Flat Purchaser Cannot Be Compelled To Take Possession Offered Without Requisite Completion & Firefighting Clearance Certificates: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that a plat purchaser cannot be compelled to take possession offered without a requisite completion certificate and firefighting clearance certificate.
The Court stated that the above documents were essential for a valid and lawful offer of possession.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale observed, “ADA, despite making an offer of possession in 2014, did not fulfil its statutory obligations by providing the requisite completion certificate and firefighting clearance certificate, both of which are essential for a valid and lawful offer of possession. The absence of these documents, which were also not furnished before the NCDRC, unquestionably vitiates the offer of possession made by the ADA.”
Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi represented the appellant, while AOR Sudhir Kulshreshtha appeared for the respondent.
The appellant had applied for an apartment under the ADA group housing project via a lottery system. However, the project faced delays as the construction was not completed and the apartment was, not ready for delivery of possession. The appellant had requested for the completion certificate and firefighting clearance certificate as the apartment was not in a habitable condition, which were not provided by the ADA.
In light of the same, the appellant instituted a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) alleging a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the ADA.
The NCDRC partially allowed the appellant’s claim, directing ADA to refund the amount deposited, excluding the non-judicial stamp paper. The appellant approached the Supreme Court, seeking interest from the date of deposit. ADA, on the other hand, challenged the complaint on grounds of limitation and jurisdiction, arguing that the complaint was barred by time.
The Appellant argued that under the provisions of RERA Act, 2016 and the UP (Promotion of Apartment and Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 offer of possession would be valid only after a developer obtains the completion certificate, which had not been done so far by the developer ADA.
The Supreme Court had to determine whether the possession offered by the ADA could be taken as a valid offer of possession even if there was no completion certificate and also whether the firefighting clearance certificate was available with the ADA or not.
The Bench relied on its decision in Debashis Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprise wherein it was held that possession offered without the requisite completion certificate is illegal, and a purchaser cannot be compelled to take possession in such circumstances.
“In the present case, the ADA’s failure to provide the required certificates justifies the appellant’s refusal to take possession. This strengthens the appellant’s claim for additional compensation to compensate for the delay caused by ADA’s breach of its statutory obligations,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “We refrain from imposing any exemplary costs on either party, recognizing that both have contributed to the situation at hand. It is also to be noted that the ADA, being a civic body tasked with serving the public and operating on a non-profit basis, should not be unduly penalized in a manner that could impede its functioning.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 667)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi; Advocate Om Prakash; AOR Vikas Singh Jangra
Respondent: AOR Sudhir Kulshreshtha