JUDGMENT

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral)

This order of mine shall dispose of abovementioned three appeals as common question of law and facts are involved. For convenience, facts are taken from RERA-APPL-85 of 2023.

2. By way of present appeal, challenge has been made to the orders dated 16.10.2021 and 27.07.2023 passed by Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority) and Haryana Real Estate Appellate, Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Tribunal").

3. In the present case, complaint was filed at the instance of respondent against appellant herein inter alia seeking the following reliefs:-

"(a) Assured return over investment and payment deposited by the respondent allottee.

(b) Interest @ 24% per annum w.e.f. from the date of deposits till the date of handing over of actual possession".

4. Upon notice, the present appellant appeared and filed a comprehensive written statement taking specific plea to the effect that the issue of "annual return" could not be made subject matter of jurisdiction of the Authority. Initially, the issue of jurisdiction was never pressed for adjudication, however, at the stage of final argument, an application dated 04.10.2021 came to be filed at the instance of present appellant, questioning the jurisdiction of the Authority with the following contentions:

"(i) The complaints do not fulfil conditions precedent specified in the statute itself which must be met before Authority could exercise its jurisdiction.

(ii) That in similar facts and circumstances RERA Gurugram declined its jurisdiction to entertain such matters.

(iii) That Authority does not have territorial jurisdiction to deal with prayers made in the complaints because impugned agreements were executed at New Delhi.

(iv) That nature of relief sought is specific performance which would fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and not this Authority.

(v) Since relief being demanded is in the nature compensation, jurisdiction under RERA Act, 2016 can only be said to have been vested with the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71."

5. Notice of the aforesaid application was served upon the respondent who filed his objection to the same. The Authority vides its order dated 06.10.2021 dismissed the application filed by the appellant with the following observations:-

"(v) ..............It is observed that the relief sought here is in pursuance of Section 18 and Section 19(4). The complainants have not approached the Authority under specific relief Act. They are seeking redressal specifically in accordance with the terms of the agreement. It is observed that almost all reliefs sought under RERA are in the nature of specific reliefs. Delivery of possession of the apartment, or payment of agreed delayed interest etc. are also specific reliefs. If argument of respondents is accepted, it will defeat RERA Act both in letter as well as in spirit. The Authority is, therefore, unable to accept with this argument also of the respondent.......

(vii) The last argument put forward by the respondent is that the relief sought by the complainants is in the nature of compensation, therefore, to deal with subject of compensation Authority has no jurisdiction, but the jurisdiction is that of Adjudicating Officer.

In this regard the Authority refers to the concept of compensation as provided for in the Section 72 of the Act. Section 72 specifies four factors which should be taken into consideration while "adjudicating the quantum of compensation or the interest". In this case, there is no question of determining any loss or gain attained by either of the parties on account of the defaults has been raised. The agreements made between the parties are categorical and specific. It is a crystal clear stipulation in the agreement stating that quantum of assured return to be paid by the respondent to the complainant on the occurrence of certain events. The amounts to be paid by respondents to the complainants is pre-de