AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A complaint (No. 28/07/2023) was filed in Form „M‟ on 31.07.2023 by Mrs. Smrity Singhal (hereinafter referred to as “Complainant”) under section 31 read with section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “RE(RD) Act, 2016”), stating that she purchased Unit No. 324 in the proposed commercial project „Metroplex East‟, situated at Plot No. 21, District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092, promoted by M/s C.J. Infrastructure Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Respondents or Respondent Company” ), and paid a total sum of Rs. 31,93,000/- (Rupees Thirty-One Lakhs Ninety-Three Thousand Only) for the said unit.
On 12.03.2024, this Authority dismissed the original complaint, holding that claim for refund was not maintainable, since the Complainant had already taken possession of the unit and with Sale Deed executed before the RE(RD) Act, 2016 came into force.
On 11.09.2024, the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT), NCT of Delhi, dismissed Appeal No. 142/REAT/2024 filed by the Complainant, upholding this Authority‟s order on the ground that the Complainant had executed the Sale Deed, taken possession, and enjoyed rental income prior to the Act‟s enactment, barring the belated refund claim.
Thereafter an appeal was filed by the complainant, namely, RERA Appeal No. 2/2025, and RERA Appeal No. 3/2025 under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, challenging the common impugned judgment dated 11.09.2024, passed by the Ld. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 142/REAT/2023 and Appeal No. 144/REAT/2023, respectively. In pursuance of which a common order dated 15.09.2025 was passed by the Hon'ble Court holding -
“5.In view of the aforesaid position, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned orders passed by the Ld. RERA, which were subsequently confirmed by tite Ld. REAT, are hereby set aside. The Ld. RERA is requested to reconsider the matter afresh, taking into account all relevant aspects of the case.
6.It is needless to observe that the Authority shall proceed to decide the matter without being influenced by the impugned orders passed in these two Appeals.”
In compliance with the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, this Authority has proceeded to reconsider the matter afresh, uninfluenced by the findings recorded in its earlier order dated 12.03.2024 and the order of the Ld. REAT dated 11.09.2024, and after taking into account all relevant facts, documents and submissions advanced by the parties
For the sake of convenience, the submissions made on behalf of the Complainant are summarized as under:
„Metroplex East‟ is an ongoing project falling within the jurisdiction of this Authority, as no Occupation cum Completion Certificate (OCC) has been issued by the DDA till date; reliance is placed on this Authority‟s order dated 20.09.2022 in Complaint No. 17/2019 (Raghavi Abhilesh Bembey), holding that the project remains ongoing.
ii) The Complainant and Ms. Sangeeta Bansal were lured into the project by Mr. J.K. Dhingra and Mr. Ajay Bhandari, authorized agents of the Respondents, on assurances of a two-screen PVR multiplex, food court, and prime commercial spaces, none of which materialized.
iii) The Promoter and its architects, Mr. Pradeep Sharma and Mr. Subher Kher, altered the sanctioned plan without intimation to or approval from the allottees or the sanctioning authority, in contravention of Section 14 of the RE(RD) Act, 2016.
iv) On 07.02.2012, Unit No. 324, admeasuring approximately 213.25 sq. ft., was allotted to Ms. Sangeeta Bansal, sister-in-law of Complainant Mrs. Smrity Singhal, vide Allotment Letter No. 134, at a base rate of Rs. 14,112/- per sq. ft. (effective rate of Rs. 14,762/- per sq. ft. inclusive of ancillary expenses). Around February 2012, the Complainant purchased the said allotment from Ms. Bansal, and between 04.06.2012 and 24.12.2014 made payments aggregating to Rs. 31,93,000/- to the Respondents.
As per Allotment Letter No. 134, the unit measured approximately 213.25 sq. ft. at Rs. 14,762/- per sq. ft.; cumulative payments of Rs. 31,93,000/-were made, including Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash on 06.02.2012 and Rs. 8,00,000/- in cash on 04.06.2012, the balance through cheques and pay orders.
vi) On 23.01.2015, the Respondents executed a Sale Deed in favour of the Complainant for Unit No. 324, conveying a Super Area of 178.75 sq. ft. and a Covered Area of only 107.25 sq. ft., for a total consideration of Rs. 20,93,000/- along with stamp duty of Rs. 83,920/-. The Complainant alleges that the balance of Rs. 11,00,000/-, already paid by her, was usurped by the Respondents under threat of forfeiting the allotment.
vii) The Covered Area actually conveyed, 107.25 sq. ft., is less than half of the originally agreed area, and the Promoter illegally retained Rs. 11,00,000/-of the amount already paid.
viii)The Complainant further alleges that the Respondents failed to provide the promised amenities, including a two-screen PVR multiplex, food court, and prime commercial spaces, and that no Occupancy-cum-Completion Certificate (OCC) has been issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) till date.
ix) The Promoter‟s defence of deemed completion is untenable, as DDA rejected the OCC application on 08.09.2021 on account of unrectified deviations under the Unified Building Bye-Laws, 2016, and subsequently issued a Sealing/Demolition Order dated 18.05.2022.
The Sale Deed was executed on the basis of gross misrepresentation by the Promoter‟s architect as to the ground reality, rendering the possession defective and entitling the Complainant to a full refund with interest under the RE(RD) Act, 2016.
The Complainant accordingly seeks a refund of the entire amount of Rs. 31,93,000/- paid by her, together with interest, under the provisions of the RE(RD) Act, 2016.
For the sake of convenience, the submissions made on behalf of the Respondents are summarized as under:
This Authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the Sale Deed was executed and possession handed over on 23.01.2015, prior to the RE(RD) Act, 2016 coming into force on 01.05.2017; reliance is placed on Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6745-6749 of 2021), holding that the Act, though retroactive, does not apply to projects already completed or granted an OCC.
ii) An application for the OCC was submitted to the DDA on 14.02.2013, with reminders on 31.10.2013 and 02.01.2014. Under Clause 7.6 of the Building Bye-Laws, 1983, the DDA‟s failure to communicate sanction or refusal within 60 days resulted in deemed approval for OCC, rendering the project deemed completed.
iii) The complex became fully functional in 2013, as evidenced by a Fire Safety Certificate dated 30.10.2013 and an electrical inspection dated 04.10.2013. Over 75% of the units, more than 190 shops, were sold by registered sale deeds, and the buyers formed the Metroplex East Welfare Association on 25.12.2014 to take over maintenance, fulfilling the criteria for a completed project under the rules.
iv) The Complainant took possession after due diligence, signed a Possession & Verification/Satisfaction Letter without raising any defect, and subsequently rented out the unit. Having enjoyed the rental income, she is estopped from seeking a refund at this belated stage.
The allegations of structural deviation are refuted, relying on the statement of Dr. K. Shri Rangan, Commissioner (Planning), DDA, made before this Authority on 22.02.2023, that the deviations are compoundable and not of non-compoundable nature.
vi) After considering Writ Petition, W.P.(C) 1978/2022, challenging DDA‟s Sealing/Demolition Order dated 18.05.2022, Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi, granted a stay on 23.05.2023 against the DDA‟s order dated 18.05.2022. Since subject Writ Petition is still pending before Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi, it renders the present proceedings premature.
vii) The adverse observations of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court dated 29.08.2025 regarding the OCC were confined to the pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of the Act, as clarified by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s order dated 01.12.2025 in SLP (C) Nos. 31795-31796/2025, and do not affect the merits of the Respondents‟ defence.
It is averred that the Complainant and the Respondents mutually agreed to and executed in terms recorded in the Allotment Letter dated 07.02.2012, Sale Deed dated 23.01.2015 pertaining to the unit.
We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsels of both the parties and perused the records.
Analysis and Considerations
The present complaint, in essence Complainant, seeks a refund of the entire amount paid by her towards Unit No. 324 in „Metroplex East‟. It is not in dispute that the Complainant took possession of the unit pursuant to the registered Sale Deed dated 23.01.2015, prior to the RE(RD) Act, 2016 coming into force on 01.05.2017, and thereafter let out the unit on rent for several years before approaching this Authority in 2023 seeking a refund.
Following issue arises for determination:
Whether the claim for refund is maintainable under Section 18 of the RE(RD) Act, 2016 considering facts of the present case.
Section 18(1) of the RE(RD) Act, 2016 provides that where a promoter fails to complete or give possession of a unit in accordance with the agreement, or discontinues business as a developer, he shall, on the allottee‟s demand to withdraw from the project, be liable to refund the amount received with interest.
The relevant extract of Section 18(1) reads as under:
“(1)If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building,— (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act…”
A plain reading of the provision shows that the remedy of refund under Section 18 is anchored in the promoter‟s failure to complete the project or deliver possession. It is not intended to provide a retrospective benefit to an allottee who has already taken possession, enjoyed the benefits of the property, through rental income and raised a grievance after, many years.
In the present case, the Complainant took possession on execution of the sale deed on 23.01.2015, raised no contemporaneous objection regarding the alleged coercion or area deficiency, and placed the unit on rent and derived income from it for several years before approaching this Authority with the original complaint.
The statutory precondition for invoking Section 18, namely the promoter‟s failure to deliver possession, is thus absent.
The RE(RD) Act, 2016 was enacted to protect the interests of allottees and bring transparency and accountability to the real estate sector, but it does not place the promoter in perpetual jeopardy or confer unqualified rights on the allottee irrespective of the allottee‟s own conduct. Act‟s protective mechanism cannot be converted into a means of unjust enrichment.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel and the principle of acquiescence apply to the facts of this case. By accepting possession, executing the sale deed, and subsequently leasing the unit to third parties, the Complainant represented to the Respondents that the transaction stood concluded, and the Respondents proceeded. The Complainant did not approach any forum, including under the Consumer Protection Act, during this period, and her conduct amounts to a waiver. Having enjoyed the benefits of possession for years, the Complainant cannot be permitted to treat the Act as a means of unwinding a completed transaction.
In view of the foregoing, the claim for refund is found devoid of merit. The Complainant took possession of the unit, executed a registered sale deed, and derived rental income from the property for several years before and after the RE(RD) Act, 2016 came into force. Section 18 has no application where the promoter has already been given possession after execution of sale deed and the Complainant is estopped from seeking a refund having accepted and enjoyed the benefits of the transaction.
In light of the aforementioned findings, this Authority hereby concludes and orders that the claim of the Complainant for refund of Rs. 31,93,000/- paid towards Unit No. 324 in the project „Metroplex East‟ is not maintainable under Section 18 of the RE(RD) Act, 2016 because the Complainant has already taken possession of the unit pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 23.01.2015 and enjoyed the benefits thereof. The complaint is, accordingly, dismissed.
No order as to costs.
The case is disposed of accordingly.