Judgement of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal†
(Before D.K. Arora, Chairman and Rajiv Misra, Member (Administrative))
Parsvnath Developers Limited … Appellant;
Versus
Pankaj Agarwal … Respondent.
Appeal No. 503 of 2020 (Complaint No. 120186276)
Decided on June 11, 2021
1. This appeal has been preferred by M/S Parsvnath Developers Limited (Promoter) under Section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (‘the Act, 2016’) aggrieved against the order dated 15.06.2018 passed by the Vice Chairman, Bareilly Development Authority/Real Estate Regulatory Authority (‘Regulatory Authority’) in Complaint No. 120186276 (Pankaj Agarwal v. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.) whereby the Regulatory Authority directed the Promoter to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 12,54,700/- to the complainant (‘respondent’) along with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of deposit till the date of refund, within 45 days from the date of the order.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 09.09.2013 the respondent, along with Ms. Vidhi Agarwal, booked a residential Flat No. B1-1005 measuring 1320 sq.ft. in Parsvnath Palacia, Greater Noida Project of the appellant/Promoter. At the time of booking the respondent deposited Rs. 4,57,224/- towards booking amount. The basic cost of the flat was Rs. 44,35,200/- after giving 4% discount under the House of Happiness Plan. The Promoter and the respondent entered into a Flat Buyer Agreement on 19.12.2013. The respondent paid 25% of the basic cost of the Flat and remaining 75% of the cost along with other charges is payable at the time of offer of possession. According to Flat Buyer Agreement, the possession of the flat was to be delivered to the respondent on 30.09.2016 but even after expiry of about 20 months from 30.09.2016 the possession of the flat in question was not delivered by the Promoter to the respondent, therefore, the respondent filed the said complaint before the Regulatory Authority which was decided in the manner mentioned in para 1 above.
3. The Promoter has challenged the order of the Regulatory Authority on the following grounds:—
(i) The Regulatory Authority while passing the impugned order has acted in a manner that is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
(ii) The learned designated officer of the Regulatory Authority is not a duly constituted authority as per provisions of Section 20 read with Section 21 of the Act, 2016 and as such the proceedings conducted by such designated officer are not in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
(iii) The impugned order is without jurisdiction and is in violation of the provisions of the said Act rendering the same wholly non-est, perverse and illegal.
(iv) The Regulatory Authority while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate and consider the objections raised by the appellant/Promoter. The impugned order, in this view of the matter, is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
(v) The Regulatory Authority has wrongly held that the onus to establish the delay in commencement of construction was on the appellant.
(vi) The Regulatory Authority while passing the impugned order has acted with material irregularity in not considering the fact that the appellant has never denied grant of compensation to the respondent as provided under the Flat Buyer Agreement.
(vii) The Regulatory Authority while adjudicating upon the matter has erred in law by misconstruing the facts of the present matter. The impugned order is based on irrelevant considerations and has been passed dehors law and facts.
(viii) The Regulatory Authority has overlooked the fact that the delay in delivery of possession of Flat in the project was caused due to reasons beyond the sentinel of the appellant.
(ix) The Regulatory Authority failed to appreciate that the appellant cannot be penalized with interest when the appellant has never contravened the terms of the Flat Buyer Agreement.
(x) The impugned order suffers from infirmities and is an outcome of erroneous appreciation of law and facts and non-application of mind.
(xi) The Regulatory Authority has passed an unreasonable and non-speaking order.
(xii) The Regulatory Authority has failed to appreciate that the case of the respondent was not that the appellant/Promoter has denied compliance of the terms of the Flat Buyer Agreement.
(xiii) The Regulatory Authority committed grave error in granting the relief of interest in favour of the respondent.
(xiv) The Regulatory Authority erred and acted with material irregularity by merely accepting the contention of the respondent that the appellant/Promoter had delayed delivery of the flat to the respondent without considering the submissions and contentions of the appellant/Promoter and the documents on record.
(xv) The Regulatory Authority failed to appreciate that the construction of the superstructure of the Tower in which the flat of the respondent is located is nearing completion and the appellant/Promoter shall be offering possession of the finished flat on or before December, 2019 as per timelines given in the UPRERA registration application.
(xvi) The Regulatory Authority has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, in so far as it has not considered the complaint and the documents on record in its proper and legal perspective.
4. The appellant/Promoter has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 15.06.2018 passed by the Regulatory Authority.
