Lr Infrahomes India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorised Representative New Delhi v. Om Prakash Garg And Sons Huf Thru. Karta And Another

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant appeal filed under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the appellant has challenged the validity of an order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellant Tribunal, Lucknow in Appeal No. 402/2022 titled as "Om Prakash Garg & Sons HUF Vs. LR Infrahomes Pvt. Ltd."

3. The instant appeal has been filed by a Builder assailing an order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellant Tribunal, (in short "RERA"), Lucknow in Appeal No. 402/2022, wherein the RERA Authority had passed the following 2 RERAD No. 107 of 2025 directions:- "(i) The appellant shall be entitled to delay interest at the rate MCLR+1% from 01.03.2017 till the date of handing over possession of the unit in habitable condition. (ii) The respondent promoter shall make an offer of possession under the prescribed format of UP RERA along with computation of the dues and liabilities under various heads. The appellant shall deposit the amount, if any, within four weeks thereafter. (iii) On settlement of account, the respondent shall proceed to execute the conveyance deed and handover possession of the unit in habitable condition within two months thereafter. (iv) The impugned order shall stand modified to the extent herein above. (v) No order as to costs."

4. Ms. Sanchita Jain, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the terms, the possession of the flat was to be handed over in the year 2019, however, there was a delay in completion of the project. On 20.09.2021, Occupancy Certificate/Completion Certificate (hereinafter referred to as "OC/CC") was handed over, which was granted to the builder and, thereafter, the builder on 06.01.2022, wrote a letter to the respondents asking them to take over the possession of the flats.

5. To buttress her argument, she relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Supertech Ltd. Vs. Rajni Goyal, reported in 2019 17 SCC 681 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "an allottee is entitled to claim delay interest in cases where there is delay attributable to the builder, such entitlement shall extend only up to the date when the builder makes a bona fide offer of possession. The rationale being that the builder cannot be saddled with liability for delay beyond the date of offer of possession, particularly where the allottee himself deliberately avoids or refuses to take possession."

6. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that since they offered the possession on 06.01.2022 and hence, the direction issued 3 RERAD No. 107 of 2025 by RERA for entitlement of interest till date is not correct, it should have only been till the date of possession i.e. 06.01.2022.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the directions of the RERA for the promoter was to give a completion in the prescribe format while giving possession. Since there was no prescribe format, hence, they did not give the completion accordingly.

8. Per contra, Mr. Rohit Garg Karta of HUF- respondent no.2 appears in person and submits that the instant appeal has been filed by concealing the facts. They have not come to the Court with clean hands. As per the directions of the Court of District Magistrate Banda passed in order dated 20.01.2024, the respondents cannot carry out any sale and purchase of the flat as there was a stay from dealing/selling of the said property in a proceeding initiated under the gangsters act. Photocopy of the said order dated 20.01.2024 is taken on record.

9. He next submits that the appellant is well aware of this order but he still chose not to bring it to the notice of this Court and inspite of which, they are giving an impression to this Court that they are ready and willing to handover the possession ignoring the fact that they are not in a position of granting any possession in view of the aforesaid order.

10. He next submits that as per the terms and conditions of the Builder Buyer Agreement wherein, Clause 11A categorically provides that the project would be completed within 42 months from the date of application. In other words, the appellant would be entitled to delay interest w.e.f. 01.03.2017, i.e. after lapse of 42 months from the date of application. This fact has not been disputed by the appellant in the authority below.

11. He further submits that interest sheet (Annexed as Annexure No.9 to the affidavit) was provided wherein they had given an amount of Rs.12,35,630/- towards interest. However, in spite of sending an e- mail for the details, no details were provided by the appellant to him inspite of asking several time. 4 RERAD No. 107 of 2025

12. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

13. The above submissions of both the parties and records placed by the respondent in person reveals that the appellant has not approached with clean hands while invoking the instant appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; rather suppressed the material facts with bad faith and had concealed the fact about the injunction order passed on the said property in a separate gangster proceeding and still give a feeling to the Court that they are ready and willing to hand over the possession which they are restrained from doing.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481 : 2008 SCC OnLine SC 1025 at page 493 has observed as under :- "39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)] is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court." (emphasis added)

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 324 : 2009 SCC OnLine SC 1867 at page 116 has also observed as under :- "2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those 5 RERAD No. 107 of 2025 who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final." (emphasis added)

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 398 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 655 : 2012 SCC OnLine SC 884 at page 422-423 has also stated that the parties seeking remedy must come with clean hands. The relevant paragraph is extracted here-in-below :-

35. With the passage of time, it has been realised that people used to feel proud the courts, irrespective of consequences but that practice no longer proves true, in all cases. The court does not sit simply as an umpire in a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat as to who has won and who has lost but it has a legal duty of its own, independent of parties, to take active role in the proceedings and reach at the truth, which is the foundation of administration of justice. Therefore, the truth should become the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can be achieved by statutorily mandating the courts to become active seekers of truth. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehood, must be appropriately dealt with. The parties must state forthwith sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability to put forward false and exaggerated claims and a litigant must approach the court with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed and the court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain to anyone as a result of abuse of process of court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or punitive costs. RERAD No. 107 of 2025 6 ***

