UPRERA Directs Builder To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Of Commercial Units In Festival City Project, Noida

Aryan Raj

28 Jun 2024 5:53 AM GMT

  • UPRERA Directs Builder To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Of Commercial Units In Festival City Project, Noida

    Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) bench, comprising T. Venkatesh (Member), directed the builder, Mist Direct Sales Private Limited (Bhasin Group), to deliver possession of nine commercial units and pay interest for delayed possession in the Festival City Phase III project, Noida. Background Facts The complainant booked a commercial unit in the...

    Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) bench, comprising T. Venkatesh (Member), directed the builder, Mist Direct Sales Private Limited (Bhasin Group), to deliver possession of nine commercial units and pay interest for delayed possession in the Festival City Phase III project, Noida.

    Background Facts

    The complainant booked a commercial unit in the builder's (Respondent) project, Festival City Phase-III, with a total cost of Rs. 21,67,083, of which the complainant paid Rs. 12,51,090. According to clause 6 of the Builder Buyer Agreement, the builder promised to hand over possession of the unit by 31.12.2017. However, despite receiving a significant portion of the payment, the builder failed to deliver possession of the commercial unit on the promised timeline. Aggrieved by the delay, the complainant filed a complaint before the authority, seeking possession of the commercial unit and interest for the delayed possession.

    Observation and direction by Authority

    The authority noted that the project is clearly delayed, and thus, the complainant deserves interest for the delayed period from 01.01.2018 until the Occupation Certificate is obtained or possession is offered.

    The authority referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the Supertech Limited vs. Rajni Goyal case (Civil Appeal No. 6649-50/2018), which stated:

    "The period of interest should close on April 2016 when the full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent Purchaser herself in Para 4(j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 2016. The Respondent Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 2016 with respect to delay in handing over possession. The Respondent-Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession."

    The authority also mentioned Clause 9.2(ii) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2018, which read as:

    "The allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement, in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +1% unless provided otherwise under the Rules, within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice."

    Therefore, the authority directed the builder to hand over the commercial unit to the complainant, with all facilities completed, after obtaining the Occupation Certificate within 45 days. The authority also directed the builder to pay the complainant interest for the delayed period from 01.01.2018 until the Occupation Certificate is obtained or possession is offered.

    Case – Himanshu Sethi, Tripta Sethi and another with 8 Others Versus Mist Direct Sales Private Limited

    Citation - NCR144/07/110873/2023 and 8 Others



    Next Story