated Depo ior payment ofassure Promse to return '|hether alte other form, by any deposit taker with a ro specifred period ot otbeMise, either in 1fr\r t r.inc " cr"" or ttl" fd"t,t"' tr'" n",,ing or e rnto force, there rs bar ee.

But again, the plea taken (4) of the above menhoned oney received by way of cash or in kind or in th€ form ofa specined service, with ot t titllout any benefrt in the form of interest, bonus, profrt or in any other forn, but does L an amount received in the course ol or lot the purpose ol business and bearing a genuine connection ta such *HARERA S-c,LrnLrcn,cM Complaint no.

1537 oi2022 business including- ii. odvonce rcceived in connection with consideration ol on inmovoble properE under an agreenentor arrangenent subject to the condition that such advance is adjusted against such inmowble properry as speciled in terns of the ag reene n t o r arrang e menL 40.

A perusal of the above-mentioned defi nition ot the term 'deposit' sh ows that it has been given the same m( ing as assigned to it under the provides under section 2[31) Compan,es Act,20ll and includes any rece,pt by 2(cl oithe Com loan or in any other form bya ies of amount as mav be of lndia.Similarly.ule ules, 2014 defines the of money by way of v y but does not rnclude. t rnclude.

41 So, keeping in view the above'mentioned provisions ol the Act of 2019 and the Companies Act 2013, it is to be se€n as to whether an allottee is entitled to assured returns in a case where he has deposited substantial amount of sale considerahon against the allotment of a unit with the builder at the time ofbooking or immediately thereafter and as agre€d upon between them. ffHARERA s,cLnLcnlrr,r Cofrplaintno.

1537oi2022 42.

The Government of lndia enacted the Eanning ol Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 to provide for a comprehensive mechanism to ban the unregulated deposit schemes, other rhan deposits taken in the ordinary course of business and 43. for matters connected therewith section 2 [4] ofthe BUDSAct 2019 or,ncidental thereto as defined in It is ev,dent from the pe i section 2tal(lltiil of the above mentioncd Act th.rt the received in .onnection with considerat,on of an im erty under an agreement or ch advances are adjusted terms of the agreement osit, which have been issory estoppel.

As per this doctrine. the made a promise and the Dromisee hes a.tFd o tered h,s position, then the is orherDromise when the , a number of cases were Sovernment to enact th€ Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 on 31.07.2019 in pursuant to the Banning ofUnregulated Deposit Scheme Ordinance, 2018.

However, the moot question to be decided is as to whether the schemes floated earlier bythe builders and promising as assured returns on the basis ofallotment of units are covered by the 4+ *HARERA $- crnrnnlr,r Complarnr no 1517 uf2022 abovementioned Act or not.

A similar issue for consideration arose before Hon'ble RERA Panchkula in case Roldev Cautam yS Rise PrcJects Private Ltmlted (REPtA-?KL-2068-2019) where in it was hetd on 11.03.2020 thata builderis liable ro pay monthlyassured returns to the complainants till possession ot respective aparrmenrs stands handed overand there is no illegaltyin this.egard.

45. egard.

45.

The definition oiterm'deposj iven in the BUDS Act 2019, has the same meaning as assigne sechon 2(al(ivl(,) i.e. ex with regard to a the y€ar 2014 definirion oldep any manner whatsoev the Companies Acl 2013, a5 per sub-clause (ivl. ln pursuant to ection 73 and 75 read with nies Act 2013, the Rules panies were framed in on 01.04.2014.

The ion 2 [c) of the above- dvance. accounted lor in ction with consideration tor an immovable p.operty under a. agreement or arrange.rent, provided such advance rs adjusted against such property in accordance with the heading'a'and d'and the amount becoming .efundable with orwirhout interest due to thereasons that the company accepting the moneydoes not have necessary permission or approval whenever required to deal in the goods or properties orservices forwhich the money is taken, then the amount received shall be deemed to be a deposit under these rules terms oldgreemqlttbl atffllge4\6n-}sr4lr1p[be4 deposll.

Thoush there . \_7Ut ( tr\7t\/1r , rs proviso to this-prowsloi X wnfl is\b the:rrhounts received under nce oideposits by th the same came into Page 19 of24 ffHI\RERA SeLtnltcnruvt Complajntno, 1537of 2022 however, the same are not applicable in the case in hand.

Though it is contended thatthereisno necessary permission orapproval to take the sale consideration asadvanceand would be considered asdepositas per sub-clause 2(xvl(b) but the plea advanced in this regard is devoid ot rnerit.

First ofall, there is exclusion clause to section 2 (xiv)(bl which provides that unless specifically excluded underthjs clause.

