Thursday, January 10, 2013

CCI`S SUPPLEMENTARY ORDERS ON DLF -



BEFORE THE  COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
CASE NO.19/2010  Dated : 3rd January, 2013 IN THE MATTER OF :

BELAIRE OWNERS’ASSOCIATION .…. INFORMANT
VS.
DLF LTD. …. OPPOSITE PARTY-1
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT …. OPPOSITE PARTY-2
AUTHORITY

DEPARTMENT OF TOWN & COUNTRY …. OPPOSITE PARTY-3
PLANNING, STATE OF HARYANA

Through:- Shri Vaibhav Gaggar, advocate for informant and
Shri Ravinder Narain, advocate for opposite party no.1
Supplementary Order u/s 27 of the Competition Act, 2002

The Commission vide its order dated 12th August, 2011(the order) in above case had held DLF Ltd. as a dominant enterprise in the geographic area of Gurgaon in the relevant market. The Commission found that DLF Ltd. had abused its dominant position and violated the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002(the Act) as DLF had made the flat owners i.e. members of the Informant association to sign a highly abusive apartment buyers agreement. In para 12.90 of its order, the Commission had noted a number of clauses of the agreement as examples of abusive nature. The Commission observed in para 12.91 that DLF Ltd. had made it clear to the allottees that no alterations/modifications were to be made in the said agreement by the allottees. The Commission in para 12.95 had observed regarding commencement of project without sanction/approval, increase in number2 of floors midway, increase of Floor Area Ratio(FAR) and density per acre(DPA), inordinate delay in completion and possession, forfeiture of amounts, etc. The Commission found that the clauses of the agreement were biased in favour of DLF Ltd. In para 12.101, the Commission observed that certain clauses in the agreement gave DLF a sole discretion in respect of making changes in zoning plans, usage pattern, super area, carpet area and for alteration of structure and even a case of change of location of apartment and if a refund became due, no interest was payable by the builder. No rights had been given to buyers for raising objections. Even if the buyers had paid full amount, the builder could create mortgage on the property of the buyers for raising finance for its own purpose. DLF Ltd. inserted such clauses which made exit next to impossible for buyers. In case of delay by the builder, DLF Ltd. was to pay compensation of Rs. 5 per sq. feet per month equivalent to about 1% per annum interest, while in case of delay in payment by the buyer, the interest charged was 15% per annum for the first 90 days and 18% thereafter. The Commission came to conclusion that the conduct of DLF Ltd. was unfair in terms of section 4 and was being carried out by it because of its being a dominant enterprise and amounted to abuse of dominance
2. Having arrived at this conclusion, the Commission had considered as to what should be the appropriate order in this case. The Commission considered the provisions of section 27 of the Act which empowered the Commission to pass an appropriate order as mentioned in section 27 (a) to 27 (g). The Commission considered that since the findings of the DG and the Commission showed a violation of section 4 of the Act by DLF, thus those provisions of section 27 could be applied which pertained to abuse of dominance. As such, the Commission concluded that it could pass orders under all or any of the provisions contained in section 27(a), 27 (b), 27 (e) and 27(g). The Commission was of the opinion that section 27(a), 27 (e) and 27(g) related to contravention of both sections 3 & 4 while section 27(d) related to contravention of section 3. Having regard to this aspect, the Commission considered it appropriate to pass an order imposing penalty on DLF and give directions under section 27(a) to DLF. The Commission therefore gave following directions:-
(i) to cease and desist from formulating and imposing such unfair conditions in its agreement with buyers in Gurgaon.3 (ii) to suitably modify unfair conditions imposed on its buyers with regard to above within three months of the date of receipt of the order.
The Commission left it to DLF to suitably modify unfair conditions imposed on its buyers expecting that the modified agreement shall be finalized by DLF in consultation with buyers keeping in view of the findings and observations of the Commission. The exact terms and conditions of the agreement were not formulated as it involved specific contract with each buyer in respect of service/goods to be provided by the DLF and freedom was given by Commission to the parties to enter into mutually agreed contract. It was expected that in each such agreement DLF shall properly define the product/service as it was having exact spaces/carpet areas/common areas/dimensions etc. applicable in respect of that buyer and it shall clearly state all requisite clearances which it had obtained at the time of entering agreement. It was also expected that it shall state the cost of the product/service to the buyers with no hidden and indirect charges and it shall also clearly lay down the delivery schedule stage wise. It was also expected that one sided clauses shall be suitably modified so as to remove the abuse of dominance.
