Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Vijay Sagar Vs. VSR Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

MANU/RR/0308/2019

28.02.2019

Property

Promoter is liable to pay interest to the complainant on failure to fulfil his obligation

A complaint was filed under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 read with rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 by the complainant against the promoter in respect of apartment/unit on account of violation of the section 11(4)(a) of the Act for not developing the project within stipulated period. Issue raised in present case is whether developer had violated terms and conditions of space buyer's agreement.

The authority came across that, the Respondent has delayed in providing the possession and completion of project. The promoters have violated the agreement by not giving the possession on the due date i.e. 25th September, 2016 as per the agreement, thus, the authority is of the view that the promoter has failed to fulfill his obligation under section 11(4)(a) of the Act, 2016. As the promoter has failed to fulfill his obligation under section 11(4)(a), the promoter is liable under Section 18(1) proviso to pay interest to the complainant, at the prescribed rate i.e. 10.75%, for every month of delay till the handing over of possession under section 18(1). However, the status of the project is not known.

With respect to the issue of refund, the Respondent submitted that the project is registered with the authority and the occupation certificate has already been received by the respondent on 7th March, 2018 and the revised date of possession of the booked unit was 30th June, 2018, thus the delayed period of possession that is 06 months and 7 days may be deducted from the total period of delay. Therefore, refund at this stage would hamper the interest of the other allottees.

The Respondent is directed to pay the complainant delayed possession charges w.e.f. 25th September, 2016 minus the period i.e. 06 months and 07 days in which the matter was sub-judice. The Respondent is further directed not to charge any maintenance charges and administrative charges from the complainant. The complaint is disposed off accordingly.

Tags : Delayed possession Interest Legality

Share :