The RERA Act applies to ongoing real estate projects, and the Act's provisions protect the rights of stakeholders, including home buyers and promoters.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Srivastava, J.

1. Sri Ashutosh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nagendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Udit Arora with Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed, assailing the order dated 29.08.2019, passed by the Chairman, Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to give possession of the unit in the Project in question i.e. “Logix City Centre” within 45 days from the date of the order alongwith delay penalty @ Rs.20/-per sq. feet per month from 24.09.2013 to 30.04.2016 and @ MCLR + 1% from 01.05.2016 to date of grant of Occupation/Completion Certificate or date of grant of possession as also the Notice dated 19.11.2019 issued by the respondent No.2 in pursuance of the order dated 29.8.2019 requiring the petitioner to submit the compliance report failing which proceedings u/s 63 of the RERA Act, 2016, would be initiated and the entire amount shall be recovered as arrears of Land Revenue u/s 40 of the Act.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that it was allotted approx. 25,000 sq. meters of land bearing No. BW-58, Sector 32, Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar, for its “Logix City Centre” project by NOIDA on lease and a lease deed dated 23.7.2010 was executed in favour of the petitioner. The project was completed and the Occupancy Certificate was received for the entire project on 09.03.2017. The petitioner thereafter vide letter dated 16.03.2017 offered the possession of the premises to the respondent No.3, being Commercial Unit No. 1017 on the 10th floor.

4. It is next contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Bill got approved by the Rajya Sahbha on 10.03.2016 and Lok Sabha on 15.03.2016. The Bill got the assent of the Hon'ble President of India on 25.03.2016. The UPRERA Act and the Rules framed thereunder became applicable from 01.08.2017. As per Section 3 of the RERA Act, the ongoing projects were required to apply for registration on or before 31.07.2017. As per the definition of “Ongoing Project” contained under Rule 2(h) of the Rules, the registration of such projects were not required for which the completion of construction, application for occupancy/completion has been made on or before 26.07.2017 i.e. the date of implementation of the UPRERA Rules.

5. On the strength of the above, it is submitted that since the project of the petitioner was completed well before the application of RERA Act and UPRERA Rules, RERA had no jurisdiction to entertain or try any complaint in respect of the project in question. It is submitted that although an offer for possession letter dated 16.03.2017 had already been issued to the respondent No.3, respondent No.3 deposited a sum of Rs.33,45,754/- towards the principal amount of the Unit and is further required to pay a sum of Rs.24,97,512/- towards the principal amount. Respondent No.3 proposed to settle the matter with the petitioner by offering to pay a sum of Rs.30 lacs. The petitioner after adjusting all the dues, requested respondent No.3 to pay an amount of Rs.30,56,233/- towards full and final payment in respect of the Unit in question within 15 days. Respondent No.3 failed to make the payment and at present a sum of Rs.24,97,512/- towards the principal amount, a sum of Rs.17,89,152/- towards interest on delayed payment and a sum of Rs.2,91,504/- towards the holding charges is due against respondent No.3. Respondent No.3, instead of making the payments, instituted a complaint before the RERA Authorities. The petitioner appeared in the proceedings and filed its objections. Respondent No.2, without considering the objections of the petitioner, has passed the impugned order dated 29.08.2019.

6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order principally on the ground that:-

(i) Respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction to try the complaint filed by respondent