KRISHAN KUMAR RADHU AND ANURADHA BATLA vs EMAAR MGF LAND LTD.

HARER GURUGRAI/ LomplaLnlno 1232 ot2021 BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM ComPlaintno t t23Z ol2021 ord;r r€served onr z7 tozozz D'te ofPronounc€mcDt 12 012023 dlorder: ].

Sh Xrishan Kumar RadhLr 2 Anuradha Batla Addressr D 828, New Friends Colony' New Delhr110 025 Ve'sus Delhi- 110001 CORAM: Shn vilay KumarGoyal Shfl Sanieev KumarArora Complainants R€spond€nt APPEANANCE: Sh.i Alok Kunar with Shril.K.Dang ORDER 1.

The preseDt comPlaint dated 16'032021 has been filed by the omphmants under sectron 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and DevelopmeD0 A.t,2016 (in shorr' the Act) read with Rule 28 of the Ha.yana Real Esrate (Regulation and DevelopmentJ Rules' 2017 (in short. the Rulesl for violation of section 11[4](a) of the Act wherern rt rs inter alia prescribed that the p'omoter shallbe 'esponsible for all obligations, respo'srbilities and functions unde' the provrsion of the Act or the rules and regulaoons made ther'!nder or to the allottee as per the agreemenr for sate execured inter se' PaRe 1of30 Sh.iAmit Kumar Advocate for lhe complainanls Advo(ate torthe resPondenl *HARERA #- cLrniEnnu 2 comp c nr no 1232 of2021 Proiect ahd unitrelated details The particulars of the project, the details oi sale .onsideration, thc amoun! paid by the comp)ainants, date of proposed handing over the possession, delay period, if any, have be€n detailed in the following Sr, 1 Gur8don cre€ns se.ror 102.

CuruBram.

2 Toral areaotthe prolect 4 7\ oI 2At2 dated 31 01 2012 KaDdhenu ProJectr Pvt Ltd.& Anr.

5 HRtiM egrstered/ nor registe.ed HRERAresNtranonvalid up!o Registe.ed vide no 36(a) or2017 dared 0s,12,2017 for 95829 92 sq. mtrs, 1L12.207S HRERA extenslon ol regrstradon 01 0r2019dared 02.08,2019 31.12,2019 0ccuparon ce rficate Sranied on 0512.2018 fannexure R17, page r3s olr€ply] Provisional allotment lelter 29.0t.20t3 lannExure R4, pa8e 34 oirePlyl CCN-1s 0301 3i noor,rowerno. rs lannexu.e R5, pase 47 ofrcplyl 10 Date or exe.ution of buy€is HARERA r.

HARERA r.ompla'nino 1232 of 2021 GURUGRAIU suqea @ retn\ oJrhr cta'sp ond botnns lorce 10.05.2013 {annexure R5, paEe 44 ofreplyl 14 POSSESSTOTV (o) nne ol ho"dtno ovet the N*ston 14.06 2016 lNote: Crace penod rs not jn.ludedl Rs.r,27 ,15,159 / - noterre eondttots, subl... @ rhe allotae hoinr eanplied wth oll rhe rems ond .ondnionx ol thb Agreenent, ond aot beins tn deftun undet dnr ol .he ptdhto6 oI thb Agteenent ond .on pli o ne sr^ o1l ptovteons, ftmolnies, docunentotion et. os ppenbed b! the Conpony, the Conpont ptuposta hond Mr rhe pase$ion o[ th?

Unit wthtn U trhitu st't nonrhs hn th. /ab oI srad ol .lmtuc on subJecr a unel! co ptio^ce ol the ptuvitiont olthe asreenenr I de alloaee Th.

Altanee ogt* nnd tndettunds thoL rh, Conpanr sholl be entXled to o CNe p*lod oJ < Uwt honrh.- hr opbtrtna dnd .htotpino fi?--anDl4lel-ce lllsk/---as@liet edttlat tn L<pd oI rhe unlr and/ot th.

Datc orsart ol.onstruction as Per statemenr of account dated 13.04.2021 at pase 99 olreply Duedareofpo$ession Consrd€ralion as per payment plan anhexed with the buye.'s a8.€ement a! pace 75 oI.€pl, Total consideration as per sutem€nt oI account dated 13.04.2021 atpaEe 99 olreply ToEl anount paid by the complainant as pe. the statehent Rs.1,21.41.722/. ll tt HARERA GURUGRAM] CohpLarnt no 1232 of2021 tl al racts ofthe complaint The complainants made the following su bmiss io ns in the complaint The complainants applied for a residential unit rn the project.

Thar Ihe Emaa. allott€d to th€ complarnanfs unit no GGN'15'0301 in rhe proiect vide provisional allotment letter dated 29.01.2013 'lhereafter, parties executed an agreement ro sell, tirled as ihc apartment buyers aSreement dated 10.05.2013 IABA thereafter] The total sale consideration for the sard unrt rs Rs 1,19,82,550/ That the complainants have pa,d to Emaar a sum of Rs.1,22,99,37Sl- till 10.01.2019 as evidenced by the statement of ac.ount dated 10.01 2019 issued hv Ema,r olaccount 13.04. unt 13.04.2021 atpaee99 of 72,12,201A lannexure R3, pa8e 102 ofreplyl LeSal notice sent ro the respond€nt 16.04.2019 Delay compensation already paid by the respondent in terms ofthe buyeis agreehent as per statement ol account dated 13.04.2021at pa8€ 100 orreply Dclay rn handrnE over possession w.e.f due datc ot handins over possessron r.e., 14 06 2016 till date ol oller or po$essioh plus 2 2yeaB 7 months 29 days rs HARERA aon pla,nr iu 123z of 2021 required to pay a further sum ot Rs.

4,80,022l- for takins possessionof theirunit.Complainantsdeposited this.dountuth GURUGRAIV IL That clause 14(al of ABA provid€s that Emaa. was to handover possession oi rhe unit within a peflod of 36(Thjrry-Sixl monrhs trom the date oisrart otconstrucrion.

The agreemenr provided an additional grace period of s(five) monrhs for applyins and obtaining the complerion cerrificare / oc.uparion certificate rn respectofthe unitand/o. the proJect afre. rhe pe.iod of36 monrhs.

II1.

The ag.eement to sell p.ovided that th,s period was (0 "barring fo.ce majeure conditions and (ii) subject to rhe allortee havrng complied with allrhe terms and conditions olrhis agreement " The cahplainon\ states thot the pramot hos not in[orne.) them ot any tine of any Iorce noleue condiLions.

