BEFORE THE UTTARAKHAND REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

AT DEHRADUN

Present: Hon’ble Mr. Rajendra Singh

------ Member (J)
Hon’ble Mr. Rajeev Gupta
------Member (A)

APPEAL NO. 19 of 2021

M/s S.R. City Planners Pvt. Ltd. (mentioned in the Memo of parties as M/s
S.R. Housing Planner Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director Sh. Sanjeev Jain, D-2, First
Floor, Panchwati (opposite Subzi Mandi), Delhi-110033.)

........... Appellants
vs
Shri Vinay Mehtani, s/o Sri T.R. Mehtani, House no. 300/8, Krishna Colony,
Bhiwani, Haryana-127021.
..........Respondent

Present: Sri Saifullah, Advocate, for the appellant-promoter

Sri Vinay Mehtani, respondent-homebuyer

JUDGMENT

DATED: DECEMBER 23, 2022

Per: Sri Rajeev Gupta, Member (A)

This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19.09.2019 of the
Uttarakhand Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Dehradun (RERA) vide which the
appellant has been ordered to return the entire amount of Rs. 14,80,000/- with
interest @ 10.25% per annum [SBI highest marginal cost of lending rate (8.25%)
+2% per annum] received from the complainant (respondent herein) regarding
sale of studio apartment-G-106 in Anandam City, Haridwar. The interest has been
directed to be calculated separately from the dates on which the respondent
(appellant herein) has received the amounts from the complainant. Fine of Rs.
30,000/- has also been imposed on the respondent (appellant herein) for
violation of the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016, (No. 16/2016) (hereinafter referred to, the Act). The appeal briefly states
that appellant issued allotment letter containing standard terms and conditions
 2

and assured the respondent that the possession of the Studio Apartment shall be
delivered before 15.11.2016. On 05.11.2013, the last payment was made to the
appellant and a total amount of Rs. 14,80,000/- was paid by the respondent out
of Rs. 16,00,000/- excluding the registry amount. The appellant had periodically
enquired and requested the respondent for making the payment of the balance
amount, but the respondent always gave vague reply that he does not wish to
get the registry done in his favour and wants to sell the said Studio Apartment.
Respondent with unclean hands, preferred an online complaint against the
appellant, bearing Complainant no. 62/2019, titled as Vinay Mehtani vs. M/s S.R.
City Planner Pvt. Ltd. Dated 09.04.2019. Complaint of the respondent was
decided by the single member bench of Ld. Authority against the appellant by the
impugned order.

2. Facts of the case as narrated in the impugned judgment dated

19.09.2019 of the learned Authority below are as follows:

(i) The respondent had made an online complaint to RERA stating that he
had booked the studio apartment-G-106, Anandam City on 30.07.2012 with
the appellant herein (respondent before the learned Authority below).
According to the scheme, the complainant had paid 92.5% i.e. Rs. 14,80,000/-
after which the respondent Company and its Directors started making excuses
about delivery of the studio apartment. The respondent Company and its
Directors, Sri Sanjeev Jain and Sri Rajpal Jain with malafide intention have not
yet offered possession since the last payment made in November 2013.
Despite many telephones and emails, the respondent did not make any
efforts to deliver the possession. The complainant also approached the Delhi
Police but there was no result. The respondent be made to return the hard-
earned money of the complainant with interest.

(ii) Learned Authority below issued notice to the respondent who

submitted his reply stating that the complainant after getting details of the
studio apartment, booked the same on 30.07.2012 after making a payment of
Rs. 1 lac. The total consideration for the flat was Rs. 16 lacs plus registry
 3

charges. The complainant made the payments according to the payment plan.
Despite some payments having been made with some delay, the company has
not imposed penalty on the complainant. The complainant has paid Rs.
14,80,000/-. The complainant was requested on telephone and through other
means and during meeting in the office, to pay balance Rs. 1,20,000/- and get
the registry done many times since the year 2014. The complainant has not
agreed to such requests and informally told the officers of the company that
he is not interesting in getting the registry done and he wants to sell the
booking as it is. The complainant on various occasions offered to the officers
of the company to purchase back the said booking from him who always
refused the same. The intention of the complainant was bad since September-
October, 2014 and complainant had refused to make the balance payment to
take the possession. As per version of the complainant himself, he
approached the company first time, after his booking, in the year 2018 and
never complained about the delay in possession. Before 2018, the respondent
company had been writing letters and intimating the complainant for making
full and final payment. When the company talked about cancellation of the
booking, the complainant made a false complaint to the police. The company
is still ready to hand over the possession. The company or its officers have not
committed any default or delay in handing over the possession. The complaint
has no merit and be dismissed.

