DHARMENDRA SHARMAversusAGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

                   [2024] 9 S.C.R. 97 : 2024 INSC 667

                         Dharmendra Sharma
                                  v.
                      Agra Development Authority
                   (Civil Appeal Nos. 2809-2810 of 2024)
                              06 September 2024
    [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the possession as offered by Agra Development Authority
       on 04.12.2014 should be taken as a valid offer of possession even
       if there was no completion certificate and whether the firefighting
       clearance certificate was available with the ADA or not. Absence
       of these documents, if vitiated the offer of possession made by
       the ADA.

                                   Headnotes†
       Consumer Protection – Deficiency in service – UP Apartment
       (Promotion of Construction, Ownership & Maintenance) Act,
       2010 – s.4(5) – RERA Act, 2016 – s.19(10) – Offer of possession
       made without completion certificate and firefighting clearance
       certificate, if valid and lawful:
       Held: No – Appellant consistently raised this issue asserting that a
       valid offer of possession cannot be made without these documents –
       s.4(5) of the UP Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership
       & Maintenance) Act, 2010 and s.19(10) of the RERA Act, 2016
       mandate that a developer must obtain these certificates before
       offering possession – Despite the appellant’s repeated requests,
       ADA failed to produce these certificates, rendering its offer of
       possession incomplete and legally invalid – ADA’s failure to provide
       the required certificates justifies the appellant’s refusal to take
       possession – Thus, appellant entitled to additional compensation to
       compensate for the delay caused by ADA’s breach of its statutory
       obligations – On facts, in view of the shortcomings on the part of both
       the appellant and the ADA, compensation provided to the appellant
       apart from what was awarded by NCDRC – Therefore, apart from
       the refund of the entire amount deposited by the appellant @ 9%
       interest p.a. from 11.07.2020 (the date of the complaint) till the
       date of refund, ADA to pay an additional compensation amount of


* Author
98                                                              [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


      Rs. 15,00,000/- to the appellant – ADA also to return the non-judicial
      stamp worth Rs. 3,99,100/- back to the appellant. [Paras 20, 21]
      Consumer Protection – Limitation Act, 1963 – ss.18, 19 –
      Complaint of the appellant, if was barred by limitation – Plea
      of the respondent-Agra Development Authority (ADA) that the
      complaint was filed by the appellant in 2020 after six years
      from the date of offering possession in 2014 and as such was
      barred by limitation:
      Held: The complaint was not barred by limitation – The ongoing
      interactions between the parties, including ADA’s acceptance of
      part payment in 2019 and the reminders sent, effectively extended
      the limitation period – NCDRC correctly applied ss.18 and 19 of
      the Limitation Act, 1963, which extend the limitation period where
      part payments or acknowledgments are made – Thus, cause of
      action continued to exist and the filing of the complaint in July
      2020 was within the limitation period. [Paras 16, 17]
      Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Pecuniary jurisdiction –
      Value of the claim – Determination – Objection raised by
      the respondent-Agra Development Authority as regards the
      pecuniary jurisdiction of the NCDRC contending that as the
      amount deposited by the appellant was only Rs. 59,91,000/- i.e.
      less than Rs. 1 crore, the complaint ought to have been filed
      before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
      and the NCDRC would have no pecuniary jurisdiction to
      entertain the complaint with a value of less than Rs. 1 crore:
      Held: No merit in this argument – In consumer disputes, the value
      of the claim is determined not just by the amount deposited but
      by the aggregate relief sought, which includes compensation and
      other claims – Claim made by the appellant was not limited to the
      deposit amount alone but also included compensation for mental
      agony, harassment, and loss of income, which brought the total
      claim well above Rs. 1 crore – NCDRC rightly held that it had the
      requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. [Para 19]

                               Case Law Cited
      Debashis Sinha & Ors. v. R.N.R. Enterprise (2023) 3 SCC 195;
      Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited v. Union of India &
      Ors. [2019] 10 SCR 381 : (2019) 8 SCC 416; Treaty Construction
      v. Ruby Tower Cooperative Housing Society Ltd [2019] 9 SCR 606 :
      (2019) 8 SCC 157 – relied on.
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                                99

            Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority


      Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh [2004] 3 SCR 68 :
      (2004) 5 SCC 65; Rishab Singh Chandel & Anr. v. Parsvnath
      Developers Ltd. & Anr. Civil Appeal No.3053 of 2023; Lucknow
      Development Authority v. M.K.Gupta [1993] Suppl. 3 SCR 615 :
      (1994) 1 SCC 243; Marvel Omega Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Hari
      Gokhale & Ors. [2019] 10 SCR 375 : (2020) 16 SCC 226; Ex-
      perion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shierror [2022] 5
      SCR 590 : (2022) 6 SCALE 16 – referred to.
                                  List of Acts
      Consumer Protection Act, 1986; UP Apartment (Promotion of
      Construction, Ownership & Maintenance) Act, 2010; RERA Act,
      2016; Limitation Act, 1963; Supreme Court Rules.
                               List of Keywords
      Agra Development Authority; Offer of possession; Completion
      certificate; Firefighting clearance certificate; Deficiency in service;
      Refusal to take possession; Complaint not barred by limitation;
      Additional compensation; Limitation period extended; Part payments
      or acknowledgments; Cause of action continued to exist; Pecuniary
      jurisdiction.
                              Case Arising From
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2809-2810 of
      2024
      From the Judgment and Order dated 15.09.2023 and 30.10.2023 of
      the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
      in CC No.600 of 2020 and RA No.335 of 2023 respectively
                           Appearances for Parties
      Vipin Sanghi, Sr. Adv., Om Prakash, Vikas Singh Jangra, Sudhir
      Kulshreshtha, Advs. for the appearing parties.
                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                   Judgment
      Vikram Nath, J.
1.    Civil Appeals 2809-2810 of 2024, by the appellant filed under Section
      23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,1 read with Order XXIV of


1    CPA, 1986
100                                                         [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       the Supreme Court Rules, assail the correctness of the final judgment
       and order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the National Consumer
       Disputes Redressal Commission2 in CC No.600/2020 as also the
       order dated 30th October, 2023 passed on the Review Application
       No.335/2023. By the aforesaid orders, the NCDRC allowed the CC
       No.600/2020 partly to the extent that it directed refund of the entire
       amount deposited by the Complainant (appellant) (except non-judicial
       stamp paper worth Rs. 3,99,100/- deposited on 15.02.2014) along
       with interest @9% p.a. from the date of the complaint i.e. 11.07.2020
       till the date of refund within a period of two months from the date
       of the order.
2.     Further, Civil Appeal No. 6344 of 2024 has been filed by the Agra
       Development Authority3 assailing the correctness of the same
       judgment of the NCDRC dated 15.09.2023 partly allowing the
       complaint.
3.     The appellant-Dharmendra Sharma had applied for allotment and
       purchase of an apartment (residential flat) in the category of Super
       Deluxe 2 on 28.07.2011 and had deposited the booking amount
       of Rs. 4,60,000/- along with the application. This application was
       submitted pursuant to an advertisement issued by the ADA for
       a group housing project lodged in the name of ADA Heights, Taj
       Nagari, Phase II at Fatehabad Road, near Taj Express Way, Ring
       Road, Agra. The allotment was done by lottery system on 29.08.2011
       whereby the appellant was allotted Flat No.DT-1/1204 which was
       communicated vide letter dated 19.09.2011, according to which the
       tentative price of the apartment was Rs. 56,54,000/- which could be
       deposited in 24 equal quarterly instalments or could be paid in full
       with certain other relaxations. The appellant, opted for full payment
       and accordingly vide letter dated 21.10.2011, attached two cheques,
       one by the appellant of Rs. 6.94 lakhs and the other of Rs. 45 lakhs
       issued by the LIC Housing Finance Limited. Possession was to be
       given within six months under the scheme.
4.     Upon completion of six months, the appellant requested for
       possession vide communication dated 03.04.2012. Apparently, the
       construction was not completed and, in any case, not ready for