The comploinonts lurther state that they hove punctuolly compLed with allterms and conditions ol the ogreenent ta sell lV.

That the tmaar's statement otaccount as on 10.01 2019 the start oI PCC toundation was on 14.06.2013.

Thus, this is the date ofstart of construction.

The 36 months period ior completion ofconstruction expired on 13.06.2016.The five monthsgrace per,od ior obtainins occupation certiScate etc. expired on 13.11.2016.

The Emaar drd not complete theconstruction in nme and did not off€r possession ofthe allotted Un,tto thecompla,nants within the appointed rime.

V.

That the complainants at last, received your letter ol offer of possession dated 1212.2014 on 18.12 2018.

8.12 2018.

The complainants vrsited respondent's offce and were informed that they were respondenr by cheque no.

800514 dared 16.01.2019 drawn on Canara Bank rn favor ofth€ respondent.

Thus, compiainants have pe.formed their obligations under the contract Complainanrs requested the respondent on 26-0l-2019 by a reS,srered *HARERA S" ounriennv communicat,on that "beiore proceeding iurrhe. we may be allowed to have a joint inspection of rhe unit wirh you This wil ensu.e that everything is in order and if some deficiencies sti exist, they can be removed at your end." Complarnants visired respondent's officeand requested respondenfs off,cers to have an inspect,on of the allotted unit to ensu.e that the consrruction is complete and rhere are no deficien.ies in rt Vl.

Theretore, the complainants through their counsel seryed a nottce dated 16.04.2019 upon rhe Emaar.

The complainants conveyed rn Pa.a 12 of the notice: ''72. ourCllentsdoherebyterminatethe.oirracrb€rwe€nrhepa.tiesin view oi the inordinate delay in th€ ofier or lossc$ on ol the aparlments to ou.Clientsas alsothesubsequent reluctanc€ in evcn Ervrng an rnspection of the allotrcd aparthent to them.' The Complalnants lnrer a[a demanded Ln the noti.e,'the rcrund oirll amounts paid by theh to you wrth rnterest @ 10 7% per annum hom rhe date ol each payment tillthe datc on whlch rhe anounr rs ren,ndcdwirh intPrP+ ' canttd n1 no 1232 ol 2OZl VIl.

That the .espondent/promoter thereafter sent a possession ofte. by its letter dated 11.09.2019 received by rhe complainanrs on 1309.2019. lt,s dishonestly stated that 'The company th.ough ''intimation of possesslon" demand, requested you to take possession...".

The complainants specitically state that they have not .eceived any possession letter before the letter datcd 04.07.2019.

The complarnants are advised that they are now not bound to take possession and have a continued legal right to seck rhe refuDd oi the amounts paid along with inte.est and compensahon. mpensahon.

There )s a farlure to handover possesnon of the allott€d flat to the complainants within the t,me agreed in the apa.tment buyer's agreement.

VIIL That the section 11(4)[a) of Tbe Reat Esrare (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 (RERA he.eafrerl requir€s thar the promoler shall "be responsible ior all obligario.s, responsibrtihes and functions oithis Acr or the Rules a.d Regulations made there under of allottees as per the ogreement ro se11..." Under rhe agreement to sell, it was an obligatron ofthe promorer ro complere the construction, obrain occupation cerbficate and olier possession of rhe apartment to the buyer wirhin the time agrecd between the parties and recorded in clause 14(aJ of the ABA between the parties.

The promote.s have failed to perform rrs obligations under theagre€ment to sell. lX As per clause 16[a) ofthe ABA reads. "(a) In cose the company is not oble to hondowr the possession oJ the U^it wiChin the perlod os stiptloted hercinabove or an)) extended penod Orovided however conringencies stuted n clouse 14 and 31 have not occurred), the Allottee shotl be entitled to poyment oI compensotion @ Rs- 7-50/- pet sq- ft. per nonth ol the Super Areo of the Unit lor he period of detoy betond 36+5 months or such extended periods os permittetl under this agreemenL Even this compensation was su bject to severe limitations contarned 'n clauses 16 (b), (c) and (d) X.

That fie clause 12 of the agreement provided that time is of the essence ol the agreement.

However, ir applies only against the allotrees and does not similarly bind the p.omoter.

Clause 13 deaUngwith delay in paym€ nts' a nd clause l7 dealingwith fallure ro take possession' p.ovide rhat in case ot delay or delautt by thc allottee,he shallbe liable topayinterest@ 240lo perannum 0n the ir& HARERA GURUGRAIT/ Conpla'nino 1232 of 2021 other hand, rhe exit clause provided in clause 26 of rhe a otmenr "25- ln the evenq the ollottee choases to concel the booking/ ollotnent ond/or the ogreenent ogreenent ar a in bteach oJ on! terns & conditions inclulhg bu hot linited to, send the dul! signed copt aI the ogreenentwithih 30 daysfton the dote ofdispatch bt the cohpant, the conpony sholl be reteosed dnd dischorsed oldltliobities ond obligotions un der th is d I I atm e n t le tte r o ntl / o r a g ree n ea t p u 6 u o nt to ony ol the rondhions o[aresoid, the ottottee undersronds thotthe canpanyoton! ttogeshollhave the dghtto rese the unn ta uny third pdrry or .1eol ||ith the sone ih ony othet ndhneras the compon! nor deenlt.

On hoppenihs olsuch event, the conponr wilt re[und to the olloftee the onount paid b! the allottee, wtthout on! inteftst after deducting the eornest nonet olong-||ith nohrelundobte onounts due ond poloble by the ollottee The ollottee ogrees rtot in cose oJ such cdncellation, relund sholl be node only olte. reoliration olsuch rellndoble onounloh Iurthet Mle/resole olthe uhn b ont thni porr!-' X1.

Th at the agreement is one-sided.

The terms thereol a re substantially unfair, and they are harsh, oppressrve and unconsc,onable agarnst the .omplainants.

A perusal of, the apartmenr buyer's agreement reveals stark incongruities between the options available to the respectrve parties.

The allotment Letter is a 13 pages document, printed in single space, in 10 pornt font size Simrlarly, the apa.tment buyert agreement is a 50 page document, in a printed fo.m, in single space and the complainants were made to sign on the dotted lines in these standardlormaLt as also ro accept the set oarules printed therein as part ofthe conr.act, in sprte oltheybeing unfair, unreasonable and uncons.ronable.

