Decoding Legal Precedence: Insights from the UP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal’s Judgment

Introduction

The UP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal holds an integral part in the realm of regulation with the state of Uttar Pradesh India. It is established to adjudicate disputes and ensure the fair application of real estate laws and regulations; the tribunal plays a pivotal role in holding transparency and accountability in the real estate sector. With its authoritative power to hear appeals and decisions made by lower authorities, the tribunal serves as a cornerstone for resolving complex legal issues and safeguarding the rights of stakeholders involved in real estate transactions.

Brief Facts of the Case

In the case of Nem Chand Jain (herein referred as Appellant) versus Omaxe Ltd. (herein referred as Respondent), The appellant was allotted unit/flat no. 1004 in the ‘Accacia’ project by the respondent on December 7, 2012, located in Omaxe Residency-II, Phase 1, Lucknow. A Builder Buyer Agreement (BBA) was signed on November 13, 2013, stipulating possession to be delivered within 48+6 months, i.e., by May 13, 2018, subject to force majeure events. However, possession has not been handed over to the appellant to date, despite timely payments made whenever requested by the respondent. Consequently, feeling aggrieved by the project’s delay and non-delivery of possession, the appellant filed a complaint (no. LKO162/11/0810/2019) before the Regulatory Authority on July 10, 2019. The complaint sought possession of the unit and claimed delay interest at a rate of 24% per annum from May 14, 2018, until possession was granted.

Judgment And Conclusion Drawn By The Tribunal

The case involves an appellant who was allotted a flat in the ‘Accacia’ project by the respondent. Despite timely payments, possession of the unit was not delivered within the stipulated timeframe, leading the appellant to file a complaint before the Regulatory Authority seeking possession and delay interest. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant withdrew three out of five reliefs and pressed for interest payment for the delay period and other necessary orders.

The respondent, a real estate development company, submitted objections, stating completion of the project and readiness to hand over possession to the appellant. They highlighted the appellant’s failure to clear dues despite reminders and accused them of engaging in litigation with malicious intent. Citing previous legal precedents, they argued that the appellant’s default in payment justified the forfeiture of earnest money.

The Regulatory Authority found merit in the appellant’s claim for delay interest from the promised possession date until possession was offered. Despite the completion certificate received by the respondent in June 2019 and the subsequent offer of possession in December 2019, the appellant was entitled to delay interest until the possession offer date. The Authority upheld its decision to impose a delay penalty on the respondent.

In the appeal, the tribunal affirmed the Authority’s decision, finding no fault in awarding delay interest and penalty. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with no order regarding costs.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the tribunal’s decision upholding the Regulatory Authority’s ruling underscores the importance of honoring contractual obligations in real estate transactions. While the appellant’s entitlement to delay interest until the offer of possession was deemed just, the respondent’s compliance with project completion and possession procedures was duly acknowledged. The case highlights the necessity for timely completion and delivery of properties as per agreements, ensuring fairness and accountability within the real estate sector. With the dismissal of the appeal, the matter stands resolved, emphasizing the significance of adherence to legal and contractual commitments in safeguarding the interests of all parties involved.