AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel for the appellant states that the draft of Rs.10,000/- sent to the respondents has been refused, however, the learned counsel for the respondents states that when the paper book has been received, there is no question for non receipt of the cost. Today the draft bearing no.568278 dated 11.09.2019 has been given to the learned counsel for the respondents to be given to respondents.
Heard both the learned counsel for the parties.
This Revision Petition is filed against the order of the State Commission dated 20.12.2018 whereby the State Commission has ordered that Conveyance Deed be registered in favour of the complainants and the complainants will be at liberty to take refund of their amount paid to the opposite party with 15% p.a. interest. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the complainants are in possession of the flat in question since 2015 and since then the complainants are enjoying the possession of the flat. There are various difficulties before the petitioner in registering the sale deed. It has been stated that the loan was taken by the appellant from HUDCO which could not be repaid as lot of inventory could not be sold. HUDCO started the DRT proceedings and therefore, no Conveyance Deed could be registered for these flats in the project. Thus, they are legally constrained for registering the flat though they have already registered an agreement to sell with the complainant. It is further stated that they have moved an application before the DRT for allowing them to get the sale deeds registered in respect of the sold flats. However, there is no Presiding Member in the DRT and therefore, the application has not been decided. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant states that the complainant is representing before the opposite party since possession that sale deed should be registered, so that the complainant may also enjoy the flat with full rights of ownership. The State Commission has passed the order that the complainant may opt for refund of amount paid with 15% p.a. interest.
I have accordingly considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. From the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it seems that the petitioner wants to register the Sale Deed in favour of the complainants however, there are some difficulties and problems with the petitioner to register the sale deed immediately. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some time so that the Sale Deed can be registered. As this involves the suspension of a right of the complainants, time can only be granted to the petitioner at some cost. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate that 1% of the total sale consideration per month is given as penalty to the complainants then a period of one year is granted to the petitioner to comply with the order of the State Commission as far as it relates to registration of the Sale Deed. The penalty of 1% should be paid per month to the complainants by way of a Demand Draft and if this amount is not paid after one month or after any month, the complainants may go for execution of this order. The Revision Petition stands disposed of with these directions.