3. Against 12.8.2011 decision of the Commission, DLF preferred an appeal before Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT). COMPAT vide its order dated 29/03/2012 remitted the matter, along with the draft modified terms & conditions submitted by the parties, to the Commission directing the Commission to pass an order under section 27(d) specifying the extent and manner in which the terms and conditions of the Agreement need to be modified. Further, COMPAT in its order dated 21.05.2012 observed that in order to carry out suitable modifications in terms and conditions of the Agreement, it would be imperative to first determine the manner and extent of such modifications in terms of the order dated 12.08.2011 and only then such modifications could actually be carried out. It was further observed that the direction to ‘suitably’ modify the unfair terms and conditions was interminably linked to the question whether the terms and conditions were indeed unfair and, therefore, need to be ‘suitably’ modified. The question of correctness of the findings of the Commission will, therefore, depend on the whole gamut of the conclusions arrived at by the Commission; the foundation and the basis on which the same have been arrived at, as well as the manner and extent of the modifications which they have so directed which need to be carried out. 4 4. The Counsel for informant argued that the Commission should consider the whole Agreement for modification in view of its findings in the final order dated 12/08/2011. He contended that from the observations of the Commission it was clear that abusive conditions of the Agreement mentioned in the final order dated 12/08/2011 were some of the examples only. Thus, the entire agreement was required to be examined and appropriate amendments/modifications were required to be suggested by the Commission in terms of directions of COMPAT. On the other hand, the Counsel for OP-1 argued that conclusions arrived at by the Commission in the final order dated 12/08/2011 were enumerated in paragraph 12.90 under sub-paragraphs (i) to (xvi) (in the case of Belaire project). The so-called abusive clauses were thus limited and the Commission was expected to suggest modifications to only those terms & conditions of the Agreement which were specifically declared to be abusive and in contravention of the provisions of section 4(2) (a) (i) of the Act. Demand of informant for suggesting modifications to other terms and conditions by the Commission was not valid as there were no specific findings qua other clauses of agreement in the final order dated 12.08.2011 of the Commission. He even argued that since the project stands completed and possession given, no modification in the agreement was at all necessary.
5. Before considering the modifications to be made in the clauses of the agreement, it is necessary to know relevant provisions of applicable laws for the development of a housing project in Gurgaon, Haryana and the place and role of a builder and buyer under the law. It is quite necessary to have a clear view of the laws applicable to both the parties and their respective rights in order to give directions in respect of preventing/stopping abuse of dominance and to indicate the extent and manner of modification of an agreement governing their inter se rights and obligations.
6. The main Act which governs development of group housing colonies by a coloniser in Haryana is the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (Act of 1975) coupled with the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Rules, 1976( Rules of 1976). Under section 3 of the Act of 1975, an owner of land desirous of converting it into a colony /group housing, can make an application to the Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana(the Director) for grant of a licence to develop it as such. All the provisions of the Act of 1975 and the 5 Rules of 1976 are, therefore, applicable, whenever a group housing colony like the one which is subject matter of this case is sought to be developed in the State of Haryana. Apart from this, after the development of group housing, all the residential units are to be transferred to the allottees under the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 (Act of 1983) and thus this Act and Rules thereunder are also equally applicable to the builders as well as to the apartment owners. Since the Group Housing Colony has to be a residential colony within an urban area, the Haryana Urban Development Authority (Erection of Buildings) Regulations, 1979 (Regulations of 1979) regarding FAR and other provisions like providing car parking space etc. are also mandatory.
7. A perusal of the applicable laws on development of group housing colonies in the State of Haryana would show that following are mandatory requirements:-
(i) Maximum permissible coverage is 33.33% of the total site on ground and subsequent floors or 35% of the site on ground floor and 30% on subsequent floors (Compendium of Haryana Building Bylaws & Urban Development Regulations by V.K. Puri P.1.81 to 1.87).
(ii) Maximum permissible FAR (as applicable in 2009) was 175% of the site area on which Group Housing Complex is developed (Compendium of Haryana Building Bylaws & Urban Development Regulations by V.K. Puri P.1.81 to 1.87).
(iii) 1.5 equivalent car space (ECS) for each dwelling unit had to be provided by the builders and a minimum of 75% of this should be in the form of covered parking (Compendium of Haryana Building Bylaws & Urban Development Regulations by V.K. Puri P.1.81 to 1.87)..
(iv) Section 3 (5) of the Act of 1975 provides that a colony may comprise of one or more licences with contiguous land pockets. Therefore, each licence has to be in accordance with the bye-laws and rules regarding FAR and parking as well as open areas, external development and internal development.
(v) Under Rule 4 of Rules of 1976, in the lay out plan of a residential colony of plots, the land reserved for roads, open spaces, schools/public and community buildings and other common use area cannot be less than 45% of 6 the gross area of the land under the colony. Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana Government has discretion to reduce this percentage to 35% if in his opinion the planning requirement and size of the colony justify the same. However, he has to record reasons for reducing this percentage.
(vi) The coloniser/ builder only acts as a developer. Once he has developed a Group Housing Complex and the apartment owners have paid the cost of External Development Charges (EDC), price of apartment and other charges, the builder is not supposed to have any right or concern left in the property. This is clear from the fact that under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1976, the builder after development of roads, drainage, sewage, water supply and electricity inside the colony has to maintain it only for a period of five years or till the association of plot owners takes the responsibility and release the builder of the maintenance responsibility. Similarly, the builder is supposed to pay EDC proportionate to the area of the colony/dwelling group housing unit to the Govt. for development of main lines of road, drainage, sewage, water and electricity. A builder is to give undertaking to construct, at his own cost or get constructed by any institution or individual, schools, hospitals, community centres and community buildings on the land set apart for this purpose or undertake to transfer to the Govt. or the local authority, free of cost, at any time, such land earmarked for constructing community buildings.(in case they are not constructed) and the Govt. would be at liberty to transfer such land to any persons or institution.
(vii) It is specifically provided under the Act and the Rules that the internal development of the colony shall include markets, road and paved foot paths and properly turfed open spaces with plantation of trees, street light, water supply, sewers and drains, both for storm and sullagewater with provision for their treatment and disposal (Rule 5 of Rules of 1976).
(viii) Under Section 7 of the Act of 1975, there is a prohibition on the coloniser/builder as well as on property dealer from issuing any advertisement in respect of the colony regarding transfer of plots or apartments without obtaining licence under section 3. There is also prohibition on receiving any amount in respect thereafter or to erect any building or re-erect building in 7 respect of which a licence under section 3 has not been granted. It is further provided in section 5 that 30% of the amount realised from the plot owners from time to time shall be deposited by the builder in a separate account to be maintained in a scheduled bank and this amount shall be utilised only for meeting the cost of internal development of the colony. The remaining 70% of the amount is to be retained by the coloniser to meet the cost of land and development works. This provision requires the coloniser to maintain account of the amount kept in the scheduled bank. It is only after the internal development works have been completed to the satisfaction of Director, the rest/balance amount can be withdrawn by the coloniser.
A coloniser intending to set up group housing colony has to enter into an agreement with the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana in Form LC IV(a) which mandates that adequate health, recreational and cultural amenities in accordance with norms and standards provided in respective development plan of the area are to be provided by the coloniser. The coloniser has to ensure that dwelling unit is sold or leased by him in accordance with the provisions of Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 with common areas and facilities. Common areas of the plot of land on which Group Housing Colony is developed, in fact, belong to and are meant for the common use of apartment owners and once the apartments are sold, all the common areas and facilities vest jointly in apartment owners and are to be maintained by apartment owners by forming an association in terms of the laws laid down by Haryana Govt.
