M/s Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. vs Shivaji Radhu

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

This Second Appeal is arising out of the judgement rendered by the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, in an Appeal No. 13 of 2019, M/s Eminent Infradevelopers Private Ltd. v. Sri Shivaji Radhu on 23.09.2019, which was arising of the judgement dated 30.04.2019, as passed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Dehradun in a Complaint Case No. 93 of 2018, Sri Shivaji Radhu v. M/s Eminent Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. and as a consequence thereto, the impugned orders under challenge herein, it relates to the liability which has been settled by the learned Tribunal and by the learned Regulatory Authority in relation to the remittance of the amount, as well as the interest payable on it by the developer to the following effect:-

"संयुक्त सचिव, हरिद्वार रूड़की विकास प्राधिकरण के दिनांक 21.12.2018 के जांच प्रतिवेदन से स्पष्ट है कि आरोग्यम् परियोजना का फ्लैट संख्या एस-1-102, जो प्रथम पक्ष को आवंटित है, पूर्ण हो चुका है एवं सभी आवश्यक सुविधाओं से युक्त है। दोनों पक्षों के मध्य दिनांक 05.02.2016 को हुए विक्रय हेतु इकरारनामे के अनुसार प्रथम पक्ष को इस फ्लैट पर अक्टूबर 2016 तक कब्जा दिया जाना था। किन्तु इस परियोजना एवं एस-1 ब्लाक का पूर्णता/ अधिभोग प्रमाण पत्र सक्षम प्राधिकरण से प्राप्त नहीं होने के कारण उन्हें अभी तक इस पर कब्जा नहीं दिया जा सका है। संयुक्त सचिव, एच0आर0डी0ए0 के प्रतिवेदन से स्पष्ट है कि अब द्वितीय पक्ष ने आरोग्यम् परियोजना के फेज-2 को Drop कर दिया है तथा फेज-1 के एस-1 एवं एस-2 ब्लॉक पूर्ण हो चुके हैं जबकि फेज-1 के ए, बी, सी, जे, के एवं एल ब्लॉकों को वर्ष 2013 में ही नगर एवं ग्राम नियोजन विभाग, उत्तराखण्ड से अधिभोग प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त हो चुका है। अतः यह आदेश दिया जाता है कि द्वितीय पक्ष अरोग्यम फेज-1 परियोजना का पूर्णता प्रमाण पत्र/ अधिभोग प्रमाण पत्र आदेश पारित होने की तिथि से 02 माह में एच0आर0डी0ए0 से प्राप्त करके दिनांक 31.07.2019 तक फ्लैट संख्या एस-1-102 की रजिस्ट्री प्रथम पक्ष के साथ करेंगे एवं उस पर उनको कब्जा भी देंगे। द्वितीय पक्ष इस फ्लैट पर प्रथम पक्ष को विलम्ब से कब्जा देने के लिए भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम, 2016 की धारा 18 तथा उत्तराखंड भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) (सामान्य) नियमावली, 2017 के नियम 15 के आलोक में प्रथम पक्ष द्वारा जमा की गई 4130000 रू0 की राशि पर नवम्बर, 2016 से फ्लैट पर कब्जा देने की तिथि तक की अवधि हेतु 10.75 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज की दर से (जो सम्प्रति एस0बी0आई0 की Highest Marginal cost of Lending rate 8.75% से 2 प्रतिशत अधिक है) उनको अतिरिक्त राशि (Delay penalty की राशि के रूप में) देंगे। द्वितीय पक्ष यह भी सुनिश्चित करेंगे कि एस-1 ब्लॉक सभी प्रकार की सुविधाओं से युक्त हो एवं उसमें लिफ्ट, सीढ़ी एवं फायर फाइटिंग आदि की समुचित व्यवस्था हो। जहां तक डी0एच0एफ0एल0 के लिए गए ऋण का सम्बन्ध है, इसे चुकाना प्रथम पक्ष का उत्तरदायित्व है तथा रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत ऋण का भुगतान नहीं होने के कारण आवंटी को फ्लैट पर कब्जे से वंचित नहीं किया जा सकता है।"

The brief facts of the case are :-

A. The property allotted to the complainant by the developer/appellant herein is a Studio Apartment No. S1-102, situated on the first floor, having an area of 610 sq. feet in village Baheri, Rajputana, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar.

B. The sale consideration, which was transferred by complainant/respondent was Rs. 41,30,000/-.

C. An agreement for allotment was executed on 5.02.2016, which contained a clause 3.3 for execution of the sale deed and hand over possession within three months from the date of allotment, was subject to its extension on account of force majure which in the instant case was extended after including the extended period till Oct.2016 that means sale deed was to be executed within the extended time.

D. The possession was to be handed over by Oct 2016, lest failing which an interest was payable to the complainant as per clause 3 of the Agreement to the home buyer, as per the clause 7.1 of the agreement the developer was to obtain completion certificate/occupancy certificate.

E. The developer/appellant had agreed to pay damages @ Rs. 3/- per sq. feet per month, on the area of flat till possession is handed over.

F. The responsibility to get the completion certificate or the occupancy certificate from the Development Authority was vested with the developer and it was thereafter only that the sale deed in relation to the flat or the property agreed to be sold, was to be executed.

G. 26.06.2018 the appellants' case is that by letter No. 374, they have requested the Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority to provide the completion certificate and the occupancy certificate which is the precondition necessary to execute the sale deed.

H. The appellants' case is that the flat was constructed and completed on 30.05.2017, but the possession could not be given or admittedly the deed could not be executed despite of the extension till 04.08.2016 due to non providing of the completion certificate and occupancy certificate by the Development Authority.

I. On a complaint proceeding by way of Case No. 93 of 2018 being culminated by the Regulatory Authority on 30.04.2019 it directed the builder i.t. appellant herein to remit an amount of Rs. 41,30,000/- along with interest @ 10.75 per annum w.e.f. Nov. 2016, as per Section 18 of the Act No. 16 of 2015 to be read with Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017.

J. Site inspection report from SDM Roorkee/cum Joint Secretary, HRDA reported in report that flat was completed before 30.05.2017. But interior work was yet to be done and was not in condition for execution of sale deed.

K. Regulatory Authority held that the Developer wants to take advantage of his own latches and dishonest intention, by delaying execution of sale deed.

L. As per Section 2(3f) of the Act of 2016, Occupancy Certificate and as per Section 2(q) of the Act, the completion certificate was obligatory on developer to obtain prior to execution of deed of conveyance.

M. Under Section 11(4)(a) & (b) of the Act No. 16 of 2016, all responsibilities; obligations and functions under the Act or Rules was to be fulfilled by Developer till deed was executed, including Completion Certificate under Section 11(4)(b).

N. Rule 15 of Rules 2017, to be read with Section 38 provides powers of imposition of penalty or interest in an event of contravention of any obligations casted on promoters under the allotment agreement or Act or Rules framed thereunder.

The issue involved in the present second appeal except the facts is covered by the adjudication already made in Second Appeal No.191 of 2019, M/s Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd v. Vivek Radhu, except there being certain factual differences.

Hence, this Second Appeal is also dismissed on the same grounds, findings and reasoning as recorded in Second Appeal No. 191 of 2019, M/s Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd v. Vivek Radhu. The judgement rendered in SA No. 191 of 2019 would constitute to be the part of this judgement.

Accordingly, the Second Appeal is concluded by concurrent finding of facts, hence the same lacks merits and is dismissed.