Private settlements cannot override statutory obligations established by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; agreements executed under duress or unfair terms are void.

JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

1. The instant RERA appeal under section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 2016’) has been filed by the appellant against judgement and order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal in Appeal No.100 of 2019 ( Smt. Sushma Shukla v. Lucknow Development Authority ).

Factual Matrix:

2. The appellant launched a project in the name of Srishti Apartments situated at Jankipuram Vistar, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘project in question’). The respondent applied for the allotment of a unit in the project in question and was allotted flat bearing no. 1101-G Block on the eleventh floor vide allotment letter dated 15.11.2011, which was later changed to flat no.6-G Block at the request of the respondent.

3. The total estimated cost was Rs.22,30,000/- and the respondent had opted for self finance for which he was supposed to pay 7 installments from 31.12.2011 till 31.03.2013. For this the appellant also issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ in favour of the respondents on their request for taking Home Loan subject to certain terms and conditions.

4. The flat was proposed to be handed over in 24 months as per clause 2.4 of the booklet i.e., on or before 15.11.2013. As there was a delay in handing over possession, the respondent filed a complaint before the U.P. RERA on 18.09.2018 under Section 31 of the Act, 2016 against the appellant. The complainant sought for delivery of possession with all amenities as per the registration book of the appellant and for payment of interest for a delay of five years in handing over possession, and for non-levy of GST at the time of execution of the sale deed.

5. On 05.12.2018 the parties entered into some private settlement/agreement and, only thereafter the sale deed of the unit came to be executed on 18.12.2018.

6. After hearing the complaint the learned Regulatory Authority has rejected the delay interest and compensation for lack of amenities on the ground that the parties entered into a settlement with the respondents vide its order dated 07.05.2019. The relevant extract of the order is as follows :

7. Thereafter, on 04.06.2019 the physical Possession of the unit was handed over to the complainant.

8. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2019 passed by the learned Regulatory Authority, the complainant preferred an appeal under Section 44 of the Act, 2016 before the U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’).

9. After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal, passed the impugned judgement and order dated 01.04.2025 in Appeal No.100 of 2019. The relevant extract of the impugned judgement is as follows:

“20. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed by passing following orders:-

(i) The impugned order dated 07.05.2019 passed by the learned Regulatory Authority in Complaint No.9201819142, is set aside and quashed.

(ii) The appellant allottee shall be entitled to interest at MCLR +1% with effect from 16.11.2013 till the date of physical possession of the unit, i.e., 04.06.2019, and on the amount so computed allottee shall be entitled to interest at MCLR+1% till the date of payment; the amount to be paid within forty five days from uploading of the order on the portal;

(iii) The Regulatory Authority to proceed a