THE RAJASTHAN REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, JAIPUR Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-2022-5399 Sharad Bhandari ...Complainant Versus Om Metals Consortium Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent B-RES ENT Shri Shailendra Agarwal, Hon’ble Member 1. CA Himanshu Goyal Adv Anurag Jain and Unnati Vijay, on behalf of the complainant 2 Adv Anant Kasliwal and Adv Vaibhav Kasliwal, on behalf of the respondent Date of Order: 23.05.2023 ORDER The present matter pertains to a Group Housing project by the name “Pallacia" registered with this Authority bearing registration No.RAJ/P/2017/399 and promoted by the Respondent. An ex-parte order was passed by this Court on 11.10.2022 because the respondent did not appear despite service of summons on more than one occasion. Subsequently, the respondent appeared before this Court with an application Page No. | of 14 Comp. No.2022-5399praying to recall the said order and restore the matter on the basis of principles of natural justice. They claimed that the notices sent earlier on their SSO Id were not seen by the respondent because of his old age and illness. This application was decided in favour of the respondent and the matter was taken up for hearing again. The matter was listed before this Court today and came up for hearing. CA Himanshu Goyal, appeared on behalf of the complainant while Advocate Anant Kasliwal and Vaibhav Kasliwal appeared on behalf of the respondent. The counsel of the complainant opened the arguments by stating that the complainant booked a unit in tower ‘G’ on floor 5 in the aforementioned project for a total sale consideration of Rs.226.18 lakh. Thereafter an agreement for sale was executed between the complainant and the respondent on 07.06.2013, according to which a construction linked payment plan was agreed to between the two and the possession of the flat was agreed to be given within 30 months from the date of execution of the Agreement i.e by December 2015. The case of the complainant was that the complainant made a total payment of Page No.Lof 14 Comp. No.2022-5399Rs.227.11 lakh till December, 2015 making it 100 percent payment, against the sale consideration amount as agreed to in the agreement for sale. The respondent, however, did not fulfill his part of the agreement and even though the entire due amount was deposited by the complainant much before the promised completion period, the respondent failed to complete the project by the agreed date. In fact, more than six years have passed since the promised date of completion but the unit has still not been delivered. The complainant went on to argue to state that the respondent's mal-intention was apparent from the fact that he accepted the entire amount for the completed unit avert teeueh in his reply he has stated that some litigation was going on with the Development Authority for the JDA had reduced the number of floors to 4. According to the complainant, if the respondent was in litigation with the Jaipur Development Authority for reducing the total number of floors to 4 then how could he accept the entire amount for a residential unit to be constructed on the 5th floor. His contention was that the entire payment was made only after an assurance was given from the respondent that the project would be delivered Page No.3 of 14 Comp. No.2022-5399by September, 2016. However, the fact of the matter according to the complainant was that the project was lapsed as per the RERA website, no valid completion certificate has been obtained and no QPRs have been filed by the respondent after 2021. Even though seven years have now passed since the promised date of possession, a valid possession letter has not been offered. He further stated that he could not accept the offer of possession in a project which has not yet obtained a valid completion certificate thereby making serious violation of sections 12 and 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and, therefore, requested th