1.       Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Shanker Bhuram, Advocate, for the opposite party. 

2.       Asad Raza has filed above complaint for directing opposite party to (i) handover possession of the villa booked by him, complete in all respect with all the promised amenities and facilities with ‘occupancy certificate’ and execute sale deed of it in his favour; (ii) pay delay compensation in the form of interest @24% per annum on his deposit from due date of possession till the date of filing of the complaint; (iii) pay Rs.600000/- as compensation for the rent paid of the hotels from 01.11.2015 due to delay in handing over possession; (iv) pay Rs.3000/- per day plus taxes as pendent lite and future expenses for the rent till the date of handing over possession (v) pay litigation costs; and (vi) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case.

3.       The complainant stated that Countryside Realtors India Private Limited (the OP) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing projects. The OP launched a project of residential villas in the name of “Westend Greens”, at Mokila Village and Gram Panchayat, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in the year, 2012. The complainant booked Villa No. 34 in “Westend Greens” and an agreement for sale dated 21.01.2015 was executed between the parties, in respect of above villa, in which total consideration of Rs.13600000/- of the villa, car parking etc. and Rs.400000/- for amenities was mentioned. The complaint paid Rs.6080000/- on 27.01.2015 and Rs.6220000/- on 24.02.2015. Clause-7 of the agreement provides 6 months period with grace period of 3 months for handing over possession. Due date of possession including grace period expired in October, 2015. The complainant came to Hyderabad from Canada, in anticipation of possession and staying in hotel since 01.11.2015 and paying rent of Rs.3000/- per day. On inquiry the OP used to give assurance for giving possession within short period. After expiry of long time, possession was not delivered. Then the complainant gave legal notice dated 28.04.2016 to the OP for handing over possession. The OP replied vide notice dated 11.05.2016, stating that villa was ready and take possession after paying balance consideration. The OP was silent about ‘occupancy certificate’. On these allegations, the complaint was filed on 30.05.2016.

4.       The OP filed its written statement, in which, booking of villa No.34, payment made by the complainant and Ms. Zainab Raza and the agreement for sale dated 21.01.2015 are admitted. The OP stated that Ms. Zainab Raza was necessary party in the complaint. The OP stated that the complainant, through email dated 02.04.2015, informed the OP that his mother was no longer coming to India. Initially, the specifications mentioned in the agreement were agreed. Later on the complainant, through email dated 25.07.2015, stopped to work for interior designing as per specification and asked for some more work and assured to pay for extra work. The complainant then gave another email dated 14.09.2015, stating that his bank had issued Debit Card but has not allotted Pin number. Due to his study, he may come in December. The complainant and his mother had difference of opinion in respect of interior designing of the villa but the complainant alone started communications with the OP for change of interiors. The mother of the complainant was joint allottee as such her consent for change of interior was required. The complainant’s henchmen and appointed persons came to the office of the OP on 13.11.2015 and started threatening to the employees. The complainant, vide email dated 16.11.2015 asked to adjust cost of extra work in total cost of the villa and threatened the OP to tarnish its image in the market by giving some false news in print and electronic media, if any demand for extra work is made. The OP gave a legal notice to the complainant dated 25.11.2015, to desist from such illegal acts. Then the complainant gave email dated 01.12.2015, stating that due to his examination, he would come in next week and discuss all the issues and apologized for his behaviour. The complainant did not come in December, 2015. Thereafter, vide email dated 14.01.2016, informed that he would come to India in second week of May, 2016. The complainant gave a legal notice dated 28.04.2016, alleging delay in delivery of possession, concealing above incidents, which was replied by the OP vide notice dated 11.05.2016, offering the complainant to take possession after paying balance consideration and completing paper formalities. The OP again, vide email dated 03.06.2016 informed that the villa was ready and take possession. The complainant gave email dated 04.06.2016 that he would meet on 07.06.2016. During meeting on 07.06.2016, the complainant was satisfied and requested to initiate the process of handing over possession. The complainant also gave email dated 15.06.2016. Thereafter, this complaint was filed on false allegations. The OP is not responsible for delay in handing over possession rather the complainant himself is responsible for it. The OP is ready to handover possession subject to balance payment and payment for extra work and consent of his mother.

5.       The complainant filed Rejoinder, Affidavit of Evidence of Asad Raza and documentary evidence. The OP filed Affidavit of Evidence and Affidavit of Admission/Denial of documents of Masood Hasan. Both the parties have filed their written synopsis of the arguments. At the arguments, the counsel for the complainant prayed for refund of the money deposited by the complainant.

6.       We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. The counsel for the complainant placed on record Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 and Notification dated 25.08.20008 in respect of “Hyderabad Metropolitan Region”, in which, Mokila Village is mentioned at Serial No.422. The counsel for the complainant argued that as residential villas in the name of “Westend Greens”, are developed at Mokila Village and Gram Panchayat, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Mokila Village, which is falling under the “Hyderabad Metropolitan Region” as such, “Occupancy Certificate” is mandatory for handing over possession under Rules 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2012. As the OP could not obtain “Occupancy Certificate” till today as such, the OP be directed to refund entire money deposited by the complainant.

7.       Supreme Court in Laureate Buildwell (P) Ltd. v. Charanjeet Singh, (2021) 20 SCC 401, held that in the event the purchaser claims refund, on an assessment that he too can (like the original allottee) no longer wait, and face intolerable burdens, the equities would have to be moulded. It would no doubt be fair to assume that the purchaser had knowledge of the delay. However, to attribute knowledge that such delay would continue indefinitely, based on an a priori assumption, would not be justified. The equities, in the opinion of this Court, can properly be moulded by directing refund of the principal amounts, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date the builder acquired knowledge of the transfer, or acknowledged it.

8.       The OP has neither pleaded nor filed copy of “Occupancy Certificate”, which is mandatory for handing over possession of the villa as per Rules 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2012. Since about 8 years expired after due date of possession, as such, the complainant cannot be asked to wait for possession further. However, if the OP have done any extra interior work as desired by the complainant in his email dated 25.07.2015 or subsequent communications, the OP is entitled to deduct that amount incurred on extra work. Since money was jointly deposited by the complainant and his mother, the complainant is required to produce authority of his mother to take refund, if she is alive. If she is not alive then succession certificate and authority of other heirs his mother, if any be required.

O R D E R

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund entire amount deposited by the complainant and his mother with interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund after deducting the amount incurred on extra work, if any, within a period of two months after producing the authority of Ms. Zainab Raza or any other document, which is legally required.