38. No litigant can play "hide and seek" with the courts or adopt "pick and choose". True facts ought to be disclosed as the court knows law, but not facts. One, who does not come with candid facts and clean breast cannot hold a writ of the court with soiled hands. Suppression or concealment of material facts is impermissible to a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy. In such cases, the court is duty-bound to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is required to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of court. (K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [(2008) 12 SCC 481] .) (emphasis added)

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to various judgments and observations, in the matter of Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha , (2024) 4 SCC 432 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 466 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 56 at page 438 has also observed as under :- "6. It was held in the judgments referred to above that one of the two cherished basic values by Indian society for centuries is "satya" (truth) and the same has been put under the carpet by the petitioner. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system in the pre- Independence era, however, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, the values have gone down and now litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court. They have no respect for the truth. The principle has been evolved to meet the challenges posed by this new breed of litigants. Now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. It is nothing but degradation of 7 RERAD No. 107 of 2025 moral values in the society, may be because of our education system. Now we are more happy to hear anything except truth; read anything except truth; speak anything except truth and believe anything except truth. Someone rightly said that : 'Lies are very sweet, while truth is bitter, that's why most people prefer telling lies.'" (emphasis added)

18. Considering the ratio laid down in K.D. Sharma (supra), Dalip Singh (supra), Kishore Samrite (supra), and Kusha Duruka (supra), there remains no doubt that a person approaching the court to get the relief must come with clean hands and must not suppress or conceal any material facts.

19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the instant appeal has been filed by concealing the facts. The appellant has not come to the Court with clean hands. They have given an impression that after getting possession, they wanted to hand over the property and they are ready and willing to handover the property, but they did not inform the Court that they have been restrained from making any sale and purchase of the flat by the Court in a gangster's case. Even otherwise, the ratio of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Supertech (supra), it is categorically stated that the interest would be applicable after the date of occupancy certificate only if the builder makes the bona fide offer of the possession. Here in this case, the offer of possession was not a bona fide possession, it was only a gimmic to get the sympathy of the Court, the ratio of the judgment would not be applicable, as this is not the case where the allottee himself is avoiding to refuse to take possession.

20. Accordingly, instant appeal is devoid of merits, and it is accordingly dismissed. (Prashant Kumar,J.) November 26, 2025/Preeti PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant appeal filed under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the appellant has challenged the validity of an order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellant Tribunal, Lucknow in Appeal No. 402/2022 titled as "Om Prakash Garg & Sons HUF Vs. LR Infrahomes Pvt. Ltd."

3. The instant appeal has been filed by a Builder assailing an order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellant Tribunal, (in short "RERA"), Lucknow in Appeal No. 402/2022, wherein the RERA Authority had passed the following 2 RERAD No. 107 of 2025 directions:- "(i) The appellant shall be entitled to delay interest at the rate MCLR+1% from 01.03.2017 till the date of handing over possession of the unit in habitable condition. (ii) The respondent promoter shall make an offer of possession under the prescribed format of UP RERA along with computation of the dues and liabilities under various heads. The appellant shall deposit the amount, if any, within four weeks thereafter. (iii) On settlement of account, the respondent shall proceed to execute the conveyance deed and handover possession of the unit in habitable condition within two months thereafter. (iv) The impugned order shall stand modified to the extent herein above. (v) No order as to costs."

4. Ms. Sanchita Jain, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the terms, the possession of the flat was to be handed over in the year 2019, however, there was a delay in completion of the project. On 20.09.2021, Occupancy Certificate/Completion Certificate (hereinafter referred to as "OC/CC") was handed over, which was granted to the builder and, thereafter, the builder on 06.01.2022, wrote a letter to the respondents asking them to take over the possession of the flats.

5. To buttress her argument, she relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Supertech Ltd. Vs. Rajni Goyal, reported in 2019 17 SCC 681 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "an allottee is entitled to claim delay interest in cases where there is delay attributable to the builder, such entitlement shall extend only up to the date when the builder makes a bona fide offer of possession. The rationale being that the builder cannot be saddled with liability for delay beyond the date of offer of possession, particularly where the allottee himself deliberately avoids or refuses to take possession."

6. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that since they offered the possession on 06.01.2022 and hence, the direction issued 3 RERAD No. 107 of 2025 by RERA for entitlement of interest till date is not correct, it should have only been till the date of possession i.e. 06.01.2022.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the directions of the RERA for the promoter was to give a completion in the prescribe format while giving possession. Since there was no prescribe format, hence, they did not give the completion accordingly.

