Hence, amount charged by builder on account of delay in payment of installments which comes of ₹2,69,675/- approximately stands quashed.

 TDI Infrastructure Ltd. vs Sukhbir Singh decided on 25.03.2021. Haryana RERA Panchkula

Authority has passed a detailed order vide which settled all issues and are reproduced here in brief and be read as part of this order also:

a. Stamp Duty / Misc. expenses: Authority asked respondent to withdraw charges of amount ₹11,800/- subject to the condition that all these expenses will be borne by the consumer himself at the time of conveyance deed is executed and registered.

b. Club Membership Charges: On raise a demand of ₹50,000/- by the builder on account of club membership charges which is presently not functional, therefore, the Authority decides that these charges shall be payable by the consumer only when the club becomes functional.

c. Increase in super area: Authority directed that the area covered by staircase as per principles laid down in earlier decisions by HRERA, cannot form part of super area and the same is liable to be deducted from the super area to calculate the actual cost. Considering the cost incurred by builder to construct the staircase, Authority would hold that the builder shall divide the actual cost of the staircase by the total number of flats in the building and then the proportionate cost so arrived shall then be charged from the consumer.

d. Goods and services Tax: The builder is charging GST @ 12% while according to consumer, it should be @ 5%. The Authority directed that, the rate of charging GST by the builder will be based on the date when the conveyance deed is executed and registered in favor of consumer.

e. Interest on account of delay in offer of possession: As per clause 28 of FBA, builder was obliged to give possession to the consumer within 30 months which period had already lapsed in July, 2016. And, since builder offered Fit-out Possession but hedoes not have the occupation certificate (OC) till date, so the offer cannot be considered valid and consumer is entitled to receive interest on account of delay in offering possession from the deemed date of July, 2016 to the date on which a valid possession will be offered to him after obtaining the occupation certificate. Such interest as per decision of Authority in case Madhu Sareen vs BPTP Limited is to be calculated as per Rule 15 of HRERA Rules,2017. 

The HRERA also ordered:

2) Since occupation certificate has not been obtained till date so the Fit-out possession which was offered on 04.04.2019 cannot be considered a legally valid offer.

3) In current situation, when builder himself has failed to deliver a valid possession till date to consumer, he cannot be allowed to charge interest on delay in payment of installments, Hence, amount charged by builder on account of delay in payment of installments which comes of ₹2,69,675/- approximately stands quashed.

Cancellation of allotment after taking 90% of the total sales consideration is unsustainable in the eyes of law

 In the Matter of Gautam Bhatla V/s Vatika limited Complaint no.1208 of 2019 decided on 17.02.2021 before Haryana Real Estate regulatory authority, Panchkula.

it was held that " The Authority is prima facia of the view that Cancellation of allotment after taking 90% of the total sales consideration and without remitting the amount payable to the allottees after deducting earnest money, is unsustainable in the eyes of law"

The developer can only ask for VAT and Labour charges and all other charges are against the policy of AHP, 2013

 In the Matter of Sandhya Gupta V/s Adore real tech limited Complaint no. 849 of 2020 decided on 09.02.2021 before Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula.

Fact of the Matter.

Complainant booked a unit of the project being built under the Haryana Affordable Housing Policy,2013

In the Policy the Cost of Flat is fixed at the rate of Rs. 4000/- Per Sqft Carpet area and Rs. 500/- Per sq ft for the Balcony area.

At the Time to Possession the Builder demanded additional amount of rs. 1,67,073/- under the various heads of VAT,Labour Charges, Electricity Meter charges, Common area backup charges,Electricity Connection charges, Operation and Maintenance cost, Reimbursement of Electrical Infrastructure cost etc.

Ruling.

The Court held that , the developer can only ask for VAT and Labour charges and all other charges are against the policy of AHP, 2013.

An unregistered project shall be considered at par with the project of which the registration has been cancelled otherwise the protection to association of allottees under section 8 will not be available to allottees

 In the Matter of Sabiha and Ors vs Anil Jindal, SRS Real Infrastructure Complaint no.14 of 2019 decided on 30.07.2019 before Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority Panchkula

• It was held by the Authority that allottees of the project have formed an association (RWA in brief) and got it registered under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012. 

• RWA has estimated that an amount of about Rs. 6.5 crore has to be incurred to complete the project. The association having fulfilled all the tasks assigned to it by the Authority has a right to take over the project for completing it themselves and respondents were restrained for creating any third party interest in the project. 

• The project was unregistered as promoters failed to register the complaint and violated the mandate of section 3 of the Act and section 7 was applicable which deals with revocation.

•  The Authority in its order held that when a promoter fails to register the  project despite clearly being aware that he should do so, such projects must be treated at par with the projects of which the registration is cancelled by the Authority. 

• Not taking this view will create an anomalous situation and would adversely jeopardize the interest of the allottees of the project of which the promoters are deliberately refusing to finish the project. 

• Not taking such a view would also amount to saying that the protection of Section 8 is not available to the Allottees of an unregistered project. In the considered view or this Authority an unregistered project shall be considered at par with the project of which the registration has been cancelled. Having said so, now the protection of Section 8 must be granted to the allottees of the present project of the respondent.

x

Developer can not charge interest on delay in payment of installments in case of Fit out Possession

In a recent order titled Sukhbir Singh V/s Tdi Infrastructure (Complaint no. 1801 of  2019) , the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula has held that Fit out Possession can not be considered a legally valid offer because in this case, the occupation certificate has not been obtained, in such circumstances, when the developer himself has failed to deliver a valid possession to Alllotee, it can not be allowed to charge interest on delayed payment of installments by the allocates. 

The Complete order can be accessed at this link https://haryanarera.gov.in/assistancecontrol/viewOrderPdf/NTk2MTU=