UPSIDA cannot charge interest for delays caused by its own fault, and must correct the interest rate to 6% on outstanding amounts.

(Delivered by Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Pankaj Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel appears for the U.P. State Industrial Development Authority.

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE PRESENT CASE:

2. Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority,  UPSIDA launched a scheme of residential plot in ‘Saraswati-Hi Tech City Naini, Allahabad’. The petitioner who is 75 years old lady, made an Application No. 1693 on 18.09.2016 for allotment of plot and had deposited Rs. 1,95,930/- as Registration amount. The petitioner was found to be successful and was allotted a plot No. B 440 (measuring 200 Sq. Meter) on 18.02.2017 and the cost of plot was fixed at Rs. 36 lakhs. The allotment letter was issued on 18.02.2017, wherein it was stated that 25% of the total premium of plot after adjusting registration amount is to be deposited within 30 days.

3. From the record it emerges that the condition in the allotment letter was that the allottee while participating has to deposit Rs. 1,93,320/- as registration amount and after he/she was found successful in getting the allotment, the allottee would be required to pay 25% of the total premium amount within 30 days (which was amounting Rs. 7,01,680/-). The allotment also provided the facility of instalment, but, it carried an interest of 14% per annum on remaining premium chargeable from the date of allotment, payable in 12 half yearly installments alongwith interest on first day of January & July each year. Rebate of 2% was also admissible in case the payments due are made on or before the prescribed date if there are no arrears of dues.

4. The petitioner instead of depositing 25% (which was Rs. 7,01,680/-) of the said total amount, has deposited around Rs. 29 lakhs which was approximately 80% of the total amount of the premium, without seeking benefit of instalments which was offered in the allotment letter. So far as the possession of the plot as per the allotment letter is concerned, it was to be delivered to the allottees after payment of 25% of the total premium of plot (after adjusting earnest money/registration amount).

5. As per the terms and condition of the allotment, the petitioner was promised to get possession by July 2017, but the same was not given to the petitioner. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner approached Real Estate Regulatory Authority, RERA on 05.11.2017 and RERA vide order dated 27.02.2018 directed the respondent No. 3- UPSIDA for delivering the possession, however, no order was passed for the interest on the delayed period. Hence, the petitioner filed an appeal No. 100 of 2020 before the Real State Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow within time and after admission of appeal, Tribunal fixed date for hearing, but due to lockdown in Corona period, it was informed to the petitioner that the hearing would be conducted through Video conferencing. It is claimed that no link was provided in spite of several requests, hence, the petitioner could not appear. The matter kept pending before the RERA Appellate Authority.

6. On 03.09.2019, an office order was issued by the UPSIDA, whereby the allottees were given option if they want to quit from the project, they can take back their deposited money with 6 percent interest per annum, or in case they want to continue under the scheme they will have to pay the remaining premium amount and other charges as per the original allotment order.

7. It transpires that there was some issue between UPSIDA and the State Government and the State Government for some internal reason did not executed the Conveyance Deed in favour of UPSIDA, as a result, they were also not in position to further execute the Conveyance Deed and hand over possession to the allottees. It seems that ultimately the State Government executed the Conveyance Deed on 23.01.2021 in favour of UPSIDA, and hence the delay in executing the sale deed by UPSIDA in favour of the petitioner was