Tulip Infratech Pvt. Ltd Haryana RERA Complaint Case

Last Updated on June 19, 2021 by Satish Mishra

In this post we will discuss about M/S Tulip Infratech Pvt. Ltd HRERA case wherein The Authority while perusing the relevant records observed as per clause 6(a) of the Buyer Builder Agreement executed between the parties, complainant-developer has the remedy to cancel the allotment of respondent-allotee after deducting earnest money.

Complaint to seek direction against respondent-allottee to take possession of the booked shop after paying remaining amount along with interest.

Also Read- HRERA 30.1.2019 Sonica versus Tulip Infratech Case

The present summary will cover and give an overview of the case

M/S Tulip Infratech Pvt. Ltd versus Shashi Sehgal before HRERA and it will give you a brief yet precise outline regarding all the major facts and issues involved in this particular case which basically revolves around Complainant to grant Interest on the amount paid for the flat whose possession the Complainant haven’t yet received.

Compendium of this case is based on the provision of the RERA Act, where a person booked an property and paid some considerate amount against the booking, as well as paid the first two installments timely but defaulted on the payment of the third.

In this Case, The Allotee not only defaulted in payment of an installment but also hadn’t came forward to take up the possession of the property when offered by the developer with condition to payment of installment due with interest.

ALSO READ- STEPS TO REGISTER A COMPLAINT

Facts of the Case

HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY PANCHKULA

M/S Tulip Infratech Pvt. Ltd

COMPLAINANT VERSUS Shashi Sehgal

. . RESPONDENT

Also Read- Tulip Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New … vs Department Of Income Tax

Complainant’s case is that he allotted 3 BHK Unit bearing no. DI/801 of area measuring 1758 sq.ft vide builder buyer agreement dated 09.11.2013 to the respondent-allotee in his project namely “Tulip Grand”, situated at Sonipat under instalment payment plan. Respondent-allottee has paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as booking amount and thereafter she had paid first two instalments within time but defaulted in paying the Yd instalment amounting to Rs 5,98,054/-.

Several reminders dated 08.08.2016, 10.2016, 19.12.2016,11.02.2017, 25.04.2017and 06.12.2016 were sent to respondent-allottee to pay the due amount but she did not come forward. Meanwhile possession was also offered on 23.01.2019 after grant of Occupation certificate on 07.05.2018.
Counsel for the complainant stated that the present complaint has been filed seeking direction against respondent-allottee to take possession of the booked shop after paying remaining amount along with interest.

ALSO READ- M/S TULIP INFRATECH PVT. LTD VERSUS SHASHI

Issues Involved

Can this Authority pass a judgement ordering the respondent to take the possession of the shop, keeping in mind that respondent had neither appeared nor filed her reply till date.

Judgement on Settled Law

Prakash Chand Arohi versus WS Pivotal Infrastructures Pvt.Ltd. HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY PANCHKULA held that for a reasonable delay in completing the project, the compensation as provided for in the agreement shall be paid by the developers, hence the complainant shall be compensated in accordance with the provisions of the agreement.

ALSO READ- CCI RAPS BUILDERS, CALLS FOR REFORM

The HRERA also noted that there is a sharp difference in the opinion of majority and minority regarding the validity of the old contract and the compensation that is to be granted .The act is still not mature and there are not many presidents to follow up that is why the majority and minority opinion of this case is very crucial to understand .

Also Read- Shri Jyoti Swaroop Arora vs M/S Tulip Infratech Ltd. & Ors

Arifur Rahman Khan & Aleya Sultana &Ors vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd

The Supreme Court held that the flat buyers are entitled to compensation for delayed handing over of possession and for the failure of the developer to fulfil their promises with regard to amenities.

The top court set aside the verdict of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which, on July 2, 2019, had dismissed the complaints of 339 flat buyers by holding that they were not entitled to the compensation in excess of what was stipulated in their flat purchase agreements for delayed possession and the lack of assured amenities.

ALSO READ- M/S TULIP INFRATECH PVT. LTD VS THE STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS ON 23 FEBRUARY, 2018

The Supreme Court Come to the conclusion that the dismissal of the complaint by the NCDRC was erroneous. The flat buyers are entitled to compensation for delayed handing over of possession and for the failure of the developer to fulfil the representations made to flat buyers in regard to the provision of amenities.

ALSO READ- PUNJAB RERA COMPLAINT AGAINST CREDO ASSETS BEFORE ADJUDICATING OFFICER

Findings of the Court

The Complainant sought direction against respondent-allottee to take possession of the booked shop after paying remaining amount along with interest.
Records presented by the Complainant showed that the Respondent had duly paid the booking amount and first two installments but defaulted on the 3^rd

The HRERA observed that the Complainant had issued the reminder notice to the Respondent dated 08.08.2016, 10.2016, 19.12.2016,11.02.2017, 25.04.2017and 06.12.2016 to pay the due amount but she did not came forward to reply.

This Authority while perusing the relevant records observed as per clause 6(a) of the Buyer Builder Agreement executed between the parties, complainant-developer has the remedy to cancel the allotment of respondent-allotee after deducting earnest money.

ALSO READ- SHRI RAM NIWAS GUPTA & ORS VS M/S OMAXE LTD. & ORS. MAIN ORDER, … ON 18 OCTOBER, 2012

Conclusion

HRERA after considering all the facts of the matter held that at that stage the complainant-developer cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Authority for recovery of due amount. Complainant may pursue the remedy available to him as per terms of contract while executing the Builder Buyer Agreement.

ALSO READ- HARYANA RERA COMPLAINT AGAINST TDI INFRASTRUCTURE

According to the clause 6(a) of the Buyer Builder Agreement executed between the parties, complainant-developer has the remedy to cancel the allotment of respondent-allotee after deducting earnest money.

It was an wise decision because it was the responsibility of the Complainant- developer to first executive the clauses of the Buyer Builder Agreement and then may sue the Respondent- allotee if she refuses to the execution of the BBA.

The Complainant-developer in this case should cancel the possession of the shop booked by the Respondent-allotee on the grounds of non-payment of the installments and should return the amount paid by the Respondent-allotee for the purchase consideration of the shop after deducting the earnest money.

ALSO READ- TULIP INFRATECH PVT. LTD. & OTHERS VS ANUBHAV SHARMA ON 10 OCTOBER, 2012

According to the provision of RERA and precedents it is well settled fact that that the allotee may reject the possession of the unit on any ground, he has every right to do so no matter what the reason is and the developer can’t argue with that fact. But this right comes with a liability, which is that on refusal of possession when offered by the developer an allotee shall receive back the amount of purchase consideration which was paid by him, after the deduction of an earnest money.

ALSO READ- TULIP INFRATECH PVT LTD JUDGMENTS

This post is written by Pushkar Yadav

For case specific advice, please contact best/top/expert RERA Real Estate Panchkula Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.