2    NCDRC
3    ADA
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                           101

             Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority


      delivery of possession, as such no possession was delivered even
      after six months. The appellant thereafter received a communication
      dated 04.02.2014 offering possession subject to further payment of
      Rs. 3,43,178/- along with non-judicial stamp paper for execution of
      the deed amounting to Rs. 3,99,100/-. The demand so raised was
      under the following three heads:
      i)     Rs. 84,300/- for solar system;
      ii)    Rs. 46,878/- as leased premium; and
      iii)   Rs. 2,12,000/- for covered parking area.
5.    On receipt of the said letter, the appellant visited the site as also the
      office of ADA on 15.02.2014. He deposited the non-judicial stamp
      papers as required of Rs. 3,99,100/-. But after inspection of the site,
      he found various deficiencies in the construction which were reported
      to the Assistant Engineer of the ADA with the request that once the
      deficiencies are removed, he may be communicated for taking over
      possession. ADA sent reminders dated 22.09.2014 and 20/21.11.2014
      for depositing the balance amount of Rs. 3,82,748/-. The appellant, on
      the other hand, was demanding for completion certificate. There is a
      further communication by the ADA dated 17.01.2018 demanding an
      amount of Rs. 6,11,575/- and for taking possession after depositing
      the same and getting the deed executed. On the other hand, the
      appellant, vide communication dated 02.04.2018, requested for waiver
      of interest on the balance amount and also sought confirmation
      whether the flat was ready for physical possession.
6.    It was thereafter that the appellant along with letter dated 04.06.2019,
      sent a cheque dated 01.06.2019 for Rs. 3,43,178/- and again requested
      for confirmation of the date of possession. The ADA encashed the said
      cheque but did not inform any date for handing over possession. It
      looks like the appellant got the loan transferred to the State Bank of
      India4 whereupon the SBI is writing letters demanding the title deed
      of the apartment vide communications dated 14.03.2017, 25.06.2019
      and 19.10.2019. These communications further mention that in case
      the title deed is not deposited, then penal interest @2% p.a. would
      be levied. The appellant again reiterated his earlier request for waiver
      of interest on balance amount vide reminder dated 18.09.2019 and


4    SBI
102                                                          [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       again requested for confirmation whether the flat was ready for
       physical possession. The appellant again visited the office of ADA on
       23.11.2019 and requested for completion certificate and firefighting
       clearance certificate, which were not provided. He again visited the
       site and found that the apartment was not in a habitable condition.
       The appellant thus proceeded to institute a complaint before the
       NCDRC on 10.07.2020 alleging deficiency in service as also unfair
       trade practice on the part of ADA.
7.     The ADA filed its reply in which the amounts as deposited by the
       appellant, as noted above, were admitted. Further, according to
       ADA, the construction was ready and possession was offered on
       04.02.2014 along with demand of Rs. 3,43,178/- which the appellant
       did not pay and continued to claim for waiver of interest and had
       ultimately paid the said amount on 04.06.2019 vide cheque dated
       01.06.2019. According to ADA, after adjustment there was still an
       outstanding amount of Rs. 4,71,159/- as on 05.02.2021. It was also
       stated in the written statement that in 2011, at the time of allotment,
       the tentative price was Rs. 56,54,000/- and under Clause 45 of the
       Registration and Allotment Rules, it was clearly mentioned that the
       price could vary upto 10%. Further, according to ADA, the demand
       raised by the letter dated 04.02.2014 of solar system, lease premium
       and car parking were apart from the cost of the flat and not due to
       increased cost. The appellant had unnecessarily delayed payment of
       the demand raised on 04.02.2014. It was also stated in the written
       statement that out of the 582 apartments built under the project
       in question, except for 20 allottees, all other allottees had taken
       possession. The ADA further pleaded that the complaint was barred
       by time and secondly, that as the total payment made by the appellant
       was Rs. 59,97,178/-, as such it would not fall within the pecuniary
       limit of the NCDRC, and therefore, the complaint was liable to be
       dismissed for the above two reasons also.
8.     The parties led their evidence. The NCDRC rejected technical
       objections raised by the ADA regarding limitation as also the pecuniary
       jurisdiction. In so far as the limitation is concerned, the NCDRC
       held that as subsequent demand and reminders were sent by the
       ADA and the ADA even accepted the cheque of Rs. 3,43,178/- in
       2019, it was not open for the ADA to raise the plea of limitation.
       In so far as the pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, the NCDRC
       held that the claim was of more than Rs. 2 crores as such the said
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                       103

          Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority


     objection was also not sustainable. The NCDRC, however, held that
     the additional demand made by the ADA vide communication dated
     04.02.2014 although was other than additional cost of 10% which
     was permissible but, in any case, it was within the 10% admissible
     clause, as such could not be held to be illegal. The NCDRC also held
     that if the possession was delayed beyond two years, the appellant
     would be entitled for a refund but in the present case, Clause 27
     of the Registration and Allotment Rules would not be applicable.
     The NCDRC further held that although the appellant had deposited
     the non-judicial stamps worth Rs. 3,99,100/- on 15.02.2014 but he
     continued to delay payment of additional demand of Rs. 3,43,178/-
     and was continuously requesting for waiver of interest resulting
     into the presumption that he was avoiding payment of the balance
     amount. On such finding the NCDRC denied to grant interest from
     the date of deposit but made it applicable from the date of the filing
     of the complaint. In so far as the deficiency in construction was
     concerned, the NCDRC found that only bald allegations have been
     made by the appellant and he never made any effort to get a report
     from the Commissioner and allowed the apartment in question to
     remain locked for six years.
9.   After considering the pleadings and evidence on record and in
     view of the above findings, the complaint was partly allowed by the
     NCDRC on 15.09.2023.
10. The appellant preferred a Review Application which was dismissed
    by the NCDRC by its order dated 30th October, 2023. In the Review
    Application also, the NCDRC reiterated that the review was liable
    to be rejected as while offering possession, the ADA vide letter
    dated 04.12.2014 had made a further demand which amount was
    not deposited within the time and it was only deposited in 2019 and
    that too without interest and the complaint was made after six years
    and, therefore, the appellant would not be entitled to interest from
    the date of deposit.
11. In the two appeals filed by the appellant, the relief claimed is to the
    extent that the payment of interest be awarded from the date of deposit
    while refunding the same and not from the date of the complaint.
    Whereas in the appeal filed by the ADA, it is submitted that in view
    of the fact that the petition had been filed after six years from the
    date of offering possession, as such it was barred by limitation and
    also as the amount deposited was only Rs. 59,91,000/- i.e. less
104                                                          [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


       than Rs. 1 crore, the complaint ought to have been filed before the
       State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the NCDRC
       would have no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint with
       a value of less than Rs. 1 crore.
12. We have heard Shri Vipin Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing
    for the appellant and Shri Sudhir Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for
    the ADA in all the three appeals.
13. The facts as recorded above are not disputed. Even the NCDRC
    did not find any contradiction in the factual aspect. The only issue
    is as to whether the possession as offered on 04.12.2014 should be
    taken as a valid offer of possession even if there was no completion
    certificate and also whether the firefighting clearance certificate was
    available with the ADA or not. Despite specific requests and demands
    by the appellant for providing the completion certificate and firefighting
    clearance, the ADA failed to produce the same. Senior Counsel for
    the appellant has relied upon the following judgments in support of
    his submission that offer for possession would be invalid where the
    completion certificate and firefighting clearance certificate have not
    been obtained by the developer i.e. ADA:
       (a)   Debashis Sinha & Ors. vs. R.N.R. Enterprise5
       (b)   Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited vs. Union
             of India & Ors.6
       (c)   Treaty Construction vs. Ruby Tower Cooperative Housing
             Society Ltd.7
       It is then submitted that even before the NCDRC the completion
       certificate and the firefighting clearance certificate could not be
       produced by the respondent -ADA.
14. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellant that under the provisions
    of RERA Act, 2016 as also the UP (Promotion of Apartment and
    Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 offer of possession would
    be valid only after a developer obtains the completion certificate,
    which had not been done so far by the developer ADA in the present
    case. On behalf of the appellant, it is also argued that the demand


5   (2023) 3 SCC 195
6   [2019] 10 SCR 381 : (2019) 8 SCC 416
7   [2019] 9 SCR 606 : (2019) 8 SCC 157
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                          105

             Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority


      of Rs. 3,43,178/- along with alleged offer of possession dated
      14.02.2014 was totally unjustified and illegal. It was also submitted
      that the appellant having deposited the amount of approximately
      Rs. 60 lakhs and that too after taking loan from financial institutions,
      cannot be deprived of counting the interest from the date of deposit
      rather than from the date of filing of the complaint. In support of this
      submission, reliance has been placed upon the following judgments:
      (a)     Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh8
      (b)     Rishab Singh Chandel & Anr. vs. Parsvnath Developers
              Ltd. & Anr.9
      (c)     Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta10
      (d)     Marvel Omega Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shri Hari Gokhale &
              Ors.11
      (e)     Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sushma Ashok Shierror12
15. On such submissions it was prayed by the appellant that his appeals
    be allowed and the interest be awarded from the date of deposit
    and to that extent the impugned judgment and order of NCDRC be
    modified. Further that the appeal filed by the respondent be dismissed.
16. Having considered the submissions of both parties, we are of the
    opinion that both have contributed to delays at various stages. The
    respondent ADA raised an objection that the complaint was barred
    by limitation, claiming that the complaint was filed on 10.07.2020,
    well beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section
    24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which mandates that a
    complaint must be filed within two years from the date on which the
    cause of action arises. ADA argued that the offer of possession made
    on 04.02.2014 should have triggered the limitation period. However,
    the NCDRC, in its impugned order, rightly rejected this argument by
    considering that the respondent ADA issued reminders to the appellant
    on 22.09.2014, 21.11.2014, and 17.01.2018. Additionally, ADA
    accepted the appellant’s payment of Rs. 3,43,178/- on 20.06.2019


8    [2004] 3 SCR 68 : (2004) 5 SCC 65
9    Civil Appeal No.3053 of 2023
10   [1993] Suppl. 3 SCR 615 : (1994) 1 SCC 243
11   [2019] 10 SCR 375 : (2020) 16 SCC 226
12   (2022) 6 SCALE 16
106                                                            [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       without any reservations. Given these facts, the NCDRC correctly
       applied Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which extend
       the limitation period where part payments or acknowledgments are
       made. Consequently, the cause of action continued to exist, and
       the filing of the complaint in July 2020 is within the limitation period.
17. This Court concurs with the NCDRC’s reasoning and affirms that
    the complaint was not barred by limitation. The ongoing interactions
    between the parties, including ADA’s acceptance of part payment in
    2019 and the reminders sent, effectively extended the limitation period
    under established legal principles. However, while the complaint is
    within limitation, we also recognize that the appellant delayed making
    the balance payment of Rs. 3,43,178/- for over five years, from
    2014 to 2019. This delay was largely due to the appellant’s requests
    for a waiver of interest, which, while understandable, contributed
    significantly to the delay in finalizing the transaction.
18. In light of these circumstances, while the appellant is entitled to a
    refund along with interest, it would be inequitable to award interest
    from the date of the original payment in 2011 given the appellant’s
    role in the delay.
19. The respondent ADA has also challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction
    of the NCDRC, contending that the total payment made by the
    appellant amounted to Rs. 59,97,178/-, which was less than Rs. 1
    crore. As such, ADA argued that the complaint should have been
    filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
    and not the NCDRC, which has jurisdiction over matters exceeding
    Rs. 1 crore as per Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,
    1986. This Court finds no merit in ADA’s argument. The NCDRC,
    in its impugned order, correctly observed that the claim made by
    the appellant was not limited to the deposit amount alone but also
    included compensation for mental agony, harassment, and loss of
    income, which brought the total claim well above Rs. 1 crore. In
    consumer disputes, the value of the claim is determined not just
    by the amount deposited but by the aggregate relief sought, which
    includes compensation and other claims. Therefore, the NCDRC
    rightly held that it had the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain
    the complaint, and this Court affirms that finding.
20. The appellant’s key contention regarding the absence of the
    completion certificate and firefighting clearance certificate merits
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                                107

            Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority


      serious consideration. The appellant consistently raised this issue,
      asserting that a valid offer of possession cannot be made without
      these documents. Section 4(5) of the UP Apartment (Promotion of
      Construction, Ownership & Maintenance) Act, 2010 and Section
      19(10) of the RERA Act, 2016 mandate that a developer must obtain
      these certificates before offering possession. Despite the appellant’s
      repeated requests, ADA failed to produce these certificates, rendering
      its offer of possession incomplete and legally invalid.
21. The appellant has rightly cited relevant precedents to bolster this
    argument. In Debashis Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprise (2023),13 this
    Court held that possession offered without the requisite completion
    certificate is illegal, and a purchaser cannot be compelled to take
    possession in such circumstances. The Court in that case held:
             “20. Finally, we cannot resist but comment on the perfunctory
             approach of Ncdrc while dealing with the appellants’
             contention that it was the duty of the respondents to apply
             for and obtain the completion certificate from KMC and
             that the respondents ought to have been directed to act in
             accordance with law. The observation made by Ncdrc of
             the respondents having successfully argued that it was not
             their fault, that no completion certificate of the project could
             be obtained, is clearly contrary to the statutory provisions.
             21. Sub-section (2) of Section 403 of the KMC Act was
             referred to by Ncdrc in the impugned order [Debashis
             Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprise, 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC
             429] . Sub-section (1) thereof, which finds no reference
             therein, requires every person giving notice under Section
             393 or Section 394 or every owner of a building or a work
             to which the notice relates to send or cause to be delivered
             or sent to the Municipal Commissioner a notice in writing of
             completion of erection of building or execution of work within
             one month of such completion/erection, accompanied by
             a certificate in the form specified in the rules made in this
             behalf as well as to give to the Municipal Commissioner all
             necessary facilities for inspection of such building or work.



