Haryana RERA Dismisses Plea Against Ansal Housing, Says Allottee Who Stays Entitled Only To Delay Interest

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) recently dismissed a complaint against Ansal Housing Limited, holding that an allottee who chooses to continue in a project and has already been granted delayed possession compensation cannot seek additional compensation for the same period of delay.

Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar held, “When complainant has already been allowed delayed possession compensation by the Authority for delay in handing over possession of allotted unit, there is no reason to allow separate compensation for same cause of action i.e. delay in delivering of possession. Complaint in hands is thus dismissed. ”

The complainant, Jagdish Chauhan, had purchased a commercial unit in the project “Ansals Hub 83” at Sector-83, Gurugram through successive transfers from earlier allottees with the builder's permission.

A Builder Buyer Agreement executed on December 27, 2012 provided that possession was to be offered within 36 months from the execution of the allotment letter. The earlier buyers had paid Rs. 13.80 lakh till July 2013, after which the complainant continued making payments up to May 2017, taking the total amount paid to Rs. 36.88 lakh.

As per the agreement, possession was due on December 27, 2015. However, despite payment of more than 95% of the total consideration, the unit was not handed over. The complainant stated that he made repeated visits to the project site and contacted the developer to ascertain the construction status.

He had earlier approached the Authority in 2021 seeking delayed possession compensation. By an order dated July 6, 2022, the Authority directed Ansal Housing Limited to pay interest for the delay in handing over possession.

Alleging continued delay and loss of rental income, the complainant filed the present proceedings seeking Rs. 84.37 lakh towards rental loss for over eight years and Rs. 1.10 lakh towards litigation expenses.

The Authority noted that the complainant had not sought to withdraw from the project and had already been granted delayed possession compensation.

The Authority said that once an allottee decides to stay in the project, the law limits relief to interest for the delay, not additional compensation.

It also referred to a ruling of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, which makes the same distinction between those who exit a project and those who continue.

Since the complainant had already been granted delayed possession compensation, the Authority held that no further relief could be given and dismissed the complaint.