The said clauses cannor be enforced upon the compla,nants. ln fact, the contractual rerms oi the said asreement ate ex-focie one sided, unfar and PHA S-crrn RERA UGRAIV complarnt no.

1232 oI2021 unreasonable The incorporat,on of such one-sided ctauses in rhe agreement constitu res an unta,r trade p.acrice Emaarcannot seek to bind compla,nanrs wr rh such a conr. ch a conr.act.

XII That the complainants vide legal notice dared 16.04 2016, in view of the inordinare delay in rhe otler of possession oirhe apartmenrs ro them terminated aDd withdrew Lom rhe conrracr between the parties.

Further, complainan ts d€manded rhe retu nd of all am ou n rs pa,d bythem to Emaar with in reres r from th€ date ofeach paymenr trll the date on which the amounr is .etunded ',!ithin 15 davs from the receipt of rhe notice.

XII1.

This legal notice was sent to the respondent at its email ID registered by itwirh the reg,strar ol companies.The nonces were delivered, and rhe rollowing nore was received by email of the respondent "Thank you for w trng rn ro Emaa..

Thrs is an automated response to acknowled8e the reccipi of your e-mail.

We assure you of a response through one of our execurives qthrn 02 working days of receipt ofyou. marl. ''tt wuuld help dpedtte o rcsponse, 4 !tu cattd nenton tou. rnt nunbetin the subtectlineoltnutenoil.. l'he not@s\|erc olt. sent by spee.l post The track repon ol the norirerinlarns thot'lten dehvered'.

X1V That res pondent did not reply or co m p ly with the le8al norice se nt by complainanrs.

The.efore, Emaar is liable to relund a sum of Rs |,27,79,397 /- alo.gwrth interest tillthe date ofrhe complarnt.

The complainants are entitled to claim inte.est @ 10.70lo perannum as per rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate [Regularion and Development) Rules, 2017.

Such inrerest as on 27.02 2021 i.e rhe date of the complainr came to Rs 83,22,408.49l-.

The complainants are also entitled to the pendenre lire and future complrnt no 1232 of2021 l interest ar rhe same rate from the date of the complaint ril respondent pays the entire due amounts ro rhe complErnanrs.

XV.

The cause of action fo. flling the complainr arose jn favour of rhe complainants and against rhe respondenr in lanuary 2013 when the complainants applied ior allotment ofa resjdenrialLrnit in rhe projecr being developed by Emaar.

It iu.rhe. arose on 29.Or.ZOt3 when the . when the .espondent ,ssued allorment letre. fo. unit No. cCN-15 0301 i. favour olthe complarnanrs.

Ir again arose on 10.05.20i3 when an apartment buye.'s agreemenr was executed berween rhe parties.

It again arose on allsuch occasio.s when thecomplarnants made the payments to Emaar, and rh€y issued acknowtedgmenr cum-receipt to complainants.

It furtherarose on 13.11.2016 when the agreed period for delivery ofpossession expired.

It again arose on 16 04.2079 when the .omplarnants termtnated the contracr between the parties and demanded rhe refund of enore amounr with interest.

The cause ofaction conrinues. xV1.

The project'Curgaon Greens'in Sector 102, Village Dhankot, Curugram is situated in Planning area of,Gu.ugram, thereiore, the Adjudicating Omcer has complete rerritorial turisdlction vide notif,cation No. l/92/2017-l'lCP issued by Principal Secrerary (Town and Counrry Planning) dated 14.12 2017 ro eDt€rtain rhe present complaint as the nature of the .eal estate project is comme.cral in nature so the Adjudicating Office. has the subiec( matter Jurisd iction along with te..itorial ju.isdi.tion.

The cause of action partially arose at Gurug.am. a Thc complainants are seeking the foUowins rclcf: *HARERA S-crrnrcnlttr 4.

The complainants have soughr iollowing (D Direcr rhe respondent to reiund rhe entire amount paid by the complainanrs to the respondenr amounnng to Rs.l,22,99,375/ along with inter€st as per section 19(al .ead wirh rul€ 15 ol rhe D.

R€plyfiled by the respondent 5 The respo ndent had co. tested the€omplajnton the followlng grou ndsl I reliefG) That the pr€sent complainris not maintainable in law or on aacts It rs submrtted that the present complajnt is nor mainrainable beiore this authority under the Real Estate [Regulation and Developnentl Act, 2016 (hereinaiter refe.red to as "the A.t" for sho.t) and the Haryana RealEstate (Regulabon a.d Developmen0 Rules, 2017, [hereinaft€r referred to as "the Ru]es"l.

The present . present .omplaint is llable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

Even otherwise, the complaint is not nraintainable in law and ments Thar the complainants have got no locus standior cause ofactron to file the p resent complaln t.

The present complajnt is based on an erroneous jnterpretation ofthe provrsrons ofthe Act as wellas an rncorrect understanding ofthe terms and condjt,ons ofthe buyer's agreement dated 10.05.2013, as shall be evident from the submissions made in the tollowing paras ofthe present reply The respon d e nt craves leave of this au thoriry to refer to and rely u pon the termsand condrtrons setourin the buye.'s agreement, in deta'l at the time of the h€aring of the present complaint, so as to bnng ol2O2 lll compla'nrno 1232 of 2021 out the mutual obligat,ons and the responsibitiries ot the .espondent as wellas the complainants thereunder That th€ present complaint raises several such issueswhichcannot be decided in summary proc€edings.

The said issues requ,re extensive evidence to be 1ed by both rhe parties and examination and cross examinarion of, wjrnesses for proper adjud,cation.

Therefore, thedisputes raised in the prese nt co m plaint can ontybe adtudicated by the CrvilCourL The p.esenr complainr deserves ro be d,smissed on this ground alone That rhe complainants are estopp€d by their own acts, conducr, acquiescence, laches, omrssions etc. from fl ling ihe pr€senr complaint That as per rhe averments in rhe complaint, rhe due dare for ofaer ot possession was November 2016.

Therefo.e, without prejudice to the contentions ofthe respondent that there has been no delay o. defauk on th€ part otthe respondent and wirhout admirting in anymanneranytruth,n the allegatlonsmade by the complainanrs, it is submitted that rhe cause ol action, if any, for filing of the present complaint arose prior to the date of com,n8 into iorce of the present act.

He.ce, the complarnt is barred by limitarion and liable to be dismissed on this ground also. ound also.

That the com plarna nts are not "allottees" burare acrually investo rs who have purchased the unit in qu€stion as a speculatrve rnvestment lt,spert,nenttomentjon thatrhecomplarnanthas two more units in the same prolect haung unrt no CCN 110101 & GGN-14-0201 lor whrch two separate complaints have been filed before this authority.

That the complainants are wilful and persistent defaulters who have iailed ro make payment olthe sale vt.

VII c.hpla nrno 1232 ot2021 consideration as per the payment plan opred by rhem The complainants have concealed the real and rrue facrs which are as under.

Furthermo.e, the responde.t has already credired an amount of Rs 3,08,799l- ro rhe accounr ofthe complainants. rhe complainants have also made cerrarn payments on account oi delayed paymenr charges.

Without pretudice to rhe rights ot rhe respondent, delayed inrerest il any has to calculared only on the amounts deposited by the allortees/complainanrs and not on any amount credited by the respondent, or any paymenr made by the allottees/complainants towards delayed paymenr charges (DPC) or any taxes/sra tutory payments etc.

That right f,rom the very beginning, the complainanrs had detayed in making rimely payment ol the insralmenrs as per rhe payment plan voluntarlly chosen by them.

HVAT payment request lett€r dated 17.04.2077.

The statement of accounr dared 13.042021 reflecting the payments made by the complainants as well as the delayed payment interest levied on the compla,nants by rhe re\pondent ha\ been dppended a\ annexure R7 That it is pertinenr ro mention herein that as per the terms and conditions otthe buyert agreement, the compla,nants were under a contractual obligatioh to make timely paymcnr of a1l amounts payable under the buyer's agreement, on o. before the due dates oipaymenr failing which rhe.espondent rs enntled to le!y delayed payment charges in accordance w'th clause 1.2[c) . e 1.2[c) .ead wrh clauses 12 and 13 of thebuyer's agreement Thatin themeanwhile, the respondent registered the protecr under the p.ovisions of thc act. the protect had been rnrhally.egrstered trll 31.12.2018.

The VIII regist.arion certi6cate dated 05.12.2017 Thereafter. the respondent appl,ed for extension of REREA regisrration.

That rhc consequenrly, extension of RER,A registrarion certificate dared 02.08 2019 had been issued by rhis aurhoriry to the.espondent ritt 37t2-2019- That upon receipt ol the occupaoon certificare, rhe respondent offered possession oithe unit in question to the compla,nants vide lett€r dated 12 12.2018, which is anncxur€ Ra.

The complainanrs were called upon to remit balance amount as per rhe sraremenr artached w,th offer ol possessron and also ro complete the necessary lormalities and documenration so as ro enable the respondent to hand ove. possession of the unir ro rhe complajnants.

It is pertinent to mention herein thar compensatron amountingto Rs.3,08,799l. \,vas also credired ro rhe complainan$ although in accordance with clause 16(cl ofthe buyerrs agreement, the complainants, being in default ot the buyer's agreement were not entitled to any compensatron [rom the respondent.

However, instead oiclea.ing theiroutstandingdues and taking possessron ol rhe unit, the complainanrs addressed trivolous cor.espondence to the respondent.

Tilldate, thecomplainants have notcome forward to take possessio. of the sard unrt.

Ir was not out of place ro mention that the possessron ofthe said unit had been otTered to drc complainants by the respondenr way back vide letrer oi offer oI possession dated 12.12.2018.

That upon drspatch of letter of ofler ofpossession, the liabilitles and obligarions oithe respondent as enumerated in the allotment lerte./buye. s ag.eement stand fully satisfied.

Thus, thc complarnants a.e estopped from filing lhe Conrplai.l no.

1232 ot202l *HARERA iS crnLrcn,qrv tx.

X Conplztmna 1232 oI202I p.esent complaint. complaint.

The complaint is not mainrajnabte aare. issuance of the letter ot offer oiposs€ssion by the respondent.

That it is most.espectiully submrtred thar rhe contractual relationship belween the complainants and rhe .espondent is governed by the terms and condirions of rhe buyer's agreement dated 10.05.2013.

Clause 12 oi rhe buyer's ag.eemenr provides that time shall be th€ essence ot the contract,n respecr of ihe allottee's obligation to perform/observe all oblgations ot the allottee includ,ng timelypaymenr ofthe sale conside.anon as well as other amounts payable by the allottee under rhe agreement.

Clause 13 ofthe buyer's agreement, in,€rollo, p.ovides fo.levy ot interest on delayed payments by the allottee.

That clause 14 of the buyer's agreement provides that subtect to lorce maleure conditions and delay caused on account of reasons beyond the mntrol of the respondenr, and subtect to the allotlee not being in default ofany ofthe terms and cond,tions of the same, the respondent expects to delive. possession of the unit wrthrn a period of36 months irom the date ofstart ofconstruction plus five months grace period in the case ofdelay by the allottee in making payment or delayon account ofreasons beyond the controlofthe respondent, the dme tor delivery oa possessron stands extended automarically.

ID the present case, the complajnants are d€faulters who has failed to make rimely paymen t of sale consrderahon as per the payment plan and is thus in breach of the buyer's agreement.

The hme period tor delivery of possession automatically srands extended in rhe case of the Complainants.

On account ofdelay ard defaulrs by the complainants, rhe due date for delivery ol fi xt x Compla nr nu 1232of2021 possession standsextended in acco.dance w,th claus€ 14(bXiv) the buyer's agr€ement, till payment ofall outstand,ng amounts the satisiaction ofthe respondent That in so far as payment of compensation/inreresr to rhe complainants areconce. areconce.ned, irrs submitted rhar the comptainanrs, beiDg in default,,s not entitled to any compensanon in terms ot clause 16(c) of the buyer's agreement.

Furrhennore, in terms or clause 16(d) ofthe buye.'s agreement, no compensation is payablc due to delay or non-r€ceipt ot the occuparion certificare, completlon certificare and/oranyother permission/sanction rrom the competent authority.

Thar as has been submrtted in the preceding pa.as of the presenr reply, the respondent had completed construction ot rhc unrl/tower by April, 2018 and had applied for issuance or the occupation certificate on 13.04.2018.

The occupation certificatc was issued by the competent authorty on 05.12.2018 lt h respectlully subm,tted thatafter submissjon olthe application for 'ssua.ce of the occupat,on certificate, the .espondent cannot be held liable in any manner ior the time taken by the competent authoriry to process the apptrcaion and issue the o.cupation certificate.

