PARUL UPADHYAY vs VATIKA LTD.

ffi HARERI #" eunuenmr 1.

2.

BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Date of Decision 13.04.2023 Nnrur oF rne VATIKA LIMITI.]D BUILDER pnoiscr NnMr Tranquil Heights SR.

COMPLAINT Complainant Respondents Appearance N0.

Nos.

Complaint No.

3165, 3194,7677 of 2027 v/s Vatika limiled 1.

CR/3165/2027 cR/3194/2021 CORAM: Shri Vijay Kumar Goyal Ci Saurabh Gauba R: Harshit Batra Parul Upadhyay Anand Singh Bisht Vatika Iimited cR/7677 /2021, Abhinav Jain v/s V"iit" LimiteO I c,rarampettnuti & Anr.

Member ORDER This order shall dispose ofall the complaints titled as above filed before the authority under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 (hereinafter referred as "the Acf') read with rule 28 ofthe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) llules, 2 017 (hereinafter referred as "the rules") fo r violatio n of section 1 1 (4J (a) of the Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all its obligations, responsibi lities and functions to the allottees as per the agreement for sale executed inter se between the parties.

The core issues emanating from them are similar in nature and the complainant(sJ in the above referred matters are allottees of the project, namely "Tranquil Heights" (Group Housing Colony), Sector 82A, C:K.X l(ohli ir uarshrt eatra Page 1 of 17 3. r HARERI S,GURUGRAII 3.

Gurugram (Hr.l being developed by the same respondent-promoter i.e., Vatika l,td.

The terms and conditions ofthe builder buyer's agreements, fulcrum of the issues involved in these cases pertains to failure on the part of the promoter to deliver timely possession of the units in question, seeking refund with interest, & litigation expenses.

The details ofthe complaints, reply to status, unit no., date of allotment, date of agreement, total sale consideration, amount paid up & relief Complaint No. plaint No.

3165, 3194, 1677 of 2021 Vatika Limited Tranquil Heights (Group Housing Colony) sought are given in the table below: Proiect Name AllotmEnt Dare or Totrlrdte p,"1""- cR/3r65/202r lR/3194/2021 tR/16?7/202) 1002,10d t2.09.2014 10.07 2015 Ipace 10.07.2019 TC.

1,13,80,1l0/ 66,13,521/- 41,64,414/ 804, 7249.2014 06.10.2015 I 0610.2019 -+--- I o1oa20r6 ::::l'":' 01.04.2020 --l 4.

The above-mentioned complaints were filed under section 31 oF the Act read with rule 28 of the rules by the complainants against the promoter M/s Vatika Limited on account of violation of the builder buyer's Page 2 of 17 N # HARER #-eunuenanr 5.

6.

3165, 3194,1677 of 2027 agreement executed between the parties inferse in respect of said units for not handing over the possession by the due date which is an obligation on the part ofthe promoter under section 11(41[a) ofthe Act ibid apart from contractual obligations. ln some of the complaints, issues other than refund or independent issues have been raised and consequential reliefs have been sought.

It has been decided to treat the said complaints as an application for non-compliance of statutory obligations on the part of the promoter/ respondent in terms of section 34n of the Act which mandates the authority to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under the Act, the rules and the regulations made thereunder.

The facts of all the complaints filed by the complainant/allottees are also similar.

However, out ofthe above-mentioned cases, the particulars of lead cases bearing Parul Upadhyay versus Votiko f,td. are being taken into consideration for determining the rights ofthe allottee(s).

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, if any, have been detailed in the following tabular form: CR/3165 /2022, titled as Parul Upadhyay l Upadhyay versus Vatika Ltd.

H eads Description A.

7. at sector Nature of thepo_iect I B2A, Gursaon, Haryana I Qtqqp !oqtLne 11.218 acres 22 of 2011datcd 24.03.2011 valid Name and location of the roiect DTCP license upto 23.03.2019 Page 3 oi 17 h,l-;'T A & HARER #" eunuenaH,r 72.

13.

Name oflicensee tlERA Registered/ not registered Allotmcnt letter Unit no.

Possession clause Complaint No.3165, 3-194,'1677 of 2021 M/s Stanway Developers [,imited & 3 others.

Registered vide no .359 of 201.7 are admeasuring 22646.293 sqm.

Valid upto 30.04.2021 Pvt.

