Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Prasanna B. Varale, Supreme Court
Supreme Court Asks Homebuyer To Pay Over Rs 1.4 Crore To Developer In Lieu Of Clearance Of Dues Of Alternate Apartment Offered
|The Developer had approached the Supreme Court seeking appropriate directions to the buyer to comply with the order directing that the amount payable for the original apartment be paid for the alternate apartment offered.
In a case where an alternate apartment was offered by the Developer in place of the original flat allotted to the homebuyer, the Supreme Court has asked the buyer to pay over Rs 1.4 crore to the developer in lieu of clearance of the dues of the alternate flat. The Apex Court noted that the buyer had taken possession, subject to the earlier orders of the Court.
The Apex Court further held that there needed to be some adjustment of equities between the parties as the appellant-developer had been maintaining the apartment and paying the essential charges to the respective bodies/ associations.
The Developer had approached the Court with a Miscellaneous Application seeking appropriate directions to the buyer to comply with the order directing that whatever amount was payable for the original apartment, the same be paid for the alternate apartment offered, and consequently, the agreement between the parties be executed.
The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Prasanna B. Varale ordered, “As such, the respondent is directed to pay the total amount of Rs. 1,40,71,000/- (Rupees One crore forty lakhs seventy-one thousand only) to the appellant within 8 weeks from the receipt of this order. The payment of above amount is being provided in lieu of clearance of all the outstanding dues of interest/taxes and other charges etc. upon the respondent up to 05.02.2025, i.e. the date on which possession has been handed over to the respondent.”
Factual Background
The appellant Jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., subsequently amalgamated with Macrotech Developers Ltd., had allotted a three-bedroom apartment to the respondent Haresh sometime in the year 2013 in their project known as “Lodha Codename Blue Moon”. The respondent, in 2013 itself, paid Rs 92,50,744 being the advance amount out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 4,64,86,145 and requested the appellant to provide relevant documents so that the registered agreement could be executed. The appellant, on the other hand, was giving written notices that the balance amount be paid, failing which the allotment would be cancelled.
The appellant cancelled the allotment, which resulted in the respondent filing a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The NCDRC provided, as an ad interim measure, that the appellant would not create any third-party rights concerning the apartment in question. Despite the same, the appellant admitted to having alienated the said apartment. The NCDRC allowed the complaint.
As the appellant had already alienated the apartment in question despite the stay granted by the NCDRC, it applied for modification of the order to the extent that an identical flat/apartment just above the apartment in question, which would be on the next higher floor, may be substituted in place of apartment no. 6403 in the order. The NCDRC rejected the said application for modification, noting that the appellant was in contempt. The appellant had filed the instant Miscellaneous Application for appropriate directions to allow the appellant to refund the entire amount paid by the respondent towards the booking of the original apartment.
Reasoning
The Apex Court took note of the fact that its order passed in 2024, it had directed the respondent to come ready with the demand draft of the balance sale consideration. Additionally, it was directed that the appellant would hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the alternate apartment, i.e. 6503, to the respondent within a week. Thereafter, the registry released the amount in favor of the appellant and a possession letter was produced clearly bearing an endorsement by the respondent that he had taken possession.
The Bench noticed that the appellant had not provided the relevant documents as requested by the respondent relating to the building map, carpet area, and relevant NOCs right from the beginning. The appellant, being well aware of the stay order passed by the NCDRC restraining it from creating any third-party rights, in gross violation of the same, proceeded to alienate the original allotted apartment during the pendency of the proceedings before the NCDRC.
“Simultaneously, we cannot lose sight of the fact that during this period, the appellant has been maintaining the said apartment and paying the essential charges to respective bodies/ associations. As such, there needs to be some adjustment of equities between the parties”, the Bench said
Thus, the Bench directed the Appellant to pay Rs 1,40,71,000 to the Appellant within 8 weeks. The Bench disposed of the application by directing the parties to get the agreement to sale/sale deed executed within two months after the payment is made.
Cause Title: Jawala Real Estate Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Haresh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 669)