Thus, the said period taken by the competen t au th onty in issu,n8 the occupation ce.tificate as well as hme taken by governnent/statutory authoritres rn accordrng to approvals, permissions etc, necessarily have ro be excluded while computrng the time period fo. delivery ofpossesson.

That ir is submitted that several allottees, including rhe complainants have defaulted in timely remittance of payment oi XII I aomp: nr no 1232 of202 t xtv installments which was an essential, crucial and an jndispensabte requi.enent for conceptual,zarion and development ot rhe said p.oject.

Funhermore, when the proposed altottees defautt,n their payments as per schedule agreed upon, the failure has a cascadrng ealect on the operat,ons and rhe cost for proper execunon of the project ,ncreases exponentially whe.eas enormous bu siness losses betall upon rhe respondent. espondent.

The respondenr, despite defaulr of several allottees, has diligently and earnestly pursued rhe development oi the project in question and has construcred the proJect in question as expeditiously as possible.

Therelore, there js no deiaultor lapse on part olrhe respondenr and there in no equrty in lavour of the complainarts.

It is evident lrom rhe enbre sequence oi events, that no illeSalrty 6an be atribured to the respondent.

The allegations l€velled by the complainanrs are totally baseless.

Thus, it is most respectfully submrned that rhe present compla,nt dese.ves to bedismissed at the very th.eshold.

That, without admitting or acknowl€dging the rrurh or legahry ot the allegatrons advanced by the complainants and without prejudlce to the contentions of the respondent, ir is respectfully submitted that the provisions of the act are not .etrospective rn nature The provisions olthe act cannot undo or modi,i th€ te.ms ofan agreement duly executed p.ior to.omrng rnto effect ofthe act The provisions of the acr relied upon by the complainants for seeking reiuDd or inte.est cannot be called rn to aid in dero8atron a.d 'n negatlon of the provisions of the buye.s agreement.

The complainants cannot claim any relief whrch rs not contemplatea under the provisions oithe buyer's agreement.

Assumrng, wrthout ITHARERA $-ctrnrrcnarr,r Ii, II Comp,rnt no lZl2 ot2021 in manner adm,fting any delay on the part oi rhe respondent in delivering possession, ir is submitted that rhe inrerest for rhc alleged delay demanded by rhe comptajnanrs is beyond rh€ scope of the buyer's agreement The complainants cannot demand any interest or compensarion beyond or conrrary to rhe agreed terms and conditions berween rhe parties.

Thar it is evident f.om the entire sequence of evenrs, rhat no illegaliry or lapse can be attr,bured ro rhe respondenr.

Thus, the allegations levelled by the complainants qua rhe respondent are totally baseless and do not merit any consideration by rhr authority. authority.

The complaint filed by the complarnanrs,s nothin8 bur an abuse of the process of law.

Thus, it rs most respecduuy submitted that the p.esent complaint deserves to be dhmissed ar the verv threshold. lurisdiction ol the authority The authority obserued rhat it has territorial as well as subjecl marter jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint for rhe reasons grven Terrilorial iurisdiction 7.

As per notif,cat,on no- 1/92/2017-1TCP dated 14.12.2017 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana the jurisdict,on ot Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire curugram Districtfor allpurpose wirh offices situated in Curugram In th€ present case, the project in question,s situated with,n th€ plannjng area ol' Curugram Districl therefor€ this authority has complere rerritorial iurisdict,on to deal with rhe present complaint. comph,nr no. l232 of2021 E.ll subiect,matter iurisdiction 8.

Section 11(4)(al of the Ad provides that the promoter sha be responsible ro the allottee as per agreement fo. sa1e. section 11(41(al rs reproduced as h€reunder. (a 1 rte p,o n orer stt o tt. (o) be tetponstble lat olt.bllgatnns, rcspanstbittttes ona funcrion\ undet the pravitons of this A or .he .utes ond rcgulotnns n.de the.eunder ot ID rhe ollottees os per rhe dsreenent lar role, o. to the ossqidtion oJ attottees, os rhe dte no! be, tiu tht conveyonce alott rhe apan ents, pknsor butdtnss, osrhe rose no! be to the ollot@etortheconnon areos ra rhe ossocturon ofollotteesarthecodpetentoutho E,os rhe cose moy be) se.tion 34-F nctions oJhe Authotltt: 344 olthe Acc provdes to ensuru conplionce of the oblgariohs ron upan the pronoter' the dltotreet ond the reol estote agenls under.h6 Act and.he rules ond regulorions nodethereundet.

9.

So, in view oathe provisions ofthe Act quored above, the authoriry has complete ju. mplete ju.isdiction to decrde the complainr regardrng non compliance oiobl,gations by the promoter as per provisions of secrron 11(4)(a) ol the Act leaving aside compensarion whi.h ls to be decided by rhe adtudrcating omc€rifpursued by the complainant ata laterstage.

10 [urther, the authority has no hitch rn proceedingw,th the complaintand to granta reliefot.efund in the present matter rn view ofth€ judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in lyewae.h Promoters ond Devetopers Private Limited Vs Slote oJ U.P. ond ors-'2021-2022(t) RcR(civil), 357 and reiterated tn case ol M/s Sana Real.ors PvL Ltd. ond other Vs.

U on ol ltdia and other SlP(civil) No.

13005 ol 2020 decided on 72.05.2022 w herein it has been lard down as under: RERA *HA S-cun UGRAI/ ''86-.troh the khene olthe Aa olwhich o detotled rclercnce hos been 4ode and @4.o nop of Dow?t ot odtutt-ot,a4 dpl,Feutpd w h tne ,ps'totory outhuitt ad ao dt.onns olt.ct. qhut ftrotb tut]\ad r thot olhorgh t4p A.t qdrot?\ 'he dNi.t p@te \ d? refu4d. iaQrc't.-Dnottu hd . ohpe.,at,oc _ o . ^uotq, retans ot sitt,oq, t 3 oad t o t katb nonitrL thot "'.-,,.o..,., "t-a oj t " "n*t ond intereson thercJund onount,ordtrcdins poJhentoljnte.. fo. .lployd datveryolDa*e.sna a, Dcnotty ond ,\et p! ttrceoa,1._ the agutotory outhontrwhr h 4a\ th. pawp, to ptontrc ond det.thne the ou'tonc oto tonbbt4t At the.ohe ap B ond 19 rhe odiLdtcoting oJlcet e\tLn,et! \o. he pori to dctp@,n?. keep4g t4 ea t,a.ohe.t,ve t podns ot \e\ ten' t eod r n Set t nn -2 oh h; t t, he ldtudt.oton t2 14 $ ohd t9 othe, t4at, .oop"r<rton o\ cnvisased, il e rte n.led to the odiudi tihsolli.eros pruyed.hat,ihout vtew, noy inteh.l to efpond the onbit ond scope of the powe^ ond Iuncttonsofrhe odjudtcotihs ollcer under secton 71ontl thotwoutd be ogotnstthe hondote aJ the act 2016,, 11.

