In a strongly worded and unequivocally homebuyer-friendly judgement, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has set aside an “illegal and unsustainable” order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), reaffirming that the date of possession stipulated in a registered Agreement for Sale is sacrosanct and cannot be unilaterally altered by any authority — including MahaRERA — unless both the homebuyer (allottee) and the promoter (builder) mutually consent to the change.
The Tribunal’s order dated March 13, 2026, in Appeal No. AT005000000204830 of 2024, delivered a scathing rebuke to MahaRERA’s November 8, 2023, decision, which had effectively rewritten the contract by shifting the interest liability start date from the original agreed possession date to the date when the homebuyers amended their complaint prayer. The Tribunal held that such interference amounted to impermissibly “re-writing the contract,” a power no authority under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) possesses.
Chronological Sequence of Events
- October 26, 2017: Homebuyers Mrs. Vrushali Janardan Shinde and Mr. Anil Arvind Patil executed a registered Agreement for Sale for Flat No. 603/8 in the project Cavansite (MahaRERA Registration No. P52100004059, earlier referenced as P52400004058 in some records), developed by S2 Realty (a partnership firm), with its partners Sachin Balkrishna Kulkarni and Vijay Ramesh Jasuja, along with land-owner promoters (including Gajanand Sundarrao Bhelke, Uttamrao Sundarrao Bhelke, and others) as confirming parties. The total consideration was ₹56,95,300, of which the buyers paid ₹51,25,710 (plus stamp duty and registration charges). The agreed date of possession was explicitly fixed as July 31, 2019.
- July 31, 2019: The promoter failed to hand over possession as per the agreement. The delay continued for nearly four years.
- February 15, 2019 (pre-default): The promoter acknowledged delay in a letter and offered ₹12,000 per month compensation from June 2019, which the buyers rejected, insisting on statutory interest under RERA.
- February 26, 2020: Buyers issued a legal notice demanding possession, interest for delay, and compliance.
- June 16, 2020: Aggrieved by non-response, the buyers filed Complaint No. CC005000000064285 before MahaRERA, initially seeking refund of paid amounts with interest under Section 18 of RERA.
- Mid-2023 (exact amendment allowed around August 1, 2023): Due to prolonged litigation and funds remaining stuck, the buyers amended their prayer — opting to continue with the project instead of exiting. They now sought possession plus interest for the delay from July 31, 2019, along with compensation.
- June 19, 2023: The promoter finally obtained the Occupation Certificate (OC) for the project, enabling physical possession (though significantly delayed).
- November 8, 2023: MahaRERA passed the impugned order. It rejected the bulk of the interest claim, holding that:
- The change in relief (from refund to continuation) caused “prejudice” and “hardship” to the promoter by requiring realignment of cash flows.
- Interest would run only from August 1, 2023 (post-amendment), not from the original due date.
- By then, OC was already issued → interest claim “infructuous.”
- The Authority also appeared to grant some benefit of COVID-19 moratorium notifications (issued from 2020 onward).
- 2024: The homebuyers appealed to MahaREAT, arguing that MahaRERA’s order was contradictory (it mentioned both “no specific date” and “31.07.2019”), ignored the clear agreement terms, and wrongly shifted the possession date without basis.
- March 5, 2026 (hearing reserved) / March 13, 2026 (judgement pronounced via video conferencing): MahaREAT, presided over by Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande, partly allowed the appeal in a detailed 20-page order.
Key Holdings and Harsh Critique of MahaRERA
The Tribunal answered the core issue in the affirmative: the homebuyers are entitled to interest under Section 18 of RERA for the full delay period.
- The possession date of July 31, 2019, is binding and sacrosanct; authorities cannot change it to rewrite contracts.
- MahaRERA’s reasoning on “prejudice” to the promoter was “legally unsustainable and extraneous,” as no pleadings or evidence supported hardship claims.
- Shifting the interest start date to the amendment date was impermissible — “the Authority has no power under the Act to change the due date of possession.”
- Observations in the MahaRERA order were factually contradictory and ignored the registered agreement.
- No force majeure or COVID moratorium benefit applies, as the default predated the pandemic (March 2020); the Tribunal emphasized that promoters must realistically assess timelines as domain experts.
- Citing Supreme Court precedents (Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni, Newtech Promoters vs. State of UP), the Tribunal reiterated that interest for delayed possession is an “unqualified and indefeasible right” of allottees when they choose to continue.
The Tribunal directed all respondents (S2 Realty, its partners, and land-owner promoters) to pay interest jointly and severally on ₹51,25,710 at SBI’s highest MCLR + 2% from August 1, 2019 (one month post-default) to June 19, 2023 (OC date), within 30 days. Any delay attracts further interest on the outstanding amount.
The claim for ₹10 lakh compensation was rejected, as it applies mainly when allottees exit the project.
This judgement serves as a stern reminder to MahaRERA and promoters alike: statutory rights under RERA cannot be diluted by extraneous considerations of promoter convenience. It reinforces buyer protections in delayed possession cases, especially for those who opt to stay invested despite years of wait.
