New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the builders of Gurugram’s Chintels Paradiso society, where a roof collapse in February 2022 claimed two lives, to pay rent for alternate accommodation to nearly 125 flat buyers who had agreed to vacate the site for reconstruction of their houses. The owners agreed to temporarily move out following a safety audit of the buildings, which found that five out of the nine towers in the society were structurally unsafe.

The Court was hearing a petition by about 188 residents of the society who had approached the top court seeking probe into the mishap that took place on February 10, 2022 and demanded 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 IIT-Delhi having conducted a safety audit of the structures in question, the bench of justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra was required to only examine the issue of alternate residence for residents who opted to continue with the society, provided that the builder undertakes to reconstruct it at the same site.

Few homebuyers had opted for the alternate option of surrendering their flats in exchange of the sum paid by them for the flat including stamp duty charges.

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

The Court directed the Haryana government represented by additional advocate general Alok Sangwan to ensure all permissions for reconstruction is granted “expeditiously”. As there is already a committee headed by divisional commissioner, Gurugram monitoring the case pertaining to the Chintels society, the Court left it to this committee to fix the quantum of “reasonable rent”.

As regards the CBI probe, the bench directed the agency to take its investigation to the logical conclusion. The builder and contractor were since involved in the construction of the tower involving the fatal incident were since arrested and the premier agency had filed two chargesheets before the concerned court.

Also Read: 3 balconies collapse in same Chintels tower one year later

Advocate Prashant Bhushan who represented the homebuyers told the Court that nearly 125 of the 188 petitioners represented in Court have their houses in the five towers declared unsafe. 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 inordinate delay on part of the builder to commence reconstruction and urged the Court that the rent should be paid even for the period prior to 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 in a proceeding under Article 32. However, here was an extraordinary case where part of tower collapsed leading to loss of lives.”

As the major issues raised in the petition on investigation and structural safety were taken care of, the bench said, “We deem it appropriate to close these proceedings.”

The homebuyers further raised grievance over the builder’s demand for ₹1000 per square feet 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 7 years and will now get brand new building for which they should be willing to pay.

The Court said, “It can always be a matter of discussion between the builders and the buyers.”

The Haryana government informed the Court that IIT-Delhi submitted two reports to the District Town Planning department in March 2022 and January 2023 stating that high chloride content in sand mixed in concrete found in the project area affected multiple projects in the area. Following this report, the residents of the five towers found to be unsafe were asked to seek a refund or pay additional cost for reconstruction. The first option was availed by some residents while the majority opted for reconstruction.

Nadkarni told the Court that payment in respect of 115 residents was complete and some 26 occupants remained to be paid the refund.

It was on February 28, 2022 the top court had entertained a petition by the kin of one of the deceased in the Chintels roof collapse incident. Later, other residents followed suit. The petitions stated that residents were “living in constant fear for their own safety” as the apartments showed visible structural deformities such as cracks in the ceiling and balconies, cracks in the tiles, deflection in balconies etc.

The petition said, “The petitioners are seeking directions from this Court to the respondents to carry out the necessary repairs/reconstruction works and to arrange for temporary equivalent alternate accommodation or pay the petitioners for the temporary equivalent alternate accommodation that the Petitioners will have to shift to along with involved additional cost while the said repairs/reconstruction works are being carried out.” In addition, the petitioners also sought compensation for the disruption caused by the accident.