ANUJ BALI vs RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD

BEFORE THE HARYANA REAI, ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Date of decision: 25.O4.2023 PROJECT NAMI] "RAHE'A'S ARANYA CITY" Case title Mrs.

Deepti Kaul Razdan and Mr.

Vishal Razdan Through SPA Holder Mr.

Suresh Kaul v/s Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2021 and 4384 of 2021 APPEARANCE Shn Palak Nenwan i Advoc,arc,rnd Shri Garvit Gupta Advocate i L r-l Mr.

Anuj Bali v/s Raheja Developers Limited Shri Devina Sehgal Advocate and CORAMr Shri Ashok Sangwan Shri Sanieey Kumar Arora Shri Carvjl Gupta Advocate Membcr lMember 1.

2.

ORDER This order shall dispose of both the complaints titled as above filed before the authority under section 31 of the Real Estate [Regulation and DevelopmentJ Acl,2016 (hercinafter reFerred as "the Act"J read with rule 28 ofthe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,2017 (hereinafter rcferrcd as "the rulcs") lor violation ofsection 11(41(a) ofthe Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all its obligations, responsibilities and functions to the allottees as per the agreement for sale executed inter se between parties.

The core issucs emanating f|om them are similar in nature and the complainant(s] in the above referred matters are allottees of the proiect, HARIR, *,@-GURUORAII cR/ 4308/2027 t. cR/4384/2027 Raheja Developers Limited NAMI OF THE BUII,DER RAHEIA DEVELOPERS LI[IITED.

Page 1of33 Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2027 and 4384 of 2021 3.

HARER,' MGURUGRAfu] namely, " Raheja's Aronya Ciry" (residential group housing colony) being developed by the same respo n den t/p rom oter i.e., M/s Raheja Developers Limited.

The terms and conditions of the agreement to sell and allotment letter against the allotment of units in the upcoming project of the respondent/builder and fulcrum of the issues involved in both the cases pertains to failure on the part ofthe promoter to deliver timely possession of the units in question, seeking award of refund the entire amount along with intertest and the co and the compensation.

The details of the complaints, reply to status, unit no., date of agreement, possession clause, due date of possession, total sale consideration, total paid amount, and rclielsought are given in the table below: Project Nanrc and ect Nanrc a;d f ffaf,.;a Oevcfope..

Li-itud "t;Ruhela's arinyi -ity,, Possession Clause: - 4,2 Possession Time and Compensation That the Seller shall sincerely endeovor to give possession of the plot to the purchaser within thirty-six (36) months from the date of the execution of the Agreement lo sell ond ofter providing of necessary nfrostructure speciolly rood sewer & water in the seclor by the Government, but subject to force majeure conditions or ony Government/ Regulqtory authority's oction, inoction or omission and reosons beyond the contolofthe Seller.

However, the seller shall be eititled for compensotion free groce period oI six (6) months in cose the development is not conrpleted within the time period mentioned obove. lo the event of his ]oilure to toke over possess/on of the plot, provisionu ll! and /or l'inqlly allntLed within 30 doys Irom the daLe of intimation in writing by the seller, then the same shall lie at his/her risk ond cost and the Purchoser sholl be lie ot his/her rsk an{l cost the purchoser sholl be liable to pqy @ Rs.50/- pet sq.

Yds. of the plot areo per month as cost qnd the purchoser shqll be lioble to pay @ Rs.50/- per q.

Yords.

0f the ptot oreo per month os holding charges Ior the entire period of such de\ay............" Page 2 of 33 HARER," GURUGRANI Complaint No., Case Title, and Date of filing of complainl cR/43A8/ 202r The complainants in the above complaints have sought the following reliefsl 1.

Direct the rcspondent to refund the principal amount of Rs.78,77,258/- paid by the complainanls towards the salc consjderation of the said plot along with interest @1Bolo per annum.

Direct the rL.spondent to pay the litigation cost to the tune oF Rs.50,000/, to thc Complaint Nos. laint Nos. and 4308 of 2027 and 4384 of 2027 R;pry 20 12_2022 F 111 243.920 sq. yds. (Page no.32 conrplaint) 30.01.2018 TSC: - 81,53,131/ 78,77,25A/ ledger dated 12.03.2O2r at page no.89A ol the complaintJ Reply lhit status No.

Date of execution of agreement to sell 30_01.2014 (Pase no.26 oithe complaint) (Note::16 Mrs Deepti (aul I,4 r.

Vishai Razdan Through SPA Holdcr Mr.

Surosh Kaul v/s Raheja Developers Limited.

3O.O7.2Or4 + grace period) Date ol Filing ol complaint 2A_10_2021 ca1+ss,l1 Rcply ] rtorno.

2ens2olt l zs.o2.zozo'l rsc, 2A 122A22 2021 rec,.ived on | [-)50 l.06.bb.l8o/- Mr.

An,,t , aJnI asurinB lPape no. .i I ' (Note: - tb AP Balr | 1's.a0 sq. o, rhe I monrhs rrom I ss.22.B3s/.

V/S yds. complaint) datc ol Raheia I I I I agreemenr llAsperappti(an( Developers I I (Paeelo.3s I I ie., I tedserdared Limited I or rhe I 129.08.20t0r I oeoqzozorr colnplaint) I I l six months page no.66 ofthc DarP or I grace period) comptarnr) Filing of 1t tt_202) Due date of possession Total Consideration /Total Amount paid by the complainants in Rs. laina i L. l)age 3 ol33 ffiH "*e- e 5.

7.

ARIR URUGRAIVl elaborated as follows: Abbreviation lrull form TSC'l'otal Sale considcration Com plarnt Nos. and 4308 ol 2027 and 4384 of 2021 Note: ln the table reterriA afove,iertain abbreviations have been used.

They are 4.

A!3Eg!!l}ard bll he al lotree(t The aforesaid complaints werc filed against the promoter on account of violation of thc agreement to scll and allotment letter against the allotment of units in thc upcoming projcct of the respondent/bu ild er and for not handing over [he possession by the due date, seeking award of refund the entire paid-up amount along with interest and compensation.

