BEFORE THE HON’BLE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,

UTTAR PRADESH BENCH AT LUCKNOW, U.P.

COMPLAINT NO. LKO162/04/72592/2021OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS.

KG CONSTRUCTIONS
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
2ND FLOOR SUPER SHOPPING CENTRE
FAIZABAD ROAD
LUCKNOW 226016 RESPONDENT

REJOINDER ON THE BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT TO THE REPLY FILED BY THE

To, The Hon’ble Chairman And other hon’ble Members of the Authority.

Most respectfully submitted as under: -

That the present rejoinder is being filed by the Complainant through its counsel. The

Complainant has gone through the reply and its annexures and has understood the same. At the
outset each and every averment made in the reply by the Respondent is denied by the

Complainant, save and except which are matter of record. Further, also state that the Respondent

has not given a proper para wise reply to any of the allegations / questions raised in the

complaint.

Further, I wish to convey to the Hon’ble Court here that due to the social and economic situation

of the last two years, the complainant cannot bear the additional economic burden related to this

flat under any circumstances. Therefore, you are requested to kindly allow the complainant's

prayer mentioned at page 5 and grant the relief.

In view of the above prayer, each and every averment made in the reply by the Respondent is

denied by the Complainant.

1. The contents of Para 1 and 2 of the written statement filed by the respondent need no

reply.

2. The contents of Para 3 of the written statement filed by the respondent are matter of

record. The Respondent has self-admitted that they had failed to complete the terms and

condition of MOU.

3. The contents of Para 4 of the written statement filed by the respondent are absolutely

incorrect and not accepted.

That to safeguard the interest of justice, I am presenting certain facts in front

of the court.

a. It is also pertinent to mention here that this was nearly five years after the extended date

for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. The complainant booked

the flat in 2012; respondent have said that they will give the possession of the flat in 3
 years. In 2013 the complainant had paid 25% of total amount and the rest 75% of total

amount of the flat would be finance by the bank after the possession letter then the party

shall be able to give rest payment to the promoter. This was nearly five years after the

extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement.

b. That the Complainants were regularly approaching the Respondents and was also paying

visits to the office for asking about the status of the request for cancelation of the flat, but

no heed was paid to the concerns raised by the Complainant. Despite of repeated request

made by the Complainant; the Respondent failed to redress the grievances of the

Complainant. Due to the dishonest and illegal act of the Respondents and their failure to

handover the possession as per the terms of the agreement the Complainants are entitled

for give the possession of alternate flat promptly.

c. It is pertinent to note that the said project is nothing as promised and is nowhere near

completion. The Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgements has held that where the

Developer/Builder has failed to deliver the unit as per the terms and conditions of the

Agreement the allottee is entitled to a refund of the amount paid with reasonable Interest

thereon from the date of payment till the date of refund or alternate flat in appropriate

location.

d. It is appurtenant to note that the Respondent has been take the defense of Covid-19

pandemic, therefore I entitled to mention that pandemic is not only for the individual it is

for the Complainant also. The Complainant has to pay 15,000 per month as house rent in

this pandemic. Since 2012 the Complainant has been paid a huge amount as house rent

because of their late possession and deficiency in services and as per mentioned in the

written statement the Respondent is expecting the rest of the payment of flat on time.
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Lucknow Development Authority

v. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243”, has held that when a person hires the

services of a builder, or a contractor, for the construction of a house or a flat, and

the same is for a consideration, it is a “service” as defined by Section 2 (o) of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The inordinate delay in handing over possession

of the flat clearly amounts to deficiency of service.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

Devasis Rudra, II (2019) CPJ 29 (SC), has observed as hereunder: “………. It

would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the

parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By 2016,

nearly seven years had elapsed from the date of the agreement. Even according to

the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 2016. This

was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession

prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a

reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it

would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the

first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC”.

e. That the Respondents, whose plans since the very beginning were to deceive the

Complainants, cheat and defraud them by misappropriating their money.

f. That the Respondent has utterly failed in maintaining the standard as promised by them

and hence the deficiency of service and unfair trade practices on the part of Respondent is

irrefutable, while ironically.

of the Complainant and an act of the Respondents to diverse the hard-earned money

collected from the Complainants illegally.

PRAYER

In the light of present facts and reasons stated, circumstances established, it is humbly prayed

that this competent authority in the interest of natural justice may graciously be pleased to

1. Direct the respondent to give the possession promptly in the same project/tower or any

alternate unit ready to move in.

2. To impose the penalty on the respondent for not fulfilling obligations provided under the

act or

3. May pass any other order in favor of complainant as this hon’ble authority deems fit and

proper

Due to the facts stated above, the project is indefinitely delayed, lost its

perceived value due to misleading and false statements of the Respondents.

The decision of the Respondents to deny an honorable exit to the

Complaint has caused huge financial loss, mental agony and harassment to

the Complainant.
Hence, in the interest of justice and equity, the Complainant humbly

request to the Hon’ble Authority to kindly allow the complaint’s Prayer.

COMPLAINANT

THROUGH REPRESENTATIVE

Srijan Sinha

Representative of Complainant