(ix) The coloniser has to sign an agreement with the Haryana Govt. that he shall derive maximum net profit only of 15% of the total project cost of the development of colony after making provisions of statutory taxes. In case the net profit exceeds 15% after completion of the project, the surplus amount either has to be deposited with the State Govt. treasury within two months of the completion or he has to spend this money on further amenities /facilities in the colony for the benefit of residents.
Further, the Act of 1983 was enacted to provide for ownership of individual apartments and make ownership rights as transferable for the promotion of group 8
housing in the State of Haryana. As per Section 5 of the Act, owner of every apartment, as defined in the Act, is required to execute and get registered a conveyance deed. ‘Apartment’ in the Act of 1983 has been defined in section 2(a) as a part of a property intended for any type of independent use, as may be prescribed, with a direct exit to a public street, road or highway or to a common area leading to such street, road or highway. ‘Apartment owner’ has been defined as the person or persons owning an apartment and having undivided interest in the common areas and facilities in the percentage specified and established in the declaration.
7.1 Under the Act of 1983, ‘common areas and facilities’, unless otherwise provided in the declaration or lawful amendments thereto, means:-
i) the land on which the building is located;
ii) the foundations, columns, girders, beams, supports, main walls, roofs, halls, corridors lobbies, stairs, stair ways, fire escapes and entrances and exits of the building;
iii) the basements, cellars, yards, gardens, parking area and storage spaces;
iv) the premises for the lodging of janitors or persons employed for management of the property;
v) installation of central services such as power, light, gas, hot and cold water, heating, refrigeration, air conditioning and incinerating;
vi) the elevators, tanks, pumps, motors, fans, compressors, ducts and in general all apparatus and installations existing for common use;
vii) such community and commercial facilities as may be provided for in the declaration; and
viii) all other parts of the property necessary or convenient to its existing maintenance and safety or normally in common use.

7.2 Section 18 of Act of 1983 regarding ‘separate assessment’ mentions that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law relating to local authorities, each apartment and its percentage of undivided interest in the common area and facilities appurtenant to such apartment(being an apartment subject to the provisions of the Act) shall be deemed to be separate for the purposes of 9 assessment to tax on lands and buildings liable under such law and shall be assessed and taxed accordingly. The building, the property or any of the common areas and facilities shall not be deemed to be separate property for the purpose of the levy of such tax.
8. Thus the development model of the colonies /group housing societies can be discerned from above-mentioned Acts, Rules, Regulations and Norms and annexures to the Rules in the form of bilateral agreement to be executed between colonizer and Govt., and the control to be exercised under the Act by the Director.
9. Judgment of Supreme Court in ‘Nihal Chand Lallu Chand Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pancholi Cooperative Housing (AIR 2010 SC 3607)’ also has bearing. In the judgment, it was held that garage is not an independent unit by itself, but is an appurtenant or attachment to flat within the meaning of Section 2(a-1) of Maharashtra Ownership Flats(Regulations of Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA). Open to sky-parking area or stilted portion usable as parking space was not garage within the meaning of Section 2(a-1) of the Act and not sellable independently as flat or along with flat. However, promoter was entitled to charge price for common areas and facilities from each flat purchaser in proportion to carpet area of flat. Further, the Act mandated the promoter to describe common areas and facilities in advertisement as well as agreement with flat purchaser and indicate price of flat including proportionate price of common areas and facilities. Stilt parking space could not cease to be a part of common areas and facilities merely because promoter had not described the same as such in advertisement and agreement with flat purchaser. Promoter had no right to sell any portion of such building which was not ‘flat’ within the meaning of section 2(a-1) of the Act. He had no right to sell stilt parking spaces as these were neither flat nor apartments or attachment to flat. Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed in this Judgment that the rights arising from the Agreement signed under the MOFA between the promoter and the flat purchasers cannot be diluted by any contract or undertaking to the contrary. The undertaking contrary to Development Controlled Regulations for Greater Bombay 1991(DCR) will not be binding either on the flat purchasers or the Society. It is to be noted that provisions of MOFA 1963 are similar to Haryana Act of 1983.10 10. In the light of the above judgment of the Supreme Court, applicable Acts and Rules and development model of the Group Housing societies envisaged under law, the agreement executed between DLF Ltd. and members of the informant Belaire Owners’ Association is to be considered and looked upon by the Commission for the purpose of suggesting modifications so that there are no abusive clauses. Several clauses of the agreement are interwoven and have impact on other clauses. Modification of one would necessitate modification of other. The Commission therefore had to consider modifications wherever it found clause of the agreement was abusive.
