In a recent case before the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Emaar India Ltd. filed an appeal against an order passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The case involved a complaint filed by Sushil Kumar Bhatia, a resident of Gurugram, against Emaar India Ltd., a real estate developer. The complaint sought compensation for delayed possession of a property in the Emerald Floors at Emerald Hills project in Gurugram.
The complaint stated that Sushil Kumar Bhatia had purchased a unit in the aforementioned project from the original allottees. However, Emaar India Ltd. failed to deliver possession of the property within the agreed timeframe, resulting in a delay of more than four and a half years. The complainant demanded interest for the delayed period of possession as per the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
About Emaar India Limited
Emaar India Limited is a real estate developer principally engaged in promotion, construction, development and sale of integrated townships, residential and commercial multi storied buildings, houses, flats, shopping malls, hotels, and other developments. Emaar Properties was founded and incorporated in 1997 by Mohamed Alabbar
Impugned Order and Appeal:
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority disposed of the complaint and directed Emaar India Ltd. to pay interest at the prescribed rate for the delay in possession. The authority also directed the complainant to pay any outstanding dues after adjusting the interest. Emaar India Ltd. appealed this order before the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
During the appeal hearing, Emaar India Ltd.'s counsel argued that the subsequent allottee (Sushil Kumar Bhatia) was aware of the project's delayed status when purchasing the property. They contended that the interest should be calculated from the date the subsequent allottee acquired the property, as per a Supreme Court judgment in Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd.
After considering the arguments, the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal examined the facts of the case. The tribunal noted that the original allottees had booked the property and subsequently sold it to Sushil Kumar Bhatia. They also observed that the due date for possession had already passed when the subsequent allottee acquired the property. Relying on a recent Supreme Court judgment in M/s Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. Charanjeet Singh, the tribunal rejected the argument that interest should be calculated from the date of acquisition by the subsequent allottee.
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal upheld the impugned order of the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, directing Emaar India Ltd. to pay interest at the prescribed rate for the delayed possession period. The decision clarified that interest for subsequent allottees should be calculated from the due date of possession and not from the date of acquisition. This case serves as an important precedent for similar disputes in the real estate sector, providing clarity on the calculation of interest for delayed possession.
Note: The information provided in this article about Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal or professional advice and readers should consult qualified professionals for advice specific to their circumstances. The information provided in this article is based on the 31 of 2021 before the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority
We hope you found our blog insightful and engaging! We appreciate your time and interest. If you enjoyed reading it, don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on our latest content. Visit our website www.reunionhq.in to know more.