The Allahabad Excessive Courtroom has imposed a value of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs on a builder for making the homebuyer undergo a number of rounds of frivolous litigation for 13 lengthy years.
Justice Prashant Kumar held,
“Being attentive to the hardships and vulnerabilities confronted by home-buyers, the Authorities of India had enacted the Actual Property (Regulation and Improvement) Act, 2016 with the item of making certain better transparency and accountability in the actual property sector and offering an expeditious and efficient mechanism for redressal of the grievances of allottees. Nonetheless, within the current case, the very object and objective of the Act has been annoyed by the builder, by way of the establishment of varied frivolous and vexatious litigation, apparently with a view to delay and evade the discharge of its statutory obligations and liabilities arising below the Act of 2016.”
Respondent booked a flat within the appellant-builder’s mission ‘Golf Metropolis’ at Plot No. 7, Sector-75. A builder-buyer settlement was executed on 9th April 2011, below which possession was promised by June, 2013 in opposition to a complete consideration of Rs.34,44,250/-. The customer paid Rs.35,90,252/-, however possession was not delivered.
She complained to the Actual Property Regulatory Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar. By order dated 26th July 2018 directed the builder handy over possession instantly and to pay curiosity at 24% from 30th June 2013, the date by which possession was due. The builder neither paid nor delivered possession. On the customer shifting execution, a restoration certificates for Rs.41,21,411.88 was issued on 6th March 2019.
It was solely thereafter that the builder appealed to the U.P. Actual Property Appellate Tribunal. It additionally moved a writ petition looking for keep of the restoration proceedings, which was dismissed, and a particular go away petition in opposition to that dismissal was withdrawn. The enchantment earlier than U.P. Actual Property Appellate Tribunal was dismissed for need of prosecution, having twice earlier been dismissed on that floor and restored.
The customer then obtained a course from the Excessive Courtroom to the District Justice of the Peace to execute the restoration certificates and, when that went unenforced, instituted contempt proceedings. A recent restoration certificates adopted. The builder utilized to recall the order of dismissal with a delay of 721 days. The Tribunal rejected the appliance for need of ample trigger and for non-compliance with Part 43(5) of the Act.
After its financial institution accounts have been connected, the builder deposited Rs.67,77,518/- in December, 2022 and filed the current enchantment below Part 58.
The Courtroom held that pandemic disruption was not ample trigger on these details. The one clarification provided for the 2 years following the dismissal order was that the enchantment had escaped the builder’s consideration till the restoration amin arrived at its workplace.
“… the Courts should not condone gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or informal indifference, for to take action would undermine the maxim curiosity reipublicae ut sit finis litium and destabilise the knowledge that limitation legislation seeks to safe.”
Even after excluding the interval from 15.03.2020 to twenty-eight.02.2022 by way of the Supreme Courtroom’s instructions on extension of limitation, the Courtroom held, the restoration software remained out of time. It held that the builder had not proven that it was moderately diligent, and the check for condonation was due to this fact not glad.
Additional, the Courtroom held that Part 44(4) of the Act, which requires the Appellate Tribunal to ship a duplicate of each order to the events, had been complied with. It noticed that the Tribunal had issued a public discover on resumption of labor after the lockdown, had despatched the dismissal order by e-mail, and maintained the standing of each case on its portal, so it couldn’t be stated that the builder was unaware of the proceedings.
It held that the curiosity a builder should pay an allottee for delay in handing over possession below the Actual Property (Regulation and Improvement) Act, 2016 is similar charge which the builder may have charged the allottee had the allottee defaulted. Rejecting a builder’s plea that its legal responsibility was confined to MCLR+1%, the Courtroom upheld an award of curiosity at 24% every year as a result of the builder-buyer settlement itself supplied for curiosity at that charge in opposition to a defaulting purchaser.
The Courtroom learn Part 2(za) of the Act, 2016 as putting the speed payable by the builder at parity with the speed chargeable from the allottee on default. Since curiosity below Part 18 is compensatory in character, it held, levying it from a promised date of possession falling earlier than the Act got here into pressure was neither unlawful nor arbitrary.
On the difficulty of possession, the Courtroom noticed that the builder held no occupancy certificates even on the date of judgment, and that possession couldn’t be handed over in its absence. It noticed that the letter it relied on was pre-formatted and provided possession just for fit-out work.
The Courtroom noticed that the statute enacted to safe transparency and speedy redressal for allottees had been defeated right here.
“The current case is a basic instance of a homebuyer, who invested her lifetime financial savings with the hope of securing a roof over her head. The respondent booked a residential flat within the yr 2011 and paid virtually the whole sale consideration. The builder had assured that possession of the flat can be handed over inside two years, i.e., by June, 2013. Nonetheless, after lapse of greater than 13 years and receipt of virtually the whole consideration quantity, the builder has failed to finish the mission and ship possession of the flat to the respondent. Such inordinate delay, with none justifiable trigger, has disadvantaged the respondent of the fruits of her funding and subjected her to extended monetary hardship and psychological agony.”
Setting out the chronology, the Courtroom counted seven rounds of litigation initiated by the builder over the identical dispute, in opposition to 4 rounds the customer had been pressured into merely to implement an order already in her favour. Having pursued enforcement since 2018 with out receiving its profit, she had, the Courtroom held, made out a match case for exemplary prices.
Accordingly, discovering no illegality within the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the Courtroom dismissed the enchantment and imposed a value of Rs.2,50,000/- on the builder, payable to the customer inside 4 weeks.
Case Title: M/s Goals Max Gardenia Builders Pvt. Ltd. Through. Approved Signatory vs. Mrs. Pratibha Gupta 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 547
Case Quotation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 547
Counsel for Appellant :- Shuchita Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Aprajita Bansal, Shri Anilesh Tewari
