In a landmark decision upholding homebuyer protections under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has partially allowed a complaint against Shree Siddhivinayak Infrastructure & Realty (Ruparel) in the delayed “Ruparel Skygreens I” project (MahaRERA Reg. No. P51800012513) in Kandivali West, Mumbai.
Chairperson Manoj Saunik’s order dated February 12, 2026 (hearing January 8, 2026) emphatically rejected the promoter’s attempt to use a unilateral termination notice — issued on September 9, 2025 — to evade liability for delayed possession. The termination came nearly four years after the homebuyers (Pranav Pravinchandra Dhrafani, Siddhi P. Dhrafani, and Bhadra P. Dhrafani) filed their complaint in November 2021, and MahaRERA ruled it could not extinguish their statutory rights under Section 18 while the project remains incomplete.
The allottees booked flat A-2204 (plus car parking) in April 2017 under a subvention scheme, with the Agreement for Sale (AFS) executed belatedly on February 7, 2019, promising possession by December 31, 2021, for ₹1.25 crore (partly via DHFL home loan). No Occupancy Certificate (OC) has been obtained, and the project’s registration has lapsed, with the MahaRERA portal showing an extended completion date of December 30, 2025.
Buyers’ Case They alleged builder delays in AFS execution, default on subvention interest (causing lender recovery/arbitration against them), incomplete amenity disclosures, and persistent non-delivery. Reliefs sought included delay interest from 2019/2021, possession with timeline, compensation for agony/rental loss, and more.
Builder’s Defense & Termination Play The promoter blamed delays on slum rehab disputes (AGRC/HC orders, resolved by Supreme Court in 2022) and COVID-19. They claimed buyer payment defaults (₹29.89 lakh outstanding), a tripartite agreement, and lender arbitration. Key tactic: A termination notice dated September 9, 2025 — post-complaint — asserting cancellation due to buyer defaults, to argue the complaint was no longer maintainable.
MahaRERA’s Rejection of Termination Logic The Authority observed:
- Delay cause of action arose in 2021–2022; buyers approached MahaRERA first in 2021.
- No demand notices from builder 2023–2025; buyers emailed repeatedly for dues clarification — ignored — then sudden termination.
- Under Section 18(1)(a), delay triggers automatic interest liability — independent of contracts or unilateral terminations.
- Late, one-sided termination (after cause of action and complaint) cannot retroactively erase accrued rights while project incomplete and no lawful possession/OC offered.
- Builder’s non-response weakened “wilful default” claims.
Final Relief Granted
- Complaint partially allowed.
- Interest on paid amounts (excluding taxes/stamp duty/etc.) from January 1, 2022, at SBI highest MCLR + 2% till handover with full OC.
- Accrued interest adjustable against genuine dues; remaining paid by builder within 60 days.
- Ongoing interest till possession payable within 30 days post-handover.
- Builder to apply for extension within 30 days (else Section 63 penalty).
- COVID moratorium benefit (2020–2021 notifications) deducted from delay period.
- Other claims (extra compensation, costs, etc.) rejected; no costs awarded.
This ruling sends a strong message: Builders cannot dodge RERA accountability via late, unilateral terminations after buyers invoke statutory remedies. It aligns with Supreme Court views on indefeasible Section 18 rights in delayed projects.
Also Read: Homebuyers Can’t Double-Dip: MahaREAT Says Civil Suit Blocks Later RERA Complaints
