JUDGMENT : (I. A. No.1 of 2022) This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal supported with affidavit. Heard Shri Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. The reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the application are sufficient. Accordingly, on due consideration, the application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Order on the memo of appeal 1. Heard Shri Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The second appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 2016) has been filed framing the following substantial questions of law, which for the sake of convenience are reproduced below: "(a) Whether the respondent who sold her flat to one Rajendra Prasad Bansal by sale deed dated 15.12.2021 can be held to be an allottee in view of section 2(d) of the Act and as such has locus standi to file complaint? (b) Whether is not considering that Respondent is not an allottee and the delay caused was beyond the control of the appellant and which is force majeure, the order impugned stands good in the eye of law? (c) Whether the orders impugned is perverse and contrary to the fact and material on record. (d) Whether in not considering that in case no specific date for completion is given the period should be considered for three years which has not been considered and so the order of the Tribunal can be held to be just and proper. (e) Whether in not considering that as at no time the allottee demanded for withdrawal of money, the order of interest as well as compensation may be granted under Section 18 of the Act." 3. This Court has already considered as to what would be a 'substantial' question of law in a second appeal which is filed against the order passed by the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in the RERA Appeal No. 26 of 2022 in re: U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Nishta Bhatnagar. Considering the aforesaid the Court now proceeds to consider as to whether the 'substantial' questions of law framed in the appeal would fall within the ambit of being substantial questions. 4. Considering the aforesaid the Court now proceeds to consider as to whether the 'substantial' questions of law framed in the appeal would fall within the ambit of being substantial questions. 4. When the aforesaid substantial questions of law are seen in the context of judgement of this Court in the case of Nishta Bhatnagar (supra) it is apparent that none of the aforesaid questions fall within the ambit of substantial question of law. The reason being that the 'substantial' questions of law as have been framed in the instant Second Appeal are specifically covered by the specific provisions of law as per the interpretation given by Hon'ble the Apex Court and do not involve any debatable legal issue. Even otherwise the learned Tribunal has not ignored or acted contrary to the legal principles or has violated the provisions of the Act 2016 rather the same have been followed scrupulously. Learned Tribunal has also not ignored any material evidence or has drawn wrong inference or cast the burden of proof on the appellants herein as would be apparent from the perusal of the impugned judgment. 5. However, as learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the said questions may be treated as substantial questions of law and he may be heard, accordingly, the Court proceed to hear learned counsel for the appellant on the aforesaid questions. 6. So far as questions no. (a) and (b) are concerned which are: (a) Whether the respondent who sold her flat to one Rajendra Prasad Bansal by sale deed dated 15.12.2021 can be held to be an allottee in view of section 2(d) of the Act and as such has locus standi to file complaint? (b) Whether is not considering that Respondent is not an allottee and the delay caused was beyond the control of the appellant and which is force majeure, the order impugned stands good in the eye of law? a perusal of the record would indicate that the allotment was made in the year 2011 and the sale deed has been executed on 15.12.2021. The complaint itself was filed in the year 2019 as would be apparent from the perusal of the case number which has been allotted by the Regulatory Authority which is Case No. 380 of 2019. a perusal of the record would indicate that the allotment was made in the year 2011 and the sale deed has been executed on 15.12.2021. The complaint itself was filed in the year 2019 as would be apparent from the perusal of the case number which has been allotted by the Regulatory Authority which is Case No. 380 of 2019. Thus at the time of filing of a complaint the respondent would fall within the ambit of being an 'allottee' as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act 2016. As such the respondent had locus to file the complaint. As regards delay in allotment, from perusal of record it is apparent that the allotment has been made after 10 years. As per the brochure clause 9.1, as considered by the Regulatory Authority, the possession of the flat was to be given within 24 months and thus it is apparent that there has been gross delay in giving the possession. The Authority in its order dated 25.06.2019 has already given benefit of force majeure of two years and even considering the same, there has been substantial delay. 7. As regards question no. (c) which is: (c) Whether the orders impugned is perverse and contrary to the fact and material on record. the same is a general question and no substantial question arises, as such the same is rejected. 8. As regards questions no. (d) which is: (d) Whether in not considering that in case no specific date for completion is given the period should be considered for three years which has not been considered and so the order of the Tribunal can be held to be just and proper. copy of the brochure has not been annexed, but this Court in the case of Nishta Bhatnagar (supra) has already considered that in the brochure which had been given by the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, specific time period had been given by the Parishad for handing over of the possession and admittedly in this case the Parishad failed to deliver the possession within the time specified. Accordingly, the said question is also rejected. 9. Accordingly, the said question is also rejected. 9. As regards question (e) which is: (e) Whether in not considering that as at no time the allottee demanded for withdrawal of money, the order of interest as well as compensation may be granted under Section 18 of the Act suffice to say that Section 18(3) of the Act 2016 categorically provides that if the promoters fail to discharge any other obligation imposed on them under this Act or the rules or regulations thereunder or in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale, they shall be liable to pay such compensation to the allottees, in the manner as provided in the Act. 10. Considering the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed.