Complaint No: 2568/2018

Before The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram,

Haryana

Om Prakash Lohan Vs M/s SS Group Pvt. Ltd.

REPLY BY THE RESPONDENT TO COMPLAINT UNDER REAL ESTATE

(REGULATION & DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 2016

INDEX

S.No. Particulars Page No.

1. Reply to the List of Dates
2. Reply to the Brief Facts of the Complaint
3. Affidavit
4. Annexure R/1(Colly)– Copy of Notifications and
Order
5. Annexure R/2-Copy of Dues in Building-10 as on
02.09.2021
6. Annexure R/3- Copy of Sanction Letter by
SWAMIH Investment Fund-I dated 23.07.2020

Date: .10.2021
Respondent

M/s SS Group Pvt. Ltd. Through

its Authorized Representative

Through Counsels:

C.K Sharma & Dhruv Dutt Sharma

Advocates, Gurugram
 Before The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram,
Haryana

Om Prakash Lohan Vs M/s SS Group Pvt. Ltd.

Reply to the List of Dates

S. No. Date Event

1. June, 2012 The corresponding paragraph of the
complaint is denied matter of record and
anything contrary to the records is denied.
2. June, 2012 That in reply to the corresponding paragraph
of the complaint it is submitted that period of
3 years to deliver the possession was
proposed and the same was subject to the
buyer complying its obligations. The
indicated timelines contained in the
agreement were subject to occurrence of
various eventualities and also to other
circumstances mentioned therein which have
not been reproduced for the sake of brevity.
3. 03.07.2012 The corresponding paragraph of the
complaint is a matter of record and anything
contrary to the records is denied.
4. 28.09.2013 The corresponding paragraph of the
complaint is wrong and denied. It is denied as
averred that the respondent in order to dupe
the complainant in their nefarious net
executed the Builder Buyer Agreement dated
28.09.2013 with the complainant or that it
was executed just to create a false belief that
the project shall be completed in time bound
manner. It is submitted that the present
Complainant had purchased the said unit
under allotment in re-sale market. Hence, it is
submitted that the Complainant knowing
 very well and fully satisfied in all respect that
the agreement dated 28.09.2013 had already
been signed by the erstwhile allottee
Mr. Vivek Lamba had opted to purchase the
said allotment from Mr. Lamba. It is further
submitted that the payment demands were
raised by respondent as per the terms of the
allotment and the mutually agreed payment
plan.
5. 03.07.2012 The corresponding paragraph of the
to complaint is a matter of record and anything
01.01.2019 contrary to the records is denied.
6. 27.12.2016 The corresponding paragraph of the
complaint is wrong and denied. It is denied
that the respondent was liable to hand over
the possession of the Unit before 27.12.2016.
It is submitted that the period specified in the
Buyer’s Agreement was proposed and the
same was subject to the buyer fulfilling its
obligations to make payment of outstanding
dues on time and not being in default under
the terms and conditions of the Buyer’s
Agreement. The covenants incorporated in
the Buyer’s Agreement are to be cumulatively
considered in their entirety and selected
clauses of the same cannot be considered and
read in isolation. The complainant has
completely misinterpreted and misconstrued
the covenants incorporated in the Buyer’s
Agreement. The indicated timelines
contained in the agreement were subject to
occurrence of various eventualities and also
to other circumstances mentioned therein
which have not been reproduced for the sake
of brevity.
 7. 31.12.2018 The complainant has filed a false and
frivolous complaint.

Date: .10.2021

Respondent

M/s SS Group Pvt. Ltd. Through

its Authorized Representative

Through Counsels:

C.K Sharma & Dhruv Dutt Sharma

Advocates, Gurugram

Before The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram,

Haryana

Om Prakash Lohan Vs M/s SS Group Pvt. Ltd.

