MRS SUNITA GARG vs BPTP LTD

Matter is adjourned to 29.09.2023.

On previous date, parties were asked to give their calculation in the light of order of this forum dated 13.04.2023. Calculations are given by learned counsel for DH only. Counsel for JD requests for adjournment. Not opposed by counsel for DH. Request is allowed. Calculation by JD be filed till next date.                         To come on  28.07.2023 for further proceedings.

Heard on objections filed by JD. It is submitted by learned counsel for JD that order/decree under execution was passed by the Authority. The authority delegated its powers to this forum to execute said order, which is contrary to law. This forum (A.O) cannot execute order under execution.                        Section 81 of Act of 2016 empowers the authority to delegate its power except power to make regulations to any member or officer of the authority………… Adjudicating officer can be termed as an officer of authority. Moreover, order/resolution of authority, Gurugram, delegating its powers to this forum to execute orders/decrees passed by same (Authority) has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in case titled as International Land Developers Private Limited Vs Aditi Chauhan & Ors  W.P.No.7738 of 2022.  Considering same, I find no substance in this objection, raised by JD.   Same is thus dismissed.               It is further the objection of JD/respondent that DH has wrongly calculated the amount of interest. The authority did not impose future interest upon his client, on payment due and hence in view of Section 34(2) of the CPC, DH is not entitled  to calculate future interest.                The directions of the authority to respondent/JD to pay interest on the decretal amount, are in consonance with Rule 16 of The Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 ( in brief the Rules of 2017). Rule 16(2) reads as under:- “Where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project and interest for   every  month of delay till handing over of the possession at such rate as may be prescribed ordered by the authority to be paid by the promoter to the allottee, the arears of such interest accrued on the date of the order by the authority shall be payable by the promoter to the allottee within a period of ninety days from the date of order of the Authority and interest for every month of delay shall be payable by the promoter to the allottee before 10th day of the subsequent month.”  This Rule clarifies that  the arears of interest and interest accruing subsequent to order/judgment, is to be paid by the promoter to the allottee, in case the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project. The rule provides two different payments i.e (i) for payment of arrears of interest and (ii) payment of future interest to be paid as such----                   (a) arrears of interest accrued on the date of the order by the                              authority shall be payable by the promoter to the allottee within                a period of 90 days, from the date of order of the authority.                (b)  interest for every month of delay shall be payable by the promoter                        before 10th  day of subsequent  month.  It is abundantly clear that JD/respondent in this case was liable to pay arrears of interest till 23.03.2021 i.e within 90 days of order. Admittedly, arrears of interest were not paid by JD, during this period or even till now.                   Word ‘delay’ has been used twice in sub rule (2), referred above. Earlier word denotes “delay in handing over possession of subject unit” while latter word speaks about delay in making payment of amount of interest, which the promoter was liable to pay, every month, subsequent to date of order.                   There is no denial that JD neither paid arrears of interest accrued till the date of order by the authority, nor future interest, as was payable by the same, up to 10th day of each subsequent month.  When JD/promoter failed to pay arears of interest till 90th day of order (part A) and again, did not pay any interest accruing every month, thereafter, interest for each month is added to arears of amount. Sub-rule I allows interest on refund of amount. As subsequent interest is also added to arears entire amount becomes payable by JD, DH is thus entitled for interest on the entire amount payable by the JD i.e arears up to 90th day of order and subsequent interests added every month, when JD opted not to pay to same.  All this is as per order/decree under execution and does not amount going beyond it (order/decree). Objection in this regard is dismissed.                Other objection raised by learned counsel for JD is that the authority while passing order/decree under execution, has granted relief to complainant/ DH, which was not prayed even. Learned counsel requests to dismiss execution petition.                 Learned counsel for JD did not explain as what relief has been granted to DH/complainant, which was not sought by latter (complainant). Moreover, admittedly, no appeal etc. has been filed against order/decree under execution and same has become final. Being executing court, this forum cannot go beyond the decree. Without commenting on legal proposition, on this topic, request of JD to dismiss execution petition is declined.                   It is further plea of learned counsel for JD that her client is entitled to deduct the amount of statutory dues i.e. EDC, IDC. According to her, JD has already paid the amount to Govt Agency concerned.               On the other hand, as per learned counsel for DH, JD was not entitled to deduct the amount of EDC, IDC as the Authority has not allowed deduction of amount of EDC/IDC. Same (Authority) has allowed deduction of amount of the taxes only, and EDC/IDC is not a tax, imposed by Govt. on allottee.                 I find weight in the contention of learned counsel for DH in this regard. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to verify that any such amount has been paid by JD, to Govt. Agency concerned. This objection is also dismissed.                 Both of learned counsels request for adjournment to give fresh calculation of amount. Allowed. Be filed till next date.                 To come on 25.05.2023 for further proceedings.

Both of learned counsels request for short adjournment stating that negotiations for settlement are going on between the parties. Allowed.                  To come on  13.04.2023 for further proceeding.

Certain objections in the forum of application are filed by learned counsel for JD. Copy given.                              Six cheques including (four PDC) total amounting Rs. 9,84,295/- stated to be total decretal amount are handed over to learned counsel for DH, who accepts the same as part payment. According to her, certain more amount remains to be recovered from JD.                           Learned counsel for JD requests that she will take instruction from her client, whether same is ready to hand over possession of unit sor not.                           To come on 22.02.2023 for further proceedings.