13   (2023) 3 SCC 195
108                                                         [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


            22. Section 393 mandates every person, who intends
            to erect a building, to apply for sanction by giving notice
            in writing of his intention to the Municipal Commissioner
            in such form and containing such information as may
            be prescribed together with such documents and plans.
            Similarly, Section 394 also mandates every person who
            intends to execute any of the works specified in clause (b)
            to clause (m) of sub-section (1) of Section 390 to apply
            for sanction by giving notice in writing of his intention to
            the Municipal Commissioner in such form and containing
            such information as may be prescribed.
            23. It is, therefore, evident on a conjoint reading of
            Sections 403, 390 and 394 of the KMC Act that it is the
            obligation of the person intending to erect a building or to
            execute works to apply for completion certificate in terms
            of the Rules framed thereunder. It is no part of the flat
            owner’s duty to apply for a completion certificate. When
            the respondents had applied for permission/sanction to
            erect, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Buildings Rules,
            1990 (hereafter “the 1990 Rules” for short) were in force.
            Rule 26 of the 1990 Rules happens to be the relevant
            Rule. In terms of sub-rules (1) to (3) of Rule 26 thereof,
            the obligation as cast was required to be discharged by
            the respondents. Evidently, the respondents observed the
            statutory provisions in the breach.”
       This position is supported by other decisions, including Pioneer Urban
       Land and Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) and Treaty Construction
       (supra), where the absence of these certificates was found to
       constitute a deficiency in service. In the present case, the ADA’s
       failure to provide the required certificates justifies the appellant’s
       refusal to take possession. This strengthens the appellant’s claim
       for additional compensation to compensate for the delay caused by
       ADA’s breach of its statutory obligations.
22. This Court is of the considered view that both parties have exhibited
    lapses in their respective obligations. On the one hand, the appellant,
    despite having paid the tentative price of Rs. 56,54,000/- in 2012,
    failed to remit the additional amount of Rs. 3,43,178/-, as demanded
    by the ADA, even after being repeatedly reminded. Instead, the
    appellant persistently sought a waiver of the penal interest on the
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                          109

             Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority


     delayed payment, eventually settling the amount only on 04.06.2019,
     a significant delay that cannot be overlooked and that too without
     the interest component which had further accrued over a period of
     about five years. On the other hand, the ADA, despite making an
     offer of possession in 2014, did not fulfil its statutory obligations by
     providing the requisite completion certificate and firefighting clearance
     certificate, both of which are essential for a valid and lawful offer
     of possession. The absence of these documents, which were also
     not furnished before the NCDRC, unquestionably vitiates the offer
     of possession made by the ADA.
23. In light of the aforementioned observations and taking into account the
    shortcomings on the part of both the appellant and the ADA, this Court
    deems it appropriate to provide a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-
    (Fifteen Lakhs only) apart from what was awarded by the NCDRC.
    Therefore, apart from the refund of the entire amount deposited
    by the appellant @ 9% interest per annum from 11.07.2020 till the
    date of refund, the ADA is directed to pay an additional amount of
    Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs only) to the appellant. The entire
    amount should be rendered to the appellant within three months of
    this order. We also order the ADA to return the non-judicial stamp
    worth Rs. 3,99,100/- back to the appellant.
24. Furthermore, we refrain from imposing any exemplary costs on either
    party, recognizing that both have contributed to the situation at hand.
    It is also to be noted that the ADA, being a civic body tasked with
    serving the public and operating on a non-profit basis, should not
    be unduly penalized in a manner that could impede its functioning.
25. The Civil Appeals 2809-2810 of 2024 are disposed of accordingly.
26. The appeal filed by the ADA i.e. Civil Appeal No. 6344 of 2024 stands
    dismissed, as its primary arguments regarding both limitation and
    pecuniary jurisdiction are found to be without merit.

     Result of the case: Civil Appeal Nos. 2809-2810 disposed of;
                          Civil Appeal No. 6344 of 2024 dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey