In a significant ruling emphasizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has condoned a delay in filing an appeal, paving the way for a homebuyer to challenge MahaRERA orders that repeatedly denied his request for a refund despite the allottee explicitly seeking one.
The case revolves around allottee Shreeram Deepchand Chaurasia versus developer NHK Developers LLP. The Tribunal’s order in Misc. Application No. 735 of 2025 (for condonation of delay) in Appeal No. 335462 of 2024, pronounced on February 27, 2026 (reserved on February 17, 2026), highlights a clear mismatch between the relief sought and the relief granted by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA).
Background of the Dispute
The homebuyer originally filed Complaint No. CC006000000001499 with MahaRERA on October 26, 2017, invoking Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. He sought a full refund of the amount paid along with interest due to project delays/defaults, choosing not to continue with the project or take possession.
However, on January 22, 2018, MahaRERA passed an order granting possession of the flat along with interest for the delay — a relief the allottee had never prayed for. This created a fundamental mismatch: the Authority imposed possession (which the buyer did not want) while ignoring the primary claim for refund.
Unwilling to accept possession, the allottee pursued further remedies. He filed a second complaint (No. CC006000000262044) on July 24, 2022, again seeking refund with interest. After hearings, MahaRERA reserved orders on February 15, 2023, but on June 23, 2023, dismissed it as not maintainable on grounds of res judicata (matter already decided). The Authority directed its Secretary to expedite execution of the 2018 possession order.
Subsequent proceedings led to an impugned order around July 4–12, 2023, where MahaRERA reiterated that the matter was already decided and again pushed for execution of the possession order, effectively closing the door on the refund claim.
Appeal to MahaREAT and the Delay Issue
Aggrieved by what he described as a “miscarriage of justice,” the allottee filed an appeal before MahaREAT challenging the 2023 MahaRERA orders. However, the appeal was filed beyond the statutory 60-day limitation period prescribed under Section 44(2) of the RERA Act.
To overcome this, the allottee moved Misc. Application No. 735/2025 seeking condonation of delay. The developer (NHK Developers LLP) failed to appear despite opportunities and filed no reply, leading to ex-parte proceedings.
Tribunal’s Reasoning and Key Findings
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member (A) Shri Shrikant M. Deshpande carefully examined the record and submissions by the applicant’s advocate, Mr. Swapnil M. Utangale.
The Tribunal observed:
- MahaRERA’s 2018 order granted possession when refund was explicitly sought, failing to address or grant the actual relief prayed for.
- Subsequent refund claims were wrongly dismissed on res judicata grounds while insisting on execution of the mismatched possession order.
- This constituted a miscarriage of justice, causing irreparable prejudice to the allottee if not rectified.
- There was no evidence of mala fides, dilatory tactics, or deliberate delay by the allottee. The developer suffered no prejudice from condonation.
- The allottee would face grave injustice if the appeal were barred on technical grounds of delay.
Relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Tribunal stressed a liberal, justice-oriented approach to “sufficient cause” for condonation:
- Substantial justice must prevail over hyper-technicalities.
- Refusing condonation could defeat a meritorious matter at the threshold.
- No presumption exists that delay is deliberate; litigants do not benefit from late filing.
- Courts exist to remove injustice, not legalize it on procedural grounds.
The Tribunal noted that while the application did not explain every day’s delay, a pedantic approach was inappropriate. Ends of justice demanded condonation to allow the appeal to proceed on merits.
Final Order
On February 27, 2026, the Tribunal passed the following:
- Misc. Application No. 735 of 2025 (Delay) is allowed.
- The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
- The miscellaneous application stands disposed of.
With the delay condoned, the main appeal challenging MahaRERA’s orders now stands admitted and will be heard on merits. The Tribunal’s intervention opens the door for the homebuyer to potentially secure the refund with interest he originally sought, correcting what the bench described as an injustice stemming from mismatched reliefs.
This ruling reinforces RERA’s pro-consumer intent and the Appellate Tribunal’s role in ensuring equitable outcomes, even when procedural hurdles arise.
Also Read: TATA housing directed to refund money to homebuyer
