1. The present information under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('the Act') was filed by Shri Jyoti Swaroop Arora ('the Informant') against M/s Tulip Infratech Ltd. ('the Opposite Party No. 1'/ OP-1), Director, Town & Country Planning Haryana ('the Opposite Party No. 2'/ OP-2) and Haryana Urban Development Authority ('the Opposite Party No. 3'/ OP-3) alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of section 3 of the Act.

2. In the instant case, the Informant alleged that various enterprises engaged in real estate development business including the Opposite Party No.1 have an arrangement/ understanding amongst themselves to adopt an anti-competitive modus operandi/ practices. It was further alleged by the Informant that there is a tacit understanding amongst all the real estate players in the market. In support of this allegation, the Informant has referred to an article in the Economic Times of 14.11.2011 wherein Shri Pradeep Jain, Chairman of Confederation of Real Estate Developers' Association of India (CREDAI) was reported to have stated that all constituent members of CREDAI would be signing a Code of Conduct. As per the statement of Shri Jain, CREDAI Code of Conduct would include mentioning the actual usage area to the buyers, compensation in case of project delays and honouring agreement clauses of buyers' agreements. According to the Informant, the said Code of Conduct indicates collusion amongst all members of CREDAI.

3. It has also been alleged that various enterprises engaged in real estate development business including the Opposite Party No.1 have agreements/understanding amongst themselves on the marketing front as all these enterprises are marketing/selling their projects without first obtaining the necessary approvals from the competent authorities. All of them are selling the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) over and above the permitted/ sanctioned limits.

4. The Informant has also alleged that there is an understanding between various real estate developers to make it mandatory for the buyers to purchase the parking space which is a violation of section 3(4)(a) of the Act.

5. The Informant has further alleged that the agreement between builders also exists on matters such as charging of interest rates on the defaulting customers and on various one sided and arbitrary clauses mentioned in their respective flat buyer's agreements such as exemption from builder's liability for any violations of Haryana Apartment Ownership Act (HOPA), forfeiture of advance deposits on flimsy grounds and builder's freedom to increase floors.

6. The Informant has also filed a copy of the flat/ apartment buyers' agreement of some of the real estate enterprises namely Unitech, DLF and Gupta Promoters Ltd. The Informant has submitted that these agreements though not identical, have certain similarities and common points which are exploitative which again goes to prove that the real estate enterprises were acting in concert and have been exploiting the customers all these years.

7. Based on the above averments and allegations, the Informant has laid the instant information alleging inter alia contravention of the various provisions of section 3 of the Act.

Directions to the DG

8. The Commission after considering the entire material available on record vide its order dated 15.12.2011 passed under section 26(1) of the Act directed the Director General (DG) to investigate the alleged conduct of residential apartment complex builders including the Opposite Party No. 1 and CREDAI.

Investigation by the DG

9. The DG, on receiving the directions from the Commission, investigated the matter and filed the report on 25.03.2014. The findings and conclusions of the DG are as under:

10. Investigation concluded that certain practices are being commonly carried on by builders/developers of residential apartments in the country as detailed below:

(i) Non-disclosure of calculation of total common area and its proportionate apportionment on the apart