The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA), Gurugram, has directed real estate developer Splendor Landbase Ltd. to pay delayed possession charges at 10.6 percent interest to buyers in a commercial project after it failed to complete the construction and deliver units on time.
“The respondent promoter is directed to pay the delayed possession charges at the prescribed rate of interest 10.6 percent per annum for every month of delay from the due date of possession till the obtaining of the occupation certificate (OC) plus two months to the complainant(s) as per section 19(10) of the RERA Act,” said the order.
The decision was delivered by a bench comprising Ashok Sangwan, Vijay Kumar Goyal and Sanjeev Kumar Arora and it will benefit as many as 20 allottees involved in the matter.
According to a statement by HARERA Gurugram, the matter pertained to Splendor Trade Tower, a commercial project being developed by Splendor Landbase in Sector-65, Gurugram, since 2008.
The Authority also directed the promoter to pay to allottees the arrears of interest accrued from the due date of possession till its admissibility.
“And the arrears of such interest accrued from the due date of possession till its admissibility shall be paid by the promoters to the allottees within a period of 90 days from the date of this order as per rule 16(2) of the rules 2017,” the order said.
A request to the developer seeking a response did not yield an immediate response.
The Authority directed the allottees also to pay the promoter the outstanding dues, if any, within a period of 30 days.
The complainants had sought delayed payment charges with interest and also the quashing of unit cancellation notices sent to them by the promoter.
The allottees signed buyers’ agreements in May/June 2010. The due date for the completion of the project and handover of the allotted units was to be three years from the date of the agreements, or May/June 2013.
It is pleaded by the complainants that against the allotted units they had already paid a substantial amount, but the respondent-builder failed to complete the project and offer them the possession of the allotted units,” noted the order.
The company argued that after receiving the Occupancy Certificate for the project, it had offered possession of the units to the allottees. Despite repeated reminders and notices, the allottees failed to take possessions, it said, forcing it to issue a notice cancelling the allotments.
“It is pertinent to mention here that when the allottees visited the project site, they found a number of variations and alterations in the building plan besides some common areas being encroached upon,” the HARERA order said.
“The fulcrum of the issues involved in all these cases pertains to the failure on the part of the promoter to deliver timely possession of the units in question,” the order concluded.
