Sudha vs Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.

Sudha & Ors. …Appellants v. Jaiprakash Associates Limited ...Respondent JUDGMENT

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL MATRIX

1. This is a statutory appeal under Section 23 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This appeal takes exception

to the final judgment and order dated 29 th April 2021 of the

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New

Delhi (for short, ‘the National Commission’). The appellants

are the complainants before the National Commission. By the

impugned judgment and order, the National Commission has

dismissed their complaint.

2. It is necessary to set out relevant factual aspects which Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by BALA PARVATHI Date: 2022.09.16 16:47:31 IST Reason:

are necessary for the disposal of the appeal.

1

3. The third appellant is a member of the Bar. On 27 th

January 2013, the third appellant booked a two­bedroom flat

in the project of the respondent­Company, called Garden

Isles. According to the case of the appellants, the

construction of the flat was inordinately delayed. When the

appellants visited the office of the respondent­Company in

January 2015, the officials of the respondent­Company

suggested to the appellants that the booking of the said flat

can be cancelled and the appellants can book an apartment

in Imperial Court – Tower­1 in the project known as Jaypee

Greens, NOIDA. The officials of the respondent­Company

suggested to the appellants that the amount of consideration

paid by the third appellant while booking the earlier flat can

be adjusted towards the consideration of a flat in Jaypee

Greens. The appellants accepted the suggestion. Accordingly,

an allotment letter dated 11 th July 2015 was issued by the

respondent­Company in the name of the appellants in respect

of Unit Reference No.IMP0128A4, having an approximate

covered area of 3072.48 sq. ft. (for short, ‘the said

apartment’). The agreed consideration was Rs.2,77,91,313/­

(Rupees two crore seventy­seven lakh ninety­one thousand

2 three hundred and thirteen). According to the case of the

appellants, the possession of the said apartment was agreed

to be handed over to them within a period of 24 months from

the date of the allotment letter.

4. The case of the appellants is that they were granted a

loan by ICICI Bank (for short, ‘the said Bank’). Apart from the

other documents, the said Bank executed Quadripartite

Agreement dated 9th December 2016. The appellants, the

respondent­Company, Jaypee Infratech Limited (as the

confirming party), and the said Bank were parties to the said

agreement. The agreement records that the loan amount shall

be disbursed by the said Bank directly to the respondent­

Company, which will be adjusted towards the consideration

payable in respect of the said apartment. Accordingly, the

consideration earlier paid by the third appellant in respect of

the apartment booked in the Garden Isles project was

transferred towards the consideration payable in respect of

the said apartment to the respondent­Company. The

respondent­Company addressed a letter to the appellants on

24th October 2016 stating therein that the said apartment

3 was ready for pre­possession formalities and for handing over

the possession to the appellants. In the said letter, the

respondent­Company mentioned that the completion

certificate dated 20th July 2016 has been issued by the

concerned authority. The letter recorded that though the area

of the apartment mentioned in the allotment letter was

3724.67 sq. ft of super area, in fact, the area of the said

apartment has been increased by 3.98 sq. ft of super area. By

the said letter, the appellants were called upon to deposit a

sum of Rs.1,82,26,309.30. The respondent­Company, by the

said letter, called upon the appellants to make the payment of

the said amount on or before 23rd November 2016 and

complete all the pre­possession formalities, which would

enable the respondent­Company to carry out final finishing

work and to handover possession of the said apartment

within a period of 45 days from the date of making the

payment. Annexure­A to the said letter incorporated details of

the pre­possession formalities required to be completed by

the appellants for the execution of the sub­lease deed in

respect of the said apartment. Annexure­B to the said letter

contained the description of four car parking slots reserved

4 for the appellants. Annexure­B also recorded that certain

work involving final finishing has not been done to avoid any

damage to the flat before the possession thereof was handed

over to the appellants. According to the case of the

appellants, though the said letter offered possession of the

said apartment to the appellants, in fact, a lot of work was

incomplete. According to the case of the appellants, on 31 st

December 2016, they paid a balance consideration of

approximately Rs.1.80 crores to the respondent­Company.

Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.89,20,000/­ was paid by

the appellants by taking a loan from the said Bank. The

appellants have claimed that to expedite the process of

completion, they accepted the suggestion of the respondent­

Company of taking a discount of Rs.4,72,900/­ against giving

up facilities of air­conditioners, wardrobes, modular kitchen

and jacuzzi agreed to be provided in the said apartment. The

appellants have relied upon correspondence made by them

with the respondent­Company from time to time for informing

that the condition of the said apartment was pathetic. The

appellants called upon the respondent­Company to specify

the date and time at which, the possession of the said

5 apartment will be handed over to them after rectifying all the

defects. The appellants have stated that though the said

apartment was not ready in July 2017, they obtained e­stamp

paper by depositing stamp duty of Rs.13,67,700/­. According

to the case of the appellants, even thereafter, the work in the

said apartment was not completed, notwithstanding the

assurance given in writing by the respondent­Company to

keep the flat ready by the second week of August 2017. The

third appellant addressed a letter through e­mail dated 21 st

September 2017 to the respondent­Company stating that a

consumer complaint has already been filed by them against

the respondent­Company before the National Commission. By

the said e­mail, the appellants called upon the respondent­

Company to refund the entire amount paid by them towards

consideration of the said apartment. During the pendency of

the complaint filed by the appellants, by the letter dated 23 rd

November 2017 addressed to the third appellant, the

respondent­Company informed that the said apartment was

ready for the delivery of possession and that the possession

will be handed over on the date and time as intimated by the

appellants.

6

5. It is necessary to make a brief reference to the complaint

filed by the appellants before the National Commission on

which, the impugned judgment has been passed. The basic

contention raised by the appellants was that the possession

was to be handed over to them within 24 months from 11 th

July 2015 and though the entire consideration was paid by

the appellants to the respondent­Company in December

2016, even by September 2017, the said apartment was not

at all ready for possession. As the entire payment was made

on 31st December 2016, within 45 days from the said date,

the possession of the said apartment ought to have been

handed over to the appellants. But, the work inside the

apartment was not completed even till September 2017. The

complaint was filed by the appellants alleging deficiency in

service rendered by the respondent­Company. The condition

of the said apartment as of 6 th September 2017 was also set

out in the complaint which, according to the appellants,

showed that a lot of work was still not carried out. The first

prayer in the complaint was for refund of the entire

consideration amount paid by the appellants in respect of the

said apartment as well as the other miscellaneous charges

7 with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum on the

entire amount till the date of payment of refund. Another

prayer was made to refund the sum of Rs.15 lakhs paid by

the appellants by way of late payment charges to the

respondent­Company as well as the monthly installments

paid by the appellants to the said Bank. The appellants

prayed for grant of compensation on account of the mental

agony caused to them due to the failure of the respondent­

Company in rendering service.

6. The respondent­Company contested the complaint. The

respondent­Company pointed out that immediately after

obtaining the completion certificate, on 24 th October 2016,

the appellants were called upon to complete pre­possession

formalities and to pay the entire balance amount. The

contention raised by the respondent­Company was that the

entire consideration was not paid by the appellants within 45

days of the receipt of the letter dated 24 th October 2016 and

the payment of the entire amount of the balance

consideration was made only in May 2017. One of the

contentions raised is that as per Clause 9 of the general

8 terms and conditions referred to in the allotment letter and

signed and executed by the appellants, the appellants could

claim a refund only if the possession was not handed over

within three months from the completion of the period of 24

months from the date of the allotment letter. It is contended

that even before the expiry of the said grace period of three

months, the complaint was filed claiming the refund.

7. The National Commission by the impugned judgment

and order held that refund could have been sought by the

appellants only if possession was not handed over on or

before 11th October 2017, but the appellants rushed to the

National Commission and filed the complaint on 21st

September 2017. The National Commission referred to its

interim order dated 17th October 2017 by which the

appellants were called upon to file a report of a qualified

architect specifying defects/ deficiencies on account of which,

they were not willing to take possession of the said

apartment. The National Commission observed that

compliance with the said directions was not made by the

appellants. The National Commission observed that there was

9 no valid reason for the appellants not to accept the

possession of the said apartment and therefore, there was no

merit in the complaint filed by the appellants.

FAILED ATTEMPT TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE

8. We may note here that we had called upon the parties to

explore a possibility of amicable settlement. The parties could

not arrive at an amicable settlement. However, during the

course of submissions, it was accepted that the appellants

had brought a purchaser who was willing to purchase the

said apartment at the cost of Rs.2.85 crores. The learned

senior counsel appearing for the respondent­Company stated

that considering the fact that the third appellant is a member

of the Bar, the respondent­Company is prepared to give up a

sum of approximately Rs.30 lakhs still payable by the

appellants and transfer the said apartment to the purchaser

brought by the appellants. In the alternative, the learned

senior counsel appearing for the respondent­Company stated

that by giving up the claim to receive the amount of

approximately Rs.30 lakhs payable by the appellants, the

10 respondent­Company is willing to put the appellants in

possession of the said apartment which is ready for

possession. However, this offer was not accepted by the

appellants who are still insisting on getting refund of the

amount paid by them with interest. Therefore, the parties

could not arrive at an amicable settlement.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

9. The third appellant who is an Advocate, has made

submissions on behalf of the appellants. He submitted that

as there was a gross delay on the part of the respondent­

Company in completing the construction of the apartment

earlier booked by the third appellant, the appellants had no

choice but to accept the offer given by the respondent­

Company in respect of the allotment of the said apartment.

Relying upon the correspondence made from time to time and

photographs placed on record, the third appellant submitted

that the entire balance consideration in respect of the said

apartment was paid by the appellants by 31st December

2016, and therefore, the respondent­Company was under an

obligation to complete the said apartment in all respects

11 within 45 days from 31st December 2016 and put the

appellants in possession thereof. He pointed out that though

the appellants repeatedly protested by addressing

communications to the respondent­Company that the

construction of the apartment was incomplete, no steps were

taken by the respondent­Company to complete the work.

Moreover, the appellants were forced to pay certain amounts

towards social club subscription and the maintenance

advance, though no facilities were in existence. He pointed

out that after granting enough opportunities to the

respondent­Company to complete the work in the apartment,

on 21st September 2017, the complaint was filed by the

appellants. The third appellant also pointed out that the

entire consideration amount paid by the appellants towards

the booking of the apartment in Garden Isles was not

transferred by the respondent­Company towards the

consideration of the said apartment.

10. The third appellant appearing in person pointed out that

the conduct of the respondent­Company is fraudulent as

without furnishing even a copy of the standard terms and

12 conditions of the allotment, signatures of the appellants were

taken on the last page of the terms and conditions. He

submitted that therefore, Clause 9.5(a) in the standard terms

and conditions will not be binding on the appellants. Hence,

the argument of the respondent­Company that the grace

period of three months was available to it after the expiry of

24 months from the date of the letter of allotment, is without

any foundation and ought not to have been accepted by the

National Commission. The third appellant also pointed out

the terms and conditions of the Quadripartite Agreement

dated 9th December 2016 to which the appellants, the said

Bank and the respondent­Company were parties. He pointed

out that as per Clause 17(d), the respondent­Company agreed

that in the event of termination of provisional allotment for

any reason, the said company was under an obligation to pay

the consideration received by it directly to the said Bank after

retaining an amount up to 10% of the total sale

consideration. He would, therefore, submit that once

termination is made by the appellants by demanding a refund

of the consideration, the respondent­Company is bound by its

obligation to immediately refund at least 90% of the

13 consideration amount received from the appellants. The third

appellant appearing in person, pointed out certain documents

placed on record to show that the first appellant is suffering

from liver disease and the first appellant’s husband, who is

also a member of the Bar, is suffering from chronic liver

disease and has been recently operated upon for removal of a

cancerous tumor from his liver. The third appellant pointed

out that the appellants are entitled to the refund of the entire

consideration and other charges paid in respect of the said

apartment as well as in respect of the apartment earlier

agreed to be allotted to the third appellant with interest at the

rate of 12% per annum till the date of realisation. The third

appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of

Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank1. The third appellant also relied upon another decision of this

Court in the case of United India Insurance Company

Limited v. Antique Art Exports Private Limited2.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

1 2007 (6) SCC 711 2 2019 (5) SCC 362 14

11. The learned senior counsel appearing for the

respondent­Company firstly invited our attention to the

interim order of the National Commission dated 17 th October

2017 by which, the appellants were directed to file a report of

a qualified architect specifying the defects/deficiencies on

account of which they were not willing to accept the

possession of the said apartment. He stated that till the

disposal of the complaint, the appellants never complied with

the interim order. The learned senior counsel pointed out that

the allotment letter refers to the standard terms and

conditions of the allotment. He submitted that the appellants

never disputed the terms and conditions referred to in the

letter of allotment dated 11th July 2016, which specifically

refers to the standard terms and conditions of allotment. He

pointed out that though a reference to the said general terms

and conditions appears in several documents, the appellants

never made any grievance that a copy of the same was not

provided to them. He submitted that there is no dispute that

the signatures of the appellants appear on the last page of the

said standard terms and conditions and that it is not the case

pleaded before the National Commission by the appellants

15 that their signatures on the last page were taken without

giving them copies of the original pages. He submitted that

Clause 9.5 (a) specifically provides that the allottee shall be

entitled to cancel the allotment only on default of the

respondent­Company to deliver possession of the said

apartment within 27 months from the date of the allotment

letter. He submitted that only after completion of 27 months

from 11th July 2016, the appellants could have claimed a

refund. He submitted that the said period expired on 10 th

October 2017. However, even before the expiry of the period

of 27 months, the appellants demanded a refund of the

consideration paid by them and filed the complaint with the

National Commission on 21st September 2017. The learned

senior counsel also pointed out that by e­mail dated 23 rd

November 2017, possession of the said apartment was offered

to the appellants. He submitted that there is absolutely no

deficiency in service rendered by the respondent­Company.

He stated that it is only because of the fact that the husband

of the first appellant is ill and that he is a member of the Bar,

that the offer given by the respondent­Company which is

noted in paragraph 8 above, stands, though there is no

16 settlement. He would, therefore, submit that no fault can be

found with the impugned judgment.

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

12. We have carefully considered the submissions and

perused the documents placed on record along with

additional documents. The question before us is whether

there was any deficiency in the service rendered by the

respondent­Company. The letter of allotment provides that

the possession of the said apartment shall be given to the

appellants within 24 months from the date of the allotment

letter. The allotment letter of 11th July 2015 specifically refers

to the standard terms and conditions. The relevant part of the

letter of allotment reads thus.:

“The Standard Terms and Conditions including the Undertaking(s) given by you forms part of this allotment. This allotment letter cancels and supercedes all previous written and oral understandings in respect of the allotment of the said Unit done by this letter.” (emphasis added)

13. We may note here that the appellants have relied upon

the terms and conditions of the Quadripartite Agreement to

17 which the appellants and the respondent­Company are

parties. Clause 22 of the said agreement specifically refers to

the standard terms and conditions of the allotment. It is

pertinent to note that Clause 22 of the said agreement

provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the

Quadripartite Agreement, the appellants shall continue to be

liable for the payment of dues to the respondent­Company

under the standard terms and conditions of the allotment.

The appellants have made a prolonged correspondence with

the respondent­Company. In none of the letters/e­mails

addressed by the appellants, a grievance has been made that

a copy of the said standard terms and conditions was not

provided to the appellants. Moreover, it is not the case made

out either in the correspondence or in the complaint that the

signatures of the appellants were obtained on the last page of

the standard terms and conditions without providing a copy

thereof to them. Thus, it is not open for the appellants to urge

that the they are not bound by the standard terms and

conditions.

18

14. The letter of allotment dated 11th July 2015 records that

possession of the said apartment is expected to be offered to

the appellants within a period of 24 months. Clause 9.5 (a) of

the standard terms and conditions reads thus.:

“9.5(a) The Applicants/Allottee shall be entitled to cancel the Allotment only on default of the Company to deliver possession of the Said Premises within the stipulated period as mentioned hereinabove and within the further period of three months thereafter. Upon expiry of stipulated period and upon the request of the Applicant/Allottee, the Company shall refund the amount (a) had been received from the Applicant/Allottee along with simple interest of the rate of 12% per annum (subject to deduction of tax as applicable).” (emphasis added)

Clause 7.1 of the standard terms and conditions provides that

the possession will be handed over within the period described

in the letter of allotment. The said period is of 24 months from

the date of the allotment letter. However, a grace period of

three months has been made available to the respondent­

Company. If within this grace period of three months,

possession is not handed over, the appellants were entitled to

seek a refund. Thus, as per Clause 9.5(a), the appellants were

19 entitled to seek a refund of the consideration paid provided the

possession of the said apartment was not offered within the

said period of 27 months from the date of the letter of

allotment.

