AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A complaint bearing No. Com/06/01/2026 was filed in form M 08.01.2026 by Frontage Hospitality & Recreation Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Complainants” or “Complainant Company”) against Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “Respondents” or DDA), in relation to a dispute arising out of the conditions of Request for Proposal for Development of Socio-Cultural Centre at DC-II, Sector-10, Rohini (hereinafter referred to as RFP) and Concession Agreement dated 24.08.2022 executed between the two parties for development of a Socio-Cultural Centre at District Centre-II (Cluster 4B), Sector-10, Rohini, New Delhi.
The Complainants stated that the project was awarded to them by Respondents vide letter dated 18.11.2019, pursuant to which they deposited a sum of Rupees Twenty Crore only and furnished a Bank Guarantee Rupees Seven Crore Fifty Lakh only on 30.12.2020.
The Respondents informed that a Concession Agreement was executed on 24.08.2022 with the Complainants. They also stated that physical possession of the project site, admeasuring approximately 44,077 sq. meters, was handed over to the Complainants on the same date.
Thereafter, a dispute arose between the parties concerning, amongst other things, handing over of clear and demarcated possession, execution of Concession Agreement in prescribed format, payment of interest as penalty for delay in making contractual payment of Rupees Twenty Crore only, execution of the Lease Deed, applicability of development control norms under the Master Plan for Delhi-2021 (“MPD-2021”) and provision of assured access roads, leading to the filing of the present complaint.
After hearing the Complainants on 14.01.2026, the Authority ordered that a notice of complaint be issued to the Respondents and they were directed not to take any coercive action against the Complainants.
The Respondents filed a reply dated 02.03.2026 questioning maintainability of the complaint
On 10.3.2026, Complainants informed that Respondents have issued a Termination Notice to them against the directions of this Authority but Ld. Counsel for Respondents informed the Authority that no coercive action has been taken against the Complainants.
The Authority after hearing both the parties on same day i.e. 10.03.2026 directed Respondents to keep Termination Notice issued to Complainants under abeyance.
On 27.03.2026 Respondents were directed to file written submissions explaining how Complainants failed to fulfil their obligations.
The Complainants were directed to provide details as to how Respondents failed to fulfil their obligations.
The Complainants raised the issue that DDA is not approving their Development Plans as per prescribed norms detailed under Clause 8(3) of the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 but they are applying Table No. 5.4 to their project.
The Complainants filed their written replies / submissions on 9.3.2026, 15.4.2026 and 1.6.2026.
The Respondent filed their written replies / submissions on 2.3.2026, 27.3.2026, 12.5.2026 and 25.5.2026.
Ld. Counsel for the Respondents raised the issue of maintainability stating that the project pertains to a Concessionaire Agreement for development of the property on lease basis.
The Complainants submitted that the Respondents have failed to comply with the norms of the MPD-21 as per RFP.
On 12.05.2026 the case was posted for arguments with direction to both the parties to file their final written submissions within 10 days.
The arguments of Respondents were heard on 26.05.2026 and that of Complainants on 02.06.2026.
Ld. Counsel for the Complainants submitted that, as per the RFP, the Complainants are entitled to 50% ground coverage. She further submitted that the Complainants are also entitled to an additional 10% ground coverage in terms of Clause 8(3) of MPD-2021, as well as a maximum additional 5% ground coverage for green building construction in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the RFP.
Sh. Deepankar Singh, ACA, DDA submitted that although Complainants are entitled to 50% ground coverage under the RFP, but the said entitlement is inclusive of total permissible ground coverage. He further submitted that the Complainants are not entitled to any additional ground coverage under Clause 8(3) of MPD-2021 or Schedule-I.
He further submitted that the Complainants are entitled to additional 1% to 4% ground coverage in terms of the applicable Green Building norms.
Ld. Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as the Complainants are joint Developers of the allotted plot. It was contended that the parties are joint Developers under the Development Agreement and Complainants do not fall within the category of allottee.
Ld. Counsel for Complainants argued that her client is not Promoter or Developer but an allottee as they have got the allotment through the open auction and they have no right to sell the property.
The case was reserved for orders thereafter.
For the sake of convenience, the submissions made on behalf of the Complainants are summarized as under:
Possession of the project site has not been handed over free of encumbrance, along with confirmed land-use classification, as required under Article 3.1 of the Concession Agreement. There are discrepancies in plot area and site address.
The Concession Agreement dated 24.08.2022 has not been executed in the format and manner prescribed in RFP.
The Lease Deed required under Article 4, Section 4.1(f) was never executed despite request dated 20.01.2023.
The 40-metre-wide access road between District Centre I & II, and between Swarn Jayanti Park and the project site, assured under the Concession Agreement, were never provided.
The Respondents have wrongly applied Table 5.4 (Commercial Centre Norms) of MPD-2021 instead of Table 13.17 (Socio-Cultural Centre Norms), thereby denying the Complainants an additional 10% atrium which affect validity of the project.
The Respondents levied 10% interest penalty on delay in payment of upfront premium without contractual basis.
Requisition for 900 sq. m. of land for an Electric Sub-Station is arbitrary, in absence of technical requirement assessment from Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited.
The Complainants have sought directions to the Respondents to cure their defaults so that the project may be implemented at the earliest while they reserve their right to claim damages.
For the sake of convenience, the submissions made on behalf of the Respondents are summarized as under:
The complaint is not maintainable as the Complainants are neither an “allottee” under Section 2(d) nor an “aggrieved person” under Section 31 of the Act, the relationship between the parties being that of a concessioning authority and concessionaire, and not that of promoter and allottee.
Clause 1.1 and Section 4.1 of the RFP contemplate development, operation and with maintenance of the project by the Complainants on a leasehold basis for a period of 50 years on a Design, Build, Finance, Operate, Maintain, and Transfer (DBFOMT) basis. Since, Complainants themselves will be undertaking development of the project, they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Authority as an allottee.
Reliance was placed on cases Bhopal Development Authority v. Roop Laxmi Singh (MP RERA Appellate Tribunal), Pulin Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Tirupati Developers (MahaRERA), and Vibhu Taneja & Anr. v. M/s Advance India Projects Ltd. & Anr. (HRERA Gurugram), for the proposition that disputes between co-promoters/developers, and disputes arising out of development or leasing agreements, are not maintainable under RERA.
Clause 23 of the Concession Agreement provides for arbitration, already invoked by the Complainants by giving notice prior to filing of the present complaint, and the Complainants cannot now bypass the said mechanism.
The RFP required bidders to undertake due diligence and inspect the site prior to submission of bid; having participated in the bidding process with full knowledge, the Complainants cannot now raise objections relating to demarcation, FAR, setbacks and road width to justify non-performance.
The present complaint has been filed only after issuance of the Default Notice dated 13.11.2025, at a stage when a payment liability of approximately Rs. 22.05 crore remained due and payable, and is an attempt to avoid contractual and financial liabilities.
The permissible ground coverage under MPD-2021 is 50%, inclusive of atrium, and no additional relaxation is permissible.
The aforesaid conduct cumulatively constitutes a “Concessionaire Event of Default” under Article 19.1(a)(i) and (iii) of the RFP, on account of which the Default Notice dated 13.11.2025 was issued.
The Amicable Settlement Committee, after due deliberation at the meeting held on 18.12.2025, found no merit in the Complainants Company’s objections and did not recommend withdrawal of the Default Notice.
The Respondents prays that the present complaint be dismissed with costs, for being not maintainable and devoid of merit.
Analysis And Consideration
Having examined the facts, submissions and documents on record and heard the arguments of both the parties, the following issues arise for determination in the present order.
I. Whether the present complaint is maintainable before this Authority under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as RE(RD) Act, 2016 or the ‘Act’).
II. Whether the Complainants are entitled to an additional 10% ground coverage for atrium.
III. Whether the Respondents have failed to satisfy the Conditions Precedent under the RFP and Concession Agreement, including handing over of possession, execution of the Lease Deed and provide assured access roads.
