Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27.       It is, therefore, held that the version of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, duly supported by the completion certificate of Array Consortium (Exhibit OP/3), that the amenities, as promised, in the Agreement, were available at the site, and, as such, the offer made to the complainant, vide letter dated 01.04.2014 (Annexure C-14), was a genuine offer is correct. It is, thus, abundantly proved that the complainant was only interested in the refund of amount deposited, on the false pretext of no development at the site and non-existence of the requisite amenities. Clearly the complainant, has avoided the taking of possession of the unit, in question. This amounted to cancellation of allotment, and surrender of the unit, on the part of the complainant. So far as the judgment relied upon by the Counsel for the complainant in Megacity Developers & Builders Ltd. & Anr. I (2012) CPJ 225 (NC), is concerned, the same is distinguishable on facts, as in that case the petitioners had themselves admitted that they could not complete the project in time and there had been delay in providing civic amenities. However, in the instant case, the Opposite Parties had duly provided all the basic amenities at the site, where the plot allotted to the complainant was situated.