Punjab RERA Orders PUDA to Refund ₹21 Lakh to Allottee Despite Payment Defaults

Rajesh Verma v. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA)
GC No. 0512/2022

The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Punjab RERA) has held that where both the allottee and the developer are found to have breached their respective obligations, neither party can ordinarily claim equitable relief such as specific performance or forfeiture of earnest money.

The Authority, chaired by Rakesh Kumar Goyal, accordingly directed the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) to refund ₹21 lakh deposited by allottee Rajesh Verma, along with interest. The total amount payable was assessed at ₹43.68 lakh as on August 31, 2026.

Dispute Over 400-Square-Yard Plot in Mohali

The case concerned a 400-square-yard residential plot in Gateway City, Sector 118-119, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

PUDA issued a Letter of Intent to Verma on July 10, 2015, for a tentative consideration of ₹84 lakh. An allotment letter was subsequently issued on August 16, 2016, pursuant to which Verma deposited ₹21 lakh towards the plot.

Verma thereafter failed to pay instalments due on August 17, 2017, February 17, 2018 and August 17, 2018.

He contended that the project had not been adequately developed and sought possession without interest on the outstanding dues. Alternatively, he sought a refund of the amount deposited along with interest.

Allottee's Payment Defaults Not Justified

PUDA informed Verma in February 2019 that possession was available and called upon him to clear the outstanding amount along with interest. Verma, however, did not act upon the offer.

Punjab RERA noted that the payment schedule under the allotment was not linked to the progress of development. It therefore rejected the contention that Verma was justified in withholding the instalments and held that he had defaulted on his payment obligations.

PUDA Also Found at Fault

At the same time, the Authority found shortcomings on PUDA's part concerning the timely offer of possession.

Punjab RERA noted that PUDA had the power under Section 45(3) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, to cancel the allotment and forfeit the amount in the event of a breach. However, PUDA did not exercise that power and continued to retain the amount deposited by Verma.

The Authority observed that PUDA's conduct did not extinguish its obligation to deal with the money retained by it in accordance with law.

Neither Party Entitled to Equitable Relief

While considering the competing defaults, Punjab RERA relied on the established principle that a person seeking equitable relief must approach the forum with clean hands.

The Authority observed that while the allottee had defaulted in making payments, the developer had also failed to fulfil its obligations relating to timely handover. In such circumstances, neither party could ordinarily claim specific performance or forfeiture of earnest money.

The Authority therefore declined to grant Verma possession under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

₹43.68 Lakh Payable to Allottee

Despite finding Verma in default of the payment schedule, Punjab RERA held that the circumstances justified a refund of the ₹21 lakh deposited by him, together with interest.

The complaint was accordingly partly allowed, with PUDA directed to pay:

• ₹21 lakh towards the principal amount;

• ₹22.68 lakh towards interest; and

• ₹43.68 lakh in total as on August 31, 2026.

PUDA was further directed to pay ₹18,900 per month from September 1, 2026, until the amount was actually paid.

The Authority also directed that the amount would be recoverable as land revenue and that a Debt Recovery Certificate would be issued in the event of non-compliance.

Ruling Highlights Importance of Mutual Compliance

The decision highlights that a party's own contractual default does not automatically entitle the opposite party to the relief of forfeiture or specific performance. Where defaults are attributable to both sides, the regulatory authority may examine the conduct of each party and mould the relief to ensure that neither side derives an unfair advantage from the other's breach.

TSRERA :- The Allottee has an obligation to adhere to the payment schedule as agreed in its Agreement of Sale as per Section 19(6) and non procurement of the Home loan amount cannot put the Builder under financial distress.

The Allottee has an obligation to adhere to the payment schedule as agreed in its Agreement of Sale as per Section 19(6) and non procurement of the  Home loan amount cannot put the  Builder under financial distress. 

Sri Umesh Choudhary Vs/ M/s Alpine Infratech 

COMPLAINT NO.519 OF 2023 decided on 12th Day of March, 2024 

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

Facts :-

1. The Complainant booked a flat in August 2021 in the project of the Respondent Builder.
2. Application Form/Terms and Conditions of Allotment was signed by him.
3. The Agreement of Sale was executed in the month of January 2022.
4. Complainant paid 20% of the cost and the balance 80% amount was to be arranged in form of Home loan.
5. The Project was approved from many nationalized bank but as the Complainant was a Central Government employee so he wanted the Home Loan in the form of House Building Allowance (HBA) from his concerned department. 
6. That vide e-mail dated 15.04.2022, the Complainant sought for several documents ( a list of 19 documents) from the Respondent Builder to avail HBA loan.
7. The complete documents were finally given by the builder on 20.02.2023.
8.  The Builder directed the Complainant to pay the Final due amount by 28.03.2023 else base price will be increased by Rs.200 per sft.
9. The Complainant offered an interim payment of Rs.5,00,000/-  by first week of May 2023 and the full payment by July 2023.
10. In May 2023, the Complainant requested the builder to accept the due amount of Rs.25,00,000/-
11. The Builder refused to accept the amount and stated that they will only accept if the Complainant agreed to make the payment with the revised base rate by Rs. 1000 per sft an increase of  Rs.11,20,000 in total price. 

Complainants Contentions :-

1. The delay in making payment occurred due to non-handing over of documents in time. hence, management is responsible for such delays.
2.  The revised increased rate is not acceptable as the delay in making payment did not occur on default of the Complainant. 
3. Prayed to take needful action against the Respondent Builder as per the applicable rules and regulations and to get the flat at the original agreed rate.

Respondent Builder's Contentions :-

1. The Complainant in spite of availing discount did not pay the agreed amount on time.
2. The Complainant initially agreed orally to take loan from various nationalized banks but later in the month of July 2022, started requesting various documents from the Respondent Company
3. The Complainant made one or the other request for the documents and that too after a lapse of one year and also which were beyond the purview of the Respondent Company and evaded the payments due to the Respondent Company. 
4. The Respondent Company sent several mails requesting the Complainant to visit the office of the Respondent Company to sort the issue. 
5. The Complainant failed to perform his part of contractual obligation and did not make the payment as per schedule, that's why the Company is justified in cancelling the booking 

Observations of the Authority :-

1. In Clause 1.3 of the BBA, the Complainant agreed to make payment as per payment plan set out in Schedule C (Payment Plan).
2. As per the Payment Schedule annexed to the said Agreement of Sale, the Complainant categorically agreed to payment of the schedule therein. which is not disputed by either party 
3. in the annexure to the said Payment Schedule, Point No.4 stipulates that prices are subject to change without prior notice upon non confirmation of sale.  
4.  the Complainant is bound by the same and failure of the Complainant in complying with the payment schedule is derogation of his duty under Section 19(6) of the Act.
5. the delay in procuring the documents cannot be attributed to the Respondent Builder as the said documents may not readily available with him and he may not be in a position to produce documents such as 
1. government pleader's certificate, 
2. estimates, 
3. permission under Conduct Rules for purchase of site and for construction of the house,
4.  Notice under Section 26(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, etc
6. Clause 9.3 (ii) of the undated Agreement of Sale executed between the parties clearly stipulates In case of Default by Allottee under the condition listed above continues for a period beyond 2 (two) consecutive months after notice from the Promoter in this regard, the Promoter may cancel the allotment of the [Apartment/Plot] in favor of the Allottee and refund the money paid to him by the allottee by deducting the booking amount and the interest liabilities and this Agreement shall thereupon stand terminated

Order of Authority:-

1. The Complainant is directed to pay the remaining amounts which is pending as on date as per the payment schedule agreed upon by both the parties within 60 (sixty) days, along with interest of 10.65%.
2. In the event the Complainant fails to complete such payment, the Respondent is to initiate measures in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules thereunder.