What a Maharashtra RERA Tribunal order really means for homebuyers — and where buyers must be careful
In a landmark ruling that brings much-needed clarity and hope to homebuyers across Maharashtra, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has affirmed that a registered Agreement for Sale is not essential for seeking relief under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). This decision, pronounced on December 19, 2025, in Appeal No. AT06/00733 of 2025, underscores that documents like allotment letters, payment receipts, and correspondence can form a valid contract enforceable under RERA, even for pre-RERA bookings. For countless homebuyers stuck in delayed projects without formal agreements, this verdict is a beacon: your rights are protected, and you can demand refunds with interest from the date of payment, not just from delayed possession dates.
The case revolves around two Mumbai-based residents, Krupa Samir Kapadia (31, a consultant) and Pooja Samir Kapadia (35, an Intellectual Property lawyer), both residing at Walkeshwar. In November 2012, they booked two adjacent flats – Flat No. 503 in Pooja’s name and Flat No. 504 in Krupa’s name – in Phase V, Building No. 17 of the “Lake Riveira” project (Wings A and B) developed by Siddhitech Homes Pvt. Ltd. The project, located at Kharwai Gaon, Badlapur (East), Thane district, was registered with MahaRERA under No. P51700001928. Each flat measured 650 sq. ft. carpet area and was priced at Rs. 13,00,000, making the total consideration Rs. 26,00,000 for both.
At the time of booking, the Kapadias paid 75% of the amount upfront – Rs. 9,75,000 per flat, totaling Rs. 19,50,000 – as acknowledged in an allotment letter dated November 11, 2012. The balance was to be paid upon possession. The developer, Siddhitech Homes Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director Hemant Agarwal (office at Dadar West), assured possession by September 2014. A follow-up letter from the developer dated March 30, 2013, further promised 24% per annum interest if possession was delayed beyond 18 months from October 2014, effectively setting an implied deadline of April 2016.
However, no registered Agreement for Sale was ever executed, despite the substantial payment. The project faced repeated delays: the proposed completion date was initially October 30, 2017, extended to December 31, 2019, and then to December 30, 2021. As of 2025, the project remains incomplete, with no Occupation Certificate (OC) issued. The developer cited a stay order from the Municipal Corporation and potential insolvency proceedings under the National Company Law Tribunal as reasons, but the Tribunal dismissed these as not qualifying as “force majeure” under RERA Section 6, which limits such excuses to natural calamities like floods or earthquakes.
Frustrated after over a decade of waiting, the Kapadias issued a legal notice on February 15, 2023, demanding cancellation and refund with interest. Receiving no response, they filed Complaint No. CC006000000395534 with MahaRERA on May 4, 2023. They sought refund of Rs. 19,50,000 with interest from November 2012, plus Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for mental harassment and lost opportunities in finding alternative housing.
MahaRERA’s Chairperson, in an order dated May 29, 2025, allowed the complaint partially. Recognizing the payments and delays, it permitted withdrawal under RERA Section 18 and ordered the refund within 60 days. However, interest was granted only from November 1, 2017 – the project’s declared completion date on the MahaRERA website – not from the payment dates. No compensation was awarded, as the authority noted the absence of a specific possession date in the allotment letter.
Aggrieved by the interest start date, the Kapadias appealed to MREAT, represented by Advocate Bruno Castellino. The developer, defended by Advocate Khushnumah Banerjee, argued that without a committed possession date or a formal agreement, no delay existed, and the allotment letter was flawed (issued initially in Krupa and Anita Samir Kapadia’s names, not Pooja’s). They also claimed the March 2013 letter was merely an offer, not a binding promise.
In a detailed 22-page judgment authored by Member (Administrative) Shrikant M. Deshpande and concurred by Chairperson S.S. Shinde, MREAT partly allowed the appeal. Key findings:
- Valid Contract Without Registered Agreement: Examining the allotment letter, payment receipts, and March 2013 letter, the Tribunal held they fulfill the Indian Contract Act, 1872 requirements – offer, acceptance, and consideration. The documents identify the project, flats, consideration, and payments, forming a “concluded contract.” Discrepancies in names were overlooked, as receipts and correspondence confirmed the sale to both sisters. The developer did not dispute the signatures or payments.
- RERA’s Retroactive Application: Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2021), the Tribunal affirmed RERA’s retroactive nature for ongoing projects. Since “Lake Riveira” was registered post-2016 but booked in 2012 under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) regime, RERA protections apply, allowing enforcement of pre-RERA documents.
- Possession Date and Delay: Even without an explicit date, the March 2013 letter implies October 2014. Alternatively, per Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’Lima (2018), a reasonable time is three years from booking – November 2015. The ongoing incompletion constitutes delay, entitling relief under RERA Section 18.
- Interest from Payment Date: Overturning MahaRERA, interest must start from November 11, 2012, as per RERA Section 2(za) and Supreme Court precedents like Experion Developers v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor (2022) and Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure v. Govindan Raghavan (2019). The rate is SBI’s Highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) + 2%. Refund deadline: 30 days from the order (by January 18, 2026), with penal interest thereafter.
- No Compensation: The Rs. 25 lakh claim for mental agony was not granted, as the judgment focused on refund and interest as primary remedies.
This ruling is a game-changer for homebuyers. It clarifies that developers cannot hide behind the lack of a registered agreement to deny accountability. If you’ve paid significant amounts and hold proof like allotment letters or receipts, you can approach MahaRERA for refunds with interest from Day One – even for old projects. As the Tribunal emphasized, RERA safeguards consumers by regulating the sector retroactively, ensuring transparency and fairness. Homebuyers in similar situations should gather their documents and consult legal experts promptly. For Siddhitech’s buyers in “Lake Riveira,” this could open doors for collective action.
The developer has not challenged the original MahaRERA order, implying acceptance of the refund obligation. With insolvency looming, affected allottees should monitor proceedings closely.
Also Read: Possession Without an Agreement for Sale? MahaRERA Cracks Down on Builder