Earlier, rhe deposits received by the co or the builders as adva.ce were considered as depos(s bu .2016, it was provided that the money received as such be deposit unless specifically is rega.d may be gjven to clause 2 of the Fi eposit Schemes framed oriled by the Cennal 46.

The nonev was taken by the builder as deposit in . posit in .dvance rgainst allotment of immovable property and its possession was to be offered withina certain period.

However, in view oitaking sate conside.arion by way ofadvance, the builderpromised certain amounr by way ofassured returns fora certain period.

So, on his failure to fulntthat commirment, the allottee has a right to approach the authority ior redressat of his grievances by way offiling a complainr the Act o12019 whi hallolso be ieoted a\ *HARERA S- cunrcnnv Complarnr no l5l7 ui2022 47. h is not disputed that the respondent is a real estate developer, and it had not obtained registration under the Act of2016 ior the project in question.

However th€ projectin which the advance has been received bythe developer from the allottees is an ongoing projecras per section 3(1) ofthe Act of2016 and, the same would fa within the jurisdiction ofthe authority forCiving the d€sired relielto the comptainants besides initiarjng penal proceedrngs ount pard by the complarnanrs to the builder is a regulated against the immovable pr l8 ecord and submissions ted by the later from the forme. tra.sierred to the allottee later made by the pa 0.26l- per square feet said commercial unit 50 cupatron certificare on 06.09.202r- Acca to pay assured return oi the unpaid period i.e., ptember 2021 at the rate oi The coullselforthe respondents submitted that assured return has been paid upt,l September 2018, the assured return thereafter be paid as It is further provided under clause 2 of rhe allotment lener that developerwould also pay to the buyer Rs.

130/, per sq.ft. per month of docunrents avail.ble on d till the constru.tion 51. trHARERA S- eunLnnll,r Conplarnr nu 15l7 of2022 super area of the allotted unit as commined return upto rhree years from the date ofcompletion ofthe consrruction ofthe said building or the said unit is put on lease whicheveris earlier. s earlier.

The buyer would start receiving lease rental in respect ofthe said unit in accordance with lease document as may be executed w,th p.ospective tenant. tfthere is any rent-ftee period on account offit out or otherwise, then the buyer shau not be entitled lor rent duri s.alne. so, ,n view orthat agreement berween the panies. the d e also under an obligation to pay to theallottce comnritted r - p€rsq.flper month for I years ion ofbuilding or the unit is 52.

Se€tion 17 [1) get the (1). rhe pronoter tholl passessioh oltheplot, opaftnentaJbtilding,os the.ose may be, to the ollottees and the cahnon areas ta thc o$a.iotloh ot the allott es ot the conpetent outhority, os the c6e nay be, in a rco) 6toE ptoj*t and the other title docunents peftainlns thereto within specifed penod as p.r enctioned plons os provided under Prcided thda in the absence ofony locol lav, conveyonce deed in Iovout ol the allodee ot the association ol the allottees or the conpetent authonty, os the cose hay be, under this section sholl be @rried ott bt the prcnoter within rhree honths lron dote ol issue oloeupanct cenilcote" }Y.^d R *HARERA S-eLLnucnm,r Complarnt no 1537 of2022 53.

As perSection 17(1) ofAct, the promot€ris underobligation to execute a registered conveyance deed in favour oi the allottee along with the undivided proporhonate title in thecommon areas to theassociation of the alloftees or the competentAuthority, as the case may be. tt has come on record that the occuparion cerrificate ofthe tower in which rhe unir of the complainanr is situation has been obtained from competent Author,ty on 06.09.2021 an consideration of allotted G.

Directions of 54.

Hence, the auth author,ty under sect,o in view of Section 17(11 oi Acr and ost complete amount rowards ondent is directed to executed pla nanr wrthrn l0 days d issues the iollolv ng ensure compliance oi nction entrusted to the clause 2 of the allotment letrer. nt letrer.

Further, the respondent/ burlder would also be liable to pay moDthly assu.ed rerurns at ag.ecd rare of the super area up ro 3 years or till the unit is put on tease whichever is earlier. ii.

The respondent is also direcred to pay the outsranding accrued assured rerurn amount till date at the agreed rare within 90 days from the date oforder after adjustment ofoursranding dues, if any, (il, ority *HARERA !!- arnircnnur iii Haryana Real Comp a nt no l<17or/022 from the complainant(s) and failing which that amount would be payable with inrerest @8.700lo p.a. tillthe date ofactual real,zation.

The respondent is directed to executed conveyance deed/sale deed in favour of complainant within 30 days from date oithis order.

The respondent shall not charge anlthing from the complainant(sl which is not the part ofthe agreement ofsale.

Complarnis stand disposed 8,les be consigned to regis 55.

56. ngwan N1 , Curugram HARERA GURUGRAM