In a significant legal case before the Delhi High Court, a homebuyer sought justice against NBCC for unresolved issues related to property purchase. The judgment sheds light on the rights of homebuyers facing challenges with government undertakings. Stay tuned to learn more about this crucial ruling.
Facts
- The Petitioner agreed to vacate the temporary allotted flat on the condition of rent allowance and moved into a rental accommodation in Faridabad, which was paid by NBCC for 6 months.
- The learned Counsel for NBCC mentioned that the Petitioner had approached RERA in Gurgaon on 31.01.2023.
- NBCC offered to refund the amount equal to the consideration paid by the Petitioner and any charges on delayed payment.
- The Petitioner filed the writ petition as the flat was not delivered even after numerous payments, and no alternate accommodation was provided by NBCC.
Arguments
- The Petitioner has approached various forums including the NCDRC, consumer forum, and RERA for relief.
- The Petitioner withdrew the complaint from the consumer forum and RERA after approaching this Court.
- The Petitioner is facing financial difficulties and is unable to afford a new accommodation.
- He has invested his life savings in NBCC, thinking it is a government undertaking.
- The Petitioner, a retired employee, is running from pillar to post in search of accommodation.
- The Petitioner has paid the full amount due, totaling Rs. 76,85,576 in the year 2017.
- The Respondent relies on Section 79 of the RERA Act to argue that civil courts cannot entertain suits or proceedings falling under RERA’s jurisdiction.
- The Respondent cites various judgments to support their contention, including Upendra Choudhury v. Bulundshahar Development Authority, K Jayaram & Ors. v. Bangalore Development Authority, M/s Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Shubhas Jain (S) v. Rajeshwari Shivam & Ors., and M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni.
- The Respondent claims that the Petitioners have also involved themselves in a complaint before Haryana RERA, which was not disclosed in the writ petition.
- The Respondent’s argument focuses on the legal bar under Section 79 of the RERA Act and the concept of forum shopping, asserting that the Petitioner’s actions are in violation of this bar.
- The Respondent’s position underscores the difficulty faced by home buyers like the Petitioner, who invest their life savings in purchasing a house and then encounter legal hurdles in seeking redress for their grievances.
Analysis
- The act of forum shopping is condemned, but in this case, it is due to desperation rather than a strategic pursuit.
- Homebuyers including the Petitioner have been left in a state of uncertainty and have been compelled to seek help from various forums.
- The meager offer by the Respondents to return only the principal amount without any interest is insufficient given the exponential land price increase in the NCR.
- Offering a rent allowance and assisting in renting other properties nearby is not adequate compensation.
- The emotional toll on homebuyers due to the uncertainty and financial risk cannot be understated.
- Petitioner’s behavior is driven by frustration, helplessness, and lack of legal knowledge.
- NBCC being an instrumentality of the State has a duty to act reasonably and fairly towards the homebuyers.
- Compensating affected homebuyers is essential not just to rectify past injustices but also to deter future misconduct.
- The Petitioner has invested a significant amount over the years and been treated unfairly by the Respondent.
- An action of a State or its instrumentality is deemed vitiated if it lacks bonafides.
- Power vested in a public authority should be viewed as a trust with a duty to be exercised in the public and social interest.
- Public authorities are not allowed to misuse the powers vested in them, and decisions taken arbitrarily contradict the principle of legitimate expectation.
- Authorities are expected to exercise their powers to achieve the purpose for which they were given.
- In the case of Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida & Ors., the Apex Court emphasized that the State or public authorities holding public property act as trustees and should act fairly and reasonably.
- The Court directs NBCC to return the entire amount of money paid by the Petitioners within six weeks along with 12% interest from 30.01.2021 till today.
- NBCC is further directed to pay Rs.5 lakh to the Petitioner due to mental agony and forced accommodation shifts over the past seven years.
- Structural defects in the buildings have been acknowledged based on the material on record.
Decision
- Entire amount of Rs. 30,000 per month has been paid regularly by NBCC to the Petitioner after deducting TDS.
- Respondent made efforts to show suitable houses to the Petitioner as per their claims.
- Due to the efforts made by the Respondent in providing suitable housing options, the Court is not inclined to proceed further with the contempt petition.
- The writ petition has been allowed and any pending applications have been disposed of.
- The contempt petition along with any pending applications has been dismissed by the Court.
Case Title: SANJAY RAGHUNATH PIPLANI AND ANR Vs. MUDIT BHATNAGAR CGM NBCC (2024:DHC:3738)
Case Number: CONT.CAS(C)-1294/2023