(iii) The complainant and respondent have both filed allotment letter
dated 15.11.2013 and other correspondence between them in support of
their contentions. Learned Authority below after hearing oral arguments of
both the parties has further recorded in the impugned judgment that
contention of the complainant is that even after many requests, the
respondent has not executed the sale agreement nor has intimated the date
of handing over possession. The respondent vide his mail dated 14.09.2016
(Annexure-5) informed that the possession will be handed over before
15.11.2016 but the respondent kept demanding the balance amount, while
the balance amount had been agreed to be given at the time of registry, as is
 4

clear from the paper no. 15 on the file (payment plan). Last payment was
made by the complainant on 05.11.2013 to which respondent agrees but
despite repeated requests, the respondent has neither executed agreement
nor given offer letter for possession. The respondent has been making false
statement about the incomplete project to be completed and ready to hand
over possession, while till today, respondent does not have the completion
certificate. The complainant went to construction site on 13.11.2016 and
13.06.2017, where the construction work was incomplete. He made entries in
the entry/visitor register of the company which can be summoned. The
complainant is waiting for the return of his money to which respondent is not
paying any heed. The respondent be made to return hard earned money of
the complainant with interest.

It was contended during the arguments by the respondent that after

2014, the complainant has been rejecting the requests of the respondent for
paying the balance amount and for taking possession. The truth is that the
complainant is adamant that the respondent buys back the studio apartment
in question and returns his money after selling it again, which has been clearly
refused by the respondent. Because of this reason only, the complainant is
making complaint some times in police and sometimes in RERA and making
false statements. Even if complainant makes the balance payment today, the
respondent is ready to hand over the possession and get the registry done
and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

Learned Authority below asked the respondent about completion

certificate to which respondent did not give any reply. About the complainant
having gone to the project site on 13.11.2016 and 13.06.2017, and making
entries in the visitor register and observing that the construction work is
incomplete, the respondent stated that the complainant is lying and has never
gone to the construction site. The complainant demanded summoning of the
register on which, the respondent was directed to produce the entry/visitor
register, but the respondent never produced the entry/visitor register and
after that respondent continuously made himself absent. The respondent has
 5

accepted that no sale agreement document has been executed regarding the
property in question.

(iv) Learned Authority below has observed that the respondent has
accepted the receiving of the amount paid by the complainant. The disputed
issue is only whether the project had been completed within the given time or
as the complainant is saying that the construction of the studio apartment
booked by him was incomplete and despite many requests, respondent did
not execute the agreement, nor has shown the completion certificate and nor
has given any offer letter for possession, due to which the complainant
demanded refund of the amount paid. Learned Authority below has further
stated that vide his email (paper no.39 of the file), the respondent has
mentioned to hand over possession before 15.11.2016 because of which, the
statement of the respondent that the complainant did not want to take
possession after 2014 and therefore, he did not make the balance payment to
the respondent, becomes forceless. The complainant has not produced any
offer letter of possession while regarding the balance payment, on paper
no.15 of the file, it has been clearly mentioned that the balance amount is to
be given at the time of registry. Then, how the respondent can demand the
balance payment in 2014 while till now the respondent has not obtained the
completion certificate. The respondent has not produced any such evidence
which provides force to his arguments. If the project had been completed,
then the photos of the project, completion certificate, affidavit etc. should
have been produced by the respondent to give force to his contentions but it
did not make any such effort. Even if the statement of the respondent that
the complainant was not interested in making balance payment because he
did not want possession is assumed to be correct then the respondent could
have cancelled the allotment and paid the balance amount to the
complainant, but the respondent did not also do this. In the light of these
circumstances and produced evidence and arguments, those contentions of
the complainant get force that respondent is making all false statements for
Peshbandi. By not producing the entry/visitor register, the respondent has
 6

weakened his arguments and statements and the statement of the

complainant gets strengthened that the complainant had gone to the project
site on 13.11.2016 and 13.06.2017 and had seen that the project work is
incomplete and he had made entry of his visits in the entry/visitor register of
the company.