I 1002, tower A (annexure C, page 50 of complaintl 1645 sq.ft. [anncxure C, page 50 of complaint 12.09.2014 (dnnexure C, page 50 of comDlaint L0.07,.2079 _ _ 10.07.2015 (page 56 of complaint) 13.

SCHEDULE FOR POSSESSTO/V OF THE SAID APARTMENT The Developer based on its present plans and eslimotes ond subject to oll just exceptions, contemplates to complete construction of the s7id building/soid Apartment within a period of48 (Forty Eight) months from the ddte oJ execution oI this Agreement unless there sholl be delay or there sholl be failure due to reosons mentioned in other Clauses 14 to 17 & 37 ot due to failure of Allottee(s) to poy tn time the price of the soid aportment olong with oll other chorges and dues in accordonce with the schedule of payments given in Annexure -l or os per the demands raisecl by the developer from time to time oy any failure on the port of the Allottee(s) to abide by any of the terms or conditions off this qgreement.

Emphasis supplied Unit area admeasuring Date of builder buver q8I99rn9!!

Due date of Dossession Total sale consideration Rs.1,,1,9,57,044 /- Pagc 4 ol 17 E fiot ,Lr. t v 2 of replyl Amount paid by the com plainant , Ofler glps1q.ii_o q Rs. +9,35,644. /- as admitted by the respondent (page 2 of replyl | (page 2 of reply) Nor obtained Not offered B. offered B.

Facts of the complaint: The complainant submitted as under: - That the complainant has booked a unit in the respondent project namely "Tranquil Heights".

On !2.09.201,4 an allotment letter was issued in favour of complainant, wherein a unit no.

1002, tower A, admeasuring 1645 sq.ft.

A builder buyer agreement was executed on 1,0.07.2015, wherein the total sale price was mentioned as Rs.

1,,19,57 ,044/- againsr which they paid an amount of Rs.

49,35,644 /-.

Pursuant to the terms agreed upon between the respondent and the complainants in the buyer's agreement, in accordance with clause 13 ol the buyer's agreement, the respondent was to provide possession ofthe 9. & HARER. #- eunuennvr 8. unit to the complainants within forty-eight months, from the date of execution ofthe buyer's agreement i.e., by 10.07.2019.

The respondent has abjectly failed to perform its part of the obligations as it has failed to complete the construction and hand over the possession of the unit to the complainants till date.

0.'Ihe complainants furtherbringto the notice of theAuthoritythatclause 18 of the agreement, wherein in the event of abandonment of the project by the respondent a meagre compensation as fixed by the respondent to be paid by it is @120lo per annum for the period the amounts paid by the complainant were lying with it, when in fact the Complaint No.

3165, 3794, 7677 of 2021 "-rarittoO Uy tt " respondentlp=[!

Pagc 5 oi 17 ffi HARER. *&- eunuenmr Complaint No.3165, 3194,1677 of 202l respondent has been charging enormous interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payments as stated in clause 7 of the agreement.

It is submitted that the said clause is ex-facie one-sided, unfair, arbitrary and unreasonable.

11.

The complainants submits that a bare reading ofthe clauses ofbuyer's agreement points to the mala fide of the respondent in never originally intending to hold good to the representations and promises made by it to the complainants at the time of booking w booking with regards to the delivery of the possession of the unit.

The buyer's agreement is so vaguely drafted wherein it seeks to accept absolutely no responsibility, liability or obligation whatsoever with regards to providing a timely delivery of the project.

12.

The complainants, despite the issues as explained above, continued to make all the payments as demanded and prescribed by the respondent, honoring the promises made by them, and hoping that the respondcnt would hold good on its promises as well, especially with regards to timely possession of the unit.

The complainants showing faith in the bona fide of the respondent to deliver the unit and hoping to get the dream home they worked so hard for years and years to afford, continued to make payments as and when called by the respondent.

It has abjectly failed to deliver the possession as promised within 48 months of the date of execution of the builder buyer agreement i.e., by 10.07.2019.

It may not be out of place to mention herein that even after a lapse of 21 months from the original date ofpossession, the respondent has failed to issue any intimation for possession to the complainant.

By this time, shc had deposited with the Page 6 of 77 I4 -.' Complaint No.

3165, 3794, 1677 of 2021, respondent payments to the tune of Rs.49,35,644 /- as per the customer ledger provided by the respondent itself.

14.

It is submitted that the complainants are entitled for delayed interest @ 18% per annum at the same rate as charged by the respondent for delayed payment.

Aforementioned submission of the complainant is made in the light of the rationale laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court through a judgment in the case of Wg.

Cdr.

Arifur Rehmon Rhan & Aleya Sultana & ors.

V DLF Southern Homes Pvt.

Ltd & ors, Being Civil Appeal No, 6239 of 2019, wherein lust.

Dr.

D.Y.

Chandrachud held in his judgment that "lf the delay on the part of the developer is gross in nature i.e. ature i.e., ranging between two to four years from the promised date of possession, then the meagre compensation provided in the ABA would not be sufficient recompense to the purchaser.

The complainants submit that the respondent is liable to pay to them an interest amount totaling to Rs.54,A4,745/- till date on account of the delay caused by the respondent in delivering the possession of the unit.

It is submitted that various calls were made by the complainants to the officials of the respondent and their customer relationship personnel's.

However, they were shocked to see that there was no clear intimation regarding the delivery of possession.

It is submitted that the work of construction at the site of the said proiect has been halted since 2017, which shows its malafide intention to not give possession of the said unit to the complainant and reap wrongful gain out of the payments made towards the purchase of the said unit by the complainant to it.

17.

That the complainants are greatly aggrieved by this long delay caused by the respondent in delivering the unit, and seek the same quantum of interest from the respondent for the delay in delivering the possession HARER' GURUGRAI\I 15. 't_6. l'age 7 of 7'7 t #HARER #" euRuenRu Compla jnt No.3165,3194, 1677 of 202-L of the unit as it seeks from them for delay in making payments, i.e., @18% p.a.

The complainants submit that the respondent is liable to pay to them an interest @ 18% from the date of payment of the booking amount i.e., 01.11.2013 till the date of making of refund.

As such, it is liable to pay delayed interest @18 0/o on a sum of Rs.

49,35,644/- paid by the complainant towards the installments for purchase of the said unit.

18. 'Ihat the present complaint has been made bona fide and in the interest of justice and the balance of convenience is also in the favour of the passing of orders as prayed for herein. or herein.

Further, it is submitted that the complainant would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the reliefs as prayed for through the complaint are not granted by the Authority.

C.

Reliefsought by the complainant(s)r 19. 'Ihe complainantfs) has sought following relief(s]: [i] Direct the respondent to refund the principal amount of the complainants alongwith interest @ 180/o p.a D.

Reply by the respondent: 20.

That even otherwise, the complainants have no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint.

The present complaint is based on an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the Act as well as an incorrect understanding of the contractual terms and conditions, as shall be evident from the submissions made in the following paragraphs oI the present reply. 'Ihat the complainants have not approached thc Authoriry with clean hands and has suppressed relevant facts.

It is submitted that the complaint under reply is devoid of merits and the same should be dismissed with costs.

21.

Page B of 17 N ffiHARER #, eunuennu Compla jnt N0.3165,3194,1677 of 202r 22.

23.

That the complainants being interested in the real estate development of the respondent under the name and style of "Tranquil Heights", situated at Sector-8zA, Gurugram, , Gurugram Haryana ("Proiect") tentatively booked a unit in the project of the respondent on 01.77.2013, bearing no.

1002, 1Oth floor, tower A, having an area admeasuring 1645 Sq.ft..

The project is duly registered with Haryana RERA with registration no.359 of 2017 dated 77.11.2077 .

That the builder buyer agreement dated 10.07.2015 was executed between the parties for the unit bearing no.

1002, 1oth floor admeasuring super area 1645 sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs. l,l9,57,044/- against which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.

46,33,644 /-.

33,644 /-.

As per clause 13 of the agreement in the complaint, the due date for handing over of possession to the complainant was within 48 months from the date of execution of the buyer's agreement.

Accordingly, the handing over of possession was supposed to be delivered on or before 10.07.2079.

It is pertinent to bring into the knowledge of this authority that as per the agreement so signed and acknowledged by, the respondent provided and estimated time period of 48 months for completing of the construction for the project i.e., "Tranquil Heights", and the same could not be proceeded further and was stopped in the mid-way due to various hindrances in construction of the project and which were unavoidable and purely beyond the control of it.