It has been decided to treat thc said complaints as an application for non- compliance of statutory obligations on the part of the promoter/ respondent in terms of section 34(0 of the Act which mandates the authority to ensure compliance ofthc obligations cast upon the promoters, the allo , the allottee(s] and the real estate agents under the Act, the rules and the regulations m;rde thereunder.

The facts ofboth the complaints l'iled by the complainant(sJ/allottee(sl are also similar.

0ut of the above-mentioned case, the particulars of lead case CR/4308/2021 titled as Mrs, Deepti KauI Razdan and Mr.

Vishal Rozdan Through SPA Holder Mr, Suresh Kaul V/S Raheia Developers Limited are being taken into consideration for determining the rights ofthe allotteeIs) qua refund thc entirc paid-up amount along with interest and others.

Proiect and unit related details The particulars of thc project, the details of sale consideration, the amount paid by the courplainant(s], date of proposed handing over the possession, delay period, if any, have been dctailcd in the following tabular form: 6.

A.

Page 4 of 33 llARER, culars of the project license no. and ty status of licensee Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2027 and 4384 of 2027 Details "lLaheja's Aranya City", Sectors 11&14, Sohna Gurugram i.

19 of2014 dated 11.06.2014valid up to 10.06.2018 ii.25 of 20L2 dated 29.03.2012 valid up to 28.03.2018 Standard Farms Pvt.

Ltd and 9 others @ cllulLaDAr\/ tu..q \-/ Ut\\,\-/tV \lY S.

N.

Parti 1.

Namc 2.

Proje 3.

Natur DTCP validi 4.

Namc 6.

Date build 7.

RERA regist 8.

RERA up to 9.

U nit 10.

Unit a CR/4308/2021 titled as Mrs.

Deepti Kaul Razdon ond Mr.

Suresh Koul V/S Raheja Developers Limited. ct area 10 7.85 acres e of thc project Residential Plotted Colonv of approval ng plans Registered/ not cred registration va lid 29.07.2016 Registered vide no.

93 of 2017 dated 28.08.20L7 27.02.2023 27.0A.2022 r 6 months grace period in view ofthe Covid- 19 Plot no.

F- 111 (Page no.

32 of the complaint) 243.920 sq. yds. (Page no.

32 of the complaint) rca admeasuring I'age 5 of 33 HARIR.- P"-GURUGRAI4 Allotme nt lctter Date of execution of agrecment t0 sell Posscssion clause Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2027 and 4384 of 2027 24.04.201.4 (Page no. (Page no.25 of the complaint) 30.07 .201_4 (Page no.

26 of the complaintJ 4.2 Possession Time and Compensation Thot the Seller sholl sincerely endeavor to give possession of the plot to the purchaser within thirqr- six (36) months from the date of the execution of the Agreement to sell and after providing of necessary infrastructure specially road sewer & woter in the sector by the Governmenl, bul subjecl Lo force m0 jeure conditions or any G ov e rn ment/ Reg u la tory a u th o ri q)'s ocLion, inaction or omission and reasons beyond the control of the Seller.

However, the seller shall be entitled for compensdtion free grace period of six (6) monlhs in case the development is not completed within the time period mentioned above.

In the event of his failure to toke over possession of the plot, provisionally and /or finally ollotted within 30 days from the date of intimation in writing by the seller, then the same shall lie at his/her risk and cost and the Purchaser shall be lie at his/her risk and cost the purchaser Page 6 ol33 11.

1-2.

13.

HARIR: ffi"GURUGRAfu1 Complaint Nos. and 4308 oi 2027 ard 4384 of 2021 poy @ Rs.50/- per sq.

Yards.0f the plot ared per month as holding charges for the entire period of such delay.......,...." IPage no.37 of the complaint). period Due clate of possession Allowed As per clause 4.2 oFthe agreement to sell, the possession of the allotted unit was supposed to be offered within a stipulated timeframe of 36 months plus 6 months of grace period. lt is a matter of fact that the respondent has not completed the proiect in which the allotted unit is situated and has not obtained the occupation certificate by ltrly 2077.

As per agreement to sell, the construction of the proiect is to be completed by luly 2017 which is not completed till date.

Accordingly, in the present case the grace period of 6 months is allowed. ao.or:ors (Note: - 36 months from date of agreement i.e., 30.07. e., 30.07.2014 r six months grace periodl Basic as pc sale consideration r payment plan at Grace 76.

Rs.81,2 3,131/- Pagc 7 oi 33 14.

15. ffiHARER. *&* eunuennv pagc COMI 77.

Total as p( datec no. []( 18.

Amor comp 20.

Pay 21.

Occu /Co n 22.

Offe r 23.

Requ fro nr allott Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2027 aod 4384 of 2021, ) no. p Ia int 47 of thc tal sale consideration per applicant ledger ted 12.0:i.2021 at pagc . []9n of the complaint unt paid by thc llainants ment Plan upation certificate mpletion certiFicatc Rs.B 1,53,131/- Rs.78,77,258/- [As per applicant 1 2 .03 .2021 ar page complaintl ledge r no.89A dated of the lnstallment Link Payment Plan (As per payment plan at page 47 complaint) Not received Facts of the complaint The complainants have made the following submissions in the complaint: - That the present complaint is being filed on behalf of Mrs.

Vishal Razdan through Sh.

Suresh Kaul being the "S.P.A.

Holder" of the complainants, seeking refund of the entire amount paid to the respoudent along with interests, damages and compensation for inordinatc dclay in delivering the possession and non-completion of the of possession Not offered cst the CCS to withdraw project by thc 0 8.09.2019 0')age no.

99 of the complaint) B.

8.

Page B of33 &HARER, #- eunuennv, Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2021, and, 4384 of 2021 b. proiect in terms of clauses 4.2 and 4.3 of the agreement to sell and in utter breach and violation of the provision Act, 2016 and the Rules 2017.

That the complainants are peace loving and law-abiding citizen of the country and are presently residing in Singapore.

They have spent a considerable amount of their earnings in the project Raheja's Aranya City in Sector - 11 & 14, Sohna, Gurgaon, Haryana from the year 2014 in hope ofgetting timely possession by 2018.

But till date the said project is neither complete and nor in the process of competition in the near future. ar future.

That believing on the said advertisements and on the assurances, allurement, and inducements, regarding the project, the complainants booked a plot in 201.4 by paying a sum of Rs.16,55,981/- vide rwo cheques as the earnest money.

At the time of booking, the concerned officials of the respondent assured to handover the possession of the allotted space within the agreed time of 36 months.

Thus, the respondent succeeded in their illegal designs and ulterior motives to C. extract money from the complainants by inducing them who were allotted plot bearing plot no.

IL1.11 admeasuring approx.

243.76 sq. yds.

The total salc consideration for the plot was Rs.81,23,131/-.

They were assured that the builder buyer's agreement would be forwarded in due course. d.

Despite not starting the work at the site, the respondent made illegal demands rvhich were paid by them who had already spend a considerable amount in thc project and were not left with any Page 9 of 33 ffiHARER. #-eunuenntu, e, t Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2021 aod 4384 of 2021 alternative but to give in to the illegal demands of it in the hope for a timely delivcry of the plot.

That the complainants paid a considerable amount of over 500/o of the total considcration much before the builder buyer agreement being signed in utter contravention of Section 13 of the Act of 2016 with stipulates that that a promoter shall not accept a sum more that 10%o of the cost without first entering into a written agreement for sale and register the said agreement.

They were thus left with no option thereafter but where are the mercy of the on-side, unilateral and arbitrary tcrms ofthe agreement ofthe respondent, with no bargaining power due lo fear of forfeiture of the money of the complainants.

That on 30.07.2014 after collecting a considerable sum of Rs.57,72,68'l /-,the builder buyer agreement was executed between the parties. e parties.

That in order to make timely payments, the complainants availed loan facilities from Axis Bank @9.5% valid upto 180 days.

Till date, they have made a payment of Rs.78,77 ,25a/- to the respondent on the demands raised from them.

Further, the scrupulous acts and malpractices of the respondent become clear from the fact that unnecessary delay penalties and charges were levied upon the complainants @18% without making any progress in the said project.

Thc following charges have been levied from the conrplainants as late payment fee on27.03.2015 of Rs.1,471/- Rs.1,480/- Rs.23,476/-, Rs.34,056/-, Rs.39,777/-, Rs.46,955/-, Rs.6,814/- and Rs,877/- inter-olio including late payment of Rs.477 l- charged on 15.09.2016. t'age 10 of 33 HARER' *-@* GURUGRAI( h.

Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2027 and 4384 of 2027 That the respondent failed to give the possession of the plot in terms of clause 4.2 of the agreement on 30.07.2018 and arbitrarily and unilaterally took an extension of 6 months grace period without the existence of any force majeure condilion to deliver the possession.

However, thc respondentyet again failed to deliver the possession ofthe plot on 30.01.2019.

The Complainants visited the office of the respondent in February 2020 to enquire regarding the possession of their plot ard respondent issued hoax letter dated 20.02.2020 to conFirm that the completion certificate would be received within 30 days.

Thercafter they again approached the respondent, and another letter was issued by it unilaterally extending the date of the expected competition certificate to January 2021 whlch has till date not been received b-v it.

The respondent further also admitted the delayed compensatior.l to be paid to them.

That the respondent took the advantage of the complainants, and they were always kept in dark about the actual status of the project and did not leave any stone unturned to illegally extract monies from them and like buyers. ke buyers.

0n one hand, the respondent failed to complete the project timely and handover the possession ofthe plot to them and on the other hand, the rcspondent has bccn cocrcive, insensitive and closed all doors for the complainants, for seeking refund.

That after losing all hopes from and scattercd dreams of owning amount, the complainants were notice to thc respondent. the respondent and having shattered a plot and having paid a considerable therefore constrained to issue a legal Page 11 of 33 l.

Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2021 and 4384 of 2027 C, 9.

D.

HARIR,. @ c|D|cDAt\,', drtrri L/ut\u\JJ\/ \tv k.

That due to illegal acts and conduct ofthe respondent, the complainants suffered mentalagony, physical harassment, financial loss, coupled with heavy delay penalties from thc respondent and interest on bank loan.

Thus due to the inordinate delay in the possession of the plot and no sight of completion in the near Future, the complainants are seeking for refund of rhe amount of Rs.78,77,258/- deposited by them with the respondent as mentioned above along-with interest@180/o p.a. and damages frorn this authority.

Relief sought by the complainants: - The complainants have sought following relief(sJ a.

Direct the respondent to refund the principal amountof Rs.78,77,25A/- paid by the complainants tou/ards the sale consideration ofthe said plot along with interest @180/0 pcr annum. b.

Direct the respondent to pay the litigation cost to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

Reply by the respondent 10.

The respondcnt contcsted the complaint on the following grounds: - That the complaint is neither maintainable nor tenable and is liable to be out-rightly dismissed.

The agreement to sell was executed between the partics prior to the enactment of the Act, 2016 and the provisions laid down in the said Act cannot be enforced retrospectively. pectively.

Although the provisions of the Act, 201,6 are not applicable to the facts of the present case in hand yct without prejudice and in order to avoid Page 12 oi 33 ffiHRRrnt #., eunrcnnv iii. ll.

Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2021 aod 4384 of 2021 complications later on, the respondent has registered the project with the authority under the provisions of the Act of 2016, vide registration no.93 0f 2017 dated 28.08.2017.

That thc complaint is not maintainable for the reason that the agreement contains an arbitration clause which refers to the dispute resolutiolr mechanism to be adopted by the parties in the event of any dispute i.e., clause 13.2 ofthe buyer's agreement.

That the complainants have not approached this authority with clean hands and has intentionally suppressed and concealed the material facts in the present complaint.

The complaint has been filed by it maliciousiy with an ulterior motiye and it is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law.

The true and correct facts are as follows; > That the respondent/builder is a reputed real estate company having immense goodwill, comprised of law abiding and peace- loving persons and has always believed in satisfaction of its custorners.

The respondcnt has developed and delivered several prestigious projects such as'Raheja Atlantis' 'Raheja Atharva', and 'Rahcja Vedanta' and in most of these projects large number of families have already shifted after having taken possession and residcnt welfare associations have been formed which are taking care ol the day to day needs of the allottees of the respective projects.

Page 13 of 33 #HARER. *&- eunrcnnH, Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2021 and, 4384 of 2027 That the complainant after checking the veracity of the project namcly,'Raheja Aranya City phase-1'sector 11 & 14 Sohna Road, Gurugram had applied for allotment of plot vide their booking application lbrm.

Thc complainants agreed to bound by the terms and conditions ol the booking application form. tion form.

The complainants were aware from the very inception that the plans as approved by the concerned authorities are tentative in nature and that the respondent might have to effect suitable and necessary alterations in thc layout plans as and when required.

That based on the Application for booking, the respondent vide its allotnrcnt offer letter dated 28.08.2014 allotted to the complainants plot no.

Ir-111 admeasuring 243.920 sq. yard.

The complainants signed and executed the agreement to sell on 30.07 .2014 and the complainants agreed to be bound by the terms contained therein.

That the respondent raised payment demands from the complainants in accordance with the mutually agreed terms and conditions of allotment as well as of the payment plan and the complainants made the payment of the earnest money and part- amount of the total sale consideration and are bound to pay the remaining amount towards the total sale consideration ofthe plot Page 14 of 33 ffiHnnrn, ffi GunuenRnlr Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2021 aod 4384 of 2021 along with applicable registration charges, stamp duty, service tax as well as other charges payable at the applicable stage. > That the complainants have also availed financial assistance from Axis llank Limited and the said bank who has the first change and lien on the unit in question. > That the possession of the plot is supposed to be offered to the complainants in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions of thc buyer's agreemcnt. > Despitc thc respondent fulfilling all its obligations as per the provisions laid down by law, the government agencies have failed miserably to provide essentialbasic infrastructure facilities such as roads, sewerage line, water, and electricity supply in the sector wherc the said project is being developed. developed.

The development of roads, sewerage, laying down of water and electricify supply lines has to be undertaken by the concerned governmental authorities and is not within the power and control of the respondent.

The respondent cannot be hcld liable on account of non-performance by thc concerned governmental authorities.

The respondent company has even paid a1l the requisite amounts including the Exten)al Development Chargcs (EDCJ to the concerned authorities.

However, yct, necessary infrastructure facilities like 60-meter sector roads including 24-mcter-wide road connectivity, water and Page 15 of33 HARER,I GURUGRAIV sewagc which were supposed to be developed by HUDA parallelly have not been developed. > That l.he time period lor calculating the due date ofpossession shall start only when the nccessary infrastructure facilities will be providcd by the governmental authorities and the same was known to thc complainants from thc very inception.

Non-availability ofthe infrastructure facilities is beyond the control ofthe respondent and the sarne also falls within the ambit of the definition of ,Force Majcure' condition as stipulated in clause 4.4 of the agreement to sell.

D That the development ofthe township in which the plot allotted to the complainants is located is 500% complete and the respondent shall hand over the possession of the same to the complainants subiect to the complainants making the payment of the due installnrents amount and on availability of infrastructure facilities such as sector road and laying providing basic external infrastructure such as water, sewer, electricity etc. as per terms of the application and agrecment to sell.

It is submitted that despite the or;currence of such force maieure events, the respondent has complcted the part development of the project and has already been granted part completion certificate on 11.11.2016.

Under these circumstances passing any adverse order against the Complaint Nos. laint Nos. and 4308 oF 2021 aod 4384 of 2021 Page 16 of 33 Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2027 and 4384 of 2021 11.

12.

HARIR,, GURUGRAII respondent at this stage would amount to complete travesty of justice.

E.

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

Their authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can be decided on thc basis of thesc undisputed documents and submissions made by the parties. furisdiction of the authority The authority has complete territorial and subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate thc present complaint for the reasons given below.

E.l Territorialiurisdiction As per notification no.

1/92 /2017 -7'l CP dated 14.12.2017 issued by Town and Country l))anning Department, Haryana the iurisdiction of Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram district for all purposes.

In the present case, the project in question is situated within the planning area of Gurugram district.

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

E.lI Subiect-matteriurisdiction 14.

Section 11(al(r) of the Act, 2016 provides rhat the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as pcr agreement for sale.

Section 11(a)(a) is reproduced as hereunder: Page 17 of 33 ffiHARER #- eunuennv Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2027 and 4384 of 2027 Section 11 (4) 'l'he pramoter shall- (o) be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities ond functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulotions mqde thereunder or to the ollottees as per the agreement for sole, or to the ossociation ofallottees, as the case moy be, till the conveyance ofall the aportments, plots or buildings, as the cose mqy be, to the ollottees, or the common oreqs to the ossociation of allottees or the competent outhority, os the case mqy be; Section 34-Functions oJ the Authority: 34(fl oJ Lhe Act provides to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoLers, the o ers, the ollottees ond the real estqte agents under this Act and the rules qnd regulations made thereunder.

15.

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

16.

Further, the authority has no hitch in proceeding with the complaint and to grant a relief of rcfund in tl)e present matter in view of the judgement passed by the Ilon'ble Apex Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limiled Vs State of U.P, and Ors.2021-2022 (1) RCR (Civil),357 and reiteroted in case of M/s Satw Realtors Privote Limited & other Vs Union of India & others SLP (Civil) No.

13005 of 2020 decided on 1-2.05.2022whcrein it has been laid down as under: "86. f'ron the scheme of the Act oJ which a detoiled refercnce hos been made ond toking note of power of adiudicqtion delineoted with the regulatory auLhority and odjudrcqting officer, whatf nolly culls out is thot although the AcL indicates Llle distinct expressions like'refund','interest', Page 18 of 33 ffiHARER #- eunuennlr Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2027 and 4384 of 2027 'penalty' ond 'compensation', o conjoint reoding of Sections 18 ond 19 clearly manifests thot when it comes to refund of the amount, and interest on the refund amounL or directing payment of interest t'or deloyed delivery ofpossession, or penolLy ond interest thereon, it is the regulatory outhoriLy which has the power to exomine ond determine the outcone of a complqint.

At Lhe some time, when it comes to o question of seeking the relief of odjudging compensotion and interest thereon under Sections 12, 14, 18 qncl 19, the adjudicoting officer exclusively has the power to deternitle, keeping in view Lhe collective reoding of Section 71 reod with Section 72 ofthe Act. ofthe Act. ifthe odjudiculion under Sections 12, 14, 18 ond 19 other than compensotion us envisaged, if extendecl to the odjudicoting offrcer as proyed thot, in our view, may intend to expand the ombit and scope oJ the powers and functions of the odjudicating olJicer under Section 71 and Lhqt would be ogoinst the mandate of the Act 2016," 17.

Hence, in view oFthe authoritative pronouncement ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in thc case mentioned above, the authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint seeking refund of the amount and interest on the refund amount.

F. [indings on thc obiections raised by the respondent F.l.

Obiection regarding jurisdiction of authority w.r.t. buyer's agrecmcnt exccuted prior to coming into force ofthe Act.

18.

Another obiection raised the rcspondent that the authority is deprived of the jurisdiction to go into the lnterpretation of, or rights of the parties inter-se in accordance with the flat buyer's agreement executed betlveen the parties and no agreement tbr sale as referred to under the provisions ofthe Act or thc said rules has been executed inter se parties.

The authority is ofthe view that thc Act nowhere provides, nor can be so construed, that all previous agreemcnts will bc re-written after coming into force of the Act.

Thereforc, the provisions ol'the Act, rules and agreement have to be read and interpreted harmoniously.

However, if the Act has provided for Page 19 oi 33 I HARER,,:, m.,GURUGRA|,/r dealing with ccrtain specific provisions/situation in a specific/particular manner, then that situation will be dealt with in accordance with the Act and the rules after the date of coming into force of the Act and the rules.

Numerous provisions of the Act savc the provisions of the agreements made betweer) the buyers and sellers.'l'he said contention has been upheld in the landmark judgment ofNeelkamal Reqltors Suburban pvt.

Ltd.

Vs.

UOI and others. (W.P 2737 of 2077) decided on 06.12.2017 which provides as under: "119. der: "119.

Under the provisions of Section 1.8, the delay in honding over the posse.rsr'on would be counted from the dste mentioned in the ogreement for sale entered into by the promoter and the qllottee prior to its regisLrction under REp1.

Under the provisions oI REp#-, the promoter is given o focility to revise the date ofcompletion ofproject and declqre the same under Section 4.

The RERA does not contemplote rewriting of controct between the flot purchaser ond the promoter......

122.

We hove olreody discussed thot above stated provisions of the REM qre not retrospective in noLure.

They moy to some extent be having a retraqctive or quqsi retroactive effect but then on thot ground thevalidity of the provisions of REM connot be chollenged.

The porliament is competent enough to legtslate low having retrospective or retrooctive effect.

A law can be even liamed to affectsubsisting / existing contractuol rights between the parLics in the lorger public interest.

We do not have ony (loubt in our mind that the RE,.y'. hqs been fromed in the lorger public intetcsL ofter a thorough study ond discussion mode ot the highest level by the Stonding CommitLee and Select Committee, which submitted its detoiled reports." Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2021 aod 4384 of 2021 19.

Also, in appeal no.

173 of2019 titled as Magic Eye Developer Pvt.

Vs. lshwer Singh Dahiya,in ordcrdated 17.12.2019 the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has observcd- "34.'fhus, kceping in view ou aforesoid discussion, we ore of the considerecl opinion that the provisions ofthe Act ore quosi retroactive to some extent in operation ond will be oplltcoble to the agreements fpryolcsrlDrerlinto Page 20 of 33 HARER,: "-,8- GURUGRAII Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2021 afi 4384 of 2027 into betlveen the two side on 17.05.2012 to dispute resolution between the parties. even prior to coming into aperation ofthe Act where the transaction are still in the process of tampkliol. tampkliol.

Hence in cose of deloy in the offer/delivery of possessian os per the terms ond conditions of the ogreement for sole the olloltee shqll be entitled to the interest/delqyed possession chorges on the reasonable rate of interest as provided in Rule 15 af the rules qnd one sided, unfoir ond unreasonable rote of compensatton mentioned in the agreement for sole is lioble to be ignoted." 20.

The agreements are sacrosanct save and except for the provisions which have been abrogatcd by the Act itself.

Further, it is noted that the agreements have been executed in the manner that there is no scope left to the allottec to negotiate any ofthe clauses contained therein.

Therefore, the authority is of the view that the charges payable under various heads shall be payablc as per the agrced terms and conditions of the agreement subject to the condition that the same are in accordance with the plans/permissions approved by the respective departments/competent authorities and are not in contravention of any other Act, rules, statutes, instructions, directions issued thereunder and are not unreasonable or exorbitant in nature.

F.II Obiection regarding agreements contains an arbitration clause which refcrs to thc disputc resolution system mentioned in agrecrnent 21.

The agreement to scll entercd contains a clause 14.2 relating The clause reads as under: - "All or ony disputes arisin(J out or touching upon in relation to the terms of Lhis Application/Agreenent to Sell/ Conveyonce Deed including the interpretation ond volidity ofthe terms thereofand the respective rights Page 21 oi 33 ffiHARER' S- euRuennvr Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2O2l aod 4384 of 2021 ond obligations oI the parties shqll be settled through qrbitrotion.

The orbitration proceedings shall he governed by the Arbitation and Conciliation Act, 1996 ar ony stqtutory amendments/ modif;cqtions thereof for the time being in force. in force.

The orbitotion proceedings shall be held aL the oflice ofthe seller in New Delhi by o sole orbitrotor who shall be appointed by mutuol consent of the parties.

Ifthere is no consersus on appointment of the ArbiLtotor, the matter will be rekrred to the concerned court for the some. ln cose of ony proceeding, reference etc. touching upon the qrbitrator subject including any oward, the territoriol jurisdicLion of the CourLs sholl he Curgoon os well os oj Punjab ond Haryana lligh Court at Chctndigorh".

22.

TheauthorityisoFtheopinionthatthejurisdictionoftheauthoritycannot be fettered by thc existencc of an arbitration clause in the buyer's agreement as it may be noted that section 79 of the Act bars the jurisdiction ol civil courts about any matter which falls within the purview of this authority, or the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

Thus, the intention to render such disputes as non-arbitrable seems to be clear.

Also, section 88 of the Act says that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

Furthcr', the authority puts reliance on catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particular\y tn Notional Seeds Corporation Limited v.

M.

Madhusudhon Reddy & Anr. (2012) 2 SCC 506, wherein it has been held that the remedies provided under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in dcrogation of the other laws in force, consequently the authority would not be bound to refer parties to arbitration even if the agreemcnt between the parties had an arbitration clause.

Therefore, by applying same analogy the presence of arbitration Page 22 of 33 HARIR @ AllDtnDA[/ tu!7d \_/ \Jt\u\./tv Uv clause could not bc construed to take away the jurisdiction of the authority.

23.

Further, in Altab Singh and ors, v, Emaar MGF Land Ltd and ors., Consumer cose no.

707 of 2015 decided on 73.07. on 73.07.2077, the National Consumer Disputes Iledressai Commission, New Delhi [NCDRC] has held that the arbitration clause in agreements betlveen the complainants and builders could not circumscribe the jurisdiction of a consumer.

The relevant paras are reproduced bclow: "49.

SupporL to the obove view is olso lent by Section 79 of the recently enocted Reol Estott' (Regulotion and Devebpment) Act,2016 (for short "the Reql Estate Act").

Section 79 oJ the said AcL reods as follows: " "79.

Dor of jurisdiction - No civil court shqll hqve jurisdiction to entertoin ony suit or proceeding in respect ofany matter which the Authoriq) or the adjudicqting oflicer or the Appellqte Tribunal is empowerecl by or under this Act to determine qnd no injunction sholl be granted by ony court or other authority in respect of ony acttan taken or to be token in pursuonce ofony power conferred by or under this Act." It con thus, be seen Lhot the said provision expressly ousts the jurisdiction ofthe Civil Court m respect olany maLter which the Real Estate Regulotory Authority, estqblished under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 or the Adjudicoting Officer, appointed under Sub-section (1) oI Section 71 or the Reol Estate Appellant Tribunal estoblished under Section 43 of the Real Estote Act, is empowered to determine. llence, tn view of the binding dictum of the Ilon'ble Suprefie Court in A.

Ayyos'vo my (supro), the motters/clisputes, which the Authorities under the Reol Estotc ,lct ore empowered Lo deade, ore non-orbitroble, notwithstanding on ArbitroLbn Agreement between Lhe pqrties to such matters, which, to a lorge extetlL, ore similor to Lhe disputes folling for resolution under the Consumer Att.

56.

Consequently, we unhesiLotingly reject the arguments on behalf of the Builder qncl hold thqt qn Arbitration Clouse in the afore-stqted kind of AgreemenLs between the Complainants ond the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdr:tion ol o Consumer |ora, notwithstonding the amendments mode to Sec ode to Section B of the Arbitrqtion Act." Complaint Nos. and 4308 oF 2021 and 4384 of 2021 Page 23 ol33 &HARER $S.eunuennni Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2021 aod, 4384 of 202'l 24.

While considcring the issue of maintainability of a complaint before a consumer forum/commission in the fact of an existing arbitration clause in the builder buyer agreement, the hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as M/s Emoor MGF Land Ltd.

V.

Aftab Singh in revision petition no.

2629-30/2018 in civil appeal no.

23512-23513 of 2017 decided on 70.12.2078 htts uphcld the aforesaid iudgement of N CIIRC and as provided in Article 141 o I the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on ali courts within the territory of India and accordingly, the authority is bound by the aforesaid view.

The relevant paras are of thc judgement passed by the Supreme Court is reproduced below: "25.

This Court tn the series of )udgments os noticed above considered Lhe provisions ol Consumer ProtecLion Act, 1986 as well os Atbitration Act, 1996 and loid don,n that comploint under Consumer Protection Act being q special remedy, despite there being an orbitrotion qgreement the proceedings befote Consumet lrorum have to go ot1 and no error committed by Consumer Forum on rejecting the opplicotion.'fhere is reason for not interjecting proceedings under Consumer Protection Act on the strength an orbitration ogreement by AcC 1996. lhe remedy under Consumer Protection Act is o remedy provided to o consumer when there is o defect in any goods or services.

The comploint meons any allegation in writing made by a comploinont hqs olso been explained in Section 2(c) ofthe Act The remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is conlined to complqint by consumer as defined under the Act for dekct or deficienctes caused by o service provider, the cheop and o quick remedy hos been provided to the consumer which is the object ond purpose of the Act os noticed oht)ve-" 25. t)ve-" 25.

Therefore, in \riew ofthe abovc judgements and considering the provision of the Act, thc authority is of the view that complainants are well within their rights to seek a special remedy available in a beneficial Act such as Page 24 of 33 HARER,- GURUGRAI/ Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2021 and, 4384 of 2027 the Consumcr I)rotcction Act and REIIA Act, 2 016 instead of going in for an arbitration.

IIcrce, we have no hesitation in holding that this authority has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the dispute does not require to be referred to arbitration necessarily.

G.

Findings on the relief sought hy the complainants.

G.l.

Direct the respondcnt to refund the principal amount of Rs,78,77 ,25a/ - paid by the complainants towards the sale consideration of the said plot along with interest @187o per annum.

26.

In the present complaint, the complainants intend to withdraw from the pro,ect and are secking return of the amount paid by them in respect of subject unit aiong with interest at the prescribed rate as provided under section 18[1J ot the Act.

Sec.

18 [ 1J of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference. "Section 1B: - Return ofamount and compensqtion 18(1). lf Lhe promoter fails to conplele or is unable to give possession of on oporLment- plot, or buildrng.' (a) in accotdance with the terms ofthe agreement for sqle or, os the case moy be, duly completed by the dote spectfied therein; or (b) due Lo discontinuance of his business as o developer on occount of suspension or revocation of the registrotion under this Act or for ony other raason, he shall lre liqble on demand to the allottees, in cose the ollottee wishes to withdrow Jrom the proiect, witltout preJudice to ony othet remedy ovoilable, to return the amount received by him in respect oI that apartment, plot, building, qs the cqse moy be, with interest at such rate os may be prescribed in this beholfincluding compensotion in the manner as provided under this l( t: Provide t: Provided thot where on qllolLee does not intend to withdrow from the project, he sholl be poid, by Lhe promoter, interest for every month ofdelay, till the hondlng over ofthe possession, oL such rote os may be prescribed." (Emphasis supplied) 27.