Issue I – Whether the present complaint is maintainable before this Authority under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
The Respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present complaint, contending that the Complainantsare not an “allottee” within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act, that the relationship between the parties is that of a Concessioning Authority and Concessionaire and not that of promoter and allottee. They further stated that Section 23.2 of the draft Concession Agreement part of RFP, provides for arbitration to resolve disputes.
However, we note that clause, Section 23.2 provides for arbitration but subsection (g) of such 23.2 reads as follows:
Section 23.2 (g) Adjudication by Regulatory Authority
In the event of the constitution of a statutory Regulatory Authority with powers to adjudicate upon Disputes between the Concessionaire and the Concessioning Authority, then instead of reference to Arbitration under Article 7.2, such Regulatory Authority shall adjudicate upon all Disputes arising out after its constitution, in accordance with the Applicable Laws.
Further as per letter of award dates 18.11.2019, the project has been made subject to RE(RD) Act, 2016 and Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA).
Section 2(zk)(iii) of the Act defines “promoter” to include:
“(iii)any development authority or any other public body in respect of allottees of– (a) buildings or apartments, as the case may be, constructed by such authority or body on lands owned by them or placed at their disposal by the Government; or (b) plots owned by such authority or body or placed at their disposal by the Government, for the purpose of selling all or some of the apartments or plots;”
The Respondents are a development authority which has allotted the project site to the Complainants for consideration, namely an upfront premium of Rupees Twenty crore and annual lease rent, for development of the project. The Respondents, therefore, falls within the definition of “promoter” under Section 2(zk)(iii) of the Act.
Section 2(d) of the Act defines “allottee” to include a person to whom a plot is allotted, sold, whether as freehold or leasehold, or otherwise transferred, and excludes a person to whom a plot is given on rent.
In the present case, the Complainants as per letter of award have been allotted the project site on leasehold basis, co-terminus with the Concession Period of 50 years, against payment of upfront premium of Rs. 20 crore. The annual lease amount charged upon the Complainants are incidental to the said leasehold allotment, and the upfront premium paid for the grant of such leasehold interest cannot be equated with rent so as to attract the exclusion under Section 2(d). The Complainants are therefore an “allottee” within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act.
As regards objection raised by the Respondents that this Authority, cannot adjudicate the present complaint considering as per Section 23 of Concession Agreement all disputes should be settled through ‘Arbitration’.
The Authority while noting the provision made in Section 23.2 of the Concession Agreement also notes section 23.2 (g) which states that in case a statutory Regulatory Authority is constituted with the powers to adjudicate dispute between the concessionaire and Concessioning Authority then instead of reference of arbitration such Regulatory Authority shall adjudicate all disputes.
Further, Section 89 of RE(RD) Act, 2016 provides that the Act shall have effect not withstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law and any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the Act and therefore, the existence of an arbitration clause in the Concession Agreement or the issuance of a notice by the Complainants invoking the same, does not extinguish the statutory jurisdiction conferred on this Authority to adjudicate a complaint by Complainants against Respondents.
In view of the above, we hold that this Authority can adjudicate all disputes between the Complainants and Respondents. Having decided that we hold that the Respondents are a promoter and the Complainants an allottee within the meaning of the Act, and the present complaint is maintainable.
Issue II- Whether the Complainants are entitled to an additional 10% ground coverage for atrium.
Table 13.17 of MPD-2021 sets out, at Serial No. 7, the development controls for “Socio-Cultural Centre”, prescribing a maximum ground coverage of 40% and FAR of 120, subject to specified parking standards and a stipulation that socio-cultural activities shall constitute a minimum of 40% of the floor area.
Table 5.4 of MPD-2021, on the other hand, sets out development controls for “Commercial Centres”, comprising Convenience Shopping Centre/Local Shopping Centre, Service Market, Organised Informal Bazaar, Community Centre and District Centre, none of which corresponds to a Socio-Cultural Centre.
The project in question is a Socio-Cultural Centre, both in terms of its nomenclature under the RFP and the category under which it was sanctioned and allotted. It, therefore, falls within Item 7 of Table 13.17 of MPD-2021, and not within any category enumerated in Table 5.4.
Schedule ‘L’ of the RFP provides maximum permissible ground coverage of 50 % of the total plot area with maximum built up area is 80673 sq. mtrs. (as per amended RFP) dated 06.07.2019. The RPF does not mention that maximum permissible ground coverage is all inclusive as claimed by the Respondents. The Respondents have admitted that the Complainant will get extra ground coverage as per green building norms.
As regards the additional 10% ground coverage for atrium, Clause 8(3) of MPD-2021, under the heading “Regulations for Building Controls within Use Premises”, sets out General Notes applicable to the use-premises tables in that Chapter. General Note 5 thereunder provides as follows:
“5.In case of all the plots of size 1000 sq.m. and above, except ‘Residential Plot – Plotted Housing’, atrium will be permitted with stipulations – Maximum 10% additional ground coverage shall be allowed for providing atrium. In case, the permissible additional ground coverage for atrium is utilized, 25% of the utilized ground coverage shall be counted towards FAR.”
General Note 5 extends the atrium benefit to all plots of 1000 sq. meters and above, excluding only “Residential Plot, Plotted Housing”. The project site, being a Socio-Cultural Centre admeasuring approximately 44,077 sq. meters, is not covered by the said exclusion.
Since, a specific provision has been made in the RFP providing maximum permissible ground coverage of 50% of the total plot area, this Authority holds that the Complainants are entitled to maximum 50% permissible ground coverage of 50% of the total plot area that is 44,077 sq. mtrs. and maximum 10% additional ground coverage for providing atrium subject to the condition that in case the permissible additional ground coverage for atrium is utilized, 25% of the utilized ground coverage shall be counted towards FAR as per General Note 5 to clause 8(3) of MPD-21.
In view of the above, this Authority holds that Schedule ‘L’ of RFP, read with General Note 5 to Clause 8(3) of MPD-2021, governs the project, and the Complainants are entitled to get maximum permissible ground coverage of 50 % of the total plot area with maximum built up area 80673 sq. mtrs. (as per amended RFP dated 06.07.2019). Further they are entitled to an additional 10% ground coverage for atrium over and above permissible ground coverage of 50% as per Schedule ‘L’ of RFP, read with General Note 5 to Clause 8(3) of MPD-2021,, subject to 25% of the utilized additional ground coverage being counted towards FAR, as stipulated in the said Note, and additional ground coverage for green buildings.
Issue III– Whether the Respondents have failed to satisfy the Conditions Precedent under RFP and Concession Agreement, including handing over of possession and execution of the Lease Deed, and provide the assured access roads.
A perusal of Concession Agreement produced before us and the draft Concession Agreement provided as part of RFP shows that the Respondents have fail to sign the Concession Agreement in the prescribed format and manner prescribed in the RFP.
Article 3.1 of the Concession Agreement required the Respondents, as a Condition Precedent to hand over vacant possession of the site along with confirmed land-use classification to the Complainants. Article 4, Section 4.1(f) required execution and registration of a Lease Deed. The RFP and Concession Agreement further stipulate access road as per site plan enclosed with Letter No. F4(23) Socio / AE / RPD-13 / DDA / 617 dated 6.1.2019.
The Authority notes that in letter of Addl. Chief Architect, HUPW, Rohini Zone dated 7.10.2024 following has been mentioned:
“Earlier, the road on either side of the Swaran Jayanti Park was laid taking road width as 24 m. Later on as per traffic studies and recommendation of DUAC, this road width has been increased to 40 m.” This should settle the grievance of the Complainants.
It is undisputed that no Lease Deed, as required under Article 4, Section 4.1(f) of the Concession Agreement, has not been executed and registered between the Complainants and Respondents in spite Complainants request. The Respondents have, notwithstanding the absence of such a Lease Deed, demanded and received annual lease rent of Rs. 1,08,917/- from the Complainants.
