| Party Dtls | Self / Adv Name | District | Current Status | Next Date of Hearing | Complaint Dispatched | Complaint Dispatched On | Dispatched Tracking Id | Complaint Dispatched Remarks | First-Hearing/Scrutinized Remarks | View Notice |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MUKESH NAYAR V/S VATIKA LIMITED |
ABHIJEET GUPTA | GURUGRAM | DISPOSED | NOT REQUIRED | Not Yet | FIRST HEARING | -- |
| S No. | Complaint-ID | Complaint-Type | Status | Next Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | RERA-GRG-1310-2023 | Execution | SINE DIE | NA |
| 2 | RERA-GRG-1309-2023 | Execution | ONLINE COMPLAINT NOT YET RECEIVED AT OFFICE | NA |
| Date of Hearing | Status | Proceedings of the day | Bench | Order | Order Uploaded On |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13-Dec-2022 | DISPOSED | Order pronounced. Detailed order will follow. Complaint stands disposed off. File be consigned to the registry. | VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA | View Order | 17-Dec-2022 |
| 24-Nov-2022 | PENDING | The case is fixed for today for pronouncement of orders.However, the counsel for the respondent states at bar that the respondent promoter has filed a CWP No.26740 of 2022 before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein the Hon’ble High Court has passed the interim order staying taking of any coercive action in the matter of assured return and seeks a short adjournment for filing copy of the said order. In view of the above, the case is adjourned and shall come up on 13.12.2022 for pronouncement of order, if no stay order of Punjab and Haryana High Court is supplied to the authority as well as to the complainant. | VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA | View Order | 28-Nov-2022 |
| 11-Oct-2022 | PENDING | The present complaint has been received on 15.03.2022 and the reply was received on 13.07.2022. Succinct facts of the case are as under: S.no. Particulars Details 1. Name of the project Vatika Inxt City Center at Sector 83, Gurugram, Haryana 2. Allotment letter 18.08.2012 (annexure A, page 30 of complaint) 3. Date of builder buyer agreement 29.08.2012 (page 32 of complaint) 4. Unit no. 151-A, tower D admeasuring 500 sq.ft. (annexure A, page 30 of complaint) 5. New unit no. 525, 5th floor, block C (annexure C, page 54 of complaint) 7. Provision regarding assured return Clause 12. Assured Return and Leasing Arrangement Since the Buyer has paid the full basic sale consideration for the said commercial unit upon signing of this agreement and has also requested for putting the same on lease in combination with other adjoining units/spaces of other owners after the said Building is ready for occupation and use, the Developer has agreed to pay Rs. 65/- per sq.ft. super area of the said commercial unit per month by way of assured return to the Buyer from the date of execution of this agreement till the completion of construction of the said Building. The buyer hereby gives full authority and powers to the Developer to put the said Commercial Unit in combination with other adjoining commercial units of other owners, on lease, for and on behalf of the Buyer, as and when the said Building/said commercial Unit is ready and fit for occupation. The buyer has clearly understood the general risks involved in giving any premises on lease to third parties and has undertaken to bear the said risks exclusively without any liability whatsoever on the part of the Developer or the confirm party. It is further agreed that: i. The Developer will pay to the Buyers Rs. 65/- per sq.ft. super area of the said commercial unit as committed return for upto three years from the date of completion of construction of the said building or till the said commercial unit is put on lease, whichever is earlier. After the said commercial unit is put on lease in the above manner, then payment of the aforesaid committed return will come to an end and the Buyer will start receiving lease rental in respect of the said commercial unit in accordance with the lease document as may be executed and as described hereinafter. ii……… iii………. iv……… v. The developer expects to lease out the said commercial unit (individually or in combination with other adjoining units) at a minimum lease rental of Rs. 65/- per sq.ft. super area per month for the first term (of whatsoever period). If on account of any reason the lease rent achieved in respect of the first term of the lease is less than the aforesaid Rs. 65/- per sq.ft. super area per month, then the Developer shall pay to Buyer a oner time compensation calculated at the rate of @Rs. 120/- per sq.ft. super area for everyone rupee drop in the lease rental below Rs. 65/- per sq.ft. super area per month. This provision shall not apply in case of second and subsequent leases/lease terms of the said Commercial unit. vi. However, if the lease rental in respect of the aforesaid first term of the lease exceeds the aforesaid minimum lease rental of Rs. 65/- per sq.ft. super area, then, the buyer shall pay to the Developer additional basic sale consideration calculated at RS. 60/- per sq.ft. super area of the said commercial unit for every one rupee increase in the lease rental over and above the said minimum lease rental of Rs. 65/- per sq.ft. super area per month. This provision is confined only to the first term of the lease and shall not be applicable in case of second and subsequent leases/lease terms of the said commercial unit 8. Due date of possession 29.08.2015 *Note: Possession clause is not given in file. So, taken from another file of the same project 9. Total sale consideration Rs. 22,50,000/- as per clause 1 of the agreement (page 34 of complaint) 10. Paid up amount Rs. 23,19,525/- as per clause 1 of the agreement (page 34 of complaint) 11. Offer of possession Not offered 12. Occupation certificate Not obtained 13. Assured return amount paid by the respondent till 30.09.2018 Rs.23,87,014/- (annexure R2, page 39 of reply) The counsel for the respondent states that in another matter titled as Vinod Agarwal versus Vatika, a relief was granted on the same grounds and the same has been challenged before the Tribunal and the stay has been granted in that matter. The question before the Tribunal is whether the assured return issues fall within the jurisdiction of RERA due to the coming of the BUDS Act, 2019. The AR of the respondent company also states that in case before the Civil Court, Gurugram in case titled as Naresh Parshad versus Vatika Ltd. vide order dated 22.05.2022, the Hon’ble Civil Court has observed that after passing of the BUDS Act, the developer is not liable to pay assured return. A reference is also made to an order of J&K High Court in favour of his argument. The counsel for the complainant states that the stay order of the Tribunal in the above matter is qua the specific case and not in general. He further states that this authority has passed a detailed order in the case of “Madhushree Khetan versus Vatika Limited in CR No.1239 of 2021 where this issue has been finally decided at the level of the Authority on 04.02.2022 and relief is being sought by the complainant on similar grounds. Arguments heard. Both the counsels may file written arguments within a period of one week if they wish to do so. Order reserved. Matter to come up on 24.11.2022 for pronouncement of orders. | K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL | View Order | 15-Oct-2022 |
| 05-Jul-2022 | FIRST HEARING | The present complaint was filed on 15.03.2022 and registered as complaint No. 1088 of 2022. As per the registry, complainant has sent copy of complaint along with annexures through speed post as well as through email and proof regarding having the delivery of the complaint along with annexures made to the respondent has been submitted by the complainant as available in the file. The registry of the authority sent a notice with a copy of the complaint along with annexures through speed post of which delivery confirmed on 28.03.2022 as per the tracking report of the speed post available in the file. Registry has also sent the notice along with a copy of the complaint through email at following email address: vatika.rera@vatikagroup.com, info@vatikagroup.com and the same are shown to have been delivered on the above email address as per the report available in the file. It is proper service of the notice. Written reply has not been filed by the respondent. Counsel for the respondent requests for a short adjournment for filing of the reply which otherwise is ready and a copy is being served today to the counsel for the complainant and thereafter shall be filed in the registry of the authority within 3 days. Respondent is directed to file reply within one week positively after serving a copy to the counsel for the complainant i.e. by 12.07.2022 in the registry with a copy to the complainant. Last opportunity is being granted. In case reply is not filed within the time allowed, a cost of Rs.5,000/- shall be imposed upon the respondent and defence of the respondent may also be struck off. The matter to come up on 11.10.2022 for further proceedings. | K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL | View Order | 08-Jul-2022 |
| Date of Judgement | Party Details | Judgement Uploading Date | View Judgement |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13-Dec-2022 | MUKESH NAYAR V/S VATIKA LIMITED |
21-Feb-2023 |
|
| Dak ID | Receiving Date | Submitted By | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 29786 | 15/03/2022 | ABHIJEET GUPTA | NEW COMPLAINT |
| 37561 | 13/07/2022 | ANKUR BERRY | REPLY RECEIVED |
| 43304 | 28/10/2022 | ADV ABHIJEET GUPTA | WRITTEN ARGUMENT BY COMPLAINANT |
Web Information Manager
Shri Arvind Mehtani,Executive Director, HRERA
Mini Secretariat, New Office Block,
2nd & 3rd Floor ,Sector-1,
Panchkula,
Haryana- 134114,India
Email: hrerapkl[dash]hry[at]gov[dot]in
Telephone: +91 172-2584232,2585232
Website Designed and Developed By National Informatics Centre (NIC) and Owned by HRERA PANCHKULA & HRERA GURUGRAM Jointly
© 2018 Copyright. All Rights Reserved.