As per clause4.2 of the agreement to sell dated 30.07.2014 provides for handing over ol possession and is reproduced below: Page 25 of 33 HARERI S"-GURUGRAII Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2021, and 4384 of 2027 4.2 Possession Time and Compensation That lhe Seller shall sincerely endeavor to give possession of the plot to the purchaser within thirty-six (36) months from the dqte of the execution of the Agreement to sell and after providing of necessary infrasLructure speciolly road sewer & water in the sector by the Governtncnt, but subject ta force mojeure conditions or ony Covernment/ Regulatory authority's action, inoction or omission ond reasons beyond the contrcl of the Seller.

Ilowever, the seller shall be entitled Ior compensation free grace period of six (6) months in cose the development is not completed within the time period mentioned qbove. ln the event of his foilure to toke over posses.rioD of the plot, provisionolly and /or finolly allotted within 30 doys from the date of intimation in writing by the seller, then the sqme sholl lie ot his/her risk ond casL and the Purchqscr shall be lie ot his/her risk and cost the purchoser sholl be liable to poy @ P,s.50/- per sq.

Yds. ofthe plot areq per month cts cost ond the purchaser sholl be liable to poy @ Rs.50/- per sq.

Yards.

Olthe plot areq per nonth as holding chorgesfor the entire period of suc h (b I oy............" 28.

At the outset, it is reievant to commcnt on the preset possession clause of the agreement wherein the possession has been sublected to providing necessary infrastructure specially road, sewer & water in the sector by the government, but subject to force ma,eure conditions or any government /regulatory authority's action, inaction or omission and ssion and reason beyond the control of the seller.

The drafting of this clause and incorporation of such conditions are not only vaguc and uncertain but so heavily loaded in favour of thc promoter and against the allottee that even a single default by the allottec in making paymcnt as pcr the plan may make the possession clause irrelevant for the purpose of allottee and the commitment date for handing over posscssion loscs its meaning.

The incorporation of such a clause in the agreement to sell by the promoter is just to evade the liability Page 26 of 33 Complaint Nos. and 4308 oi 2021 aod 4384 of 2021 towards timely delivery of subject unit and to deprive the allottee of his right accruing after delay in possession.

This is just to comment as to how 29. ffiHARER' #-eunrcnntv' the builder has misused his dominant position and drafted such a mischievous r:lause in the agreement and the allottee is left with no option but to sign on the dotted lines.

Due date of handing over possession and admissibility of grace period: As pcr clause 4.2 of the agreement to sell, the possession of the allotted unit was supposed to be offered within a stipulated timeframe of 36 months plus 6 months of grace period, in case the development is not complete witilin the time frame specified.

It is a matter of fact that the respondent has not completecl the project in which the allotted unit is situated and has not obtained the occupation certificate by luly 2077.

However, thc fact cannot bc ignorcd that there were circumstances beyond the control of the respondent which led to delay incompletion of the project.

Accordingly, in tho present case the grace period of 6 months is allowed.

Admissibility of refund along with prescribed rate of interest: The complainants are sceking refund the amount paid by them at the prescribed ratc interest. interest.

Howcver, the allottees intend to withdraw from the project and are sceking refund of the amount paid by them in respect of the subject Lrnit with interest at prcscribed rate as provided under rule 15 of the rulcs.

Rulc I 5 has becrr reproduced as under: 30.

Page27 of 33 HARIR P-GURUGRAil/ Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2027 and 4384 of 2021 Rule 75, Prescribed rote ofinlerest" lProvisoto section 72, section 18 ond sub-section (4) and subsection (7) of section 191 O For the purpose ofproviso Lo secLion 12; section 1B; and sub-sections (4) ond [7) o] section 19, the "interest ot the rate prescribed" shall be the SLoLe Bank of lndio highest marginol cost of lending rate +2ak.: Pt ovided that in case Lhe State Bank of lndio morginol cost of lending rate (MC|.R) is not in use, it sholl be reploced by such benchmark lencling raLes which Lhe State Bonk oI tndio may Jix from time to time Jor lending to the genetol public.

31.

The legislature in its wisdom in the subordinate legislation under the provision of lule 15 of the rules, has determined the prescribed rate of interest.

The rate of interest so determined by the legislature, is reasonable and if the said rulc is followed to award the interest, it will ensure uniform practice in allthe cases.

32.

Consequently, as per websitc of the State Uank of India i.e., https://sbi.c9 jrl the marginal cost of lending rate (in short, MCLR) as on date i.e.,25.04.20211 is 8.700lo.

Accordingly, the prescribed rate ofinterest will be marginal cost of lending rate +20/o i-e., LO.7Oo/o.

33.

On consideration of the circumstances, the documents, submissions and based on thc findings of the authoriry regarding contraventions as per provisions of ru le 28 [1), the auth ority is satisfied that the respondent is in contravention of the provisions of the Act.

By virtue of clause 4.2 of fhe agreement to scll dated form executed between the parties on 30.07. on 30.07.2014, the possession of thc subject unit was to be delivered within a period of 36 months from the date of execution of buyer's agreement which comes out tobe30.07.2017.

As far as gracc period is concerned, the same is allowed Page 28 of 33 HARER,', GURUGRAII Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2027 and 4384 of 2027 34. for the reasons quoted above. 'fherefore, the due date of handing over of possession is 30.01.2018.

Keeping in view the fact that thc allottee/complainant wishes to withdraw from the project and demanding rcturn ofthe amount received by the promoter in respect of the unit with interest on failure of the promoter to complete or inability to give posscssion of the plot in accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or duly completed by the date specified therein.

The matter is covered under section 18(1) of the Act of 2016.

