AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Adv. Neeraj Matta along with Adv. Vivek Kumar, Sh. Shiv Kumar (AR) and Sh. Vasudev Garg, Promoter appeared on behalf of the Complainant.
Adv. Akshat Chaudhary, Proxy Counsel for the main Counsel Adv. Ray Vikram Nath along with Adv. Harshvardhan Jha and Sh. Amar Kumar Sahu, Legal Assistant appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Adv. Nazia Parveen appeared on behalf of MCD.
Sh. M K Gupta appeared on behalf of L & DO.
Ld. Counsel for Respondents submitted that after obtaining the license from L & DO for construction of building with 100 FAR, they submitted building plans to MCD and got approval. After completion of construction, they applied for occupancy and completion certificate of subject building with MCD, and got completion certificate on 28.03.2011.
Subsequently, Government announced policy of additional FAR and NBCC started construction for utilizing the additional FAR without getting the building plans sanctioned from MCD. MCD, taking note of this, sealed illegal construction being done to utilize the additional FAR.
Ld. Counsel for the Complainant stated that he deposited Rs. 159 crore with NBCC in the year 2007 for sub lease of 78,000 sq. feet. of built-up property. Till date NBCC has not signed any sub lease agreement with them conferring title of ownership as sub lease allottee. As per the tender conditions of 2007, the Complainants have been paying heavy amount towards maintenance charges to NBCC.
Representative of L & DO informed that for execution of lease deed, NBCC is required to meet certain conditions and submit documents which they haven’t done till date. In absence of lease deed between NBCC and L & DO, the NBCC cannot execute sub lease in favor of the Complainant.
In view of the above, the Authority would like MCD to clarify in clear terms whether occupancy and completion certificate could have been issued without valid lease in favour of NBCC. If the occupancy and completion certificate is found invalid due to want of proper lease deed, NBCC may explain why they should not register subject project with RERA.
Ld. Counsel for Complainant produced a copy of Parliament Question No, 1260 answered on 27.07.2023 related to the subject project, this document was taken on record.
Ld. Counsel for Respondents submitted a replication to rejoinder filed by the Complainant dated 13.07.2023. A copy of the same was handed over to Ld. Counsel for Complainant in the court. This document was also taken on record.
Representative of L & DO was directed to submit list of requirements and conditions to be met by NBCC for getting lease deed in their favour.
Representative of L & DO and MCD are also directed to be present on the next date of hearing.
Case is posted on 12.10.2023 at 2:30 pm.