The Respondents defence, that the Complainants were required to undertake due diligence and inspect the site prior to submission of its bid under Clauses 1.2.2 and 1.2.5 of the RFP, addresses the Complainants obligation to satisfy themselves of site conditions at the pre-bid stage. It does not absolve the Respondents, upon award of the project and execution of the Concession Agreement, of their continuing obligation to hand over the site with clear demarcation and confirmed land-use classification, execute a registered Lease Deed, and provide the infrastructure expressly assured under the Agreement.
Section 11(4)(a) of the Act provides:
“(4)The promoter shall– (a) be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale, or to the association of allottees, as the case may be, till the conveyance of all the apartments, plots or buildings, as the case may be, to the allottees...”
The RFP and Concession Agreement, being the Agreements between the parties governing the terms of allotment for the purposes of the Act, are binding on the Respondents in the same manner as on the Complainants. Having accepted the upfront premium in the terms of the RFP and the Letter of Award, the Respondents cannot resile from their obligation to hand over clear title, confirmed land-use classification, a registered Lease Deed, and assured access roads, merely on the ground that the Complainants had inspected the site prior to the bid.
As regards the grievance of the Complainants that Respondents levied penalty as interest @ 10% on the contractual premium of Rupees Twenty Crore only is concerned, we note that the interest penalty of Rs. 2.5 crore was deposited by the Complainants with the Respondents stating that the same shall be a matter of dispute to be resolved as per provision of RFP.
A plain reading of RFP and Letter of Award shows that it did not contain any provision to charge the interest from the Concessionaire in case payment of contractual premium is delayed. Considering this we direct Complainants to make a fresh representation in the matter to the Respondents to address their grievance considering the fact that RFP had no provisions to charge interest as penalty for delay in payment of contractual premium. We are sure that DDA will consider such representation & take appropriate decision expeditiously within 60 days of date of such representation as per the provisions of RFP and considering Covid 19 and its after effects.
This Authority in view of above discussion also holds that the Respondents have failed to satisfy the Conditions Precedent under RFP and Concession Agreement to execute the Concession Agreement in prescribed format, handover possession of plot as per the RFP, execute Lease Deed and provide access roads as promised.
The Authority now orders as follows:
The preliminary objection of the Respondents as to maintainability of the complaint is rejected. The complaint is held to be maintainable under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
The Respondents are directed to sign the Concession Agreement and Lease Deed strictly as per format and manner prescribed in the RFP within 45 days of this order.
The Respondents are directed to hand over clear, demarcated and unencumbered possession of the project site along with confirmed land-use classification, to execute and register the Lease Deed in terms of Article 4, Section 4.1(f) of the draft Concession Agreement attached with RFP, within 45 days of this order.
The Complainants are entitled to get maximum permissible ground coverage of 50% of the total plot area with maximum built up area 80673 sq. mtrs. (as per amended RFP dated 06.07.2019) as per Schedule ‘L’ of RFP, read with General Note 5 to Clause 8(3) of MPD-2021. Further they are entitled to an additional 10% ground coverage for atrium over and above permissible ground coverage of 50% as per Schedule ‘L’ of RFP, read with General Note 5 to Clause 8(3) of MPD-2021, besides additional ground coverage for green buildings.
The Respondents are directed to provide access roads as stipulated as per the site plan attached with RFP as mentioned in para 47 afore, within a reasonable time from the date of this order.
Complainants may take a fresh representation regarding their grievance about penalty levied as interest on the contractual premium of Rupees Twenty Crore only with the Respondents. The Respondents are directed to consider such request & take appropriate decision expeditiously within 60 days of the date of representation as per the provisions of RFP and considering Covid 19 and its after effects.
The Authority notes that DDA had given a default notice dated 13.11.2025 to the Complainants. The Authority after considering the complaint and submissions made by the Complainants as per its order dated 14.01.2026 had directed the Respondents to not to take any coercive action against the Complainants till disposal of the subject complaint. The Complainants had brought to our notice that a termination notice has been issued on 28.02.2026 by DDA for terminating the Concession Agreement dated 24.08.2022. In view of above directions and facts of the case this Authority sets aside default notice dated 13.11.2025 and termination notice dated 28.02.2026.
The case is disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.