The due datc of possession as per agreement for sale as mentioned in the table above is 30.01.2018 and there rs delav of 3 vea days on the date of filing of thc complaint.

The authority has further, observes that even after a passagc of more than 3.8 years till date neither the constructior is complete nor the ot'fer ofpossession ofthe allotted unit has been made to the allottee by the respondent/promoter, The authority is of the view that the allottee cannot be expected to wait endlessly for taking possession ofthe unit which is allotted to it and for which they have paid a considerable amount of nroney towards the sale consideration.

It is also pertinent to mention that complainant has paid almost 96% of total consideration till 2021.

Furthcr, thc authority observes that there is no document place on rccord fronr which it can be ascertained that whether the respondent has applied for part completion certificate/ completion certificate or what is the status oF construction of the project.

In view of 35.

Page 29 of 33 HARERJ GURUGRAI\,1 Complaint Nos. laint Nos. and 4308 of 2021 aod, 4384 of 2021 the above-mcntioned fact, thc allottees intend to withdraw from the project and is well within the right to do the same in view ofsection 18(11 oftheAct,2016.

36.

Moreover, the occupation certificate/completion certificate ofthe project where the unit is situated has still not been obtained by the respondent /promoter. ' rc authority is of thc view that the allottees cannot be expected to wait endlessly for taking possession of the allotted unit and for which he has paid a considerablc amount towards the sale consideration and as observc.d by I lon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ireo Groce Realtech Pvt Ltd.

Abhishek Khanno & Ors., civil appeal no.

5785 of 2019, decided on 11.01,2021 "....

The occupotion certificote is not ovailable even as on date, which cleorly omounts to deficie cy of service.

The ollottees connot be made to wait indeJinitely for pos.sessron of the aportments allotted to them, nor can they be bound to take the qpartments in Phase 1 of the Project... ..." 37.

Further in thc judgement of tlie Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and Ors. (supro) reiterated in case ol M/s Sana Realtors Privote Limited & other Vs Union of Indio & others SLP (Civil) No.

13005 of2020 decided on 12.05.2022. it was observed 25.

The unqualified right of the qllotLee Lo seek refund referred Under Secaon 1B(1)(o) ond Section 19(4) of the Act is not dependent on ony contingencies or stipulqtions thereof. lt oppears thot the legislqture hos consciousl)/ provitled this righL ol refund on demond as on unconditionol Page 30 oi 33 ffirlaLER #- eunuenetvi Complaint Nos. and 4308 of 2021 aod, 4384 of 202'l qbsolute right to Lhe allottee, ifthe promoter fqils to give possession of the opartmenL, plot or buitding within the time stipulqted under the terms of the ogreenent regordless of unforeseen events or stoy orders of the Coutt/Tribunal, which is it1 either w 1 either woy not attributoble to the allottee/hame buyer, the ptumater is under on obligation to refund the amounl ol) detnond with inlerest ot the rate prescribed by the State GovernmenL including compensotion tn the mdnner provided under the Act with the proviso that ifthe allottee does not wish to withdrow from the project, he sholl be entitled Ior interest fot the period ofdelay till hqnding over possession ot the rote prescribed-" 38.

The promoter is rcsponsible for all obligations, responsibilities, and functions under thc provisiol]s of the Act of 201,6, or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per agreement for sale under section 11( )(aJ.

The promoter has failed to complete or unable to give possession of the unit in accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or duly completed by thc datc specified therein.

Accordingly, the promoter is li;rble to the allottees, as the allottees wish to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the 39. amount received by it in respect may be prescribed.

Accordingly, the non-compliaircc of the unit with interest at such rate as ol' the mandate contained in section 11(4)(a) read with scction 1tlI lJ of the Act on the part of the respondent is established.

As such, the conr pla inants are entitled to refund ofthe entire amount paid by thcni at the prescribed rate of interest i.e., @ 70.70o/o p.a. [the State Bank of India highcst marginal cost of lending rate (MCLR) applicable as or1 date +2%ol as pr-escribed under rule 15 of the Haryana Page 31 of 33 ffHARER, #-eunuenRu Real Estate (Regulation and DevelopmentJ Rules,2017 from the date of each payment till the actual date of refund of the amount within the timelines provided in rule 16 o[ the ]laryana Rules 2 017 ibid.

II Direct the respondent to pay the litigation cost to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

40.

The complainants are seeking above mentioned relief w.r.t. compensation. pensation.

Hon'ble Suprcnre Court of India in casc titled as M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt, Ltd.

V/s State ofUp & Ors.

2021-2022(1) RCR (C), 357 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 pcr section 71 and the quantum of compensation & litigation expense shall be adjudged by the adjudicating officer having due regard to thc factors mentioned in section 72.

The adjudicating ofticer has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the complaints in respect of cornpcnsation & lcgal expenses.

F.

Directions ofthe authority 41.

Hence, the authority hereby passes this order and issues the following directions under scction 37 of thc Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the promoter as per the function entrusted to the authority under section 34[fJ: i.

1'he respondent/promotcr is dirccted to refund the amount received by it fronr cach of the conrplainant(s) along with interest at the rate of Comp)aint Nos. and 4308 of 2027 and 4384 of 2027 Page 32 of 33 Complainl Nos. and 4308 ol 2021 and, 4384 of 2021 iii.

42.

43.

44.

HARER. ffi-GURUORAIII Il.

10.700lo p.a. as prescribcd under rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Developnrcntl llules, 2077 from the date of each payment till the actual datc of refund of the deposited amount.

A period of 90 days is given to the respondent to comply with the directions given in this order and failing which legal consequences would follow.

The respondent is further directed not to create any third-party rights against the subject unit before full realization of the paid-up amount along with intcrest thereon to the complainants, and even if, any transfer is initiated with rcspect to subject unit, the receivable shall be first utilized for clearing dues of allottee/complainants.

This decision shall mutatis mutandis apply to cases mentioned in para 3 of this order. his order.

Complaints stand disposed of.

True certified copy of this order shall be placed in the r:ase file of each nratter.

File be consigncd to registry.

ISanj (Ashok Mernber Ha/yana Real llstate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram Dated: 24.05.202 3 Page 33 ol33