1 2025:CGHC:8604 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 127 of 2023 1 - M/s R.S. Dream Land Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Shri Khushiram Kundanani, Having Registered Office At D-28, Sector-2, Bajaj Colony, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Shri Khushiram Kundanani S/o Shri Rochamal Kundanani, At Present Office At Empressia Elite E-2 Near Sector 08-A, Kamal Vihar Devpuri, Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent/ Promoters) ... Appellants versus Ku. Nishi Paliwal D/o Shri Mahesh Paliwal Aged About 23 Years R/o D-159, Sector- 5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) (Appellant / Allotee) ... Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Parakh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shivank Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 19/02/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short ‘Act 2016’) against Order dated 22.5.2023 (Annexure-A/1) passed by Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Appeal No.49/2022, upholding/modifying Order dated 11.4.2019 passed by Chhattisgarh Real Estate BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.02.22 10:16:10 +0530 2 Regulatory Authority, Raipur (for short ‘Authority’), whereby the Authority has passed order in favour of the respondent/applicant. 3. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the appellants/respondents/ promoter (for short ‘promoter’) were constructing multi storied residential premises in the name and style as “Empressia Elite (E-2)” at Village Devpuri. On 25.5.2015 the respondent/complainant/allottee (for short ‘allottee’) and the promoter entered into an agreement for sale of Flat No.301 for consideration of Rs.22,33,000/-. The allottee had paid the promoter total amount of Rs.20,12,000/-, but the promoter failed to give her possession of aforesaid flat. Case of the promoter is that the allottee has not paid installments as per the schedule of the agreement, therefore, delay is caused. The Authority on the basis of record passed order dated 11.4.2019 in favour of the allottee. On being dissatisfied with the relief granted to her, the allottee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed impugned order directing the promoter to pay interest to the allottee on the amount paid by her i.e. Rs.19,72,480/-from 01.11.2016 till handing over the possession of aforesaid flat to her. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants/promoter has preferred instant appeal. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the appellants/promoter is that the learned Tribunal has granted relief to the allottee which she has not sought for and vide impugned order, it has completely modified the order dated 11.4.2019 passed by the Authority. Learned counsel further submits that contention raised by the promoter has not been considered by the Tribunal and impugned order has been passed against the provisions of the Act 2016. He further submits that the appellate Tribunal has completely ignored the liability of the allottee for not performing her duty of payment as per the agreement and unexplained delay made by her in lodging the complaint. It is further submitted that the appellate Tribunal has granted two different rates of interest, which is against the 3 provisions of Rule 17 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, as such, as proposed by the appellants/promoter, question of law may be framed and the appeal may be admitted for hearing. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/allottee would submit that the Tribunal has not set aside or modified the order of the Authority as it has only increased Rs. 01 lakh in the total amount paid by the allottee to the promoter, because, as per the agreement, the promoter himself has agreed that Rs.01 lakh was received by them as advance/earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement. Learned counsel further submits that order impugned passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and no question of law is involved, hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the application filed by the allottee before the Authority, particularly the relief sought for by her, would show that she sought relief of possession of flat and execution of sale deed in respect of flat in question. She has also sought interest towards the amount paid by her and this relief has been granted by the Authority and the same has been upheld by the appellate Tribunal. Except enhancing the amount of Rs.01 lakh in total amount paid by the allottee to the promoter, which has been held by the Authority, no substantial modification has been made by the appellate Tribunal in the impugned order. Therefore, contention raised on this count by the appellants/promoter is not found to be correct. Despite agreement and obtaining huge amount, the promoter did not hand over the possession of the flat, therefore, the allottee filed complaint/application before Authority on 01.8.2018. Agreement was executed between the parties in the year 2015, as such, it cannot be said that there was inordinate delay or delay is infected with malice in filing the application by her. 4 8. So far as granting two different rates of interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal has quoted Rule 17 of the Chhattisgarh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, which provides granting interest of highest marginal cost or lending rate plus 2% of State Bank of India. The Tribunal specifically held in para 20 & 21 of the Order that at the time of passing of impugned award by the Authority, the marginal cost of lending rate of SBI was 8.75% per annum and at the time of passing of impugned award, aforesaid rate was 8.70% per annum, therefore, it has granted two different rates of interest to the amount payable to the allottee by the promoter. As such, contention raised in this regard by the learned counsel for the appellants is also not sustainable. 9. On due consideration of the impugned orders passed by the appellate tribunal as well as the RERA Authority, I do not find any substantial question of law to be involved for determination. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the misc. appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. 11. In pursuance of order dated 24.7.2024 passed by this Court, if the appellants have deposited any amount, then consequences shall follow in respect of rejection of this appeal. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini