IMPORTANT POINT
Holding Charges – If an allottee fails to take possession, when offered by the company, the allotee shall be liable to pay holding charges.

ORDER

Heard Mr. Vinay Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2. At the time of arguments on 06.12.2023, the counsel for M/s. Sethi Buildwell Private Limited (the OP) informed that vide Diary No.42854, he had filed an application, for directing the complainant to supply lease agreements executed by the flat owners of the flats in allotted to them, on whose behalf the complaint has been filed and also to disclose their other properties owned or rented in Delhi NCR and payment receipts for the maintenance charges, issued by Apartment Owner’s Association, raising the issue that the flat buyers, on whose behalf this complaint has been filed, are not the consumers. The counsel for the complainant informed that out of remaining 10 flat buyers on whose behalf the complaint has been filed, 4 are residing in their flat, 3 flat owners have let out their flats as they are posted out of city and 3 flat owners have let out their flat or part of it, for meeting out their medical expenses as after retirement from service, their source of income are limited. We found that this application was filed for fishing and roving inquiry only with an intension to delay the hearing as such we have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties on merit and reserved the case for judgment on 06.12.2023. On the request of the counsel for the OP, ten days time was allowed to him to file his summary of arguments along with citations. IA filed vide Diary No.42854 is now rejected.

3. The OP filed another application, on 18.12.2023 vide Diary No.44810, for listing the complaint for further hearing along with written arguments, filed vide Diary No.44811. During pendency of the complaint, the OP issued final demand letters to the members of the complainant in January-February, 2016, offering possession. As the amount was not deposited within time, the OP issued cancellation letters in March, 2016. The flat buyers deposited bank drafts of the demanded amount through IA/3690/2016 (filed on 13.04.2016) and prayed that the OP be directed to accept this amount without prejudice to their right to agitate their other grievance raised in the complaint. This Commission, vide order dated 27.05.2016, directed the OP to accept the demanded amount and handover possession of the flat to the members of the complainant. Then the OP accepted demand drafts on 29.05.2016 and delivered possession on 10.07.2016 and executed sub-lease deeds, thereafter.

4. The disputes in the complaint remain to be decided in respect of delay compensation claimed by the flat buyers and holding charges claimed by the opposite party. Hearing of the complaint was adjourned since 23.02.2017, in order to enable the parties to settle their dispute. On 11.09.20117, this Commission recorded that talks of settlement could not succeed and granted time to the parties to file their evidence. The complainant filed its evidence on 13.12.2017 and the OP filed its evidence on 23.01.2018. The complainant filed written synopsis on 23.02.2018 and the OP filed written arguments on 08.03.2018. Thereafter, the case was adjourned on 20.04.2018, 26.08.2019, 06.09.2019. After pandemic period, when the case was listed on 03.06.2022, Mr. Rushil Anand, Advocate took adjournment, on the ground that he had been engaged by the OP and he had to file vakalatnama. On 11.04.2023, Mr. Shreyan Das, Advocate and Mr. Ritik Arora, Advocate appeared for the OP and took adjournment. On 05.07.2023, Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate appeared for the OP and took adjournment by way of last opportunity. While adjourning the case, the Commission directed the complainant to file an affidavit, clearly stating the names of remaining flat owners, which was filed on 25.07.2023. On 11.10.2023, the counsel for the OP took adjournment. When the case was listed on 27.10.2023, the counsel for the OP took adjournment on the ground that the OP would settle the dispute with remaining 10 flat Buyers. When the c