(v) Learned Authority below has held that the respondent has accepted
the receiving of Rs. 14,80,000/- regarding purchase of furnished studio
apartment from the complainant, and also that no sale agreement deed has
been executed for the same and it is clear that the completion certificate of
the project has not been received. The respondent, to conceal his improper
business conduct, has given such arguments for which it did not have any
evidence. It is clear that even after many years, the respondent has not been
able to give possession of the property in question to the complainant nor it
has returned the money taken from the complainant. The respondent has
violated the provisions of the Act for which it deserves to be imposed with
fine. Complainant has the right to get the entire amount of Rs. 14,80,000/-
paid to the complainant with interest. Consequently, the order, as mentioned
in para 1 of this judgment, has been passed by the learned Authority below.

3. When the appeal was filed, according to the proviso 43(5) of the Act,
the appellant was required to show its bonafide before the appeal is
entertained, by depositing 50% of the amount indicating in the operative
portion of the impugned order dated 19.09.2019 of the learned Authority
below vide this Tribunal’s order dated 10.11.2021. In compliance of the same,
the appellant filed two bank drafts of total amount of Rs. 14,05,000/-in favour
of this Tribunal, after which the appeal was admitted and notice was issued to
the respondent and photocopy/scanned copy of the RERA file was
summoned.

Respondent-homebuyer has appeared in person thereafter before

this Tribunal.
 7

4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the
record and the photocopy/scanned copy of the RERA file. The parties have
also filed written submissions/arguments.

5. The contentions of learned Counsel for the appellant are as below:

5.1 The adjudication by the single member of the Authority or even the
authority is against the section 71 of the Act as the grievance of the
respondent is completely covered under the Section 18 and 19(4) of the Act.
The Section 71 of the Act clearly laid down that any such complaint under
section 18 and 19 for return of money with interest can only be adjudged by
the authority as provided under section 21 of the Act and adjudication by the
single member of the authority is against the specific provisions of the Act. It
is pertinent to mention here that the intent of the sub section 2 and 3 of the
Section 29 of the Act is that Ld. authority is meant to be a multi-member body
and should function as such. Never in the Act, RERA authority was intended to
be single member body and any decision in such contradicting the provisions
of this Act is void, illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside. The said
position has been cleared by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil
Writ Petition No. 8548 of 2020 titled as Janta Land Promoters Private Limited
vs. Union of India & Ors, vide judgment dated 16.10.2020.

The Ld. Authority failed to appreciate that for coming to a conclusion

of ordering a refund with interest, the Ld. Authority has to first of all come to
the conclusion that there was any delay in offering possession or giving the
possession of the property in question as per section 18 of the Act. The Ld.
Authority failed to appreciate that no specific timeline was ever provided to
the respondent and even otherwise the appellant has been offering to get the
registry done in favour of the respondent who was not ready to deposit the
remaining amount. The Ld. Authority failed to appreciate the documents filed
alongwith the reply on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has been
duly getting sale deed registered of the buyers who have taken the possession
upon making the rest of the payments. The Ld. Authority has presumed that
 8

the project is incomplete as the appellant failed to bring visitors register

which is in itself a whimsical presumption as the visitors registers, if any, are
kept at the site and not with the appellant which are further, time to time,
destroyed if not required for any other purpose. The Ld. Authority had made
observations upon the wrong and false facts stated by the Respondent. It is
pertinent to mention here that no completion certificate was required to be
given by the Appellant at the time of giving possession and getting the
Registry/sale deeds done in favor of the buyers as sale deeds have been
registered in favour of many buyers way back in 2012 as well since RERA was
not even in force at that point of time.

5.2 The Order/Decision of the Ld. Authority dated 19.09.2019 is not a

reasoned and justifiable decision as the same does not at once mention about
any section that are being violated by the appellant company and decision is
passed in most mechanical manner with a mere mention that the said act of
the appellant company is violating RERA ACT, 2016. The Ld. Authority has
grossly erred in not considering the actual facts that the Respondent was
never willing to make the remaining payment and get the Registry/sale deed
done in his favour. The Appellant had pleaded earlier as well, while contesting
the Complaint case, that the Respondent was never interested in taking
possession of the Studio Apartment and instead wanted to sell the same. The
Ld. Authority has grossly erred in not considering the fact that the Appellant
had executed sale deed/registry of the Studio Apartment, just above to the
one allotted to the Respondent. Thus, the claim of the Respondent that upon
visit, he found the project incomplete, stands falsified. This further goes to
prove that the Respondent herein had taken the order dated 19.09.2019 in his
favor only on the basis of a concocted story, holding no truth. the Ld.
Authority has grossly erred in not considering and totally sidelining the fact
that the Appellant had produced the copies of the Registries/sale deed
executed in favour of the other buyers in the same project, before the Ld.
Authority. The said copies of registries prove the completion of the project
and subsequent handing over of the possession of the Studio Apartments to
 9

their respective buyers and also falsify the claim of the Respondent. The
present appeal in the given facts and circumstances requires to be allowed
and the order of the Ld. Authority is liable to be set aside. The appellant is
even now ready to hand over the possession of the property and further
ready to abide by the orders or directions of this Tribunal.

6. The contentions of the respondent are as below:

6.1 The appellant had actively participated in the proceedings before the
learned Authority below and on 14.08.2019, it submitted its reply dated
13.08.2019. The appellant cannot take the plea that the impugned order
dated 19.09.2019 was received by the appellant on around 22.02.2020 by
post. After delivery of the decision on 19.09.2019, the same was informed to
the appellant by the respondent no. 05.11.2019 by email. As per the brochure
of the scheme, the appellant claims itself to be a Govt. approved registered
developer but as per the RERA website the project as well as the developer is
not registered with the Authority till date. Except the allotment letter, no
standard terms and conditions were supplied to the respondent by the
appellant. Further no allotment agreement/builder buyer agreement was ever
offered by the appellant. The appellant had not completed the project and
not submitted the completion certificate till the decision of the complaint no.
62/2019 filed by the respondent with RERA. The appellant is demanding
remaining payment from the respondent despite payment of 92.5% of the
agreed amount of Rs. 14,80,000/- within stipulated time and the appellant
never replied about the emails and text message of the respondent regarding
builder buyer agreement, offer of possession etc. since 11.09.2012. The
respondent himself visited the site twice in November 2016 and June 2017
and found the construction of the apartment incomplete. Further no
completion certificate was submitted before RERA in the reply filed by the
appellant. It is very much clear in the Civil Appeal No. 3182 of 2019 decided by
Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Kolkata West International City vs. Devasis
Rudra that a buyer cannot be allowed to wait indefinitely for offering
possession by the developer.
 10

6.2 There is no violation on the part of RERA of the provisions of Section

71 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal NO(S). 6745-
6749 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 3711-3715 of 2021) titled as M/s.
NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. Versus STATE OF UP &
ORS ETC. decided on 11 November 2021 has settled the following law points
in this regard:-

“Question no. 2: Whether the authority has jurisdiction to direct

return/refund of the amount to the allottee under Sections 12, 14,
18 and 19 of the Act or the jurisdiction exclusively lies with the
adjudicating officer under Section 71 of the Act?” (Page 33 refers).

The law has been settled while answering the above said point issue in
the said Supreme Court of India judgment. The same is enumerated below:-

“86. From the scheme of the Act of which a detailed reference

has been made and taking note of power of adjudication
delineated with the regulatory authority and adjudicating officer,
what finally culls out is that although the Act indicates the
distinct expressions like 'refund', 'interest', 'penalty' and
'compensation', a conjoint reading of Sections 18 and 19 clearly
manifests that when it comes to refund of the amount, and
interest on the refund amount, or directing payment of interest
for delayed delivery of possession, or penalty and interest
thereon, it is the regulatory authority which has the power to
examine and determine the outcome of a complaint. At the same
time, when it comes to a question of seeking the relief of
adjudging compensation and interest thereon under Sections 12,
14, 18 and 19, the adjudicating officer exclusively has the power
to determine, keeping in view the collective reading of Section
71 read with Section 72 of the Act. If the adjudication under
Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 other than Compensation as
envisaged, is extended to the adjudicating officer as prayed that,
in our view, may intend to expand the ambit and scope of the
powers and functions of the adjudicating officer under Section
71 and that would be against the mandate of the Act 2016.”
(page 54 refers)

Further the Supreme Court of India had also cleared the under-
mentioned point of law in the said judgment i.e.

