SC asks Chintels to pay rent to owners in unsafe towers

A safety audit of the buildings, carried out by IIT Delhi, had found five out of the nine towers in the society to be structurally unsafe

Nearly two years after a roof collapse at Gurugram’s Chintels Paradiso society, the Supreme Court on Thursday ordered that the 125 residents who have opted for reconstruction of the other towers in the society declared unsafe shall be entitled to a fixed rent for an alternate accommodation by the developer from the time when reconstruction commences till its completion.

Gurugram, India-December 22, 2023: A view of balconies collapsed of the Tower D in the Chintels Paradiso located in sector-109 near Euro International School, in Gurugram, India, on Friday, 22 December 2023. (Photo by Parveen Kumar/Hindustan Times)(Pic to go with Leena Dhankar's story)

A safety audit of the buildings, carried out by IIT Delhi, had found five out of the nine towers in the society to be structurally unsafe. The court was hearing a petition by 188 residents seeking a probe into the incident that took place on February 10, 2022, and demanded a safety audit of their buildings fearing a repeat of the incident.

As the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had already taken up the probe in January last year and the safety audit was conducted, the bench of justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra was required to only examine the issue of alternate accommodation for the residents who opted to continue in the society provided that the builder reconstructs it at the same site.

Few homebuyers (nearly 141 out of the 288) had opted to surrender their flats in exchange for a sum paid by the builders, including stamp duty charges.

The bench said, “Those who might want the builder to rebuild the project, the buildings must be vacated... including some 10 occupants still occupying some flats... On commencement of reconstruction, until the project is completed, the builder will be required to pay flat buyers reasonable rent.”

The court also directed the Haryana government, represented by senior additional advocate general Alok Sangwan, to ensure permissions for reconstruction are granted “expeditiously”. The court left it to the committee headed by the Gurugram divisional commissioner, which monitors the case pertaining to the Chintels society, to fix the quantum of “reasonable rent”.

The bench also directed CBI to take its investigation to a “logical conclusion”.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who represented the homebuyers, told the court that nearly 125 of the 188 petitioners have houses in the five towers declared unsafe while the remaining are part of the other four towers which are part of phase 2 of the project.

Bhushan expressed apprehension that there could be an inordinate delay on the part of the builder to commence reconstruction and urged the court that the rent should be paid even for the period before the date when reconstruction begins.

The court, however, was not keen to grant this request.

The bench said, “In matters of dispute between flat buyers and builders, normally there is no intervention by the court... However, here was an extraordinary case... We deem it appropriate to close these proceedings.”

The homebuyers further raised grievance over the builder’s demand for ₹1,000 per square foot as additional cost towards reconstruction charge. The owner of Chintels Paradiso represented by senior advocate ANS Nadkarni told the court that the residents have occupied the flats for seven years and will now get a brand new building for which they should be willing to pay. “It can always be a matter of discussion between the builders and the buyers,” the court said.