2016,, 11.

Hence, rn view oi rh€ authoritative pronouDcemenr oi the Hon,ble Supreme Court in rh€ cases mention€d above rhe authoriry has rhe jurisdict,on ro entertain a comptainrseeking refund ot the amounr aDd intereston rhe retuDd amoun!

F.

Findings on the obiecrions raised by the r€spondenr r.l Obieclion regardinB (omptainant5 are inveslor( 12. lhe respondent subhined that rhe comptainanrs are investor and not consumer/allotree, thus, rhe comptainants are nor enrired ro the protecrion of rhe Acrand rhus, thepresenrcomplainrrs nor maintainabte 13.

The autho.iry obserues rhat rhe Act is enacted ro prorect the inrerest of consumers ofthe.eal estare sector. tt rs sertted principle olinrerp.eta!ron that preamble is an inrroducrjon of a srarure and stares main aims and objects oi enading a starute butafthe same rime p.eambtecannot beuscd to defeat rhe enacting provisions otthe Act.

Furrhermore, it is perb.enl ro note that under sectron 31 of the Acr, any aggneved person can frte a Complarnr no 1232 of2021 *HARERA S- eunus,rnM aompldint no.

1232 ot2021 complaint against the promoter if the promote. conr.avenes or viotares any provisions of the Act o. rules or regularions made the.eunder.

Upon carefulperusalolallth€ te.ms and cond,tions of rhe buye/s agreement, ir is revealed that the complainanrs are an allotrees/buyers and they havc paid totalprice ofRs.

1,27,41,722l- to the promorer rowards purchasc oI the said unit in th€ project of rhe promorer.

At this srage, tis imporranr to stress upon rhe defin,rion of rerm allotree unde. rhe Act, rhe samc rs reproduced below for ready referencei ''2(d) 'ollattee'in relatin to o Nl enote prciert neont the pe1on ta whon a ploa opartnent or building, as the cose noy be, hos beeh ollatted, sold (wherher ot feehol.l ot leasehold) ot otheruse tontleted br the prcnoter, ona inttLdes the perton wha subsequentl!. sequentl!.cquires the soid ollotnent thtough sale, tnnsler or atheryBe but does not ihclude o person to who such plat, opottnentorbuilding,as.he cose nor be, k gtven on tent' 14. ln view of above-mentioned definitioD o f allottee aswellasalltheternrs and conditions of the buyer's agreement executed between respondent and complarnants, it is crystal clear that rhe complainants are allottee as the subject unit was allotted to them by rhe promoter.

The concepl of investo. is not defined or referred in rhe Act As per the definition given u nder section 2 o f the Act, th ere will be "promoter" an d 'allottee" and th e rc cannot be a party havtng a status of "investor".

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in its orde. dated 29.01.2019 in appeal no.

0006000000010557 titled as M/s Srushti Sangom Developers Pvt.

Ltd. vs.

So^,opriyo Leasing (P) I.r.nndanr. has also held that the concept ol' investor is not defined or referred rn the Act.

Thus. the contention of promoter that the complainant'allottee being investors is not entitled to protection oithis Act stands rejected.

F.U ObJectlon regardlng lurlsdlctlon ot authorlry w.r.t. buyer's a8r€ement executed priorto coming into forc€ ofthe Act.

PdSe 2l or30 c.mp a nr no 1232 of2021 15.

The respondenr contended thar authority is dep.jved ofthe jurisdiction to go into the interpretation ol or .ights of the pa.nes inte.-se rn accordaDce with the buyer's agreement execut€d between rhe pa.ties and no agreementforsaleas reierred to under rhe p.ovisions otrheAct or the said rules has been executed iDter se parties.

The respondent further submirted that the provisions ofthe Act are not rerrospecr,ve in nature and the provisions ofthe Acr cannot undo or modiry rhe terms ol' buyer's agreement duly executed prior to coming inro effect ofthe Acr.

The authority rs oithe view that rhe Acr nowhere provides, nor can be so consr. so consr.ued, that all previous agreements will be re wr,tten afrer coming into lorce of the AcL Therefore, the provisions ofrhe A.t, rules and ag.eement hav€ to be read and interpreted harmoniously.

Howeve., il the Act has provid€d for dealing with certain specrfrc provisions/situation inaspecific/particularmanne., then thatsituatron willbedealtwith in accordancew,th theActand the rulesalter the date of coming into fo.ce of the Afi and the rules.

Numerous provrsrons ol the Actsave th e provisions of th€ agreements madebetween thebuye6 and sellers.

The said .ontention has been upheld in the landmark ludgment of i/€€Ikamo, Realtors Suburbdn PvL Ltd.

Ys- UOI ond others. (wP2737 oJ2o1, which provides as unde.: "119.

Undet rhe ptovbions ol section 1a, the dela! in handing ovet rhe po$sion |9ould be counted lrcn the .loce tuenctoned in the ogree ent lor sole entered into by che prcnoter ond the ollottee pnor h its registmtion lnder REP.,!..

Undet the ptovisions ol REPLA, the promoter is given a locility to .evise the doce of conpletion ol prcject ond dectore the soru undet Section 4 The REF'4.loes not contenplote rewiting of contoct bctweeo thpltotpufrhdstond thc proaotet. ..

122.

We have oheodt discu$ed thot obove *oted prcvisiots ol the REP.4 ore not retrospective in noture.

They mat to ehe ubnt be havns o retrcoctive or quosi renooctive elJect but then on aompl,,nt no 1232 of2021 rhat grcund the validiat af the provisions o[ RERA cohnat be challenged.

The Porhdnent is conpetent enough to tegBlate low hoving rctrospective or rcnoodive elled.

A tow con be even Itamed h ollect subesting / e,bting controcrtal tights beNeen the po i4 in the lo.get public ihterest We do nor haveont doubt in our mind Lhat the REp./' hos b@n Fnned o Lhe tatge. public intetestolter o tharough nudy ond discu$ioh nodeot the highestlevel b! the Stotulihg Connttee ond Select Conmhtee, |9hich subnttted its detuiled repotts.

17.

Also, i. appeal no 173 oi2019 ritled as tt{agic Eye Devetoper pvL Ltd. r pvL Ltd.

Vs. lshws Singh Dahuo, in o.de. dated 17.12 2019 rhe Ha.yana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has observed- ''34.

ThLs, keepog h ie|| out oloresoid dscus n, we ote ol fie considered opinion rhot the prcvis@ns ol the Acr dte quust rctradctive to eme qtent tn operotian and willbe ohplicoble into ohetutioh ofthe Act where the trunsd.tion ote sttll h the p!9re;5--sI-J9!"tklot!

Hence n cose al .lelay ih the oIIer/dehvery ol posesnh os pet the tems ond candtiohs o1' the agree ent far sole the olla ee sholl be entnletl ta Lhe interest/deloled possessioh cho.ses on the reosonobte rute o[ jnterestos provtded in Rule 1s olthe tutet ond one stdetl, unfot ond unreoenoble rote oI compensdtian nentioned in Lhe ogteementJorsole it lioble b be i|hored." 18.

The ag.eements a.e sacrosanct save and except fo. the provrsrons which have been abrogatedby the Act itself.

Furthe., it is noted thar thc builder-buyer agreements have been executed rn the manner that the.e is no scope left to the allottee to negotiate any ofthe clauses contained Iherein.

Thereiore, the autho.ity is ofthe view that the charSes payable under various heads shall be payable as per the agreed 'erms and conditions ol the buye.'s ag.eement subiecr to the condition thar the same are rn accordance with the plans/perm'ssions approved by the respective departm€nts/competent authonnes and are not rn u HARERA GURUGRAI\,4 contravention of the Act and are ComplaLn(no'1232 of 2021 not unreasonable or exorbitant in G Findings on lhe r€lietsought by the complainanLs/allonees.

G.

I Direct the respondent to refund the entire amount paid by rhe complainant to the respondent amountinE to Rs.),22,99,375/- atonl with interest as per section 19(4) read wirh rule 15 orthe rules.

19.

In the present complain t, the complainants intend towirhdrawfrom the proiect and are se€king return of the amount paid by it in respecr ot sublect unit along with interestattheprescribed rate as p.ovided under section 18[1] of the Act. f the Act.

Sec- 18(1) of the Act is reproduced below ror ready reference. "Se.tion 1A: - Rettm oI anount on.l conpenntion 13[1) Urhe prcno@t loih to canplete ot t:unobleto stve posseston aJ an opa.tnent, Plot ot butlding.. (o) in ota toncewib thete.ns oithe osreementlor sak a., os the cose nor be. duly conpkred by the dare spedlied therein) at (b) due La dacontiluonce oI his busine$ os o detetaper on oL.ount al tuspenson ot.evocdtion aJ the rcgistotton Lndet rhk Act orlor onJothe. reoson, he sholl be lioble on denon.l to the o ottees incaserheollorce wfhes to wthdrow ton the p.oleca wnhaut pretudtce to on! other rcned! .voitobte, to retum the omotnt received bt him in resped ofrhoz oportmh4 plol butl.lhq, os the case nay be, with intercst ot such rote os no! be prescribed tn thts beholl tnctuding cohpenetion in the hdnner os ptovided LndetrhisA.L: P.oltded thot whe.e on ollattee .loes nar tntend to wthdrow fion the ptajecL he th.tl be poi.t, b! the pronateL ihtcrc! lot every nonth oldeta!, ullthe hondtns over althe pos:e:son, uLsuch to.e os nny beptesctibed 20 As per clause 14 of the flat buye. agreenrenr dated 10.05.2013 provides lor handing over ofpossessron and is reproduced below: 14.

POSSESION (d) Ttme ol hon.ltnA over the Posesston irs HARERA GURUGRA]V Complarnt no.

1232 of2021 subpct b rerns ol thk ctalse ard bot.ins lorce najeute condtttont subpd ra the Allottee havng conplied with all Lhe te@s ond conttitiont ol this Agrcenent,and not beihg h defouhtndeton! of .he pmvisions of this AgrcenentdnIJ comphonceeith oll Ptovtsont, fo.nohnet, docunentotion erc., os prctctibed b! the Conpont, the Cohpont p.opow to ho^.|ovet the Possesion olthe Unttwthin 3l fihirly sit) ramhs Inn the dote ot srdrt ot.onnrud,nn tubPct to amety conplione of the prcvisions of the Agrcehcnt b! .he Allott@ The Allottee asteet ontl unde4o nds rhot the coiPonv sh o ll be entitled to o ArdG periotl of S tlivel m.nrhs- t^r dDDliae ond 21.

At the ourset, it ,s relevant to comment on the p. on the p.esent possession clause olthe agreement wherein the possession has been sublected to allkinds ofterms and conditionsofth,s agreement, and th€ complainant not being in default under any provisions of this agreeme't and compliance with all provisions, formalities and docum€ntalion as prescribed by the Promote..

The drafting of this clause and incorporation olsuch conditions are notonlv vague and uncetu'n but so heavily loaded in favour oithe Promoter and against the allottee that even a singl€ default by the allottee in fulfilling formalities and documentations €tc. as prescribed by the promoter may make the possession clause irrelevant for rhe purpose of auottee and the commitment time p€riod for handing over possesston loses its meanjng The incorporat,on of such clause rn the buyer's agreement by thc p.omoter is just to evade the liability towards nmelv delivery ofsublect unit and to deprive the allottee oi hrs right accruing afte' delay rn possession This is just to comment as to how the builder has misused resne.tntthe unit ond/nt Lhe Proiect t& HARERA GURUGRAIU his dominant position and agreement and the allottee Compla'ntno 1232 ot2021 drafted such mischievous clause rn the is left with no option but to sign on the 22.

Admissiblllty of Srace p€riod: The promote. has proposed to hand over the possession olthe said unit w,thin 36 (Thirry Six) months from the daie ofstart ofconstruction, and further provided in aSreement that promoter shall be entitled to a grace period ol5 months fo. applyinB and obtaiDing the complenon certiflcate/occupation certificate in respect ofthe unit and/or the proiect.

Thedateofexecutionofbuyeis agreemen! is 10.052013.

The p€nod of 36 months expi.ed on 14 06.2016 as a matter oi fact, the promoter has not applied to the concerned authoriry for obtaining completion certificate/ occupation ce.tificate within th€ grace period prescribed by lhe promoter h the buyer's agreement. agreement.As perthesettled lawon€ cannotbeallowed to take advantage ofhis own wrong.

Accordingly, this g.ace period of5 months cannotbe allowed tothe promoteratthis stage 23.

The section 18(11 is applicable only in the eventualirv where the promoter faih to comPlete or unable to give possession of the unit rn accordance with terms ofagreemen! for sale or dulv completed bv the dare specified tberein.

24 This is an eventualily where the promote. has offe.ed possessron ofthe u.it aiter obtaining occupation ce.tificate and on d€mand of due payment at the time oi off€r of possessron the allottee wishes to withdraw irom the proi€ct and demand return oithe amount recerved PaCt26ot30 ltHARERA S- eunuennll (D (iD a.mnrrntn.

1212 of2O2l by the promorer in respect of the unit with interest at the prescribed rate The allottee in this case has filed this application/.omplaint on 16.03.2021 atter possession oa the unrt was offered to them aficr obtaining occupation certif,cate by the promoter.

The allottee never earlier opted/wished to withdraw from the project even after the due date ofpossessron and onlywhen offer of possession was made to thcm and demand for due payment was raised then only filed a complainr before the authority.

The occupaho. certrficate /pan occupation certificate of the buildings/towers where allotted unrt of thc complainant is situated h received after obtaininS occupation cerrificate.

Section 18(11 gives rwo options to the allottee if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possessron olrbe unit in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or duly completed by the date specifi€d thereln.

Allortee wishes to withdraw fronr the proje.tror Allotree does not intend to withdrawl;om the prolect 25 The risht under section 18[1)/19(4) accrues to the alloftee on farlure oi the promoter to complete or unable to give possession of the unrt 'n accordance with the terms ofthe agreement for sale o. duly completed by the dale specified ther€in. d ther€in.

If allottee has not exercrsed the right io withdraw f.om the project afte. the due date of possession is over till the offer ol possession was made to him, it impliedly means that the allortee has tacitly wished to contiDue with the p.ojecl.

The Promoler has already invested in the project ro comPlete itand offered possess'on l}HARERA S- anucRArt/ Complarntno.

1232 of 2021 ofthe allotted unrr.

Although, for delay in handing over the unir by due date in accordance wirh the terms of the ag.eement for sale, rhe consequences provided in proviso tosection 18t11willcome rn force as the promoter has to pay interest at the prescnbed rate ofevery month ofdelay till the handing over otpossession and allotree's interesr for the money he has pa,d to the promoter a.e protected accordingly.

Furrher in the tudgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Courr of lndia in the cases ol Newtech Pmmoters ond Developers Private Limited Vs Stote oJ U.P. dnd ors. (supra) r€lte.ated ln cas€ of lylls sana Realtors Prlvatc Limited & other Vs Union of hdla & others SLP (Civil) No.

13005 ot 2020 declded on 12.05.2022. itwas observed 25 The unquolilied riqhr oI the olloia @ \eek.elunl.ekned Under sectbn 13(1)(o)ond section 1e(4)ofthe act is not dependent on any conttnsen tes ar supulonons Lhereal. h appea4 thot the tegistdLute hos co^riausl! p.aided thi\ right ofreluhd o denohd a s on u n con dt tion ol obso 1 u te tig h t to the o I lottee, tf the pr om otet fo t I s t gtve postetsion ofthe dpottheht, plor or builtlingeirhin therihe niputoted under the tems olthe osreenent rcsordtes oI unlorereen ele n t! o r noy o td eB oJ the Cou i/Tri bu no l, e hi.h i, i n en h e r wo! n oL axribltoble to the dllottee/hohe buyer, the pranater ts under on obhgatton to refun.l the omount oh denond wth tn.etett oLthe to.e prevnbed by the Stote Coverndent in.ludtns.anpensotian tn .he nonne. .he nonne. proviled lndet rhe Actwirh the provha thar ilthe ollottee daes not\|ish to withdrdw lrch the pryecr, he shollbe enntled lor intete$ lat the petiod aldelay ttll hdndtng aver po\:e:son ot the tue 26.

Furrher, the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority Curugram (Fo.rertu.e ofearnest money by the builder) Regulabons, 11(51or20l8, "5.AMOUNT OF EARNEST NONEY scenorio prior to the R@l Esrote (Reguloriohs ond Developnent) Act, 2016 wos diJlerehL Frou.ls werc carried out wtthout ony leat os chere wos na low fo. the sone but now, in riew olthe obove loct\ ond taking into considerution the judgenenE ol Hon ble Notiondl Consuher Disputes Redtessal Connission dnd the Hon ble Suptene Court ol *fli IARERA GURUGRAN/ 27.

Keepi.g rn view, the .equesl a.molrrnr nn 1232 of2O21 Indio, the outhotity is oI the view thot the Jorleitve omount ol the eornest none! shollnot etceed hore thon 10% ol the considetution anount of the real estote i.e apattnent/plot/building os the c6e noy be in oll coses where the concellotion oI the llotfuhithlot k nade by the buildet in a uniloterul nonner or the buyet lntends to withdrow Ircm the prcject and an! ogreenentcontainihgont clduse controay to the alote id regulat@nt shotl be vod ond not btnding on ol the complainants, respondent/promotor directed to refund the balance amount deducting 10% oi the total baslc sale consideration f.om the date of requesr of wirhdraw/su..enderi.e.

16.04.2019 till the date of its actual H.

Directions ofth€ authority 28.

Hence, the authoriry hereby passes this order and issues the followinS di.ections under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance ol' obligations castupon the promoteras per the function entrusted to the aurho.ity under section 34{0: The respondent is directed to retund the balance amount of the unrt by ded ucting the earnesr money which shallnor exceed the 10% ot the basicsale consideration and shallreturn the balance amount to the comp)ainants within a period ol90 days from the date oI ths or oI ths order.

The refund should have been made o. the date ofr€quesi ol withdraw/surrender i.e 16.0+2079, accordingly interest at thc p.escribed rate r e.

10.50% is allowed on the balance amount kom the date of request of withd.awlsu rren der tillthedate ofits actual *HARERA S- ernlcnnm (sanieev 29.

Complaintstands disposed ol 30.

Filebe consigned to registry.

A period of90 days,s given to the respondent to co directions given in this order and fajlrng which legal ply with the (viiay r Coyal) e Regulato ry Au th on ty, GurulSram \ P it ( 3 72.O1.202 H r-a q rl. il 232 ot 2o2t