“Question no. 3: Whether Section 81 of the Act authorizes the

authority to delegate its powers to a single member of the authority to
 11

hear complaints instituted under Section 31 of the Act?” (page 55

refers)

The same has been answered accordingly which is as follows:-

“120. In view of the remedial mechanism provided under the

scheme of the Act 2016, in our considered view, the power of
delegation under Section 81 of the Act by the authority to one of its
members for deciding applications/ complaints under Section 31 of the
Act is not only well defined but expressly permissible and that cannot
be said to be dehors the mandate of law.” (page 77 refers).

7. About the reliance placed by the respondent on the above judgment

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Newtech Promoters and Developers
Pvt. Ltd. versus State of UP & Ors. to state that single member can adjudicate
the complaints under section 31 of the Act, the learned Counsel for the
appellant has further contended that it is not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case as the SC in the said judgment has arrived
to the conclusion that the single member can adjudicate complaints under
section 31 of the Act only and that only when the said power was delegated
by the authority with a specific or by a general order to do so, which is clearly
missing in the present case as there is no rule, regulation, order, etc. of the
authority to this effect and hence the said judgment cannot be relied upon in
the given facts and circumstances.

Learned Counsel for the appellant accordingly argued that Sri Manoj
Kumar, Member, RERA who has delivered the impugned judgment dated
19.09.2019 had no authority to decide the complaint filed by the respondent-
homebuyer and sought time to obtain documents under Right To Information
Act (RTI) in support of this contention. However, nothing further has been
filed on behalf of the appellant in this regard. The respondent in the hearing
of 01.10.2022 has produced copy of the minutes of the meeting of the
Uttarakhand RERA dated 06.08.2018, obtained by him through RTI, according
to which complaints filed with the Authority were to be heard by the
Chairman and Members of the Authority individually according to a roster
 12

and on this basis, the respondent has claimed that Sri Manoj Kumar, Member,
RERA had the authority to hear and decide the complaint filed by him and
pass the impugned order dated 19.09.2019. This Tribunal has again given last
opportunity to the appellant-promoter to file any documents by the next date
which they might have received under RTI or otherwise to show that Sri
Manoj Kumar, Member, RERA did not have such authority to hear and decide
the complaint. In the hearing on the next date (04.11.2022), learned Counsel
for the appellant-promoter has submitted that they agree to the reply
received under RTI and filed by the respondent and have nothing to file
further in the matter.

8. In view of the above, the Appellate Tribunal holds that Sri Manoj
Kumar, Member, RERA had the authority to hear and decide the complaint
filed by the respondent-homebuyer. The Tribunal also holds that the flat was
not complete by the assured date i.e. 15.11.2016 as the completion certificate
of the project had not been obtained by that date and even till the hearing of
the complaint by the learned Authority below. The contention of the learned
Counsel for the appellant that registry of some other flats of the project
including one on top of the flat allotted to the respondent had been got done
by the concerned homebuyers earlier is of no benefit to the appellant as
according to Section 11(4)(b) of the Act, the promoter shall be responsible to
obtain the completion certificate or the occupancy certificate, or both, as
applicable, from the relevant competent authority as per local laws or other
laws for the time being in force and to make it available to the allottees
individually or to the association of allottees, as the case may be.

Section 17 of the Act reads as below:

“17. (1) The promoter shall execute a registered conveyance deed in

favour of the allottee along with the undivided proportionate title in the
common areas to the association of the allottees or the competent
authority, as the case may be, and hand over the physical possession of the
plot, apartment of building, as the case may be, to the allottees and the
common areas to the association of the allottees or the competent
authority, as the case may be, in a real estate project, and the other title
documents pertaining thereto within specified period as per sanctioned
plans as provided under the local laws:
 13

Provided that, in the absence of any local law, conveyance deed in

favour of the allottee or the association of the allottees or the competent
authority, as the case may be, under this section shall be carried out by the
promoter within three months from date of issue of occupancy certificate.
(2) After obtaining the occupancy certificate and handing over physical
possession to the allottees in terms of sub-section (1), it shall be the
responsibility of the promoter to handover the necessary documents and
plans, including common areas, to the association of the allottees or the
competent authority, as the case may be, as per the local laws:
Provided that, in the absence of any local law, the promoter shall
handover the necessary documents and plans, including common areas, to
the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may
be, within thirty days after obtaining the completion certificate.”
It is clear from the above that transfer of title through a registered
conveyance deed in favour of the allottee and handing over of the physical
possession should normally be done after the issue of occupancy
certificate/completion certificate and if some allottees got the registry done
earlier it does not imply that the project is complete or that it is obligatory on
the part of the other allottees to take possession, even when the
occupancy/completion certificate has not been issued. Moreover, in the
present case, the respondent-homebuyer has been saying time and again that
the construction work of the flat is incomplete and has also visited the project
site twice in November 2016 and June 2017 and found that the construction
was incomplete and has claimed to have made the entries in the entry/visitor
register of the project. Despite the directions of the learned Authority below
to produce entry/visitor register, the appellant-promoter has neither
presented the entry/visitor register before the learned Authority below nor
has attended further hearings before the learned Authority below. Learned
Authority below has correctly held that if project was complete, the promoter
could have filed photos, completion certificate, affidavit etc. in support of its
contention. Moreover, the promoter has been insisting upon the home-buyer
to make the balance payment, which according to the payment plan was to be
made at the time of registry, without giving any offer letter for possession.

Section 18(1) of the Act reads as below:

“18. (1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession

of an apartment, plot or building,—
 14

(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the
case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or
(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of
suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other
reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee
wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other
remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that
apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as
may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as
provided under this Act:
Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the
project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay,
till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.”

It is clear from the above that if the promoter fails to complete or is

unable to give possession of apartment or building by the assured date and in
that case, if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, he shall be
liable to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot
or building with interest at the prescribed rate. The rate of interest has been
prescribed in Rule 15 of the Uttarakhand Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) (General) Rules 2017, which is as below:

15. The rate of interest payable by the promoter to the allottee or by the
allottee to the promoter, as the case may be, shall be the State Bank of India
highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate plus two percent.

Provided that in case the State Bank of India Marginal Cost of Lending
Rate is not in use, it would be replaced by such benchmark lending rate which
the State Bank of India may fix from time to time for lending to the general
public.”

Learned Authority below has accordingly ordered the appellant herein

to refund the entire amount received from the complainant (respondent
herein) along with interest at the prescribed rate. This Tribunal upholds the
same.

9. Learned Authority below has also imposed a fine of Rs. 30,000/- on

the appellant-promoter for violation of the provisions of the Act. Though no
specific provisions have been mentioned whose violation has been done, but
it is clear that the project of the appellant was incomplete. According to
Section 3 of the Act, such project which was ongoing on the date of
commencement of the Act and for which the completion certificate had not
been issued, the promoter was required to make an application to the
 15

learned Authority below for registration of such project within a period of

three months from the date of commencement of the Act, which has not
been done in the instant case. Moreover, the appellant absented himself
from further hearings of the learned Authority below without any cogent
reasons for which also fine can be imposed upon him. However, if the
appellant wishes to be exempted from the fine imposed on him, he may
appear before the learned Authority below and submit his case on this point,
which shall be duly considered by the learned Authority below.

10. With the above observations, the appeal is hereby disposed of. No
order as to costs.

11. The amount of Rs. 14,05000/- deposited with this Tribunal by the
appellant be remitted to the learned Authority below and the same shall be
deemed to have been realized from the appellant in compliance of its order
dated 19.09.2019.

12. Let a copy of this order be sent to RERA for information and
necessary action, in terms of Sub Section (4) of Section 44 of the Act.

(RAJENDRA SINGH) (RAJEEV GUPTA)

MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A)

DATED: DECEMBER 23, 2022

DEHRADUN
KNP