How to Reply to a Complaint Filed Before RERA- Best Format-1

67 / 100

SEO Score

BEFORE THE HON’BLE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GREATER NOIDA

COMPLAINT CASE NO. XYZ/2024

ABC .……………..Complainant

Versus

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. …………..Respondent

SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

It is most respectfully soweth:-

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

1. That before submitting the objections of the Complaint the respondent is submitting Aminary objections without prejudice to its rights and contentions and while reserving all its rights as herein under. Moreover, the respondent prays and craves for the leave of this Hon’ble Tribunal that these preliminary objections so raised by it hereinafter may kindly be treated as preliminary issues and may kindly be decided as per settled proposition of law before entering into the merits (if any) of the case.

2. That the present complaint is not maintainable since the same is hopelessly and inonenately delayed and also time-barred by laws of limitation.

3. That the complainant has filed the present complaint beyond limitation. The same is filed after a gross, inordinate, unexplained, hopeless and inordinate delay of more than 4 years from the date of the alleged cause of action (as per the transfer letter dated 12-12-2013). Thus, the complaint of the complainant is time-barred and cannot be entertained by this Ld. Authority.

4. That it is submitted that the Act of 2016 is to be “in addition to and not in derogation of any other law”, the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”) will apply to complaints under the Act to the extent that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not inconsistent with the Hence, in the absence of a clear provision for limitation, the provisions of the Limitation Act for alleged breach of contract and/or claims/recovery of money shall apply to claims under the Act and the implied period of limitation for claims arising under the Act would ordinarily be at best three years which will start running at best from December 2016 and lapsed in December 2019.

There is complete silence on the part of the complainant during this period of more than 4- years. Thus, there is no subsisting legally enforceable right or claim in his favor. He is not entitled to any relief of any kind from this Ld. Forum.

5. That the complainants nowhere explained or pleaded as to why this complaint has been bed after 4 years. There is complete silence in between this period and thus the complaint under reply is hopelessly time-barred. There is no pleading or any contentions to that effect by the complainant stating or explaining the said hopeless delay in filing the complaint under reply.

Reply On Merts:

6. That the opposite party is a private limited company incorporated under the companies Act. 1956, having its registered office at Sector-D, Pocket-2, Shopping Square Mall, Sushant Golf City. Lucknow and is inter alia engaged in the business of construction of residential and commercial projects. That the opposite party is developing various group Housing Projects in the Hi-Tech Township (also known as Sushant Golf City”) on Sultanpur Road. Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh in the name of “ANSAL API-SUSHANT GOLF CITY” (“Project”).

7. That the respondent is a Public Limited Company of national repute and is involved in construction and infrastructure development-related activities spanning across the country. The respondent always thinks and acts to provide affordable and low-cost housing to its customers at a very minimal and reasonable price. The respondent also provides modern facilities to its customers in its various schemes and is also enjoying its credibity and goodwill among its customers since its inception. The respondent also maintains its ethics, responsiveness, and high standards of quality.

8. That the housing and Urban Planning department, Government of Uttar Pradesh desirous of promoting private investment launched the Hi- Tech Township (“Policy”) on November 22, 2003. In 2004, the opposite party submitted its proposal /bid/interest to participate in the development of the township in accordance with the Policy Thereafter, a High-Powered Committee (“HPC”) constituted by the state government selected the opposite Party for the development of 3500 acres of land in the Hi-Tech Township.

9. Accordingly, on November 26, 2005, the Lucknow Development Authority (“LDA an autonomous body under the aegis of the State Government entered into a Memorandum of understanding (“First MoU”) with the opposite party.

10. That the first MoU inter alia provided that the LDA shall acquire the land so identified for the development by the opposite party for development under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and if required shall even amend the master plan so as to make the identified land fit for development under the policy. The State Government amended the Hi-Tech Township Policy, subsequent to which the LDA and the opposite party on February 9, 2010, entered into a revised Memorandum of Understanding (“Revised MoU”). The Revised MoU

inter alia records that the application of the opposite party seeking increase of the development area from 1765 acres to 3530 acres was duly accepted by the HPC. It further provided that the LDA shall facilitate the acquisition of 25% of the total Land to be developed and also recce that the said development was to be conducted in an integrated and phased manner spreading across 5 phases and that Separate Development Agreements (“DA”) were to be executed for each phase.

