Page 46 - RERA Performance Report 2020

Picture (From the Left): Shri Jaxay Shah, Chairman, CREDAI National, Dr. K.K. Khandelwal,
Chairman, Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Haryana RERA(Gurugram), Justice Dr.
Devendra Kumar Arora, Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Uttar
Pradesh, Shri Durga Shankar Mishra, Secretary – Housing and Urban Affairs, Ministry of
Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India, Shri Hardeep Singh Puri, Hon’ble
Minister of State (Independent Charge), Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, Yogi
Adityanath, Hon’ble Chief Minister, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Shri Rajive Kumar,
Chairman, U.P. RERA, Shri Rajendra Kumar Tiwari, Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar
Pradesh, Shri O P Singh, DGP, Uttar Pradesh Police, Mr. Gautam Chatterjee, Chairman,
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Shri Parveen Jain, Vice Chairman
-NAREDCO & CMD Tulip Group
46 U.P. RERA PERFORMANCE REPORT 2020
The court of Adjudicating officer has been functioning from May 2019 at the Lucknow
headquarters of U.P. RERA and since then a total of 169 compensation cases have been
decided. In fact, 34 percent of these cases have been decided through virtual hearings
starting June 2020. In most of the cases, compensation has been awarded for delay in
handing over possession of units to the homebuyers. Similarly, the court of the Adjudicating
officer in NCR has been operational since 1st July 2019. Till August 2020, a total of 273 cases
have been decided, out of which 41 percent of cases were decided through virtual hearings.
Hon’ble Supreme Court had held in the case of Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital
(2000 S.C.C. - page 668) that the calculation of damages depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application.

Later on, in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbeer Singh (2004 S.C.C. -
page 65) apex court held that compensation is to be awarded to the consumers in cases of
deficiency of service by Development Authorities.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank
(2007 C.T.J. - page 689) laid down certain principles for compensation as:

1. Where the Development Authority having received the full price does not deliver
possession of the allotted plot/flat within the time stipulated or within a reasonable time or
where the allotment is cancelled or possession is refused without any justifiable cause the
allottee is entitled for refund of the amount paid with reasonable interest thereon from the
date of payment to date of refund. In addition, the allottee may also be entitled to
compensation as may be decided with reference to the facts of each case.

2. Where time is not the essence of the contract, then if the buyer instead of resending the
contract on the ground of nonperformance, accepts the belated performance in terms of
the delayed contract, then question of any breach of agreement does not arise requiring the
builder to pay damages under the general law governing contracts.

The fact in the above was that the buyer himself was defaulter for payment of installments
within the due time. In this case, four houses were delivered within due time and 11 houses
were delivered after some delay, at the original prices. The court held that in a self-financing
scheme the installments paid by the allottees are used for construction. If an allottee does
not pay the instalment, he cannot obviously expect completion of construction. The court
held that the order of commission awarding interest at 18% per annum on the price of
houses is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

In a judgment in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Shakuntala Rohatgi in Civil Appeal
No. 6051 of 2002 decided on 04.03.2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the view
taken by it in the Bangalore Development Authority case. The Apex court has held that
where the plot/flat which is allotted is not delivered in time but is delivered after some delay
at the original rate (without charging a revised higher rate which was prevailing at a later
date), the allottee will not be entitled to claim interest. The fact of the case was that at the
time of delivery of possession, the Authority did not charge any additional price. The sum of
Rs. 57,000/- which were taken later, was paid by the petitioner without any protest. Another
fact which requires mention is that the possession was taken on 15.12.1993 whereas the
complaint was filed later in the year 1995, i.e. after a lapse of two years which shows that the
time of delivery of possession, the petitioner was satisfied but later on he changed his mind
and filed a complaint seeking interest on the deposited amount.