8. Per contra, Mr. Rohit Garg Karta of HUF- respondent no.2 appears in person and submits that the instant appeal has been filed by concealing the facts. They have not come to the Court with clean hands. As per the directions of the Court of District Magistrate Banda passed in order dated 20.01.2024, the respondents cannot carry out any sale and purchase of the flat as there was a stay from dealing/selling of the said property in a proceeding initiated under the gangsters act. Photocopy of the said order dated 20.01.2024 is taken on record.

9. He next submits that the appellant is well aware of this order but he still chose not to bring it to the notice of this Court and inspite of which, they are giving an impression to this Court that they are ready and willing to handover the possession ignoring the fact that they are not in a position of granting any possession in view of the aforesaid order.

10. He next submits that as per the terms and conditions of the Builder Buyer Agreement wherein, Clause 11A categorically provides that the project would be completed within 42 months from the date of application. In other words, the appellant would be entitled to delay interest w.e.f. 01.03.2017, i.e. after lapse of 42 months from the date of application. This fact has not been disputed by the appellant in the authority below.

11. He further submits that interest sheet (Annexed as Annexure No.9 to the affidavit) was provided wherein they had given an amount of Rs.12,35,630/- towards interest. However, in spite of sending an e- mail for the details, no details were provided by the appellant to him inspite of asking several time. 4 RERAD No. 107 of 2025

12. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

13. The above submissions of both the parties and records placed by the respondent in person reveals that the appellant has not approached with clean hands while invoking the instant appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; rather suppressed the material facts with bad faith and had concealed the fact about the injunction order passed on the said property in a separate gangster proceeding and still give a feeling to the Court that they are ready and willing to hand over the possession which they are restrained from doing.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481 : 2008 SCC OnLine SC 1025 at page 493 has observed as under :- "39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)] is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court." (emphasis added)

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 324 : 2009 SCC OnLine SC 1867 at page 116 has also observed as under :- "2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those 5 RERAD No. 107 of 2025 who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final." (emphasis added)

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 398 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 655 : 2012 SCC OnLine SC 884 at page 422-423 has also stated that the parties seeking remedy must come with clean hands. The relevant paragraph is extracted here-in-below :-

35. With the passage of time, it has been realised that people used to feel proud the courts, irrespective of consequences but that practice no longer proves true, in all cases. The court does not sit simply as an umpire in a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat as to who has won and who has lost but it has a legal duty of its own, independent of parties, to take active role in the proceedings and reach at the truth, which is the foundation of administration of justice. Therefore, the truth should become the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can be achieved by statutorily mandating the courts to become active seekers of truth. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehood, must be appropriately dealt with. The parties must state forthwith sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability to put forward false and exaggerated claims and a litigant must approach the court with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed and the court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain to anyone as a result of abuse of process of court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or punitive costs. RERAD No. 107 of 2025 6 ***

38. No litigant can play "hide and seek" with the courts or adopt "pick and choose". True facts ought to be disclosed as the court knows law, but not facts. One, who does not come with candid facts and clean breast cannot hold a writ of the court with soiled hands. Suppression or concealment of material facts is impermissible to a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy. In such cases, the court is duty-bound to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is required to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of court. (K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [(2008) 12 SCC 481] .) (emphasis added)

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to various judgments and observations, in the matter of Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha , (2024) 4 SCC 432 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 466 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 56 at page 438 has also observed as under :- "6. It was held in the judgments referred to above that one of the two cherished basic values by Indian society for centuries is "satya" (truth) and the same has been put under the carpet by the petitioner. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system in the pre- Independence era, however, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, the values have gone down and now litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court. They have no respect for the truth. The principle has been evolved to meet the challenges posed by this new breed of litigants. Now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. It is nothing but degradation of 7 RERAD No. 107 of 2025 moral values in the society, may be because of our education system. Now we are more happy to hear anything except truth; read anything except truth; speak anything except truth and believe anything except truth. Someone rightly said that : 'Lies are very sweet, while truth is bitter, that's why most people prefer telling lies.'" (emphasis added)

18. Considering the ratio laid down in K.D. Sharma (supra), Dalip Singh (supra), Kishore Samrite (supra), and Kusha Duruka (supra), there remains no doubt that a person approaching the court to get the relief must come with clean hands and must not suppress or conceal any material facts.

19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the instant appeal has been filed by concealing the facts. The appellant has not come to the Court with clean hands. They have given an impression that after getting possession, they wanted to hand over the property and they are ready and willing to handover the property, but they did not inform the Court that they have been restrained from making any sale and purchase of the flat by the Court in a gangster's case. Even otherwise, the ratio of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Supertech (supra), it is categorically stated that the interest would be applicable after the date of occupancy certificate only if the builder makes the bona fide offer of the possession. Here in this case, the offer of possession was not a bona fide possession, it was only a gimmic to get the sympathy of the Court, the ratio of the judgment would not be applicable, as this is not the case where the allottee himself is avoiding to refuse to take possession.

20. Accordingly, instant appeal is devoid of merits, and it is accordingly dismissed. (Prashant Kumar,J.) November 26, 2025/Preeti PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench