NEHA AGGARWAL vs PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED

GURUGRA[/ HARER...

Complaint No.

3484 of 2020 BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Neha Aggarwal, R/o: - 1001, DB Woods, Tower B Near Gokuldham, Goregaon (EastJ, Mumbai-400063.

M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

Regd, Office At: Parsvnath Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara, Delhi-110032.

COMM: Ashok Sangwan APPEARANCE: Nikhil Mittal (Advocate) Deeptanshu Jain (Advocate) Date of complaint : Date oforder : Versus 34A4 of 2O2O 72.11.2020 71.1o.2023 Complainant Respondent Member Complainant Respondent ORDER 1.

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant/allottee undcr section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20 I 6 [in short, the Act) read with rule 28 of the Haryana Real l.:statc (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (in short, the Rules) for violation of section 11(4) (a) ofthe Act wherein it is ll,r rer o/la prescrihed that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provisions of thc Act or thc t)agc 1 01 16 HARERn ffi.GURUGRAI/ Rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale executed inter se.

Unit and proiect related details The particulars of unit details, sale consideration, the amount paid by the complainant, date of proposed handing over the possession, delay period, ifany, have been detailed in the following tabular form: Complaint No.

3484 ot 2020 A, 2.

Sr.

No.

Particulars .Details 1.

Name ofthe project IT Park Co 2.

Nature of the project Commerci 3.

DTPC license no, 47 of 2008 Validitv status 10.03.202 Name of licensee Dharmand Licensed area 6.45 Acres 4.

RERA registered/not registered Not registe Unit no.

No space n 6.

Unit area Super arca (paee l43r 7.

Date of execution of MoU 23.1_2.2001 [p1p]az t 8.

Due date of possession 23.12.2001 ICalculater Infrastruc D'Lima at !,!4!q$c, Rs.30,00,0 Ipase 143 9.

Total sale consideration 10.

Total amount paid by the comDlainant Rs.2 7,00,01 fas per MO 11. per MO 11.

Assured return clause "Thot out o omount the First Pqrty t per squore j be qllotted, ' Memorondu !oqy" !n lqcto148, Gu rgaon af lT space i dated 1 1.03.2008 t0 er-Karambir & 3 0rs. red o. *"s allott"d. ra of 2 000 sq.ft. l_9f_cq4plq!ntJ l5 Z of complaintl 108 ted as per Fortune structure and Ors. vs, Trevor ta and Ors. (12.03.2018 - SC); \4!!1$qq25?12q181 r00/- of complaint_) r00/- )U on page 144of complaint.) of the suid toLol cotlsid?ralion ?

Second Porty sholl poy to the e sum celculltetl @ Rs.1350/' t'oot of the entire super erea lo on or heJbre the sillning oJ thts um of Understanding.

1'hot Pagc 2 ol 16 HARER ffiGURUGRAI\/ No.

3484 of 2020 First Porq, sholI alLer receipt ol part consideration. @ Rs.13 50/- per square foot of the entire super orea ie Rs.270000A (Rupees Twenty Seven Lokhr only) llivt, Lt' investment return @ Rs.26.09 per squore foot per month i.e.

Rs.52180 (Rupees I;ilty Two Thousand One Hundred Eigh1r only) by woy of interest (subject to deduction oj tax at source) w.e.f.

1/7/2006 on quorterly intervals at the end of every quarter for which it is due.

Thot the First Party shall give on investmena retum (interest) @ Rs.27.50 per square foot per month of area of the Proposed Premises subject to the timely payment of balonce considerotion amount @ Rs.750/- per square foot of the space area i.e.

Rs.300000 (Rupees Three Lakhs only) by Second Party till the dote of offer of possession ol space in the !9rypte/' B.

3.

Approval of lans revised 25.06.202',1 buildi 0ccu tion certificate Not received Not offered Facts ofthe complaint The complainant has made the following submissions: - L That, the complainant approached the respondent's representative and broker Mr.

Suresh Chand lain to purchase a commercial space front the respondent admeasuring super area of 2000 sq.ft. for Rs.1,500/- per sq.ft. of super area amounting to a total consideration of Rs.

30,00,000/ . ,00,000/ .

Thereafter, the complainant and the respondent agreeing on thc abovementioned price entered into a Memorandum Of [Jnderstanding [MOU] dated 23.10.20005, wherein rhe detailed terms and condirions of the sale was incorporated which was to be follor,ved by both rhc Co m pla int 0ffer of possession Page 3 ol l6 r// HARER ffiGURUGRAI/ -t II.

Complaint No.3484 of 2020 | parties.

As per the MOU, the respondent after receipt of part consideration of Rs.27,00,000/- was obligated to give an investment return of every quarter at Rs.26.09 per sq,ft. i.e., Rs.52,180/ starting from 01.01.2006 and further the respondent was to give investment on return @Rs.27.50 per sq.ft. per month on timely payment of balancc consideration amount which was to be demanded by the respondent two months prior to the delivery of possession.

That, the respondent on 24.03.2006, issued a letter along with 4 post- dated cheques dared 07.04.2006, 07.07.2006, 07.10.2006 and 07.01.2007 respectively amounting to Rs.1,40,573/- of the same amount towards the quarterly returns each in favour of the complainant with reference to the MOU dated 2 3.10.2005.

That on 01.12.2006, the complainant wrote a letter to Surcsh Chand Jain and Sons stating that the said cheque/demand draft no.009203 ior Rs.L,40,573/- dated 07.04.2006 could nor be deposited in her accounr as expired and requested for a fresh cheque/demand draft.

Thereafter, the respondent sent a fresh cheque for Rs.1,40 ,573 /- dated 27 .'12.2006 along with a letter dated 29.12.2006.

That, the respondent sent regular cheques quarterly of returns upon the investment amounting to Rs.1,40,4"16/- per quarter along with a covering letter till April 2014 but thereafter till dare no paymenr has received by the complainant from the respondent inspite of repeated reminders for payment of outstanding dues vide lctters dated 30.03.2015, 07.05.2015, 07.06.201,5, 20.08.2015, 13.01.20',t6, 25.07 .2016 and finally on 0U.10.2016.

U.10.2016.

However, rhe respondent d id nor pay any heed to the repeated reminders sent by her and the possessron of the office space is also awaited, II I.

IV.

Page 4 ol 16 -l/' ffi HARER,. ffi eunuennvr Ji".el"* N.J48- "f ,oro V.

That, the complainant after being aggrieved by the respondent's ill-will and continuous dishonest intentions finally served a legal notice dated 02.!2.2016 through its counsel to the respondent demanding a pending payment of Rs."15,49,746/- which was the total for the period of April 2014 to September 2016 and also demanded the possession of the office space booked by her.

VI.

That, the complainant after not receiving any reply to the said lcgal notice, filed a complaint bearing C.C No.

79 of 2 018 under Section 1 7 a (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the State l)ispr'rtes Redressal Commission, New Delhi praying to get her pending dues of Rs.21. ,91 ,560 / - .

VIL That, as per the recent update on the construction sitc of this particular project the complainant found that one tower is near completion which is the first tower of the proiect and the complainant is onc of the in itial investors/buyers of this proiect and is entitled to get possession of thc commercial space in the said tower.

VIII.

That, the complainant and her father were approached by the representative of the respondent namely Mr.

Amit Jain on 03 09.2020 for resolving the present dispute amicably and a ledger for the pend ing dues was acknowledged by him including the intercst accrued and loss upon rental amounting to Rs.

1,25,80,089/-.

F'urthcr, the rcspor)del1t's representative was also told by the complainant's representative to grant the possession of the commercial unit as earliest possible as the same is delayed since the year 2005, towards which he informed that the commercialTower No.1 consisting of the complainant's commercial unit is almost complete and the possession can be sought in the month of November 2020. mber 2020.

However, in the end respondent's representative Page 5 ol 16 1/ ffiHARER- S-eunuennll [::rryllFl4d' said that he is helpless and is unable to clear the complainant's legitimate due and Iosses being incurred since the ycar 2014, rnclud ing the interest accrued and loss upon rental.

Hencc, the grievance beforc this Hon'ble Authority.

IX.

That the present complaint was dismissed in default by this Authority vide order dated 14.09.202L stating that the matter is sub-judice beforc the State Commission, Delhi and the matter cannot bc pursucd bcfot c two authorities.

Accordingly, the complaint before the State Commission, Delhi was withdrawn vide order 17 .1,2.2021.

Subsequently, the complainant approachcd thc llon'blc lleal listitlL' Tribunal, Ch andigarh to set aside the orde r dated 74.t)9.20 21 passed by this Authority and to restore this complaint.

Consecutively, thc I lo n'blc Tribunal allowed the appeal vide order dated 23.11.2022 grving direction to move an application for restoration ofcontplaint before this Authority.

Accordingly, the present complaint was restored by this Authority vide order dated 05.04.2023.

C.

4.

Relief sought by the complainant: The complainant has sought following relief(s): I.

Direct the respondents to pay the return on invcstment as agrced as per the MoU w.e.f.

April 2014 till offer of possession of thc unrt.

II.

Direct the respondents to handover the possession ofthe said untt.

Ill.

Directthe respondents to pay an amou nt of Rs.2,00,000/ torvards cost of litigation.

The responden t/p ro mote r put in appearance through its counsel and marked attendance on 05.04.202 3, 12.07 .2023 and 213.08.202 3.

DespiLe giving specific directions it has failed to comply with the ordcrs of thc authority.

It shows that the respondent is intentionally delaying the Page 6 ot 16 t * HARERI, ffi eunGnnr',1 @yifr,l,,!l D.

7.

6.

9. procedure of the court by avoiding filing of the written reply.

Therefore, vide proceeding dated 23. dated 23.08,2023, the defence of the respondent was ordered to be struck off for not filing reply.

Copies of all the relevant documents have been filed and placed on the record.

Their authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can bc decided on the basis of these undisputed documents and submtssions made by the complainant. f urisdiction of the authority The authority has complete territorial and subiect matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint for the reasons givcn bclow.

D.l Territorialiurisdiction As per notification no.

1192/2077-1TCP dated 14.12.2017 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, the iurisdiction of Real listatc Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall bc entire Gurugram District fbr all purpose with offices situated in Gurugram.

In the present case, thc project in question is situated within the planning area o[ Gurugrant District, therefore this authority has complete territorial iurisdiction to deal wlth the present complaint.

D.lI Subiect matter iurisdiction Section 11(4)(a) of the Act, 2016 provides that thc promoter shall be responsible to the allottees as per agreement for sale.

Section 1 1 (4)(a) is reproduced as hereunder: Section 11...,,(4) The promoter shall' (o) be responsible for oll obligotions, responsibiltties ond lLn(Llotts under the provisions of this Act or the rules ond regulations mocle thereunder or to the ollottees os per the ogreement lor sole, or to the association of allottees, as the case tnoy be, Lill the conveyon(e of oll the aportments, plots or buildings, os the cose moy be, to the ollottees, or the common oreos to the assaciotion of ollottees ar the competent authority, as the case moy be, 8.

Page 7 ol 16 HARER..

GURUGRAM cd;,;,;E;t-rd l 10.

77.

Section s4-Functions ol the Authority: 344 of the Act provides to ensure complionce of the obltgations cost upon the promoters, the allottees ond the reol estote ogents under this Act ond the rules qnd regulotions made thereunder. hereunder.

So, in view qf the provisions of the Act quoted above, the authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non- compliance of obligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer if pursued by the complainant at a Iater stage.

Due date ofhanding over possession: As per the documents available on record, no BBA has been executed between the parties and the due date of possession cannot be ascertained.

A considerate view has already been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases where due date of possession cannot be ascertained then a reasonable time period of 3 years has to be taken into consideration. lt was held in mattet Fortune lnfrastructure v, Trevor d'lima (2018) 5 SCC 442 : (2018) 3 SCC (civ) 1 and then was reiterated in Pioneer Urbon lond & lnfrastructure Ltd.

V, Govindan Raghavan (2019) SC 725 -: "Moreover, a person connot be mode to wait indetnttely for the possession ofthe flats allotted to them ond Lhey ore entiLletl Lo seek the refund ofthe amount poid by them, along with compensotion.

Although we ore oware of the foct thot when therewos no deltvery period stipulated in the agreement, o reosonable time hqs lo be token tnto considerotion. ln the focts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 yeors would have been reasonoble for completion ol the controct i.e., the possession was required to be given hy losl quorter o1 2011.

Further thete is no clispute os to the fact thot until now Lhere is no redevelopment of the property. llence, in view of the obov(' discusston, which drow us to an irresistible conclusion thot Lhere is delicien.y ol' service on the part of the appellonts and occordingly the issue r.s answered." 12.

Accordingly, the due date ofpossession is calculated as 3 years fron't thc date of signing of MoU.

Therefore, the due date of handing over of the possession for the space/unit comes out to be 23.12.2008.

Page I ol 16 4,' HARER .

13.

ARER .

MGURUGRAII L4.

Complainr No.

3484 of 2020 E.

Findings on the reliefsought by the complainant.

E.l Direct the respondent to pay the return on investment as agreed as per the MoU w.e.f.

April 2014 till offer of possession of thc unit.

That the present complaint was dismissed in default by this Authority vide order dated 14.09.2021stating that the matter is sub-jud ice befo rc the State Commission, Delhi and the matter cannot be pursued befor-e two authorities and therefore, an opportunity was granted to the complainant to come after withdrawal of complainant lrom State Commission if she so desires.

Accordingly, the complaint before the State Commission, Delhi was withdrawn vide order 17 12 2021.

Subsequently, the complainant approached the tlon'ble Real Ilstate Tribunal, Chandigarh vide appeal be aringno. 'l'17 120 22, to set asidc thc order dated 14.09.2021, passed by this Authority and to restore this complaint.

Consecutively, the Hon'ble Tribunal allowcd the appeal vide order dated 23.11.202? giving directions to move arl application Ii)r restoration of complaint before this Authority.

Thereafter, the present complaint was restored by this Authority vide order dated 05.04 2023 The respondents vide clause 2 of the MoU dated 23 10.2005 agrectl to give an investment return @Rs.z6.09/- per sq.ft. per month i.o, Rs.52,180/- to the complainant on the amount received till offe'r of possession of the space.

However, it failed to pay return on investmcnt for the space w.e.f.

April 2 017 and the said default is continuing till datc.

The total sale consideration of the allotted space was Rs.30,00,000/ Page 9 ol 16 ffi ffi HARERA GURUGRAI,/ and the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- i.e., more than 95% of the total sale price.

15.

An MOU can be considered as an agreement for sale interpretating thc definition ofthe agreement for "agreement for sale" Ltnder section 2(c) of the Act and broadly by taking into consideration the oblects of thc Act. f thc Act.

Therefore, the promoter and allottee would be bound by the obligations contained in the memorandum of understandings and thc promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities, and functions to the allottee as per the agreement for sale cxecuted intcr-sc them under section 1 1(a)(a) of the Act.

An agreement defines th e riShts and liabilities of both the parties i.e., promoter and the allottee and marks the start of new contractual relationship bctween them.

This contractual relationship gives rise to future agreements and transactions between them.

Therefore, different kinds of payment plans were in vogue and legal within the meaning of the agreement for sale.

One ofthe integral parts of this agreement is the transaction ofassured return inter-se parties.

The "agreement for sale" aflter coming into forcc of this Act (i.e., Act of 2016) shall be in the prescribed fbrm as per rulcs but this Act of 2016 does not rewrite thc "agreemcnt" cntercd bctwccn promoter and allottee prior to coming into force o[ thc Act as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Private Limited and Anr. v/s Union of India & Ors., (Writ [)ctition No.

2737 of 2O-l-7) decided on 06.12.2017.

Since the agreenrent defines the buyer-promoter relationship therefore, it can be said that tht' agreement for assured return between the promoter and allottee ;rriscs out ofthe same relationship.

Therefore, it can be said that thc real estatc Complaint No.

3484 o12020 Page 10 ol 16v ffi HARER,. ffi eunGnnrvr I Complaint No.

3a84 ot 2020 I regulatory authority has complete jurisdiction to deal with assured return cases as the contractual relationship arise out of agreement fbr sale only and between the same parties as per the provisions of scction 11(4J(aJ ofthe Act of2016 which provides that the promoterwouldbe responsible for all the obligations under the Act as per the agreerncnt for sale till the execution of conveyance deed ofthe u nit in favour in favour of the allottees.

Now, two issues arise for consideration as to: i.

Whether authority is within the iurisdiction to vary its earlier stand regarding assured return due to changed facts and circumstanccs. ii.

Whether the authority is competent to allow assured returns to the allottees in pre-RERA cases, after the Act of 2016 came into operation, iii.

Whether the Act of 2019 bars payment of assured returns to the allottees in pre-RERA cases.

16.

While taking up the cases of Brhimieet & Anr.

Vs.

M/s Londmark Apartments PvL Ltd. (complaint no 747 of 2018), and Sh.

Bharam Singh & Anr.

Venetain LDF Projects Lf,P" (complaint no 175 ol 2018) decided on 07.08.2018 and 27.1L.2018 respectively, it was held by the authority that it has no iurisdiction to deal with cases of assured returns.

Though in those cases, the issue of assured returns w:rs involved to be paid by the builder to an allottee but at that time, neither the full facts were brought before the authority nor it was argued on behalf of the allottee that on the basis of contractual obligations, the builder is obligated to pay that amount.

However, there is no bar to tJkc a different view from the earlier one if new facts and laws havc bccn brought before an adludicating authority or the court.

There is a doctrine of ?rosp ective overruling" and which provtdes that the law v Page 11 ol l6 HARERI. ffi,GURUGRAM declared by the court applies to the cases arising in future only and its applicability to the cases which have attained finality is saved because the repeal would otherwise work hardship to those who had trusted to its existence.

A reference in this regard can be made to the case of Sarwon Kumar & Anr Vs.

Madan Lal Aggarwal Appeal (civil) 1 05t) of 2003 decided on 06.02.2003 and wherein the hon'ble apex court observed as mentioned above.

The authority can take a different view from the earlier one on the basis of new facts and law and the pronouncements made by the apex court of the land. the land.

It is now well settled preposition of law that when payment of assured returns is part and parcelofbuilder buyer's agreement (maybe there is a clause in that document or by way of addendum, memorandum of understanding or terms and conditions ofthe allotment ofa unit), then the builder is liable to pay that amount as agreed upon and can't take a plea that it is not liable to pay the amount of assured return.

Moreovcr, an agreement for sale defines the builder-buyer relationship.

So, it can bc said that the agreement for assured returns between the promoter and allotee arlses out of the same relationship and is marked by the original agreenrcnt for sale.

Therefore, it can be said that the authority has complete jurisdiction with respect to assured return cases as the contractual relationship arises out of the agreement for sale only and between thc same contracting parties to agreement for sale.

In the case in hand, tho issue ofassured returns is on the basis ofcontractual obligations artsing between the parties.

In cases of4nil Mahindroo & Anr. v/s Eorth Iconic Infrastructure Pvt.

Ltd. (Company Appeal (AT) (lnsolvcncy) No.

74 oI 2077) and Nikhil Mehto ond Sons (HUF) and Ors. vs.

AMR tnfrastructure Ltd. (CA NO.

811 (PBl/2018 in (lB)-02(PI))/20t7) 4,.

Page 12 ol 16 Complaint No.

3484 of 2020 M!ARER/\ S- eunuenRv decided on 02.08.201,7 and29.09.2018 respectively, it was held that the allottees are investors and have chosen committed return plans.'l-he builder in turn agreed to pay monthly committcd return to the investors.

Thus, the amount due to the allottee comes within the meaning of'debt'defined in Section 3 (11) ofthe l&U Code.

Then in case of Pioneer Urban Land and lnfrastructure Limited & Anr. v/s Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No.

43 of 2019) decided on 09.08.2019, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land that "... that "...allottees who had entered into "assured return/committed returns' agreements with these developers, whereby, upon pqyment of o substantiql portion of the totol sale consideration upfront ot the time of execution ofagreemenl the developer undertook to pay o certain omount to allottees on a monthly basis from the date of execution of agreement till the date of handing over of possession to the qllottees".

It was fu rther held that'amounts raised by developers under assurcd return schemcs had the "commercial effect ofa borrowing' which became clear from the developer's annual returns in which the amount raised was shown as "commitment charges" under the head "financial costs".

As a result, such allottees were held to be "financial creditors" within the meaning of section 5 [7) of the Code" including its treatment in books of accounts of the promoter and for the purposes of income tax.

Then, in the latest pronouncement on this aspect in case loypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Wevare Association and Ors. vs.

NBCC (lndia) Ltd. ond Ors. (24.03.202L-SC): MANU/ SC/0206 /202'1, the same view was followed as taken earlier in the case of Pioneer Urban Land lnfrastructure Ld &Anr. with regard to the allottees ofassured returns to be financial creditors within the meaning of section 5(7) of the Code. ).- Page 13 ol 16 Complainr No.

3484 of 2020 HARER . e6 ct tDl taDAt\I 17. @vigrryl l Then after coming into force the Act of 2016 w,e.f 01.05.2017, the builder is obligated to register the proiect with the authority being an ongoing project as per proviso to section 3(11 of the Act of 2017 rcad with rule 2(o) of the Rules, 2 017.

The Act of 2016 has no provision for re-writing ofcontractual obligations between the parties as held b1' the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Private Limited and Anr. v/s Union of Indio & Ors., [supra) as quoted earlier. d earlier.

The money was taken by the builder as a deposit in advance against allotment of immovable property and its possession was to be offerecl within a certain period.

However, in view of taking salc consideratron by way of advance, the builder promised certain amount by way of assured returns for a certain period.

So, on his failure to fulfil that commitment, the allottee has a right to approach the authority for redressal of his grievances by way of filing a comptaint.

The authority under this Act has been regulating the advances received under the project and its various other aspects.

So, the amount paid by the complainant to the builder is a regulated deposit accepted by thc latter from the former against the immovable property to bc transferred to the allottee later on.

If the project in which the advance has been received by the developer from an allottee is an ongoing project as per section 3(1) ofthe Act of 2016 then, the same would fall within the jurisdiction of the authority for giving thc desired relict to the complainant besides initiating penal proceedings.

19.

Therefore, the authority directs the respondent/promoter to assured return from the date the payment of assured return stopped till offer of possession of the allotted unit/spaces.

18. pay was Page 14 ol 16 .4- 20, HARER,, GURUGI?AI/ Com nlaint No.

3484 o1202() ,--] E.lI Directthe respondentto handoverthe possession ofthe said unit.

There is nothing on the record to show that the respondent has applicd for OC/CC or what is the status of the development of the above- mentioned prorect.

Hence, the respondent is directed to deliver the possession of the space/unit on payment of outstanding dues if any and to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant on payment of stamp duty and registration charges within 60 days after obtaining Occupation Certificate from the competent authority E.III Direct the respondent to payan amount ofRs.2,00,000/- towards cost oflitigation. itigation.

The complainant is seeking above mentioned relief w.r.t. cost of litigation.

Hon'ble Supreme Courtoflndia in civil appe al nos.67 45-67 49 of 2OZ7 titled as M/s Newtech Promoters ond Developerc PvL Ltd. v/s State of Up & Ots, (supra), has held that an allottee is entitled to claim compensation & litigation charges under sections 12,14,18 and section 19 which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer as per section 71 and the quantum of compensation & litigation expense shall be adjudged by the adjudicating officer having due regard to the factors mentioned in section 72.

The adjudicating officer has exclusiVe' jurisdiction to deal with the complaints in respect of compensatton' Therefore, the complainant is advised to approach the adiudicating officer for seeking the relief of litigation expenses.

F.

Directions of the authority 22.

Hence, the authority hereby passes this order and issues the following directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance ol obligations cast upon the promoter as per the function entrustcd to thc authority under section 34[0: 2r.

Page 15 ol 16 .v' ffitnqrn ff eunuennv F"*-*yjt1ry: l i.

The res po n d ent/builder is directed to pay arrears oI assured return to the complainant/allottee from April 2014 at the agrced rate till offer of possession as per memorandum of understanding executed between the parttes. ii.

The respondent is directed to pay the outstanding accrued assured return amount till date at the agreed rate within 90 days from thc date of this order after adjustment of outstanding dues, if any, failing which that amount would be payable with interest @8.75rlo p.a. till the date of actual realization. iii.

The respondent is directed to handover possession of thc. unit/space in question and execute sale deed in favour ol the complainant on payment of stamp dufy and registration chargcs within 60 days after obtaining Occupation Certificate from the competent authority. iv. ority. iv.

The planning branch of the authority is directed to take necessary action under the provision of the Act of 2016 for violation of proviso to Section 3(1) ofthe Act.

23.

Complaint stands disposed oi 24.

File be consigned to registry. (Ashok Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram Dated: 11.10.2023 Page 16 ol l6