1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondents.

2. With consent of both the learned counsel, these Second Appeals are taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself.

3. These Second Appeals are preferred against the order dated 4th April, 2018, passed by Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaRERA), [hereinafter to be referred to as “Appellate Authority”), Mumbai; whereby all the 7 appeals preferred on behalf of appellants herein came to be dismissed; whereas the counter appeals preferred by the allotees, who are respondents herein came to be allowed.

4. These appeals were preferred against the order dated 16.01.2018, passed by the Chairperson, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, in the complaints preferred under Section 18 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The respondents allotees had grievance that they had, booked the Apartments in the project, named Gundecha Trillium undertaken by the appellant and had made substantial payment to the extent of more than 91 to 95% of the consideration price upto December, 2014. However, they had not received possession of the apartments by the stipulated period, that is upto 31st December, 2016 and hence they had sought direction for payment and interest and also for necessary action.

5. Appellant, being the promoter has contended before the Chairperson, MahaRERA that as per clause No.22 of the agreement, if the delay in completion of the project was on account of the reasons beyond his control, he was entitled to the extension of the period for completion of project and accordingly the appellant has cited several factors, beyond his control, such as demonetization, implementation of G.S.T. etc, and sought concession from payment of interest.

6. The Chairperson MahaRERA, has to some extent, accepted these contentions. However, held that the appellant is liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% for the period of six months to the respondents, on the total consideration amount, as per provisions of Section 18 of the Act. At the same time, as it was pointed out by the appellant that the Occupancy Certificate has already been obtained by the appellant, Chairperson MahaRERA advised the respondents to take possession of their respective apartments within 30 days from the date of order. It was further directed that while making payment of the balance amount to the appellant, at the time of taking possession, respondents shall be entitled to adjust the amount as stipulated in para 8 of the order.

7. Being dis-satisfied with this order, both the Promoter-appellant and respondent-allottees approached the Appellate Tribunal. The grievance of the promoter-appellant was that when the Chairperson of MahaRERA has accepted the explanation given by appellant to some extent considering clause 22 of the Agreement and has given concession to the extent of 6 months, it was not proper to direct payment of interest for further period of six months. It was submitted that the discretion was given to the Architect as per clause 22 of the agreement to certify the reasons for the delay and if he has given the grounds on account of which there was delay, then it was not proper on the part of the Chairperson, MahaRERA to disbelieve the same. Hence, he should have granted concession from payment of interest for the entire period.

8. Per contra, on behalf of respondents, the submission advanced was that concession granted even in respect of six months period was not proper in view of the observation made by the Chairperson himself that the reasons advanced by appellant for delay in completion of the project are of general nature.

9. It may be stated at this stage that before the Appellate Tribunal, on behalf of the appellant the Completion Certificate issued by the Architect, was produced to show that the construction was complete in every way and on the basis of same, the Occupancy Certificate was also granted. Respondents, however, challenged the Occupa