When Deepak and Swatantra Rai booked a flat in the “US Open” housing project in Nahur, Mumbai in 2013, they were promised keys by December 2017. Nine years later, the flat remains undelivered. What they got instead was an order from India’s real estate regulator asking them to “cooperate” with the new builder — and a legal battle that went all the way to the appellate tribunal.
On 8 May 2026, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) ruled decisively in their favour, directing Ricardo Construction Pvt. Ltd. — a Shapoorji Pallonji group company that had taken over the stalled project — to pay interest on the ₹78.96 lakh already deposited by the couple, calculated from 1 July 2018 until the date of actual possession, at SBI’s Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2%.
How it unravelled
The original developer, Nirmal Developers (Nirmal Lifestyle Ltd.), defaulted on loans from HDFC, which classified the account as a Non-Performing Asset and initiated securitization proceedings. Ricardo Construction stepped in via a Deed of Conveyance dated 29 June 2019, taking over the project with a stated commitment to complete construction and hand over flats to buyers.
But the takeover came with strings attached — for the buyers. Ricardo circulated a “Letter of Understanding” requiring homebuyers to accept a revised possession timeline of 39 months from the new RERA registration date, and a one-time credit note of ₹4 lakh (2BHK) or ₹5.25 lakh (3BHK) as full and final compensation — in lieu of any interest claims. The Association of Allottees, representing the majority, gave its consent. More than two-thirds of buyers signed on.
The Rais did not.
“Statutory rights of allottees cannot be curtailed by such arrangements made through a Letter of Understanding.”— MREAT, Appeal No. AT006000000053447 of 2021
What MahaRERA said — and what the tribunal overruled
When the Rais approached MahaRERA, the learned Chairperson’s order of 15 September 2021 directed them to continue in the project and cooperate with Ricardo and the Association of Allottees for early completion. The authority, in effect, treated the majority consent as binding on all — including those who never signed.
The tribunal rejected this reasoning outright. It held that Section 15(2) of the RERA Act requires any incoming promoter to independently honour all pending obligations of the previous developer — including delay-related liabilities. A project transfer does not reset the clock, nor does it erase the compensation that had already accrued to buyers.
Crucially, the tribunal held that the 2/3rd consent mechanism under Section 15 — designed to facilitate project transfers — cannot be weaponised to strip non-consenting buyers of their rights under Section 18. An individual buyer’s entitlement to interest for delayed possession is an unqualified statutory right, not a negotiable contractual clause that a majority can vote away.
The builder’s defence — and why it failed
Ricardo argued that the Rais were trying to “approbate and reprobate” — that is, they couldn’t simultaneously stay in the project and claim interest. The tribunal dismissed this, saying that Section 18 of RERA explicitly gives buyers two options: exit and get a full refund with interest, or stay and earn interest for every month of delay. Choosing to stay and claiming interest is not contradictory — it is precisely the right the law provides.
Ricardo also pointed to the interim order of September 2020 and the final order of September 2021, arguing they represented a balanced arrangement that served all stakeholders. The tribunal found the original orders were well-intentioned but legally insufficient — they could not override the buyers’ statutory entitlements.
The tribunal’s final order
-Interest base amount: ₹78,96,348
-Interest start date: 1 July 2018
-Interest end date: Date of actual possession
-Rate: SBI MCLR + 2%
-Legal costs awarded: ₹20,000 to buyers
Why this ruling matters
This case sets a significant precedent for distressed real estate projects where a new developer steps in mid-way. It firmly establishes that the successor promoter cannot use the project takeover process as a reset button on compensation liability. Buyers who refuse majority-driven settlement terms retain full RERA protection, and their silence or non-participation in a consent exercise cannot be construed as acceptance.
For the thousands of homebuyers stuck in similarly distressed projects across Maharashtra — where stalled projects are routinely transferred between developers under RERA’s framework — this ruling is a reminder that the law is on their side, even when the regulator’s own orders appear to favour project completion over individual rights.
The order was pronounced by Dr. Rajagopal Devara (Member-A) and Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Member-J) of the MREAT, Mumbai, on 8 May 2026.
Also Read: Double Booking Costs Builder Dear: MahaRERA Orders Refund to Homebuyer in Sunteck Project