Reply to the Brief Facts of the Complaint

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS/SUBMISSIONS:

[1.] That at the outset, the rRespondent humbly submits that each and
every averment and contention, as made/raised in the cComplaint,
unless specifically admitted, be taken to have been categorically
denied by rRespondent and may be read as travesty of facts.
[2.] That the cComplaint filed by the cComplainant before this ae Ld.
Authority, besides being misconceived and erroneous, is untenable
in the eyes of law. The cComplainant has misdirected himself in
 filing the above captioned cComplaint before this athis Ld. Authority
as the reliefs being claimed by the cComplainant, besides being
illegal, misconceived and erroneous, cannot be said to even fall
within the realm of jurisdiction of this aLd. Authority.
[3.]
1. It would be pertinent to make reference to some of the provisions
of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as ‘2016 Act’) and the Haryana Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘2017 Haryana Rules’), made by the Government of Haryana
in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section 1 read with sub-
section 2 of section 84 of 2016 Act. Section 31 of 2016 Act provides
for filing of complaints with this aLd. Authority or the adjudicating
officer. Sub-Ssection (1) thereof provides that any aggrieved
person may file a complaint with the authority or the adjudicating
officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the
provisions of 2016 Act or the rules and regulations made there
under against any promoter, allottee or real estate agent, as the
case may be. Sub sSection (2) provides that the form, manner
and fees for filing complaint under Sub-sSection (1) shall be such
as may be prescribed. Rule 28 of 2017 Haryana Rules provides for
filing of complaint with this aLd. Authority, in reference to sSection
31 of 2016 Act. Sub-clause (1) inter alia, provides that any
aggrieved person may file a complaint with the authority for any
violation of the provisions of 2016 Act or the rules and regulations
made thereunder, save as those provided to be adjudicated by the
adjudicating officer, in fForm ‘CRA’. Significantly, reference to the
“Authority”, which is this aLd. Authority in the present case and to
the “adjudicating officer”, is separate and distinct. “adjudicating
officer” has been defined under Section 2(a) to mean the
adjudicating officer appointed under sub-section (1) of section 71,
whereas the “Authority” has been defined under sSection 2(i) to
mean the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, established under Sub-
Section (1) of sSection 20.
 Apparently, under sSection 71, the adjudicating officer is
appointed by the aAuthority in consultation with the appropriate
Government for the purpose of adjudging compensation under
sSections 12, 14, 18 and 19 of the 2016 Act and for holding an
enquiry in the prescribed manner. A reference may also be made
to Ssection 72, which provides for factors to be taken into account
by the adjudicating officer while adjudging the quantum of
compensation and interest, as the case may be, under Section 71 of
2016 Act. The domain of the Adjudicating Officer cannot be said to
be restricted to adjudging only compensation in the matters which
are covered under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 of the 2016 Act. The
inquiry, as regards the compliance with the provisions of Sections
12, 14, 18 and 19, is to be made by the Adjudicating Officer. This
submission find support from reading of Section 71(3) which inter
alia, provides that the Adjudicating Officer, while holding inquiry,
shall have power to summon and enforce the attendance of any
person and if on such inquiry he is satisfied that the person had
failed to comply with the provisions of any of the sections specified
in Sub-Section (1) he may direct to pay such compensation or
interest, as the case may be, as he thinks fit in accordance with the
provisions of any of those Sections. Suffice it is to mention that the
Sections specified in Sub-Section (1) of Section 71 are Sections 12,
14, 18 and 19.

Apparently, in the present case, the Complainant is seeking

interest in the form of Delay Possession Charges which, from
reading of the provisions of the 2016 Act and 2017 Rules, would be
liable for adjudication, if at all, by the Adjudicating Officer and not
this Ld. Authority. Thus, this Ld. Authority cannot assume the
powers of the Ld. Adjudicating Officer, especially keeping in view
the nature of reliefs sought by the Complainant, as such, on this
ground alone the Complaint is liable to be rejected.

2.[4.] That further, without prejudice to the aforementioned, even if it

was to be assumed though not admitting that the filing of the
complaint is not without jurisdiction, even then the claim as raised
 cannot be said to be maintainable and is liable to be rejected for
the reasons as ensuing.
3.[5.] That at this stage, it would be just and proper to refer to certain
provisions of the 2017 Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Rules, which may be relevant for the adjudication of the present lis
and which, for ease of reference, are reproduced hereunder: -

2017 Haryana Rules

Rule 8: Agreement for sale: -
Rule 15: Interest payable by the promoter and the
allottee –
From the conjoint reading of the aforementioned Sections/
Rules, Form and Annexure ‘A’, it is evident that the ‘Agreement for
Sale’, for the purposes of Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Rules, is the one as laid down in Annexure ‘A’, which is required to
be executed inter se the Promoter and the Allottee.

It is a matter of record and rather a conceded position that no

such Agreement, as referred to under the provisions of 2016 Act
and 2017 Haryana Rules, has been executed between Respondent
and the Complainant. Rather, the Agreement that has been
referred to, for the purpose of getting the adjudication of the
Complaint, though without jurisdiction, is the Flat Buyer’s
Agreement, executed much prior to coming into force of 2016 Act.

The adjudication of the Complaint for interest as provided

under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 of 2016 Act, if any, has to be in
reference to the Agreement for Sale executed in terms of 2016 Act
and 2017 Haryana Rules and no other Agreement. This submission
of the Respondent inter alia, finds support from reading of the
provisions of 2016 Act as well as 2017 Haryana Rules, including
the aforementioned submissions.

Thus, in view of the submissions made above, no relief much

less as claimed can be granted to the Complainant. It is reiterated
at the risk of repetition that this is without prejudice to the
 submission that in any event, the complaint, as filed, is not
maintainable before this Ld. Authority.
5. That the reliefs sought by the Complainant appear to be on
misconceived and erroneous basis. Hence, the complainant is
estopped from raising the pleas, as raised in respect thereof,
besides the said pleas being illegal, misconceived and erroneous.
6. That apparently, the Complaint filed by the Complainant is abuse
and misuse of process of law and the reliefs claimed as sought for,
are liable to be dismissed.
7. That the Complainant has also misdirected in claiming interest on
account of alleged delayed offer for possession. Besides the fact
that this Ld. Authority cannot be said to have any jurisdiction to
award/grant such relief to the complainant, it is submitted that
there cannot be said to be any alleged delay in offering of the
possession.
It has been categorically agreed between the parties that
subject to the Complainant having complied with all the terms and
conditions of the Flat Buyer’s Agreement and not being in default
under any of the provisions of the said Agreement and having
complied with all provisions, formalities, documentation etc., the
developer proposed to handover the possession of the unit in
question within a period of 36 months from the date of signing of
the Agreement. It had been agreed that the Respondent would also
be entitled to a further grace period of 90 days after expiry of 36
months. Reference may be made to Clause 8.1(a) of the Flat Buyer’s
Agreement.
“8.1 Time of handling over the Possession
Subject to terms of this clause and subject to the Flat Buyer(s)
having complied with all the terms and condition of this Agreement and
not being in default under any if the provisions of this Agreement and
complied with all the provisions, formalities, documentation etc., as
prescribed by the Developer, the Developer proposes to handover the the
possession of the Flat within a period of thirty six (36) months from the
date of signing of this Agreement. The Flat Buyer(s) agrees and
understands that the Developer shall be entitled to a grace period of 90
 days, after the expiry of thirty six (36) months for applying and obtaining
the Occupation Certificate in respect of the group housing complex.”

Further, it had been also agreed and accepted that in case of any
default/delay in payment as per the schedule of payments as
provided in Annexure 1 to the Flat Buyer’s Agreement, the date of
handing over of the possession shall be extended accordingly.
Reference may be made to Clause 8.1(b)(iii) of the Flat Buyer’s
Agreement.

“8.1(b) (iii) The Flat Buyer(s) agrees and accepts that in

case of any default/ delay in payment as per the Schedule
of Payments as provided in Annexure I, the date of
handling over of the possession shall be extended
accordingly solely on Developer’s discretion till the
payment of all outstanding amounts to the satisfaction of
the Developer.”

In the present case, it is a matter of record that the

Complainant has not fulfilled his obligation and has not even paid
the installments on time that had fallen due. Accordingly, no relief
much less as claimed can be granted to the complainant.
[8.] That the Municipal Corporation of Gurugram vide direction dated
14.10.2019 bearing Memo No.MCG/ADMC/2019 imposed a
complete ban from 11.10.2019 to 31.12.2019 on the construction
activities in Gurugram. Further, Environment Pollution
(Prevention and Control) Authority for NCR vide direction dated
01.11.2019 bearing EPCA-R/2019/L-53 imposed a complete ban
from 01.11.2019 to 05.11.2019. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court
vide its order dated 04.11.2019 in the matter bearing W.P (C) No.
13029/1985 also banned the construction activities in Delhi NCR
till further orders keeping in mind the damage caused to the
environment due to construction and demolition activities. It is
pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has only
on 09.12.2019 partially uplifted the ban on construction activities
in Delhi NCR between 6am to 6pm. Thereafter despite facing
practical issues in arranging manpower, the respondent had
 managed to maintain the minimum labour force constantly in the
labour camp at the project site to complete the pending work at the
earliest. This clearly shows bonafide intention of the Respondent
to complete the project on time. Even in the year 2018, vide
Notification No. EPCA- R/2018/L-91 and EPCA-R/2018/L-100
periodic ban on constructions were imposed. Such bans that have
been imposed from time to time in the past years, not only had
enormous adverse impact on the construction of infrastructure
projects. The adverse effects of banning the construction activity
disrupts the arrangement of plant & machinery, supply of raw
material and manpower resources as it takes a long time to
reorganize the labour force once the ban is lifted. Another factor to
be considered is that most of the labour force in NCR hails from
Eastern UP/Bihar so during such period wherein the ban remains
in effect, the labour force usually heads back to their hometowns,
since it becomes difficult for them to sustain here without any
source of income. It is an admitted fact, consequently, on an
average the construction ban of 1 day culminates into roughly a 10
days of delay in overall construction activity. It is not disputed that
due to the outbreak of Covid 19, the entire world went into
lockdown and all the construction activities were halted and no
labourers were available. Infact all the developers are still facing
hardship because of acute shortage of labourers and even the
HRERA, Gurugram has vide order dated 26.05.2020 declared the
Covid 19 as a calamity under the Force Majeure clause and
therefore there cannot be said to be any delay in delivering the
possession by the Respondents. Table showing delay in number of
days due to above said orders are as follows:

[9.] S.No.
[10.] Notificat[11.] Issuing [12.] Period of
[13.] No. of
[14.] Impact
ion Date Authority Ban days on
constructio
n
[15.] 1. [16.] 27.10.201
[17.] Environment [18.] 1.11.2018-[19.] 10 [20.] Inordinate
8 Pollution 10.11.2018 delay in
(Prevention & constructio
Control) Authority n
[21.] 2. [22.] 12.11.201
[23.] Environment [24.] 6 a.m to [25.]
6 60 [26.] Inordinate
8 Pollution p.m (approx.) delay in
(Prevention & (permitted to constructio
Control) Authority work) n
[27.] 3. [28.] 14.10.201
[29.] Municipal [30.] 11.10.2019[31.] 81 [32.] Inordinate
9 Corporation of -31.12.2019 delay in
Gurugram constructio
n
[33.] 4. [39.] Inordinate
[34.] 26.05.202
[35.] Haryana RERA [38.] 180 delay in
[37.] 2020
0 [36.] Covid First Wave (approx.) constructio
n
[40.] 5. [45.] Inordinate
[42.] Covid Second [44.] 90 delay in
[41.] ------ [43.] 2021
Wave (approx.) constructio
n
[46.] [47.] [48.] [49.] [50.] Total=4[51.]
21
[52.]
[53.] It is also submitted that due to the ban imposed by the above
said authorities there was no progress at site consequent to which
respondent’s man power, plant and machinery and other
resources which stood fully mobilized at site were rendered idle
thereby casting upon the Respondent heavy financial losses due to
the stagnancy of resources. It is also pertinent to mention herein
that such bans majorly affect the projects which are near
completion like the project in question. Hence, even after putting
days and nights in completing the project, the delay occurred due
to such circumstances which were beyond the control of the
Respondent Company.
A Copy of direction dated 27 October, 2018 bearing no. EPCA-
R/2018/L-91, direction dated 12 November, 2018 bearing no.
EPCA-R/2018/L-100, notification of Commissioner Municipal
Corporation Gurugram dated 14.10.2019, direction dated
 25.10.2019 bearing no. EPCA-R/2019/L-49, direction dated
01.11.2019 bearing EPCA-R/2019/L-53, direction dated
04.11.2019 bearing EPCA-R/2019/L-54, direction dated
08.11.2019 bearing EPCA-R/2019/L-55, direction dated
11.11.2019 bearing EPCA-R/2019/L-56, direction dated
18.11.2019 bearing EPCA-R/2019/L-59 and order dated
04.11.2019 in the matter bearing W.P (C) No. 13029/1985, and
order dated 26.05.2020 bearing No.9/3-2020 HARERA/GGM
(Admn) is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-R/1 (Colly).
[54.] That there is a huge outstanding amount to be paid by the
allottees, which has resulted in alleged delay in handing over of
possession to the allottees. It is further submitted that due to the
money crunch created by the allottees by not making timely
payments and in order to meet the gap for cost of completion of the
project arisen on account of non-payment/default in payment of
installments by the allottees, the company approached SWAMIH
INVESTMENT FUND - I (Special Window for Completion of
Construction of Affordable and Mid-Income Housing Projects)
which has been formed to complete construction of stalled,
brownfield, RERA registered residential developments that are in
the affordable housing / mid-income category, are networth
positive and requires last mile funding to complete construction. It
has a target corpus of Rs. 12,500 Crores with a greenshoe option of
Rs. 12,500 Crores. The SWAMIH INVESTMENT FUND - I vide their
letter dated 23.07.2020 has sanctioned an initial amount of Rs. 110
Crores which may extend upto Rs. 166 Crores if required to
complete the project. The First Trench had already been disbursed
to the Respondent company in the month of September, 2020 and
the same is being infused into the project for speedy construction.
As per the condition of the fund sanctioned the entire amount of
the fund shall be utilised only in completion of the project under
the observation and monitoring of the agency deployed by the
SWAMIH FUND in the project. The primary objective of
establishment of SWAMIH FUND is to help the Home Buyers in
getting their homes and is sponsored by the Secretary, Department
 of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India on
behalf of the Government of India. If any adverse relief is allowed
by this Hon’ble Court, then the basic objective of the intervention
of the Government of India shall be defeated. A Copy of the
customer wise dues as on 02.09.2021 in Building-10 of the Project
is filed herewith as Annexure-R/2. A Copy of the Sanction Letter of
the SWAMIH INVESTMENT FUND - I dated 23.07.2020 is filed
herewith as Annexure-R/3.
8.[55.] That it is to be appreciated that a builder constructs a project
phase wise for which it gets payment from the prospective buyers
and the money received from the prospective buyers are further
invested towards the completion of the project. It is important to
note that a builder is supposed to construct in time when the
prospective buyers make payments in terms of the Agreement. It is
submitted that it is important to understand that one particular
buyer who makes payment in time can also not be segregated, if
the payment from other prospective buyer does not reach in time.
It is relevant that the problems and hurdles faced by the developer
or builder have to be considered while adjudicating complaints of
the prospective buyers. It is further relevant to note that the slow
pace of work affects the interests of a developer, as it has to bear
the increased cost of construction and pay to its workers,
contractors, material suppliers, etc. It is most respectfully
submitted that the irregular and insufficient payment by the
prospective buyers such as the complainant freezes the hands of
developer / builder in proceeding towards timely completion of
the project.
It is pertinent to mention here that status of the construction
of the building in which the unit allotted to the Complainant is
located is near completion as the finishing work is underway. The
Respondent shall offer the possession of the unit to the
Complainant shortly subject to the payment of the remaining dues
by the Complainant.

REPLY ON MERITS:
[1.] That the contents of para no. 1 of the complaint are matter of record
and anything contrary to the records is denied.
[2.] That the contents of para no. 2 of the compliant are wrong and denied.
It is denied as stated that the Complainant fearing that a huge sum has
already been with the respondent developer hence the Complainant had
no option to sign the agreement. It is denied that the Respondent
assured to handover the possession within 3 years as alleged. It is
further denied that the Respondent extended the timeline of possession
by 15 months as alleged. It is submitted that the present Complainant
had purchased the said unit under allotment in re-sale market. Hence, it
is submitted that the Complainant knowing very well and fully satisfied
in all respect that the agreement dated 28.09.2013 had already been
signed by the erstwhile allottee Mr. Vivek Lamba, had opted to purchase
the said allotment from Mr. Lamba.
[3.] That the contents of para no. 3 of the complaint are wrong and denied
except which are matter of record. It is submitted that due to non-
payment and delayed payment of the other allottees of the said project
the overall construction got impacted considerably. The Respondent
Company has to construct the whole project uniformly and cannot
segregate the allottees who are habitual defaulters from those of the
allottees who have more or less paid all the installments on time. It is
due to the defaults of such allottees, the overall construction of the
project gets delayed. It is pertinent to mention here that status of the
construction of the building in which the unit allotted to the
Complainant is located is near completion as the finishing work is
underway. The Respondent shall offer the possession of the unit to the
Complainant shortly subject to the payment of the remaining dues by
the Complainant.
[4.] That the contents of para no. 4 of the complaint are matter of record
and anything contrary to the records is denied.
[5.] That the contents of para no. 5 of the complaint are wrong and denied.
It is denied that the respondent in order to dupe the complainant in
their nefarious net executed the Builder Buyer's Agreement dated
28.09.2013 with the complainant or that it was executed just to create a
 false belief that the project shall be completed in time bound manner.
However, it is not denied that the payment demands were raised by
respondent as per the terms of the allotment and the mutually agreed
payment plan. It is submitted that the erstwhile allottee has executed
the Buyer's Agreement on his own free will and on the basis of his own
estimations and judgments. It is submitted that as the Complainant had
purchased the said allotment in re-sale, he knowingly fully well the
terms of the said agreement had option whether to purchase the unit or
not. Hence, the averment of the Complainant is incorrect.
[6.] That the contents of para no. 6 of the complaint are wrong and denied.
It is denied that the total sale consideration of the flat was Rs.
1,22,83,200/-. It is submitted that the total sale consideration amount
was exclusive of the registration charges, stamp duty charges, service
tax and other charges such as IFMS etc. which are to be paid by the
complainant at the applicable stage.
[7.] That the contents of para no. 7 of the complaint are wrong and denied.
It is denied that the Respondent was liable to handover the possession
of the Unit before 27.12.2016. It is submitted that the period specified in
the Buyer’s Agreement was proposed and the same was subject to the
buyer fulfilling its obligations to make payment of outstanding dues on
time and not being in default under the terms and conditions of the
Buyer’s Agreement. The covenants incorporated in the Buyer’s
Agreement are to be cumulatively considered in their entirety and
selected clauses of the same cannot be considered and read in isolation.
The complainant has completely misinterpreted and misconstrued the
covenants incorporated in the Buyer’s Agreement. The indicated
timelines contained in the agreement were subject to occurrence of
various eventualities and also to other circumstances mentioned therein
which have not been reproduced for the sake of brevity. The contents of
Preliminary Objections/Submissions may very kindly be read as a part
of this paragraph and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of
brevity.
[8.] That the contents of para no. 8 of the complaint are wrong and denied.
It is denied that the conditions in the allotment and Buyer’s Agreement
are illegal and invalid. It is denied that the complainant had no option to
 sign the allotment letter and Buyer’s Agreement. It is submitted that as
the Complainant had purchased the said allotment in re-sale, he
knowingly fully well the terms of the said agreement had option
whether to purchase the unit or not. It is submitted that the Flat Buyer’s
Agreement was endorsed in favor of the complainant after his
thoroughly reading and understanding the terms and conditions to his
complete satisfaction and the complainant is now supposed to adhere to
the terms and conditions of the said Agreement.
[9.] That the contents of para no. 9 of the complaint are wrong and denied.
It is denied that the Respondent again extended the period of
completion/possession. It is denied that the Respondent ever assured
that the possession will be handed over within 36 months from the date
of booking. It is submitted that no such representations were made by
the representatives of the Respondent as delivery of possession is only
intimated post execution of the BBA and such contentions of the
Complainant are put to strict proof. However, the submissions made in
the Preliminary Objections/Submissions and previous paras are
reiterated.
[10.] That the contents of para no. 10 of the complaint are wrong and
denied. It is denied that at the time of applying for this flat, the
respondent represented that the building plan is already approved and
construction is started. It is further denied that believing upon the
alleged assurance the Complainant paid Rs. 10,00,000/- for the flat on
03.07.2012. It is submitted that the endorsement was made in favor of
the Complainant in September, 2013 and therefore no payment was
made by the Complainant in 2012 as the Complainant was nowhere in
the picture at that time.
[11.] That the contents of para no. 11 of the complaint are matter of record
and anything contrary to the records is denied. It is, however, denied
that the Complainant visited the Respondent or that no one heard him
and resolved his queries. It is submitted that no representations vide
the imaginary visits were made to the respondent by the complainant
and the question of replying to the same by the respondent does not
arise.
[12.] That the contents of para no. 12 of the complaint are matter of record
and anything contrary to the records are denied. As per the Flat Buyer’s
Agreement, the said compensation shall be paid to the allottee upon the
taking over of the possession of the said flat.
[13.] That the contents of para no. 13 of the complaint are wrong and
denied. It is denied as that the Complainant number of times visited the
respondent with a request to speedily conclude the work but of no avail.
It is reiterated that no representations vide the imaginary visits were
made to the respondent by the complainant and the question of replying
to the same by the respondent does not arise. It is, however, submitted
that status of the construction of the building in which the unit allotted
to the Complainant is located is near completion as the finishing work is
underway. The Respondent shall offer the possession of the unit to the
Complainant shortly subject to the payment of the remaining dues by
the Complainant.
[14.] That the contents of para no. 14 of the complaint are a matter of
record and anything contrary to the records is denied.
[15.] That the contents of para no. 15 of the complaint are wrong and
denied. It is denied that the Complainant is entitled to interest @ 18%
per annum from the date of each payment for not handing over
possession of the flat on time. It is submitted that without prejudice to
the rights of the respondent, the complainant is entitled to the delayed
compensation charges strictly as per the terms of the agreement as
agreed upon by the parties to the complaint. The complainant is not
entitled to assert any claim that travels beyond the scope of the Buyer’s
Agreement executed between the parties.
[16.] That the contents of para no. 16 of the complaint are wrong and
denied. It is denied that the alleged act and conduct of the respondent
has caused lot of physical as well as mental harassment to the
complainant. It is further denied that the complainant has suffered huge
financial loss as his hard earned money is allegedly withheld with the
respondent. It is further denied that the Complainant is entitled to
compensation for mental tension as well as physical harassment. It is
also denied that the Respondent is guilty of deficiency of service. It is
also denied that the Respondent is liable to payback Rs. 1,06,69,102/- to
 the Complainant. It is submitted that the Complainant is blowing hot
and cold at the same time as the Complainant is claiming Refund on one
hand and at the same time wants to continue with the Project on the
other hand and as such the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
[17.] That the contents of para no. 17 of the complaint are wrong and
denied. It is denied that in Tower B-10 out of 16 floors, only RCC of 15
floor structure is complete. It is denied that brick masonry work is
complete only upto 13th floor. It is denied that the plumbing of the tower
has not yet started. It is submitted that status of the construction of the
building in which the unit allotted to the Complainant is located is near
completion as the finishing work is underway.
[18.] That the contents of para no. 18 of the complaint are legal and matter
of record. Hence no reply is warranted.
[19.] That the contents of para no. 19 of the complaint are denied for want
of knowledge.
[20.] That the contents of para no. 20 of the complaint are wrong and
denied. It is submitted that no cause of action has arisen in favor of the
complainant and against the Respondent and the present complaint is
liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The alleged cause of action,
if any, is absolutely false, frivolous and concocted one to the very
positive notice and knowledge of the complainant.

The complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint.

Therefore, all the reliefs as claimed by the Complainant are false and
misleading and hence denied, as the Complainant is not entitled for any
of such reliefs.

Date: .10.2021
Respondent

M/s SS Group Pvt. Ltd. Through

its Authorized Representative

Through Counsels:

C.K Sharma & Dhruv Dutt Sharma

 Advocates, Gurugram

Before The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram,

Haryana

Om Prakash Lohan Vs M/s SS Group Pvt. Ltd.

AFFIDAVIT

I, Bijimol Mani, Authorized Representative, M/s SS Group Pvt. Ltd.,

having its Registered Office at Plot No. 77, Sector-44, Gurugram do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

[1.] That the deponent is the Authorized Representative of the respondent

in the captioned complaint and being well conversant with the facts of
the case, and having been fully authorized by the respondent, I am
competent to depose this affidavit.
[2.] That the accompanying reply to the complaint has been drafted by my
counsel on my behalf and under my instructions. The facts stated
therein are true and correct to my knowledge as per records maintained
by the respondent. The contents of the aforesaid reply may kindly be
read as part of this affidavit.
Deponent
Verification:
Verified at Gurugram on this ___ day of October, 2021 that the contents
of this affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief as per
the official records maintained by the respondent, no part of it is false
and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Deponent