UTPAL TREHAN versus DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LTD.

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 458 · Decided: 11-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
458
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 458
458
UTPAL TREHAN
v.
DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 4690 of 2022)
JULY 11, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1860: Apartment Buyers’ Agreement
– Delayed Possession Compensation – Builder under obligation to
deliver the possession of the certain flats to the allottee – Handing
over possession delayed since builder could not get certain
regulatory clearance – Later, builder raised additional demands
under different heads, which as per the allottee added upto Rs 9
lakhs (approx) – As per the allottee, they had cleared the requisite
installments – The allottee did not take the possession in protest of
additional demand – The allottee was further aggrieved by the fact
that he had been denied certain payment related benefits on beings
offered possession of the flat – Per contra the builder supported
such denial on the ground that there was default in payment by the
allottee within due date of the installments – The allottee supported
the fact of delayed payment on the premise that they did not receive
notice of such demand on 29 December 2011, as alleged by builder
– Further, dispute also revolved around payment of maintenance
charges, as such charges, as per builder, were due to be paid by
allottee – Thereafter, allottee took up the entire matter before the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which held in favour
of the allottee except on the question of maintenance charges –
Aggrieved on the question of the maintenance charges, the allottee
preferred appeal before National Commission – National Commission
partly allowed the appeal while making modification in the direction
of the State Commission as to the delayed compensation – Aggrieved
by such modification, the allottee filed instanat appeals – Held:
The allottee were justified in not taking of possession since the
demand of the sum of 9 lakhs was illegal, as per facts, and such
possession was conditional on payment of the aforesaid amount –
Upon considering the entire material on record the builder failed to
establish the fact that it was on 29 December 2011 that the notice
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
459
for the payment of the installment was issued by them – The builder
did not bring any material on record to show that it was the builder
who was carrying out maintenance work which could have brought
them within the definition of “maintenance agency” under Apartment
Buyers’ Agreement - The entity entitled to such payment was not
impleaded as party to the proceeding – The builder, since unable to
get requisite regulatory clearance modified the terms of agreement
thereby amending the starting date of computing delayed payment
of compensation hence National Commission erred in making
modification in such date and State Commission was right in its
direction as to date of commencement of the payment of delayed
compensation.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The definition of Maintenance Agency means
“DHDL (the builder) or association of allottees or such other
agency but the conjunction “or” as has been applied in the
definition clause ought to mean in the alternative and this
definition cannot be construed to infer that even after handing
over the maintenance work to an association, the builder shall
continue to remain as a maintenance agency entitled to collect
maintenance charges. The clause relating to fixation of total
maintenance charges only specifies the obligation of an allottee
to pay such charges and the substantive Agreement specifies
again that the maintenance charges would be payable to the
maintenance agency. In so far as the subject dispute is concerned,
the builder’s case, as stated above, is that the maintenance agency
is to receive the maintenance charges but no specific case has
been made out that the builder themselves are carrying on the
maintenance work, which could have brought them within the
definition of maintenance agency under the main Agreement. In
such circumstances, it cannot be appreciated as to how, in dealing
with the allotees’ complaint against the builder, the two statutory
fora passed orders which effectively required the allotee to make
over payment as maintenance charges to a third party, the
association in this case. No principal-agent relationship has been
established between the builder and the association as regards
the Maintenance Agreement entitling the builder to claim and
receive mainte

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.