Delay in possession justifies refund of the purchase amount and interest, as per previous rulings.

JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1. The primary facts giving rise to the complaint in respect of the Project, namely, Multi Storey Group Housing Residential Scheme ‘Srishti - Shipra Krishna’ located at Ahinsa Khand, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, has been stated by this Commission in its decision dated 12.02.2015 Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. The appeal has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:

“Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) started construction of 14 Multi-storied Residential Apartment Towers. However, the construction of the aforesaid residential towers ran into difficulties and came to be a grinding halt, in the year 1995. The Authority then decided to dispose them off, either through an outright sale/lease deed or through a joint venture agreement, where the joint venture would complete and market the flats on behalf of the GDA in such a manner that it was able to recover full cost of its investment and highest possible margin, without any further risk on its investments and thereafter, allow the joint venture partner to obtain a return on its investments. The flats were to be advertised and marketed by the joint venture partner and the deed of conveyance was to be executed only by GDA, which continued to be the sole owner of the property.

The opposite party which is a partnership firm of two companies submitted highest bid for Module II in Indirapuram Scheme, which was accepted by the GDA. As per the MOU executed between the opposite party No. 1(hereinafter referred to as the developer) and GDA, a Monitoring Committee under the chairmanship of Vice Chairman, GDA was to be constituted for monitoring the progress for timely completion of the project. It was also agreed between the developer and GDA that a joint account in the name of the Authority and the Developer shall be opened in a nationalized Bank and all the monies received out of the proceeds of bookings etc. will be credited to the said account. The minimum amount stipulated in the MOU was to be paid to the Authority out of the accumulation in the said account and shortfall, if any, was to be met by the developer from his own sources. After meeting the aforesaid minimum liability, the proceeds in the account were to be distributed between the Authority and the developer in the ratio of 60:40. Once all the amount due to the authority had been paid, all the proceeds in the account were to go to the developer. It was also agreed in the MOU that the developer would complete the construction and internal development within seven years from the date of the agreement. It was also agreed between the GDA and the developer that in case of any litigation by the purchaser, the responsibility will be that of the developer and the said clause should be incorporated in the Flat-Buyers Lease Deed.”

2. The complainants applied for allotment of residential apartment in the aforesaid project and vide allotment letter No. 180, they were allotted Flat No. ‘Deodar-1102 ( Srishti) for a fixed and escalation free total consideration amount of Rs.67,27,750/- vide allotment letter dated 06.10.2006. The complainants had paid total sum of Rs.58,30,750/- to the opposite parties in total. As per the clause 9 of the allotment letter, the possession of the flat was to be handed over within 22 months of the allotment. Therefore, it ought to have been delivered by August, 2008. No offer of possession was, however, made to the complainants till the filing of the present complaint in the year 2017 despite the complainants waiting for offer of possession for so long. They had contended that even the occupancy certificate of the allotted flat has not been