It also stated that the project shall be developed within 5 years from the signing of the DA with the LDA, a period which was extendable up to 10 years subject to the approval of the State Government.

11. it is worthwhile to mention here that the Revised DPR of the said property/project long with a large number of building plans and layouts pending at the LDA for the last 4 years for approvals/permission which has adversely affected the development and inflows from ready sold/allotted projects. On the other hand, the respondent has been made liable to pay penalties/compensation delays which are attribute to force majeure reasons/government delays.

12. It is submitted that the responsibility for completing the project was contingent upon a host of reciprocal obligations which were to be undertaken by statory authorities like the LDA and the State Government. However, no such obligations leading to the completion

of the sa project were fulfilled by the concerned departments/oces/authorities. Thus, there is no default on the part of the respondent in this regard at all.

13. That the Govt. India constituted “REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 2016” (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2016”) to secure the rights of the “Allottees” and as well to protect the rights of the “Promoters”. Section 32 of the Act, 2016 the Functions of Authority for the Promotion of Real Estate Sector is clearly defined herein below-

32. Functions of Authority for promotion of the real estate sector

The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient, and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, on,-1

(a) protection of interest of the allottees, promoter, and real estate agent;

(b) creation of a single window system for ensuring time-bound project approvals and clearances for the timely completion of the project

(c) creation of a transparent and robust grievance Redressal mechanism against acts of omission and commission of competent authorities and their officials;

measures to encourage investment in the real estate sector including measures to increase financial assistance to the affordable housing segment;

measures to encourage construction of environmentally sustainable and affordable housing, promoting standardization and use of appropriate construction materials, fixtures, fittings, and construction techniques;

(measures to encourage grading of projects on various parameters of development including grading of promoters;

(g) measures to facilitate amicable conciliation of disputes between the promoters and the allottees through dispute settlement forums set up by the consumer or promoter associations;

h) measures to facilitate digitization of land records and system towards conclusive property titles with title Guarantee;

to render advice to the appropriate Government in matters relating to the development of the real estate sector;

any other issue that the Authority may think nevessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.

14. That as per the apresaid provisions, it is clear that the Ld. Authority also has the responsibility to bring transparency in the real estate sector and facilitate investment and promotion of the Real Estate Projects.

15. That thereafter, pursuance with The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 read with The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules 2016, the Uttar Pradesh cal Estate Regulatory Authority, upon submission/ uploading of all required sanctions, drawings, approvals, etc. of the Project, manual and other documents by the Respondent Company, pleased to register the Project. All the sanctions, drawings, approvals, financial and other information about the Project and Respondent re-uploaded in UPRERA website “up-rera.in” and is available for spection for the general public.

16. That the respondent has received and perused the copy of the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, and has understood its scope and purport thereof. The complaint under reply is bogus, based on falsehood, is no maintainable either on law or on facts.

The respondent denies each and every averments, allegations, and contention save and except which are matter of record and unless the same is specifically addressed by the respondent herein and the contentions being in favour of the respondent. The respondent begs to make the following submission in reply thereof.

17. That at the outlet the respondent denies all the averments and submissions made by the complainant which are contrary to the true facts and circumstances of the present case.

18. That nothing may be deemed to be admitted unless something is specifically admitted herein, but the same may be treated as has been set out seriatim an denied and disputed specifically.

19. That the averment made by the Complainant in his complaint are misleading, confusing and contrary to the true facts and circumstances of the present case.

20. That now coming upon the Scenario and merits of the present complaint, the complainant, after going through the General Terms and Conditions had invested in the upcoming project, by booking unit no. 3611-K-F2/020 in the project Sector-K, promulgated by the Respondent.

21. That till date the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.8.21,045/- to the respondent apart payment.

22. That the project the respondent was delayed due to farmers’ agitation and protest and or sit and the respondent approached local government bodies for their support to resolve the issue with the farmers, but they also failed to timely resolve the disputes/agitation with the farmers and therefore due to said reasons, the project was delayed by approx 3-4 years, which was beyond the control of the appellant. It is further submitted that the project was also delayed on account of non-payment by the respondent which affected its timely completion along with other reasons beyond the control of the respondents.