15. Thus, as per the terms of the letter of allotment, the

respondent­Company was under an obligation to complete the

construction of the apartment and offer possession thereof, on

or before 10th July 2017. In view of Clause 9.5(a) of the

standard terms and conditions, the appellants were entitled to

seek a refund only if the possession of the said apartment was

not handed over within 3 months from 11 th July 2017. It is in

the context of the standard terms and conditions read with the

terms and conditions in the allotment letter that the

controversy will have to be resolved.

16. The appellants have not disputed that the competent

authority had granted completion certificate to the tower in

question on 20th July 2016. A copy of the said document is

placed on record by the respondent­Company along with

application for filing additional documents. The letter dated

24th October 2016 addressed by the respondent­Company to

20 the appellants records that the said apartment was ready for

pre­possession formalities and for handing over possession.

Therefore, the appellants were called upon to complete pre­

possession formalities as listed in Annexure­A to the said

letter. One of the pre­possession formalities incorporated in

Annexure­A was a submission by the appellants of a non­

judicial e­stamp paper of the amount equivalent to 5% of the

value specified therein. The appellants were also required to

pay certain amounts towards the cost of electricity meter, gas

pipeline connection, and registration expenses. Annexure­B to

the letter dated 24th October 2016 incorporates the description

of four car parking slots allotted to the appellants. Annexure­B

also records that certain works specified therein, such as final

coat of painting/polish, fixing of C.P. fittings and chinaware

hardware fittings/ equipment, fixing of wooden flooring,

wardrobe, and modular kitchen has been withheld to avoid

damage before actual possession is handed over. By the said

letter dated 24th October 2016, the appellants were called

upon to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,82,26,309.30, the

breakup of which was set out in the said letter. The appellants

21 were called upon to make the payment on or before 23 rd

November 2016. The said letter records thus:

“We would request you to make the above payment, within 30 days i.e. before 23.11.2016 (due date), and complete the pre­possession documentation to enable us to complete the final finishing works, if any, and to hand over the above apartment to you within 45 days of the aforesaid payment.”

17. Thus, the said letter was essentially addressed to the

appellants calling upon them to complete pre­possession

formalities by 23rd November 2016 which included payment of

the aforesaid amount. According to the case of the appellants,

they paid an amount of Rs.1.80 crores on 31 st December 2016.

Apart from the fact that the appellants failed to pay the entire

amount specified in the letter dated 24th October 2016 on or

before 23 November 2016, the statement of accounts at

Annexure­A­18 to the appeal shows that the last payment was

made on 2nd May 2017. Thus, the appellants themselves

committed default in payment of the balance amount payable

by them. Moreover, as stated in Annexure­A, one of the pre­

possession formalities included the procurement of e­stamp

duty of Rs.13,67,700/­ on or before 23 rd November 2016. But,

22 Annexure A­23, which is the e­mail addressed by the third

appellant to the respondent­Company shows that the stamp

duty was paid as late as on 3rd July 2017. Though the

respondent­Company had time available till 10th October 2017

(including the grace period of 3 months) to complete the said

apartment in all respects and offer possession to the

appellants, by e­mail dated 17 th July 2017, the respondent­

Company informed the appellants that the said apartment will

be ready by the second week of August 2017. In view of Clause

9.5(a) of the standard terms and conditions, the appellants

could have demanded the refund of the amount only if the

possession of the said apartment was not handed over to them

on or before 10th October 2017. However, without waiting till

10th October 2017, by e­mail communication dated 21 st

September 2017, the third appellant called upon the

respondent­Company to process the refund of the amount. In

fact, in the same letter, it was mentioned that the complaint

subject matter of this appeal was already filed on the same day

before the National Commission. The appellants were not

entitled to claim the refund till 10 th October 2017. Hence, the

complaint was premature. As stated earlier, the appellants did

23 not complete the pre­possession formalities set out in the

letter dated 24th October 2016 and its Annexure­A within the

time stipulated. Moreover, during the pendency of the

complaint before the National Commission, by e­mail dated

23rd November 2017, the appellants were called upon to take

possession of the said apartment on any day between Monday

and Saturday, after intimating the time and date.

18. Reliance was placed on the obligation of the respondent

incorporated in Clause 17(d) of the Quadripartite Agreement to

refund 90% of the amount paid by the appellants to the said

Bank. However, Clause 22 of the same agreement provides

that notwithstanding anything contained in the said

Agreement, the appellants shall continue to be liable for

payment of their dues to the respondent under the standard

terms and conditions.

19. At this stage, we may note the interim order dated 17 th

October 2017 passed by the Tribunal, which read thus:

“The learned counsel for the complainants states on instructions that the possession of the flat offered vide letter dated 24.12.2016 was not accepted by the complainants for several reasons including the defects in the flat offered to them.

24 The complainants are directed to file report from a qualified architect, specifying the defects/ deficiencies on account of which they are not willing to take possession of the flat offered to them. In the meanwhile, the complaint is admitted, subject to just exceptions. Issue notice in terms of Section 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act alongwith a copy of the complaint to the OP for 13.02.2018 alongwith notice of IA No.16392 of 2017 directing it to give its version of the case within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice.”

The appellants have not shown compliance with the said

order. The failure of the appellants to do so is very relevant in

the context of their allegation that the work in the said flat was

not completed. Therefore, adverse inference can be drawn

against the appellants. Hence, the appellants failed to

substantiate the grounds pleaded by them for not taking

possession.

20. At this stage, we may consider here whether there was

any defect/deficiency in the service rendered by the

respondent­Company. Words ‘defect’ and ‘deficiency’ have

been defined under Clauses (f) and (g) of Section 2 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which read thus.:

“2.(f)"defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity,

25 potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or 2[under any contract, express or implied or] as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods;

(g)"deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;”

21. In this case, we are concerned with the alleged deficiency

in service rendered by the respondent­Company. Till the date

on which the complaint was filed by the appellants, we do not

find that there was any fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in

the quality, nature and manner of the performance on the

terms and conditions on which allotment of the said

apartment was offered to the appellants. Therefore, the

appellants were not entitled to claim the refund of the

consideration paid by them in respect of the said apartment.

Hence, it is not possible to find fault with the reasons recorded

by the National Commission in the impugned judgment and

26 order. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the

same is dismissed.

22. However, in view of the solemn statement made by the

learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent­

Company, we grant time of two months to the appellants to

bring a prospective buyer interested in acquiring the said

apartment along with the right to use four reserved car

parking slots as mentioned in the letter dated 24 th October

2016. Within the said period of two months, the appellants

shall submit to the respondent – Company, the letter of offer

signed by the prospective buyer. If such a buyer is brought by

the appellants within a period of two months from today, the

respondent­Company shall transfer the said apartment to the

appellants by completing all formalities within a period of one

month from the date of the offer letter. In such an event, the

entire amount liable to be paid by the appellants to the said

Bank shall be paid over by the respondent­Company

immediately on receipt of the consideration amount from the

purchaser. The balance amount, if any, shall be paid over by

the respondent­Company to the appellants. If the appellants

27 are not able to procure a buyer for the said apartment within a

period of two months from today, it will be open for the

appellants to take possession of the said apartment together

with the right to use four car parking slots as mentioned in the

letter dated 24th October 2016 within a period of three months

from today by giving advance intimation of at least seven days

to the respondent­Company. Needless to add that as the entire

consideration in respect of the said apartment has been paid

by the appellants, the respondent­Company shall not be

entitled to demand any amount from the appellants as a

condition for handing over the possession or for transferring

the same to the purchaser brought by the appellants, as the

case may be. On failure of the appellants to take possession of

the aforesaid apartment within 3 months from today, the

appellants will have no claim over the said apartment. In such

case, it will be open to the respondent­Company to alienate

the said apartment.

……..…………………J. (SURYA KANT)

……..…………………J. (ABHAY S. OKA) New Delhi;

September 16, 2022.

28