11. The Commission thus considered all the clauses of the Buyer’s Agreement. The reasons for proposed modification are given hereunder. The modifications suggested have been given in tabular form at the end opposite the existing clause.
12. The recitals in the agreement form two parts (i) Companies’ representations as (A) to (G) and (ii) Allottees’ representations as (I) to (M). In recitals, the company had stated that it was having an approved lay out plan of Phase V in DLF City and was presently having an area of 527.9435 acres under its control and it was likely to have more areas concerning this Phase V and the lay out plan of Phase V shall accordingly get changed as and when the new areas acquired by it and approved by Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. The allottees shall have no objection and give their consent to the company for the purpose of making necessary changes in the lay out plan of Phase V as and when new areas are included in the lay out plan as annexed to the agreement and the same shall stand automatically changed and the new lay out plan as drawn by the company and approved by the Haryana Govt. shall form part of the agreement. Admittedly, the rights of the allottees have been restricted to Belaire Group Housing Complex only. The reference to phase V Belaire agreement in unnecessary and may have potential of being abused. Recital ‘D’ made it clear that the agreement was confined and limited in its scope only to this Group Housing Complex (Belaire) to be constructed by the company on the portion of land delineated in Annexure I and IA of the agreement. However, neither Annexure I nor I A gives the area of land of Belaire Complex, nor the area of 6.67 acres given in agreement is in conformity of FAR norms.11Every Group Housing Scheme/Complex has to comply with all Rules and Regulations in respect of Group Housing Complex. These Rules and Regulations are mandatorily required to be followed by the coloniser/ builder. The recitals have been framed in such a manner as if the company was not bound by the Rules and Regulations concerning Belaire Group Housing Complex and only allottee was bound by the Acts, Rules and Regulations. The rights vested in the allottees cannot be taken away by DLF unilaterally as mentioned in the recitals of the agreement. The Commission consider that the recitals be modified as given in the annexed modification. The reference to phase V be limited only for information purpose. The layout plans etc. should refer to Belaire Project. The recitals should specify title of company over project level and obtaining necessary licences from competent authorities and representations of parties to abide by relevant laws.
13. The counsel for the company had vehemently argued that the rights of the allottee are limited to only flat/apartment and the proportionate right in the land at the footprint of the tower in which the apartment is situated. The allottee had no right of ownership over the land and every inch of the place outside the apartment belonged to the company and the right of the allottee was limited only to use of open areas as may be permitted by the company on payment of maintenance charges. This stand of the company is contrary to law and highly abusive. The apartment owners of a complex jointly become owner of the entire land of which FAR is utilised for construction of the complex. The land area and common facilities belong exclusively to the apartment owners as per the Law and Rules discussed above and no right of the company is left in the land area. It is also clear from explanation given to clause 1.1 and Clause 2 of the existing agreement wherein the company has made it categorically clear to the apartment owners that apart from the cost which the company was charging on per sq. feet of super area, the allottee was liable to pay additional price proportionate to the share in the taxes which are payable by the company or its contractor by way of value added tax, sales taxes (Central and State), works contract, service tax, education cess or any other taxes by whatever name called in connection with construction of the complex and the property of the complex. It is clear from this that all taxes including the tax in respect of the land area of which FAR is used and apartments are constructed are to be borne by the allottees jointly in proportion to the super area purchased by them. The company is12 not to bear burden of any State Tax or Central Tax in respect of the GH complex. The company cannot claim ownership of even an inch of the open area of the land of the complex. The entire land area of the complex falls under joint ownership of the allottees. The ownership is indivisible and the allottees have a right to manage the same by forming an association and can tell the company to move out of the area with lock stock and barrel. Thus, the company’s argument that it retains ownership rights over the open area even after sale of apartments is not tenable and all such clauses in the agreement put by the company giving it a claim/ right over the open areas/ common areas, etc. amounted to abuse of dominance and this abuse can be removed by modifying the abusive clause and providing in the agreement about the obligation of the company to abide by the Laws, Rules and Regulations as applicable to a Group Housing Complex. It would be worthwhile to mention that for making a Group Housing Complex, the maximum FAR applicable in 2009 was 175%. The restriction on number of storeys /floors was, however, removed. The company on removal of this restriction raised the height of the building from 19 floors to 29 floors using the same footprint and same Belaire area. However, since the FAR was only 175%, the land area/open area for the Complex would have to be commensurate with total super area of all the apartments in all 29 floors. As per the calculations made by the informant, which have not been disputed by the company (and the company has not come up with its own calculations) the total land area on which the Bellaire Complex of 29 floors could be constructed as per FAR was 20.885 acres.
14. The allottees of Belaire Complex jointly would have, therefore, undivided ownership rights over land area in ratio of FAR inclusive of the footprint of the building and not alone on the footprint of the building as is asserted by the company in the agreement. The abuse in different clauses of the agreement could only be removed by specifying the land area of GH complex Belaire as per FAR ratio. However, if the company has already deprived the allottees of land area, by abusing its dominance and curtailed the land area, the allottees’ right to claim compensation as per law shall be there.
Similarly open parking and parking under stilt are part of common areas and are not sellable separately independently or along with flat. Open parking do not cease to be a part of common areas and facilities merely because DLF had not described the same as such in advertisement and agreement with flat purchaser. 13 Promoter had no right to sell any portion of Belaire GH Complex which was not a flat or apartment. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that rights arising from relevant laws cannot be diluted by any contract or undertaking to the contrary. Accordingly, the relevant clauses of the agreement need modification and suggested modifications are given in clause 1.1 of the table given below.
15. In the order, the Commission had observed that when an allottee does not get preferential location, he only gets the refund/adjustment of amount at the time of last instalment without any interest. The preferential location charges were imposed and charged by the company @ of Rs.300 per sq. feet of the super area. The Commission considers that in case the allottee does not get apartment with preferential location, the amount taken by the company for preferential location should be returned to the allottee with a reasonable rate of interest from the date of the payment of the amount till the date amount is returned to the allottee. The rate of interest should be commensurate with rate of interest being charged by the company from allottee on delayed payments. If the amount is adjusted against the balance payment payable by the allottee, it should be adjusted alongwith interest. The suggested modification is given in clause 1.5.
16. In the order, the Commission observed that DLF enjoyed unilateral right to increase or decrease super area at sole discretion without consulting allottees who, nevertheless, were bound to pay additional amount or accept the reduction in area. When the construction of a multi storey building is envisaged, the plans are drawn on drawing board. Most of the group Housing Complexes are sold on the basis of the plans drawn on drawing board. Super area and the actual apartment area are two different concepts. The apartment area is the area which is exclusively enjoyed by the apartment owner. It includes carpet area plus area under the walls of the apartment, while super area is the sum of apartment area and common areas which the allottee enjoys along with other apartment owners. This area is inclusive of lift area, staircase area and other entrance areas, etc. Most of the times, the actual building and the drawing board plans match with each other and the building is constructed in accordance with the construction plan as approved by authorities in advance. However, there may be instances where at the time of actual construction, certain minor changes are required to be made in some of the drawing board plans and the building is constructed slightly different from the drawing board plan but it,14 more or less, conforms to the drawing board plan. In such a case, there may be either minor (say + 2%) increase or decrease in the super area as well as the carpet area of each apartment. However, the company if substantially changes the lay-out plan resulting, in more than 2% increase or decrease in super area, the allottees’ consent should be obtained for such changes in the lay-out plans. Since the price paid by the allottee is per sq. ft. of super area, the price of the apartment would increase or decrease after the actual building is constructed. In order to lay a claim on the basis of increase in super area, the company is supposed to give information to the allottee about the difference in the initial building plan and the actually-constructed building plan on the basis of which the new super area is calculated. The actual plan should be the one submitted to the authorities for completion certificate and on the basis of which occupancy certificate is granted. The calculations of increased area should be sent to the allottee, so that the allottee knows and can verify on ground as to how his super area has increased. A mere letter from the company that the super area has increased is not sufficient to claim any amount from the allottee. Thus, whenever a claim on the basis of increase in super area is made, the company is bound to give the relevant information as to how the super area stands increased. The clauses in this respect therefore need to be modified. Accordingly modified clause 1.6 is given in the table. Clause 9.2 also gets covered by modified clause 1.6.
