Gurgaon: A developer approached Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (H-Rera) against its own homebuyers, alleging unpaid instalments worth lakhs and seeking not just recovery with 15% annual interest but also additional compensation.Rera, however, rejected the move, holding that the promoter could not use the regulator to claim relief beyond what was already provided in the builder-buyer agreement.M/s Sunrays Heights Pvt Ltd, promoter of the “63, Golf Drive” project in Sector 63-A, filed complaints against several allottees, including Rahul Parashar, Prakriti Ranjan Samanta and Promila, who had signed builder-buyer agreements in Feb 2016 for flats in different towers.The developer alleged that the buyers had defaulted on instalments, worsening the project’s financial strain and contributing to delays. It sought recovery of dues ranging from about Rs 4.1 lakh to over Rs 7.6 lakh per allottee, along with interest at 15% a year. It also claimed additional compensation of roughly Rs 6 lakh to more than Rs 11 lakh in each case, saying delayed payments had caused losses and increased its interest burden on external funding, including under the SWAMIH scheme.The homebuyers contested both claims. They argued that the agreements already laid down a complete mechanism for dealing with payment defaults, including delayed-payment interest and even cancellation of allotments after due notice. Since the contract, they pointed out, itself offered an “equally efficacious remedy”, the promoter could not invoke Rera for further relief.Adjudicating officer Rajender Kumar treated this as the central issue and ruled in favour of the buyers. The regulatory authority said the agreement already empowered the developer to recover dues with the agreed interest, and that this interest clause was itself the contractual compensation for delay. Any separate or additional compensation, it observed, would go beyond the bargain struck between the parties.In its March 30 orders, Rera dismissed all the complaints and asked both sides to bear their own costs. The ruling underlined that in payment disputes, builder-buyer agreements remain the primary framework, and regulatory forums cannot be used to enlarge contractual rights.
