GURUGRAM: A developer has filed a complaint with the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (H-Rera) against its homebuyers, citing unpaid installments amounting to lakhs. The developer seeks recovery with 15% annual interest as well as additional compensation.
However, Rera dismissed the complaint, stating that the promoter cannot use the authority to seek relief beyond what is specified in the builder-buyer agreement.
M/s Sunrays Heights Pvt Ltd, the promoter behind the “63, Golf Drive” project in Sector 63-A, has lodged complaints against multiple buyers, including Rahul Parashar, Prakriti Ranjan Samanta, and Promila. These individuals signed builder-buyer agreements in February 2016 for flats in various towers.
The developer has accused the buyers of defaulting on payments, worsening the project’s financial situation and causing delays. It is seeking to recover dues ranging from approximately Rs 4.1 lakh to over Rs 7.6 lakh per buyer, in addition to the 15% annual interest. The developer also claimed additional compensation of about Rs 6 lakh to over Rs 11 lakh for each case, arguing that the delays have resulted in losses and escalated interest burdens on external funding, including the SWAMIH scheme.
The homebuyers contested these claims, arguing that the agreements already contained a complete process for addressing payment defaults, including delayed-payment interest and even cancellation of allotments after proper notice. They pointed out that since the agreements provided an “equally effective remedy,” the promoter could not seek further relief from Rera.
Adjudicating officer Rajender Kumar recognized this as the key issue and ruled in favor of the buyers. The regulatory authority stated that the agreement permits the developer to recover dues with the agreed interest, and that this interest clause serves as the contractual remedy for delays. It noted that any separate compensation would exceed the terms agreed upon by the parties.
In its March 30 ruling, Rera dismissed all complaints and directed both parties to bear their own costs. The decision emphasized that builder-buyer agreements remain the central framework for payment disputes, and regulatory bodies cannot be used to expand contractual rights.