Further, it is pertinent to mention that the project could not be completed and developed on time due to various hindrance such as government notifications from time to time force majeure conditions, breakdown of Covid'19 pandemic, laying of GAIL pipe line, acquisition of sector road land 24.

Page 9 of 17 N HARER'..

GURUGRALl Complaint No.

3165, 31,94, 1677 of 2021, parcels in the township and other such reasons stated above and which miserably affected the construction and development of the above said project as per the proposed plans and layout plans, which were unavoidable and beyond the control of it.

That it is further submitted that the complainants themselves are at default and cannot benefit from their own wrongs.'l'he complainant has caused delay in making the timely payments of the instalments as evident from the statement of accounts annexed herewith, thereby violating section 19(6J of the Act.

It is pertinent to mention here that the one of the main factors that caused delay in the project of the respondent was delayed payments by the allottees like the present complainant. mplainant.

Each and every real estate project is subject to timely payments by the allottees and it is because of the allottees like the complainant, that the real estate projects get delayed.

Despite facing grave force majeure events, it bonafidely tried to complete the construction of the project.

That without admitting or acknowledging in any manner the truth or legality of the allegations put forth by the complainants and without preludice to any of the contentions of the respondent, it is submitted that only such allottees, who have complied with all the terms and conditions of the agreement including making timely payment of instalments can approach the Authority to claim any refund.

However, it is evident from the statement ofaccounts so annexed that the present allottee complainant is a chronic defaulter and not a bonafide allottee, thus, his complaint is liable to be dismissed from the very outset.

That the instant complaint has been preferred on absolutely baseless, unfounded, and legally and lactually unsustainable surmises which can 25.

26.

27.

I']agc 10 ol17 lN 30. & HARER- #-eunuennnr Complaint No.

3165, 31,94, 1677 of 2021. never inspire the confidence of the Authority.

The accusations levelled up by the complainants are completely void and baseless and devoid of merits.

Thus, the instant complaint needs/deserves to be dismissed.

28.

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

Their authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can be decided on the basis of these undisputed documents and submission made by the parties.

E. lurisdiction of the authority 29.

The authority observes that it has territorial as well as subject matter jurisdiction to adiudicate the present complaint for the reasons given below.

E.

I Territorial iurisdiction As per notification no.

1/92/2077-1TCP dated 1.4.12. ed 1.4.12.2017 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, the lurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Curugram District for all purpose with offices situated in Gurugram.

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

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

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

Section 11(4)(a) is reproduced as hereunder: Section 17(4)(o) Be responsible for oll obligotions, responsibilities and funcLions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulotions made thereunder or to the allottees os per the agreement t'or sale, or to the ossociation of allottees, os the cose may be, till the conveyance of all 31.

Page 11 of 17 (4. ffi HARER ffi, eunuennu Complaint No.

3165, 3794,1,677 of 2021 the aportments, plots or buildings, os the cqse may be, to the ollottees, or the common oreas to the associqtion ofqllottees or the competent quthoriO,, qs the cose may be; Section 34-Functions of the AuthoriA: 344 ofthe Act provides to ensure compllqnce ofthe obligations cast upon the promoters, the ollottees and the reol estote ogents un.ler this Act and the rules and regulotions mode thereunder.

32.

Further, the authority has no hitch in proceeding with the complaint and to grant a relief of refund in the present matter in view of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Newtech Promoters ond Developers Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and Ors." SCC Online SC 1044 decided on 11.11.2027 and followed in M/s Sana Realtors Privote Limited & others V/s Union of India & others SLP (Civil) No.

13005 of 2020 decided on 12,05.2022 wherein it has been laid down as under: "86. nder: "86.

From the scheme of the Act of which o detoiled reference hos been made and taking note of power ofadjudicotion delineal:ed tyith the regulotory authori4) 0nd adjudicoting olncer, v/hot fnolly culls out is thot olthough the Act intlicotes the distinct expressions like'refund','interest','penalty' ond'compensotion', o conjoint reading of Sections 18 and 19 cleady manifests that when it comes to rcfund of the omount, and interest on the refund omount, or directing poyment ol interest for deloyed delivery of possession, or penolty and interest thereon, it is the regulatory authoriqt which has the power to exomine and determine the outcome of o comploint.

