GURUGRAM: The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (H-RERA) has ordered Godrej Real View Developers to pay a compensation of 10.8% per annum to a couple from Lucknow for the delayed possession of their flat in Godrej Meridien-I, located in Sector 106.
This decision, made by member Ashok Sangwan, follows a complaint from Malik Ram and Sarita Verma of Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. They approached H-RERA under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
H-RERA dismissed the builder’s claims regarding Covid-19 and pollution-related construction bans as force majeure events, highlighting that these do not justify the delay beyond the six months of relief previously granted. The Authority found the promoter in violation of sections 11(4)(a) and 18(1) of RERA, determining that the allottees, who had paid nearly the full amount, are entitled to monthly interest starting from March 30, 2023, up until the adjusted cut-off for possession.
According to the couple’s complaint, they had booked a second-floor unit in Tower 2 of Phase I for approximately Rs 1.75 crore under a construction-linked payment plan, and by May 2024, they had already paid about Rs 1.74 crore. The agreement for sale, executed on September 27, 2019, stipulated that possession of Phase I would be made available by September 30, 2020. H-RERA later revised this deadline to March 30, 2023, after providing a six-month extension.
In defense, the developer argued that there was no delay, citing nationwide lockdowns, labor shortages, escalating costs, and repeated construction bans in the NCR region as factors affecting the project. They stated that an occupation certificate was received on March 31, 2023, possession was offered in May 2024, and the conveyance deed was executed in November 2024, with physical possession given on November 27, 2024.
However, the Authority rejected these defenses, asserting that, beyond the six-month Covid-related extension granted via notification, ongoing seasonal pollution restrictions were anticipated and could not be cited as new grounds for force majeure. The order noted that the promoter failed to meet the revised possession deadline.