5. Sri Pankaj Agarwal, the respondent, filed his objections denying the contents of the appeal. He further stated that (i) the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the valid and perfect judgment and order dated 15.06.2018 passed by the Regulatory Authority and the Regulatory Authority has passed the order under appeal after going through the entire evidence and material on record which is valid and perfect and no interference is required therein and the order of the Regulatory Authority is liable to be confirmed; (ii) the appeal filed by the appellant is totally misconceived and is based on false and fabricated grounds; (iii) in compliance of the order of the Regulatory Authority the appellant/Promoter has paid a sum of Rs. 28,34,181/- till October, 2019 and now interest for the delayed period is to be paid by the appellant with mental compensation for the mental shock and agony; (iv) the appellant/Promoter has caused undue delay in delivery of possession despite taking full amount from the respondent; (v) the flat was booked in September, 2013 with an agreement that possession shall be given in 3 years from the date of booking which the appellant has failed to do; (vi) neither the possession was delivered nor the money was refunded as such the respondent is entitled for refund of the entire amount with interest plus the interest for the delayed period and compensation on account of mental shock and agony; (vii) the order passed by the Regulatory Authority is perfect and has been passed with full application of mind and after careful perusal of the entire material on record; (viii) as per agreement dated 19.12.2013 the appellant/Promoter was under obligation to ensure delivery of flat within three years which completed on 30.09.2016; (ix) the appellant has violated the terms of the agreement for which he is liable to pay the interest upto date; construction was not completed within time for which the appellant/Promoter is liable to pay the amount as prayed for; (x) the reply of the appellant/Promoter was very well considered by the Regulatory Authority while passing the impugned order; (xi) the Regulatory Authority has passed the impugned order after perusal of the entire evidence available on record; (xii) the grounds taken by the appellant/Promoter are misconceived and the appeal is liable to be dismissed with special cost; (xiii) the appellant/Promoter is not entitled to any relief.
6. In the rejoinder, the appellant/Promoter denied the averments made by the respondent in the objections and reiterated the averments made in the appeal. The appellant/Promoter further submitted that delay in delivery of possession was caused due to global recession and the respondent was kept informed about the progress in the construction work at the site. The construction of nearly 75% of the superstructure of the Tower in which the flat of the respondent is located, is completed and the appellant/Promoter is making all possible endeavour to offer possession of the finished flat on or before December, 2019. The Regulatory Authority without appreciation of the documents on record and in complete disregard to the law and facts, passed the impugned order which is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the principles of natural justice rendering the impugned order liable to be quashed. The Regulatory Authority has passed an unreasonable and non-speaking order directing the appellant/Promoter to refund the amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the respondent without giving valid reasons for the same. The Regulatory Authority has further failed to appreciate that the appellant/Promoter has always assured the respondent that he will be duly compensated at the time of delivery of possession in accordance with Clause 10(c) of the Flat Buyer Agreement, thus the Regulatory Authority committed grave error in granting the relief of interest in favour of the respondent.
7. The respondent further filed objections to the rejoinder of the appellant denying the averments made in the rejoinder and reiterating the averments made in the objections to the memo of appeal.
8. Sri Rajesh Chadha, learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of his submissions, submitted that the grievance of the appellant is only against the grant of 24% interest by the Regulatory Authority and he fairly submitted that the appellant will accept the rate of interest if it is modified by the Tribunal from 24% per annum to MCLR+1% per annum. Sri Chadha further submitted that during the pendency of the appeal the sum of Rs. 26,76,233/- has been realized in view of the recovery proceedings. The summary is as under:—
| Principal amount = | Rs. 12,54,700/- |
| Interest amount = | Rs. 15,79,481/- |
| Total R.C. amount= | Rs. 28,34,181/- |
| Total amount paid to Tehsildar Gautam Budh Nagar = | Rs. 26,76,233/- (after deducting 10% TDS) |
9. Heard Sri Rajesh Chadha, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Sushil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, perused the record. In order to appreciate the issue we deem it proper to frame the following questions:—
(1) Whether the respondent is entitled for interest for the delay in completion of the Project under the scheme of Act, 2016 and if yes, what rate of interest is required to be paid by the Promoter to the allottee?
(2) Whether the grant of 24% interest by the Regulatory Authority to the respondent relying on clause 5(b) of the Flat Buyer Agreement dated 19.12.2013, is proper and justified as well as in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 2016?
10. Question no. 1 relates to the entitlement of the respondent for the interest on account of delay in completion of the Project under the scheme of Act, 2016 and the rate of interest required to be paid by the Promoter to the allottee for delay. Section 18 of the Act, 2016 provides for return of amount, interest and compensation. The provisions of Section 18 of the Act, 2016 are being extracted as follows:—
“18. Return of amount and compensation.— (1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building,—
(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.
(2) The promoter shall compensate the allottees in case of any loss caused to him due to defective title of the land, on which the project is being developed or has been developed, in the manner as provided under this Act, and the claim for compensation under this subsection shall not be barred by limitation provided under any law for the time being in force.
(3) If the promoter fails to discharge any other obligations imposed on him under this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder or in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale, he shall be liable to pay such compensation to the allottees, in the manner as provided under this Act.”
11. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) observed as under:—
“Section 18(1)(b) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month’s delay till handing over of the possession. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable. The interest is merely compensation for use of money”.
12. Subsequently, in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., 2020 affirming the view taken in the Judgment in Pioneer’s case (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the term of the agreement authored by the Developer does not maintain a level platform between the Developer and the flat purchaser. The stringent terms imposed on the flat purchaser are not in consonance with the obligation of the Developer to meet the time lines for construction and handing over possession, and do not reflect an even bargain. The failure of the Developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat within the contractually stipulated period, would amount to a deficiency of service. Given the one-sided nature of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement, the consumer fora had the jurisdiction to award just and reasonable compensation as an incident of the power to direct removal of deficiency in service.
13. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, 2016, in the case of Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni, Civil Appeal Nos. 3581-3590 of 2020, decided on 02.11.2020, in para 23, observed as under:—
“23. In terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment duly completed by the date specified in the agreement, the Promoter would be liable, on demand, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the Project. Such right of an allottee is specifically made “without prejudice to any other remedy available to him”. The right so given to the allottee is unqualified and if availed, the money deposited by the allottee has to be refunded with interest at such rate as may be prescribed. The proviso to Section 18(1) contemplates a situation where the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the Project. In that case he is entitled to and must be paid interest for every month of delay till the handing over of the possession. It is upto the allottee to proceed either under Section 18(1) or under proviso to Section 18(1). The case of Himanshu Giri came under the latter category. The RERA Act thus definitely provides a remedy to an allottee who wishes to withdraw from the Project or claim return on his investment.”
14. U.P. Government framed “Uttar Pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules, 2018” (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2018), wherein under Rule 9.2(ii) and 9.3(i), the rate of interest payable by the promoter or by the allottee respectively are defined in case of default by either of the party. These Rules are extracted below:—
Rule 9.2(ii)
The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India + 1% unless provided otherwise under the Rules, within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:
Provided that where an Allottee does not intend to withdraw from the Project or terminate the Agreement, he shall be paid, by the Promoter, interest at the rate prescribed in the Rules, for every month of delay till the handing over of the possession of the Apartment/Plot, which shall be paid by the Promoter to the Allottee within forty-five days of it becoming due.
Rule 9.3
The Allottee shall be considered under a condition of Default, on the occurrence of the following events:
Rule 9.3(i)
In case the Allottee fails to make payments for 2(two) consecutive demands made by the Promoter as per the Payment Plan annexed hereto, despite having been issued notice in that regard the Allottee shall be liable to pay interest to the promoter on the unpaid amount at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India + 1% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. The Promoter must not be in default to take this benefit.
15. On examination, we find that these Rules-2018 notified by U.P. Government are in consonance with the definition of interest as provided in Section 2(za) of the Act, in as much as that the interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default in payment as per demand, is equal to the rate of interest which the promoter is liable to pay to the allottee, in case of default/delayed possession on the part of promoter.
16. We have come across various orders of the Regulatory Authority wherein it had granted interest at the rate of MCLR+1% per annum in case of delayed projects and had an occasion to examine the issue of rate of interest at MCLR+1% awarded by the Regulatory Authority in Appeal No. 295 of 2019 (U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad v. Devesh Kumar Tiwari) decided on 20.02.2020 and held as under:—
“We feel that this imbalance is on account of the fact that the buyer/allottee has much less bargaining power as compared to the seller in the real estate market and therefore the buyers/allottees have no choice but to sign on such “dotted line”, “one sided, unfair and unreasonable” terms and conditions/Agreements. We are therefore of the view that the rate of MCLR +1%, as prescribed by the Government and as being ordered by the Regulatory Authority, be payable from the date of deposit of money in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project; and from the specified/expected date of possession in case the allottee wishes to stay in the project, would balance the equities and are just and fair and will fall within the term “interest at such rate as may be prescribed” as used in Sections 12, 18 & 19 ………”
17. It is our considered view that drawing light from the Rules of 2018, and the fact that often and allottee/buyer has to supplement his savings by taking loan at the MCLR percent interest (compound), the simple rate of interest at MCLR+1 percent balances the equities and is in line with the word and spirit of the Act and can be taken as “interest at such rate as may be prescribed” as mentioned in Sections 12, 18 and 19 of the Act, till the rate of interest for the purpose is notified by the State Government.
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgments (i) Civil Appeal No. 3182 of 2019 Kolkata West Industrial City Pvt. Ltd. v. Devashish Ryudra, (ii) Civil Appeal No. 3207 & 3208 of 2019 Marvel Omega Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. S. Wiharis Gokhale, (iii) Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D. Lima and (iv) Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank was pleased to observe that it would be unreasonable to require the allottee to wait indefinitely for possession of the unit and the allottee is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by him along with compensation.
19. On the basis of aforesaid analysis the question no. 1 is answered in affirmative in favour of respondent.
20. Question no. 2 is regarding the grant of 24% interest by the Regulatory Authority to the respondent relying on the provision of clause 5(b) of the Flat Buyer Agreement.
21. In order to appreciate the issue we deem it proper to examine the relevant clauses of the Flat Buyer Agreement dated 19.12.2013 executed between the appellant and the respondent. Clause 5(a) of the Flat Buyer Agreement provides that timely payment of the installments/amount due shall be the essence of the agreement. If payment is not made within the period stipulated and/or the buyer commits breach of any of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the agreement shall be liable to be cancelled. In the eventuality of cancellation, earnest money being 10% of the basic price would be forfeited and the balance, if any, would be refundable without interest. On cancellation of the agreement, the buyer shall also be liable to reimburse to the developer the amount of brokerage paid, if any, by the developer towards the booking of the flat. In any case, all the dues, whatsoever, including interest, if any, shall be payable before taking possession of the flat.
22. Clause 5(b) of the Flat Buyer Agreement provides that in exceptional circumstances, the developer may, in its sole discretion, condone the delay in payment by charging interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the amounts in default. In the event of the developer waiving the right of forfeiture and accepting payment with interest, no right, whatsoever, would accrue to any other defaulting flat buyers.
23. As per clause 10(a) of the Flat Buyer Agreement construction of the flat was likely to be completed within a period of 36 months from the date of commencement of construction of the particular Block in which the flat is located, on receipt of all requisite approvals including sanction of building plans, environmental clearances etc. subject to force majeure and restraints/restrictions from any court/authorities, non availability of building materials and any circumstances beyond the control of the developer and subject to timely payment by the buyer. No claim by way of damages/compensation shall lie against the developer in case of delay in handing over possession of the flat on account of the said reasons.
24. Clause 10(c) of the Flat Buyer Agreement provides that in case of delay in construction of the flat beyond the period as stipulated subject to force majeure and other circumstances as mentioned in clause 10(a), the developer shall pay to the buyer compensation @ Rs. 53.82 per square meter or at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square feet of the super area of the flat per month for the period of delay. Likewise, if the buyer fails to settle the final account of the flat within 30 days from the date of issue of the final call notice, the buyer shall be liable to pay the developer holding charges @ Rs. 53.82 per square meter or Rs. 5/- per square feet of super area of the flat per month on expiry of 30 days’ notice.
25. On examination of the clauses of the aforesaid Flat Buyer Agreement, it reveals that 24% interest was to be paid if the developer in its sole discretion condones the delay in making payment of the installments/amount due as per the schedule indicated in the agreement and there is specific provision in the agreement for making payment on account of delay in construction of flat beyond the period stipulated in the agreement subject to force majeure or other circumstances mentioned in clause 10(a) at the rate of Rs. 53.82 per square meter or at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square feet of the super area of the flat per month for the period of delay and similar liability has been cast upon the buyer if he fails to settle the final account of the flat within 30 days from the date of issue of final call notice.
26. The Regulatory Authority though has not specifically stated in its order dated 15.06.2018 regarding reliance on the provisions of Section 2(za) of the Act, 2016, but apparently relying on the said provision, directed for 24% interest on the amount deposited by the respondent and mentioned in its order that as per clause 5(b) of the Flat Buyer Agreement in case of default in payment of the installments the allottee has to pay 24% interest. The Regulatory Authority while directing for payment of 24% interest for the delay on the amount deposited by the respondent ignored the provisions of clause 10(c) of the Flat Buyer Agreement where compensation to the buyer has been provided at the rate of Rs. 53.82 per square meter or at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square feet of the super area of the flat per month for the period of delay in construction of the flat beyond the period stipulated in the agreement subject to force majeure and other circumstances mentioned in clause 10(a) of the agreement and the Regulatory Authority was required to examine clause 5(b) and 10-(c) of the agreement as well as the provisions of the Act, 2016 while deciding the complaint of the respondent.
27. At this stage we deem it proper to examine the provisions of Section 2(za) of the Act, 2016. Section 2(za) of the Act, 2016 defines that ‘interest’ means the rates of interest payable by the promoter or the allottee, as the case may be. For the sake of convenience Section 2(za) is being extracted as under:—
“2. Definition— in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
…………………………………………………..
Section 2(za):— “interest” means the rates of interest payable by the promoter or the allottee, as the case may be.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause—
(i) the rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default;
(ii) the interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the amount or any part thereof till the date the amount or part thereof and interest thereon is refunded, and the interest payable by the allottee to the promoter shall be from the date the allottee defaults in payment to the promoter till the date it is paid.”
28. The definition clause in section 2 begins with the words “unless the context otherwise requires.” The words appearing in the beginning of clauses to Section 2 of the Act are prima facie restrictive and not inclusive. When words have been defined in the interpretation clause, prima facie that definition governs whenever it occurs in different sections of the Act but where the context makes the definition given in the interpretation clauses inapplicable, a defined word when used in the body of the statute may have to be given a meaning different from that contained in the interpretation clause.
29. All definitions given in interpretation clauses are therefore normally subject to the qualification ‘unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context’, or ‘unless the context otherwise requires’. This is what has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several decisions, some of which may be referred to as Dhandhania Kedia & Company v. CIT, (1959)and Special Officer and Competent Authority Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad v. P.S. Rao, (2000)
30. The function of a definition is not to enact substantive law. It is to provide aid in construing the statute. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat v. Kantilal Trikamlal, (1976) was pleased to observe that a definition is informative and is not a substantive rule of law operative by itself and it must be read along with other relevant provisions.
31. In Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi, (2004) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a definition is not to be read in isolation and it must be read in the context of the phrase which would define it and that it should not be vague or ambiguous, that the definition of words must be given a meaningful application; and that where the context makes the definition given in the interpretation clause inapplicable, the same meaning cannot be assigned.
32. We are of the considered view that the rate of interest chargeable from the allottees by the promoter for delay/default in payment cannot be taken as such, while directing the promoter to pay the allottee an interest for delayed possession. The definition of interest as provided in Section 2(za) of the Act needs to be read with the provisions of Section 12, 18 and 19 of the Act, which qualify the word “interest” by suffixing it with the term “at such rate as may be prescribed.”
33. Therefore placing reliance on the definition of interest as provided in Section 2(za) only, without examining the provisions of Section 12, 18 and 19 of the Act of 2016 is misplaced, as the definition is informative and it only provides aid in construing the statute and has to be read along with other relevant provisions of the Act.
34. In the light of the above analysis, we are of the view that the rate of interest awarded in the Regulatory Authority’s order dated 15.06.2018, at the rate of 24% is without any basis, and accordingly the question no. 2 is decided against the respondent.
35. We appreciate the fairness of Sri Rajesh Chaddha, learned counsel for the appellant, for making a statement regarding appellant’s agreement for accepting interest at the rate of MCLR+1% per annum on account of delay on its part.
36. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis we, while partly allowing the appeal, modify the rate of interest awarded by the Regulatory Authority from 24% per annum to MCLR+1% per annum and direct the appellant/Promoter to refund the amount deposited by the respondent along with interest at the rate of MCLR+1% per annum, to the respondent from the last installment paid by the respondent till the refund of the same.
37. The amount recovered from the appellant/Promoter during the pendency of present appeal will be adjusted from the amount receivable by the respondent in pursuance of this judgment.
38. No order as to cost.