Bptp Ltd. vs Pradeep Loyal And Ors.

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court



246 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH


RERA-APPL-61-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03.11.2026

BPTP Limited ...Appellant(s)
Versus

Pradeep Loyal and others ...Respondent(s)


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate,
Mr. H. Monga, Advocate,
Ms. Nishtha, Advocate
Ms. Priyanshi, Advocate and
Ms. Neha, Advocate
for the appellant.

Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Advocate and
Mr. Kalyan Kumar Thevar, Advocate
for the respondent. (Through V.C.)

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)


1. The appellant through instant appeal under Section 58 of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short ‘2016
Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 19.01.2026 whereby learned
Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Appellate Tribunal’)
has dismissed its appeal on the ground of non-compliance of condition of
pre-deposit.

2. The appellant in its project allotted a unit to the respondent
who approached Authority seeking possession of the unit as well as
payment of delayed possession charges. The Authority vide order dated
27.05.2022 disposed of the complaint. Operative portion of the order
dated 27.05.2022 reads as:
PRINCE CHAWLA
2026.11.04 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



-2-
RERA-APPL-61-2026 (O&M)

"H. Directions of the Authority
52. Hence, the Authority hereby passes this order and
issues the following directions under Section 37 of the Act
to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the
promoter as per the function entrusted to the authority
under Section 34(f);
(i) The respondents are directed to pay interest at
the prescribed rate of 9.50% p.a. for every month of
delay from the due date of possession till the date of
offer of possession plus two months to the
complainant (s) as per Section 19(10) of the Act.
(ii) The arrears of such interest accrued from due
date of possession till its admissibility as per
direction (i) above shall be paid by the promoter to
the allottees respectively within a period of 90 days
from date of this order as per Rule 16(2) of the
Rules.
(iii) The complainants are directed to pay
outstanding dues, if any, after adjustment of interest
for the delayed period against their units to be paid
by the respondents.
(iv) The rate of interest chargeable from the
allottees by the promoter, in case of default shall be
charged at the prescribed rate i.e. 9.50% by the
respondents/ promoters which is the same rate of
interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay
the allottees, in case of default i.e. the delayed
possession charges as per Section 2(za) of the Act.
(υ) The respondents shall not charge anything from
the complainant(s) which is not part of the builder
buyer's agreement save and except in the manner as
prescribed in this order. The holding charges shall
not be recoverable from the allottees even being
part of builder buyer agreement as per the
PRINCE CHAWLA
2026.11.04 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



-3-
RERA-APPL-61-2026 (O&M)

directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal Nos. 3864-3899/2020 decided on
14.12.2020 (supra).
(vi) In all the complaints mentioned in the table of
para 3 of this order, the due date of possession is
prior to the date of coming into force of GST ie.
01.07.2017. The authority is of the view that the
respondents/ promoters were not entitled to charge
GST from the complainants/ allottee as the liability
of GST had not become due upto the due date of
possession as per the flat buyer's agreements as has
been held by Haryana Real Estate Appellate
Tribunal, Chandigarh in Appeal bearing No.21 of
2019, titled as M/s. Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Prakash Chand Arohi. Also, the authority
concurs with the findings of the committee on this
issue and holds that the difference between post
GST and pre GST shall be borne by the promoter.
The promoter is entitled to charge from the allottee
the applicable combined rate of VAT and service tax
as detailed in para 47 of this order.
(vii) The promoter is entitled to charge VAT from the
allottees for the period upto 31.03.2014 @ 1.05%
(one percent VAT- 5 percent surcharge on VAT).
However, the promoter cannot charge any VAT from
the allottees/ prospective buyers for the period
01.04.2014 to 30.06.2017 as the same was to be
borne by the promoter- developer only. The
respondents- promoters are bound to adjust the said
amount, if charged from the allottees with the dues
payable by them or refund the amount if no dues are
payable by them.
(viii) The developer in case bearing No.5265- 2019
and 630-2021 is allowed to charge cost escalation
of the allotted units at Rs.233.46 per square feet
PRINCE CHAWLA
2026.11.04 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



-4-
RERA-APPL-61-2026 (O&M)

instead of Rs.306.91 paise from the allottees and is
directed to work out the total cost of the allotted
units and adjust accordingly.
(ix) The membership of the club is optional and the
club is not part of common areas to be transferred
to RWA. So, the club membership for the allottees of
the project be made optional and they should not be
forced to pay for the same. However, if any allottee
opts out to avail this facility and approaches the
respondents for membership then, he shall pay the
charges as decided by the developer. The
respondents are directed to refund the amount
received under this head if any request in this
regard from the allottees is received.

53. This decision shall mutatis mutandis apply to cases
mentioned in para 3 of this order.
54. The complaints stand disposed off.
55. True certified copy of this order be placed in the case
file of each matter. There shall be separate decrees in
individual cases.
56. Files be consigned to registry.”


3. The respondent filed application seeking execution. The
Adjudicating Officer passed different orders with respect to execution of
order dated 27.05.2022. The Adjudicating Officer made calculation of the
amount payable and receivable by the appellant. It was found that a sum
₹
of 33,50,924/- is payable to the appellant. Feeling dissatisfied from the
calculation made by the Adjudication Officer, the appellant preferred an
appeal before the Tribunal which by impugned order has dismissed the
same on the ground of non-compliance of condition of pre-deposit.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a sum of
PRINCE CHAWLA
2026.11.04 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



-5-
RERA-APPL-61-2026 (O&M)

₹
33,50,924/- as per calculation made by Adjudicating Officer is
outstanding against the respondent. The appellant has assailed orders
passed by Executing Authority/Adjudicating Officer. The appellant has
not preferred appeal against order passed by the Authority whereby
direction was issued to both sides to comply with their commitments.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per their
₹
calculation, the respondent is liable to pay a sum of 33,50,924/- to the
appellant. He has deposited partial amount with RERA and partial with
the appellant towards stamp duty for registration of conveyance deed.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

7. A perusal of impugned order reveals that the Tribunal has
₹
asked the appellant to make pre-deposit of 32,61,228/-. The appellant is
₹
claiming that a sum of 33.50 lakh even as per calculation of
Adjudicating Officer is outstanding against the respondent, thus, there is
no question of pre-deposit. The respondent has already deposited a sum
₹
of 33.50 lakh with RERA/appellant.

8. On being confronted with the fact that respondent has
₹
already deposited a sum of 33.50 lakh as calculated by Adjudicating
Officer, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per their
₹
calculation a sum of 67,00,000/- is outstanding against the respondent,
thus, they wish to pursue their remedy before Tribunal and are ready to
make pre-deposit as directed by the Tribunal.


9. In wake of statement of both sides and without expressing
opinion on merits, appeal stands disposed of with liberty to the appellant
PRINCE CHAWLA
2026.11.04 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



-6-
RERA-APPL-61-2026 (O&M)

to deposit amount as ordered by the Tribunal towards pre-deposit within
two weeks from today. On deposit of aforesaid amount, the Tribunal
would hear its appeal on merits.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.


(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
03.11.2026
Prince Chawla

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No

PRINCE CHAWLA
2026.11.04 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document