17. In the order, the Commission had found that the proportion of land on which apartment is situated and over which the allottee would have ownership right was to be decided unilaterally at the discretion of the company(DLF Ltd.). In clause 1.7 of the existing agreement, company has stated that it may, at its own discretion for the purpose of complying with the Haryana Apartments Ownership Act, 1983 or other applicable Laws, substitute the method of calculating the proportionate share in the ownership of the land beneath the building/common areas or facilities. The company in so many words stated that the allottee will only have proportionate ownership rights in the land underneath the building i.e. the land which is the footprint of the building in which the said apartment is situated. Similarly, company has unlawfully provided for itself right to further go up in air by increasing the number of floors and reserving to itself terrace rights. This is totally contrary to the law and imposition of this condition on the allottee by DLF is because of its dominance and amounts to 15 gross abuse. All relevant clauses depriving allottee of his lawful rights need to be modified to bring them in conformity with Law, Rules and Regulations so as to remove the abuse vis-a-vis the allottee. Modified clauses are given in the table below.
18. In the order, the Commission observed that the covenant in clause 1.7(viii) of the agreement, giving right to DLF of having full and absolute rights in the community buildings/sites/recreational and sporting activities sites including maintenance of those, was abusive.
As per applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations discussed above, site for community buildings are compulsorily required to be set apart by the coloniser and these sites, if not constructed either at the cost of coloniser or if not handed over and constructed by others, were to be given to the Govt. of Haryana, free of cost. This simply shows that the cost of these sites is recovered from the Allottees and clause 1.7(viii) makes a false representation that no costs were recovered from allottees. Moreover, in order to claim ownership rights over any part of the land in Belaire Complex, the company has to show that it was owning a part of the constructed super area which was not allotted to the allottees /apartment owners and not charged from allottees. In such a case, the company would be the owner of that facility and the common area proportionate to its super area jointly with other apartment owners. As per law & relevant rules, the company is bound to provide for club, schools, shopping complex, children park and open green areas. As per the building bye-laws and the Acts of 1975 and 1983, the open areas and common facilities are to be maintained by the Apartment Owners Association. The company’s rights in club, etc. can be there only if the company has filed accounts with the administrator showing that it had not recovered the cost of club etc. by charging the cost of common facilities from the allottees and common facilities were owned by it. Para one of annexure II to the agreement reads as under:-
“Super area for the purpose of calculating the sale price in respect of the said Apartment shall be the sum of apartment area of the said apartment, its pro rata share of common areas in the entire said building and pro rata share of other common areas outside apartment buildings earmarked for use of all 16apartment allottees in the Belaire which include the club with swimming pool, toilets/change room, multipurpose hall, gymnasium and restaurant, etc.”

Part B of annexure IV reads as under:-

List of general common areas and facilities located in the basement for all apartment allottees in the Belaire included in computation of super area of the said apartment:- Sl.no.
Particulars
Remarks
1.
DG Room/DG sets
May be located under any building or any other suitable location in the Belaire/zone-8, DLF City, Phase V
2.
Underground domestic and fire water tanks and pump room and pumps with accessories
3.
Electric sub-station/transformers/electrical panels
4.
Fan rooms
5.
Laundromat
6.
Maintenance stores and circulation areas
7.
Sewerage treatment plant
8.
Air-conditioning plant room and equipments





No comments:

BBMP-Planning to regularise(convert) B Katha to A Katha

The BBMP has sent a proposal to the State Government of Karnataka to regularise (convert) B katha properties (vacant properties-without an...