Flat Sold in 2014, Dispute Emerges Years Later
A builder sold a flat to homebuyers in 2014. Years later, when the buyers sought possession, the developer claimed that the flat was actually reserved for MHADA and had been mistakenly shown as a saleable unit.
The developer offered to refund the money paid by the buyers and, when they refused to accept the refund, issued a termination notice seeking to cancel the Agreement for Sale.
MahaRERA has now rejected the developer’s attempt to terminate the agreement, calling the termination “void and unjustifiable”, and ordered the builder to hand over possession of the flat along with the Occupation Certificate and pay delay interest to the homebuyers from January 1, 2020.
MahaRERA Order and Case Background
The order was passed on August 3, 2026, by Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mumbai, in two cross-complaints concerning the project “Simna Heights / Shantichndra Heights”, registered under MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51900017724.
The two complaints involved homebuyers Shravan Gandhi and Dimple Shravan Gandhi on one side and M/s As-Simna Construction Builder Developers on the other. The promoter also filed a separate complaint against the buyers seeking confirmation of its termination of their Agreement for Sale.
The Flat at the Centre of the Dispute
The flat at the centre of the dispute is Flat No. 1804. According to the order, the buyers had entered into an Agreement for Sale on December 30, 2014, which was registered on March 17, 2015.
The flat measured 415.05 sq. ft. carpet area and had a total consideration of ₹34.49 lakh. The promoter had also issued an allotment letter for one parking unit. The order records payments of approximately ₹17.92 lakh towards sale consideration, TDS and other charges.
Buyers Claim Delay, Developer Denies It
The buyers’ first major grievance was that their Agreement for Sale did not contain a possession date. However, the project’s MahaRERA webpage showed the original proposed completion date as December 31, 2019.
The buyers argued that possession should therefore have been handed over by the end of 2019 and that they were entitled to interest for the delay from January 1, 2020.
The developer took a different position. It argued that because the RERA registration remained active and the revised completion date had not lapsed, there was no delay. It also cited the COVID-19 pandemic and related lockdowns, labour shortages and disruptions in construction and procurement as reasons for the project’s delay.
Developer’s Claim: Flat Was Reserved for MHADA
But the more unusual defence concerned the flat itself.
The promoter claimed that Flat No. 1804 had originally been reserved for MHADA, or the competent authority. According to the developer, the unit was mistakenly shown as a saleable flat in the approved layout because of an error in the documentation. The developer claimed that it was taking steps to correct the layout and reflect the MHADA reservation.
The promoter further claimed that all units in the project had already been sold. Therefore, it could neither give Flat No. 1804 to the buyers nor provide them with an alternative flat in the project.
Refund Offer and Termination Attempt
Instead, the promoter said it had decided to refund the entire amount received from the buyers. It claimed that repeated requests were made to the buyers to collect the refund, but they did not do so.
The promoter subsequently issued a termination notice dated January 7, 2025, terminating the Agreement for Sale. It then approached MahaRERA seeking confirmation of that termination.
The buyers, however, did not want a refund. They wanted the flat and compensation for the delay.
MahaRERA’s Findings on Possession Delay
MahaRERA sided with the buyers on the central issue.
The Authority noted that the Agreement for Sale did not contain an agreed possession date. In such circumstances, it held that the proposed completion date declared by the promoter at the time of registering the project with MahaRERA had to be considered.
That date was December 31, 2019.
MahaRERA therefore held that the promoter should have handed over possession by December 31, 2019, and had failed to do so.
COVID-19 Argument Rejected
The Authority also rejected the promoter’s attempt to rely on COVID-19 as an explanation for the delay.
The reason was straightforward: the project’s declared completion date was December 31, 2019, while the COVID-19 pandemic began affecting India from March 2020. Therefore, the promoter could not use the pandemic to justify non-delivery of possession by the original deadline.
MHADA Reservation Claim Rejected
The biggest setback for the promoter came over its claim that the flat was reserved for MHADA.
MahaRERA observed that the Agreement for Sale had been executed in 2014, yet the promoter claimed years later that it had only realised that the flat had been mistakenly sold even though it was supposedly reserved for MHADA.
The Authority found this explanation difficult to accept, particularly because the issue came up after the buyers had already approached MahaRERA seeking possession and delay interest.
More importantly, the promoter did not produce any authoritative order or direction from a competent authority establishing that Flat No. 1804 was reserved for MHADA.
It also failed to place on record any letter from MHADA confirming that the flat was reserved for MHADA.
In the absence of such evidence, MahaRERA said the promoter’s claim was not believable and appeared to be an afterthought.
Termination Declared Void
The Authority therefore went a step further and held that the developer’s termination of the Agreement for Sale was “void and unjustifiable.”
Earlier Refund Application Rejected
The developer had also previously sought to refund the buyers’ money under Section 18 of RERA. However, MahaRERA had rejected that application on September 25, 2025, holding that the right to seek refund under Section 18 belongs to the allottee and that the promoter does not have the right to unilaterally refund the amount to the allottee.
The buyers had chosen to pursue possession along with interest instead of withdrawing from the project.
Final Directions by MahaRERA
MahaRERA consequently directed the promoter to take immediate steps to obtain the Occupation Certificate from the competent authorities.
It also directed the promoter to hand over Flat No. 1804 to the buyers along with interest for the delay in possession. The interest is to be calculated on the total amount paid by the buyers, excluding taxes, stamp duty, registration fees and other amounts paid to statutory authorities.
The interest will run from January 1, 2020, until the actual handover of possession with the Occupation Certificate, at the rate prescribed under Rule 18 of the Maharashtra RERA Rules, 2017.
The Authority also permitted the parties to set off the interest amount against any balance consideration payable by the buyers.
In addition, the promoter was ordered to pay ₹20,000 towards the cost of the buyers’ complaint.
Other Reliefs Denied
The buyers had sought several other reliefs, including penalties, compensation, action over alleged construction on the refuge floor, reduction/refund in case of a reduction in carpet area and revocation of the project’s MahaRERA registration.
Those additional prayers were not granted.
The request for revocation of the project registration was specifically rejected because the buyers themselves were seeking possession. MahaRERA observed that revoking the project registration would prevent completion of the project and ultimately prevent the buyers from receiving possession.
The promoter’s separate complaint seeking confirmation of the termination was rejected in its entirety.
Key Takeaway
For homebuyers, the order sends a strong message: a promoter cannot simply sell a unit, later claim that the unit was mistakenly shown as saleable or was reserved for MHADA, offer a refund and then unilaterally terminate the buyer’s agreement when the buyer insists on possession.
In this case, MahaRERA found that the developer had failed to substantiate its MHADA-reservation claim and had failed to deliver possession by the declared completion date. The result: the buyers retain their claim for possession, while the promoter must also pay delay interest from January 1, 2020 until possession with OC is actually handed over.
Also Read: Buyer Ghosts Builder After Paying ₹49k: MahaRERA Orders Agreement Cancellation
