NAND LAL AGGARWAL vs JMD LIMITED

ffiHARERA ffi.

GURUGRAM HARYANA REAL ESIAIE REGULATORY AUTHORITY GURUGRAM Efuqrry rpdv-o ftfrqrro qrBo-r"r, Ts.Jrq New PWD Rest House, Civil Lines, Gur rqr fi arfs Eftqrun ugram, PROCEEDINGS OF THE DAY 34 Day and Date Tuesday and 08.08.2023 Complaint No.

MA N0.

131,/2023 in CR/S116/2019 Case titled as Nand Lal Agarwal Vs f MD Limited Complainant Nand Lal Agarwal Represented through Shri Mayank Gupta Advocate Respondent f MD Limited Respondent Represented Shri Venket Rao and Pankaj Chandola Advocates Last date of hearing Application u/s 39 of the Act.

Proceeding Recorded by Naresh Kumari and HR Mehta Proceedings-cum-Oiaer The respondent has filed an application dated 25.04.2023 regarding clarification in the detailed order dated 06.70.2020 wherein it is stated that directions issued by the Ld.

Authority w.r.t the maintenance charges are ambiguous and is not clear, therefore the respondent has approached the Ld.

Authority vide present application seeking clarification of the same.

The relevant portion of judgment dated 06.L0.2020 forwhich clarification has been sought is reproduced herein below for ready reference: "(iii) The respondent is directed to do the needful within one month.

If there are any maintenance charges from the date of offer of possession, the same are declared invalid." It is further stated that from the verbatim of aforesald direction in the order, it cannot be specifically ascertained as to fonwhich period the Ld.

Authority has declared the maintenance charges as invalid.

The respondent further states that on in interpretation of the said direction, it could be understood that the Ld.

Authority has declared the maintenance charges from the date of offer of possession till the date of order [06.10.2020) plus one month i.e.06.17.2020 as invalid.

AnAuthorityconstitutedundersection20theRealBstate q-drcr @frara 3it{ trr,ra) yfrfrrlr, 2016*t qro zot r&ra rrffc crfuo'G HARYANA REAI ESIATE REGUTAIORY AUIHORIIY *HAREB& d*iro*m" M #. ro*m" M #.iTf ,ffi iiti'"laiiilifi\ ffi ;; ;; ir,. *' p " n d e n i,o 11 1*1.{:::,11 l'J; .I iH ;; ;; n u. v, n.. d e e d i n H;;j 3j,[x'#r**';t* ]fll;:i titl lT#[',?i. as per i'[s cariuration to the complainant as derayed oorr."'on'i-n-*ttt' However in the execution matter, onry issue ,n"itl"rJia to h.ur-ith is respect to maintenance I cha.g"s. rhereror'' -,tl:,:T?;|d*'H;"'tti;J p'""nt application ror :lii?;:,t;';i;;ut a'tta 06'10'2020' . :- -^ ^.^rricioy, in the e.t *r'itr' \ J**,t*1,{,.1p[r*p3;F*g{fl'il11ii'-,;'r:1'ff \ und., section 1',,:t":lt"li,l"i, secrion 3e of ,h;;;; utry limited' rhe I ilo*.r"t, the ambit and scope ( authoritv ou"'uJ' that sect';' gi;;;il1'ilfifi:;i3t i'";iZ:;Jil:I \ \ :ffi[]irIui:*r.;:ryi;::'ff::: I;. au,h.ri,v ** rec,ifv .rv I I mistake apparent from th. ,..oJ and makt 'uti-' il;;iltnt' if the mis*ke I I i, brought to its nodce by the parties.

HoweJerr,rectification cannot be allowed r in three cases, firstry,*!.r ,rr."rppii.r,i"n rrr r..iincarion is fired afier 2 \y"o,, from,n|",,ioj,L of the o,ili ^ode under this Act, sec.ondly, orders \againstw.lqrr"np.Jl*T-::"T,'::f f*J|*,3jiltil.'.*,'3*:'"'partor \ ifi. oto.r' The relevant Portron "section 39- Rectificadon of orders t . ..^ -.^dt'c rrnnT the date I The Authority may, st sny time within a period of Y? y-"ors from the date of I the order made ,ii"-r"ini, Act, with o"rir* 'o re'ctifying anv mistake apparent \ from the record' '^"a any order p"i'i'ii 'i' 'ni-tiou"^oie such amendment' '[fr'i'r"^irrZ;';'' ;:';;sit.i it' notice bv the parties: Providedthatnosuchamendme"ntshallbemade.inrespectofanyorder asainstwhich " ';;';i;o'\"n preferred under this Act: Providedf urtherthatthe,Au'!:':y,:,:'::.i:t;{,1:"r:;';*;::"X\#::"1" ,rr::::,'ofi:*ii2:"ir,^::^l!io^!i[!,iii',],lJoi,',i'Lii'ii o'a"'poi"a under the provisions ol this Act"' (Emphasis Supplied) ThepresentComplaintwasdisposedof?.vtheauthorityon06.10.2020 and the ..rpond#-h'as fired ,t. fired ,t.irlr"nt applicaiiot' on 25,+,023 which is after the limitarion period of 2 y;;;; prouia.a-u.,dtt section 39 of the Act unO it not for anY rectification' T'ert'on ct' 20 16 -Wi-{ARER HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY GURUGRAM ,ffi eunuenartl New PWD Rest House, Civil Lines, Gurugram, Haryana frfrd drftT In view of the above facts, the application of clarification dated ZS.O4.2OZ3 stands rejected.

File be consigned to the registry. ,TJ;,d Member 08.08.2023 Ashok AnAuthorityconstitutedundersection20theRealestate1n@ {-{'c-fl tBft{rrd rik E-rrO erfuftcq, 2016St rrrrr zo+ rtra afra crfut.rur