Zirakpur Flat Buyer Gets Delay Interest Despite Settlement ज़ीरकपुर के फ़्लैट खरीदार को समझौते के बावजूद देरी का ब्याज ਜ਼ੀਰਕਪੁਰ ਦੇ ਫਲੈਟ ਖਰੀਦਦਾਰ ਨੂੰ ਸਮਝੌਤੇ ਦੇ ਬਾਵਜੂਦ ਦੇਰੀ ਦਾ ਵਿਆਜ

A buyer who booked a three bedroom flat in Sushma Crescent at Kishanpura, Zirakpur, late in two thousand and twenty was promised the keys within a year. Almost five years after that date, the tower still has no occupancy certificate and no offer of possession has gone out. On the second of November, Punjab RERA ordered the promoter, Sushma Buildtech, to pay her interest for every month of delay, and it did so even though the two sides had signed a settlement in the meantime and the buyer had already cashed the builder's cheques under it.

The settlement money was not thrown away. The Authority counted it against what the builder owes. What it refused to do was treat the settlement as the end of her claim.

A flat in Tower K and a one year promise

The order sets out the paperwork. The buyer applied at the end of November, and the allotment letter and the agreement for sale were both signed in early December the same year. The unit is on the eighth floor of Tower K. The agreement fixed the date of possession at the fifth of December the following year, subject to force majeure.

She paid in instalments under a construction linked plan. Most of that money came through a home loan from Kotak Mahindra Bank, which paid its share straight to the promoter against the builder's certificates of construction progress. By her account she had paid close to the whole price, with only the last instalment left for the day possession is offered. She also made one further payment two years after the promised date.

She went to the Authority at the end of two thousand and twenty four under section thirty one of the Real Estate Act. She did not ask for her money back. She asked for possession with the occupancy or completion certificate in place, and for interest for the delay.

The builder's case

Sushma Buildtech filed a long reply. It said the pandemic was a force majeure event. It cited a Supreme Court ruling in Fortune Infrastructure for the idea that three years from the agreement is a reasonable period for delivery. It pointed out that Punjab RERA had extended the project's registration. It called the buyer a defaulter, relying on a termination letter from early two thousand and twenty one and a later demand letter. And it relied on the settlement agreement of September two thousand and twenty two, under which it had already paid her delay compensation by cheque.

Then the builder stopped turning up. Its counsel withdrew his power of attorney in June this year and nobody appeared for the company after that. The Chairman, Rakesh Kumar Goyal, decided the complaint on the papers already filed. The order is careful on this point: the absence of the promoter "shall not, by itself, be construed as an admission," and each defence was weighed on the record.

The bank was dropped from the case

The buyer had named the bank as a second respondent. The bank said it was neither a promoter nor an allottee and had signed no agreement for sale. No claim was made against it. Its counsel also told the Authority the loan had been repaid in full and nothing was due to it.

The Authority agreed that no case was made out against the bank and dismissed the complaint against it. It added that this finding settles nothing between the buyer and the bank under the loan papers, which were never before it.

Six months for the pandemic, nothing more

Punjab RERA's own pandemic circular covered dates falling in a window that closed before this agreement was even signed. At the hearing, though, the buyer's counsel did not object to six months of extra time for the pandemic, so the Authority allowed it. The due date moved to the fifth of June two thousand and twenty two.

That was as far as the date would move. The argument about a reasonable three year period was rejected because the agreement itself named a date, which the builder had admitted in its own reply. The order also found no letter offering possession anywhere in the builder's documents, even though the reply claimed possession had been offered in time.

On the registration extension, the order was plain. An extension granted by RERA "operates as between the promoter and the Authority for regulatory purposes". The builder had not shown that it changed the date agreed with the buyer. Our report on the recent [four month extension for Mohali RERA projects](/article/393-mohali-rera-projects-due-from-28-feb-get-4-more-months) explains how those regulatory extensions work.

The default claim fell away

The termination letter was the builder's strongest paper, and its own conduct undid it. After writing that letter, the builder signed the settlement, paid compensation, issued a fresh demand and accepted a further payment. The Authority held that this was inconsistent with a claim that the allotment had ended. The builder never pleaded cancellation or asked to forfeit anything.

If any instalment did come in late, the remedy is interest on that payment under section nineteen of the Act and Rule sixteen of the Punjab rules. The order allows it only where the builder can show it gave the buyer specific notice of the delay and of the interest due.

What the settlement was worth

The settlement agreement is on the record. The builder said it had fully compensated the buyer. The Authority found nothing in it that amounted to "an express waiver" of her statutory right to interest under the proviso to section eighteen. Her counsel, for his part, offered to have the money she had received deducted from the interest. The Authority accepted that and left the wider question undecided.

So the order runs the full interest calculation and then takes off what the builder paid under the settlement. The rate is the one Rule sixteen prescribes, the State Bank of India's highest marginal cost of lending rate plus two per cent. Interest runs from the month after the extended due date on most of the money, and from a later month on the one payment made afterwards. After the deduction, the net sum up to the end of October comes to roughly nineteen and a half lakh rupees. It is due within ninety days, and a further monthly amount keeps running until a valid offer of possession is made with the certificate in hand. A similar adjustment of delay interest against dues came up in an [earlier New Chandigarh case](/article/398-new-chandigarh-flat-delay-interest-set-off-against-dues).

Possession comes with the certificate

The builder has to obtain the occupancy or completion certificate and offer the flat within seven days of getting it, or at the same time as any other buyer in the project. Whatever the buyer still owes on possession is to be set off against the award, and only the balance changes hands. The builder may raise its demand only after paying or adjusting what it owes. Until that is done she owes no maintenance charges to the builder, unless maintenance has passed to a residents' welfare association or an outside agency.

If the builder does not pay, the amount becomes recoverable as arrears of land revenue under section forty of the Act. The Authority's Secretary is to issue a debt recovery certificate to the Deputy Commissioner once the ninety days run out. That is the same route that led to a [Zirakpur builder's tower being attached](/article/402-zirakpur-builder-s-tower-attached-to-recover-buyer-s-award) earlier this month.

What is still open

The ruling turns on one agreement and one record, and it is a single order of the Authority. It leaves undecided whether a settlement with clearer waiver wording would bar interest. The builder has a right of appeal to the Punjab Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, and the order does not say whether it will use it. For the buyer, the date to watch is the end of the ninety days, when the recovery certificate is due to go to the district administration.

Sources: The sources we use are listed on our Editorial Sources page.

This piece reports a single Punjab RERA order on one flat. It gives no legal advice, and any other buyer's claim turns on its own agreement and payment record.