At the some time, when it comes to o question ofseeking the relief of adjudging compensotion ond interest thereon under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19, the adjudicoting oJncer exclusively hos the power to determine, keeping in view the collective reoding of Section 71 reod with Section 72 ol the Act. if the adjudicotion under Sections 12,14, 1B and 19 other thon compensation os envisoged, if extended to the odjudicoting officer as prayed that, in aut vtew, moy intend to expand the ambit ond scope of che powers and functions of the odjudicating olncer under Section 71 and thot would be ogoinst the mondate of the Act 2016." 33.

Hence, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Privote Limited Vs State of U.P. and Ors. ond M/s Sana Realtors Private Limited & others V/s Union ol India & others Page 72 of 17 n. &HARER #, eunuennt'r Compla jnt N0.

31 65, 31,9 4, 167 7 ol 202 1, 34. (supra), rhe authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint seeking refund ofthe amount and interest on the amount paid by him.

G.

Findings on the reliefsought by the complainant(s).

G.l Direct the respondent to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant.

The complainants booked a unit bearing no.

1002, tower A ad measuring 1645 sq. g 1645 sq. ft in the above-mentioned project of respondent and the same led to execution ofbuyers'agreement on 10.07.2015.

They paid a sum of Rs.49,35,644 /- to the respondent against the total sale consideration of Rs.

1,19,57,044/- but due to misrepresentations w.r.t. the project they did not pay the remaining amount and are seeking refund of the paid-up amount besides interest from the respondent.

Section 18( 1) of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference: "Section 78: - Return ofamount and compensqtion 1BI1). lfthe promoter fqils to complete or is unable to give possession ol on oportment, plot. or buildng-- (o)in accordance with the Lerms of the ogreement for sole or, os the case may be, duly completed by the date specifed therein; ot (b)due to discontinuance of his business os a developer on occount of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reoson, he shall be liable on demqnd to the.tllottees, in cose the ollottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to ony other remedy ovoiloble, to return the amount received by him in respect oJthotqportmen| plot, building, os the case moy be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this beholf including compensotion in the monner as provided under this Act: Provided thot where an ollottee does not intend to withdruw fram the project, he sholl be pqid, by the promoter, interest Jbr every month of delay, till the honding over of the possession, ot such rate os moy be prescribed." (Emphasis supplied) Clause 13 of the buyer's agreement dated 10.07.2015 provides for schedule for possession of unit in question and is reproduced below for the reference: 35.

Page 13 oF 17 A "& HARER #- eunuenatlr Complaint No.

3165, 319 4, 1677 ot 2021 13, SCHEDULE FOR POSSESSION OF THE SAID APARTMENT The Developet bosed on its present plons and estimates ond sublect to oll just exceptions, contemplqtes to compleLe construction of the said building/sqid Apartment within q pe ithin q period of 48 (Forty Eight) months Irom the date oI execution of this Agreement unless there shall be delay or there shall be foilure due to reosons mentioned in other Clouses 14 to 17 & 37 or due to foilure of Allottee(s) to poy in time the price of the said apqrtment along with all other chorges qnd dues tn accordonce with the schedule of pqyments given in Annexure -l or as per the demonds roised by the developer from time to time oy ony failure on the part of the Allottee(s) to abide by qny of the terms or conditions off this agreement.

Emphasis supplied 36.

Entitlement of the complainants for refund: The respondent has proposed to hand over the possession of the apartment within a period of 48 months from date of execution of builder buyer's agreement. 'lhe builder buyer's agreement was executed inferse parties on 10.0 7.2015, therefore, the due date of possession comes out to be 10.07.2019.

37.

It is not disputed that the complainants are allottees of the respondent having been allotted a unit no.

1002, tower A admeasuring 1645 sq. ft. ofthe project known as Tranquil Heights, Phase I, Sector 82A, Gurugram for a total sale consideration ofRs.

1 ,91,57 ,044 /-.The respondent in the reply has admitted that the project could not be delivered due to various reasons and thus the respondent has filed a proposal for de-registration ol the project in question.

As of now, there is no progress of project at the site.

Thus, the complainants are right in withdrawing from the project and seeking refund of the paid-up amount besides interest as the promoter has failed to raise construction as per the schedule of construction despite demands being raised from them and the project being abandoned.

38.

Further in the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of rlUewtech Promoters and Developers Privote Limited Vs Stote of U.P. and Ors. (supra) reiterated in case of M/s Sona Realtors Page 14 of 17 A &HARER #"eunuenntr,r Complaint No. plaint No.

3165, 3194, 1677 ot 2021.

Private Limited & other Vs Union of lndia & others SLP (Civil) No, 13005 of2020 decided on 12.05.2022, it was observed as under: "25.

The unqualifred right of the ollottee to seek refund referred Under Section 1B(1)(a) and Section 19(4) of the Act is not d e pe ndent on ony contingencies or sti p u lations the reof. lt q ppeo rs thqt the legislature has consciously provtded this right of refund on clemand as on unconditionol absolute right to the alloLtee, if the promoter foils to give possession of the apartment, plot or building within the time stipuloted under the tetms of the ogreement regordless of unforeseen events or stoy ordeB of the Court/Tribunol, which is in either wa)) not otttibutable to the ollottee/home buyer, the promoter is under an obligqtion to refund the omount on demand with interest at the rote prescribed by the Stqte Government including compensation in the monner provided under the Act with the proviso thot if the ollottee does not wish to withdrow Irom the project, he sholl be entitled fot interestfor the period ofdelay till handing over possession at the rote prescribed." 39.

The promoter is responsible for all obligations, responsibilities, and functions under the provisions of the Act of 20L6, or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottee as per agreement [or sale under section 11(4)(a) of the Act.

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 the date specified therein.

Accordingly, the promoter is liable to the allottee, as the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of the unit with interest at such rate as may be prescribed.

40. ribed.

40.

Admissibility of refund along with prescribed rate of interest: Section 18 of the Act read with rule 15 of the rules provide that in case the allottee intends to withdraw from the pro,ect, the respondent shall refund of the amount paid by the allottee in respect of the subject unit with interest at prescribed rate as provided under rule 15 of the rules.

Rule 15 has been reproduced as under: Page 15 ot 17 tx ffiHARER ffi" eunuennvt Complaint No.

3165,3194, 7677 of 202"1 "Rule 75, Prescribed rate of interest- IProviso to section 12, section 78 qnd sub-section (4) and subsection (7) of section 191 (1) For the purpose of proviso to section 12; section 18; ond sub- sections (4) ond (7) ofsection 19, the "interest ot the rote prescribe(l" shall be the State Bank of lndia highest morginal cost of lending rate +20k.: Provided that in case the Stote Bonk of lndio morginol cost oflending rote (MCLR) is not in use, it sholl be replocecl by such benchmark lending rates which the Stote Bank of lndio may fx from time to tine for lending to the general public." 41.

The legislature in its wisdom in the subordinate legislation under the provision of rule 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 rule is followed to award the interest, it will ensure uniform practice in all the cases.

42.

Consequently, as per website of the State Bank of India i.e., Itlpslsbi{pjn, the marginal cost of lending rate [in short, MCLR) as on date i.e., L3.O4.2023 is 8.700/0.

Accordingly, the prescribed rate of interest will be marginal cost of lending rate +20lo i.e., 10.7 0o/0.

43.

The authority hereby directs the promoter to return the amount received by him with interest at the rate of 1,0. te of 1,0.7 0o/o (the State tsank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate (MCLR) applicable as on date +2o/o) as prescribed under rule 15 of the Haryana lleal Estate (Rcgulation and Development) Rules, 2017 from the date of each payment till the actual date of refund ofthe amount within the timelines provided in rule 16 of the rules ibid.

Directions of the authority Hence, the authority hereby passes this order and issues the following directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the promoter as per the function entrusted to the authority under section 34(0: H.

44.

Page 16 ol17 b 4 5.

3155, 3794,1677 of 2027 The respo ndent-b u ild er is directed to refund the paid-up amount received from each ofthe allottee(s) deposited by them against their allotted units along with interest at the prescribed rate of 10.70% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of actual realization. ii.

A period of 90 days is given to the respondents to comply with the directions given in this order and failing which legal consequences would follow mutandis apply to cases mentioned in of.

True certified copies of this order be These directions shall mutaris para 3 of this order.

The complaint stand disposed placed in the file of each case.

Files be consigned to registry.

46.

47.

Member 1_3.04.2023 Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority \l- 3--) Yiiay Kuf,6r Goyal Page 17 ol 17 GL i.