Date: 4th July 2013

To
Sh Manoj Gaur
Group Chairman
Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.

Copy 1 to: Ms Nandita Gaur (exact designation TBC)

Director, Jaypee Greens
Surajpur-Kasna Road, Greater Noida
Copy 2: Sh. KC Batra (designation TBC)
Copy 3 to: Sh. CK Jain (designation TBC)
SUB: A PLEA FROM SPA COURT ALLOTTEES
Dear Manoj ji & Nandita ji,
We, the undersigned, are all allottees of the Spa Court Apartment
Complex in Jaypee Greens, Greater Noida that has been wonderfully
conceived, developed and marketed by your Group. We are
collectively writing to you out of a shared and deeply felt sense of
both anguish and hope. Were anguished at some high-handed,
unfair and callous treatment being meted out to us your customers
who have invested our faith and fortunes in your organisation. We
are hopeful that you will see merit in what we all have to say, you
will intervene and help restore the faith and confidence we have
placed in your Group.
We would like to draw your attention to the following points:
1. As possession of Spa Court complex is beginning to be handed
over, we are all shocked by the increased demand being
raised on us by for a supposed increase in the area of the
apartment.
2. This supposed increase in area has seriously dented our
budgets. We are all facing severe strain on our financial
resources because of this last-minute arbitrary demand.
3. It is our belief that this purported increase in area and the
attendant demand being raised on us is against the spirit of a
mutually symbiotic builder-buyer relationship. It is also against
the letter and spirit of a ruling passed by the Competition
Commission of India against DLF Ltd (Case No. 19/2010 dated
3rd January 2013). The ruling clearly states and we quote:
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, more or less, conforms to the drawing board
plan. In such a case, there may be either minor (say + or - 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 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.
4.

You will note that a benchmark of 2% has been set by the

CCI in terms of minor adjustment in area. In our case, we are
being charged for a blanket increase of 10% in the area. Not
only this we the additional area is being charged at
Rs6000/sq.ft which is significantly higher than the rate at
which this apartments were originally booked.

5.

This supposed increase in area and the phenomenally high

demand that is being levied is unfair and goes against the
letter and spirit of the CCI ruling. At no stage during
construction were we informed of the change in area of the
flat. Neither was our consent sought in this very crucial matter
at any point. Surprisingly even transferees who bought units
on resale (when the structure was completed and nearing
possession) were kept in the dark about this important piece
of information. Accordingly, we request and urge you to revise
and reverse this demand.

6.

All our individual efforts to take this matter up with the

Commercial & Accounts Department at Jaypee Greens Greater
Noida, have been stonewalled and met with inadequate, and
at times, high-handed response. The general attitude is that
since we, the buyers, have already paid and locked large sums

of money in the property we will eventually reconcile and end

up paying. We, the customers, are feeling entrapped because
Jaypee is taking unfair advantage and abusing its competitive
edge.
7.

Besides this crippling additional burden that is being

imposed on us, there are several instances of deficiency in
service, inordinate delays in providing simple information and
executing basic tasks. Many of us have endured and continue
to face this on a regular basis. Please believe us - such
instances are too many and too frequent to be detailed here.

8.

Another very critical concern is the discrepancy between the

extremely high rate of interest on any delayed payments by
us (the customers) and the nominal delayed possession
penalty paid by you (the builder). While we are charged a
phenomenally high rate of 18% interest on any delay or
default in payment, Jaypee pays a nominal Rs10 per sq. ft per
month for delayed possession. Again this goes against the
spirit of mutuality and is against the letter and spirit of CCI
and honorable Supreme Court rulings in the matter. There
needs to be a parity in both - delayed possession by the
builder should invite the same rate of interest as charged to
the customer for delayed payment.

9.

Those amongst us who have taken possession also wish to

report to you deficiencies in the product that is being
delivered. The specifications as detailed in the sales offer and
the provisional allotment letter have not been met. For
example, the glass cubicle in the Master Bathroom isnt a
cubicle but a mere partition. Vanity counters were promised in
all bathrooms but that is not what has been delivered in the
actual flat.

10.
The Social Club that we are required to pay for is a
misappropriation and misleading. Spa Court apartments have
been marketed as Golf Apartments. As part of the sales pitch
and offer, all Spa Court owners get privileged access to the
Golf Club. But if you look closely, it turns out to be a doubleedged sword. Not only do we have to pay subscription charges
for the Golf Club but we also have to pay membership and
subscription charges for the Social Club. Therefore we end up
paying subscription charges for two clubs. If Golf Apartments
get access to the Golf Club, then there is no need or logic to
pay for another Social Club. Moreover this Social Club as of
now is not exclusive to any of the Apartment complexes or
Villa owners in Jaypee Greens, Greater Noida. There is
presently only one Social Club that is ready and functional
Del Court. And this small club is already catering to 300 odd

families that are residing in Jaypee Greens. So the promise of

each apartment complex having its exclusive Social Club is
not being delivered while we are all being charged for the
same.
We request you to please consider all of the above points carefully
and take necessary steps to correct these wrongs. We are
highlighting them because they are important and necessary. We
are making this representation to you because we want to
contribute positively to our (BUILDER & BUYER) shared future. We all
believe in your dream and vision and we support it thoroughly. We
consider ourselves as stakeholders in this dream to truly make
Jaypee Greens Another Place, Another World. This isnt just a
marketing slogan for us, this is also our home, our dream and our
future that we have all invested in. We trust you to do the right
thing.
Eagerly looking forward to your timely and positive response.
Sincere Regards
(Signatures/Name & Unit Details come under)