Housing – Builder flat – Rights of subsequent purchaser (reallottee), when builder does not honour its commitment to deliver the flat within a stipulated time – Refund of amount deposited with developer/ builder in respect of subject flat – Relief of interest on refund claim made by the subsequent purchaser – Entitlement to – Held: The nature and extent of relief, to which a subsequent purchaser can be entitled to, would be fact dependent – However, it cannot be said that a subsequent purchaser who steps into the shoes of an original allottee of a housing project in which the builder has not honoured its commitment to deliver the flat within a stipulated time, cannot expect even reasonable time, for the performance of the builder’s obligation – Such a conclusion would be arbitrary, given that there may be a large number of flat buyers, waiting for their promised flats – In such case, a purchaser who no doubt enters the picture later surely belongs to the same class – Further, the purchaser agrees to buy the flat with a reasonable expectation that delivery of possession would be in accordance within the bounds of the delayed timeline that he has knowledge of, at the time of purchase of the flat – Therefore, in the event 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 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 – In the instant case, there is material on the record suggestive of the circumstance that even as on the date of presentation of the instant appeal, the occupancy certificate was not forthcoming – In these circumstances, given that the purchaser/respondent had stepped into the shoes of the original allottee, and intimated the appellant-builder about this fact in April 2016, the interests of justice demand that interest at least from that date should be granted, in favour of the respondent – Consumer Protection – Equity.
Economic Transport Organization v. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd, (2010) 4 SCC 114; Canara Bank v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 3 SCC 455; State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society (2003) 2 SCC 412: [2003] 1 SCR 397; Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385: [1996] 4 Suppl. SCR 820; Satpal Mohindra v. Surindra Timber Stores (1999) 5 SCC 696; and Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni, (2020) 10 SCC 783 – referred to. HUDA v. Raje Ram 2008 (17) SCC 407: [2008]
16 SCR 601; Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan
and Anr. v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., 2020 SCC Online 667 (SC) – held not good law.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.