23. That thereafter the construction of the project had further stopped due to civil disturbance and land encroachment for which multiple letters were written to the govt. Authorities namely and therefore the construction of the project got delayed because of reasons beyond the control of the respondent.

24. That thereafter, the project got delayed due to various other reasons some are enumerated below: –

1. COVID-19 Outbreak: COVID-19 outbreak has made the entire world and facilities stand still. Due to the lockdown announced on account of the outbreak of this severe disease, both construction and sales activity had come to a complete halt across the entire real estate sector. On several sites, construction workers had gone back to their home towns. After the lockdown, and restrictions the project activities have re-commenced gradually but not at the full capacity, which has caused the delay in the project.

The relevant period thereof is from March 2020 till December 1021 during which, despite the best efforts of the respondent, the work on the projects was at a complete standstill. Thereafter also because of the nonavailability and slow supply of manpower, material, and machinery at the site on day to day basis, project completion was delayed.

2. Fiscal Crisis

Demonetization in late 2016 led to serious constraints in the liquidity of funds with allottees(s) resulting in holding up of payment of installments be them to the respondent. Moreover, there were sluggish demands due to liquidity crunch etc.

• Further, implementation of GST in early 2017 and uncertainties of post-ST scenario with respect to its implementation on various sectors and overall GST impact on business and resultant slowdown in all the sectors across the nation negatively and adversely affected the working and functioning of the respondent company well as the projects including the project in question.

The conservative approach of the financial institutions and banks in lending funds to the real estate companies like the respondent has also adversely affected the construction and development of the projects including the project in question.

Due to several scams by other companies being exposed in the banking sector in the recent past, most of the banks incurring losses placed under PCA and were not allowed to lend to genuine entities like the respondent. This resulted in the non-availability of funds for the real estate sector as well as to the respondent resulting in very little flow of liquid cash and cash in flow thereby adversely and negatively impacting the day-to-day supply of manpower, machinery, and material at the project sites, hence the resultant bonafide and genuine delay

The liquidity crunch has been a major pain point for Indian real estate over the last two to three years owing to tepid sales, bank’s refusal to disburse loans despite there being genuine establishments like respondents, and due to rising NPAs by others and the widening debt-equity ratio even with the bigger developers. The recent NBFC crisis has exacerbated the pain for the real state sector and its major stakeholders – the developers.

3. Non-availability of Building Materials was a severe shortage of sand and other related materials in the year 2016-201 due to a delay in the grant of a mining license in Uttar Pradesh which badly affected the speed of construction. Material being procured from other states during the period was inadequate to feed the demand. This led to intermittent stoppage of work and resultant in increased cost of transportation, labor being left ile at the site and ultimately delayed in construction. That in light of the reason explained above, a slight delay in the completion of the project was beyond the control of the respondent.

25. That despite the hurdles being faced by the respondent promoter, the respondent is willing to refund the amount of Rs.8,21,045/- in 16 installments to the complainant subject to the prevailing circumstances as enumerated in the paragraph above and subject to force majeure and unavoidable circumstances. This offer is without prejudice to the rights and contentions and while reserving all its rights.

26. That with abundant caution the respondent Promoter would like to draw the kind attention of this Honorable authority towards an interim order passed by the Ld. Authority dated 26.06.2023 in reference no. 8783/UPRERA Tech.Cell/2023-24 by virtue of which the Learned Authority has restrained the respondent promoter from carrying out the Sale deed/Agreement/ Creation of third party rights in the township developed by the respondent and having said that the respondent promoter will be forced to reach a situation where all his liquidity would be grossly affected by the Order as mentioned above and the same would further lead to delay of the project and further, the timeline for providing posession would also shift further despite best of its efforts.

That it would also be necessary to add here that the respondent promoter would become entirely handicapped in terms of execution of orders passed by the Learned Authority and complete ban as enumerated in the operative part of that order as such the commercial activities of the respondent have also come to a standstill and have also adversely and continuously affected the cash flow of the respondent.

27. That in view of the shove stated facts as enumerated the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable either on law or on facts and needs to be rejected in the interest of justice.

How to Reply to a Complaint Filed Before RERA- Best Format-1

How to Reply to a Complaint Filed Before RERA- Best Format-1

1 thought on “How to Reply to a Complaint Filed Before RERA- Best Format-1”

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply