$~98 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17475/2025 VIRAL NAVNITAL MEHTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Geetansh Nagpal, Mr. Mohit Aggarwal, Ms. Japneet Kaur, Ms.

Pooja Saini, Advs.

versus NATIONAL HOUSING BANK & ORS. .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 21.01.2026 CM APPL. 72144/2025 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 17475/2025

1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

a. “Allow the present Petition and Pass a Writ of Certiorari or Prohibition or Mandamus or a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari and/or Prohibition and/or Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ, and thereby directing the Respondent no. 3 not charge/deduct the EMIs from the Petitioner and not to initiate any legal proceedings against the Petitioner; AND b. Direct the Respondent no. 3 not to take any action against the Petitioner and recover the outstanding amount in regard to the loan from the Respondent No. 2;

AND c. Direct the Respondent no. 3 to initiate proper proceeding only against the Respondent No. 2 for the breach of terms and conditions of the Tripartite Agreement executed between the Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 and 3; AND d. Direct the Respondent no. 1 to initiate proper enquiries into the operations of the Respondent no. 3 concerning disbursal of loan to the Respondent no. 2 in violation of the statutory guidelines pertaining to disbursal of loan in Subvention schemes; AND…”

2. The petitioner is a home-buyer and the Respondent No. 1 i.e. National Housing Bank (“NHB”) is a statutory body, constituted under the National Housing Bank Act, 1987, entrusted with regulation and supervision of housing finance institutions in India.

3. Respondent No. 2 is a real estate developer engaged in the business of development and sale of residential projects, including the project “Raheja Revanta” situated at Village Shikopur, Sector 78, Gurugram. Respondent No. 3, ICICI Bank Limited, is a scheduled commercial bank registered with and regulated by the Reserve Bank of India and National Housing Bank.

4. It is stated by Mr. Nagpal, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner booked an apartment bearing Unit No. B-022, Tower-B admeasuring 1621.39 sq. ft. in project of respondent namely ‘Raheja’s Revanta’ to which respondent no. 2 issued an allotment letter dated 19.08.2014 to petitioner. The petitioner paid a booking amount of Rs. 13,25,000/- vide Cheque No. 719396 dated 28.05.2014 drawn on ICICI Bank. Accordingly, an Agreement to Sell dated 19.08.2014 was executed.

5. Respondent No. 2 sent a letter to respondent No. 3 giving permission to mortgage the apartment bearing Unit No. B-022, Tower-B admeasuring 1621.39 sq. ft., for a total sale consideration of Rs.

1,43,29,098/-.

6. A Tripartite Agreement was executed between the petitioner, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, under which respondent No. 3 advanced the amount of Rs. 90 lakhs to respondent No. 2 and the property stood charged to respondent No. 3 as mortgaged.

7. Under the Tripartite Agreement, respondent No. 2 was required to pay pre-EMIs payment to respondent No. 3 (i.e. EMIs till the date of possession). The possession of the flat was to be delivered by

19.08.2018.

8. However, respondent No. 2 failed to complete the construction and also did not pay the EMIs.

9. As per the petitioner, respondent No. 2 is under CIRP proceedings. It is stated by learned counsel or the petitioner that the petitioner has already paid a total sum of Rs. 1.05 crores from his own resources for a flat which has neither been constructed and nor the possession of which has been handed over.

10. It is also stated that the Tripartite Agreement was a construction-

linked plan and the respondent No. 3 was to release payment in accordance with the stage of construction.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, draws my attention to Clause 88 of the Master Direction – Non