Imagine waiting nearly three years for your dream flat, only to be told you can’t claim extra compensation because you didn’t ask for it soon enough. That’s exactly what happened to Jawahar Prasad and his family, who bought a luxurious apartment in Spenta Builders’ PALAAZIO project back in 2017. What started as a routine delay complaint under RERA turned into a harsh legal lesson: in court battles, timing isn’t just about possession — it’s about when you make your demand.
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal delivered its verdict on 17th October 2025, dismissing the buyers’ appeal not because they missed payments (though they did), but because they tried to expand their claim mid-way through the legal process. This ruling sends a clear message to lakhs of homebuyers across India: file your full grievance at the first instance — or risk losing it forever.
A Dream Delayed: The Story of Flat No. 401
It began with hope. In October 2017, Jawahar Prasad, along with his children Ravi and Suchitra, signed the Agreement for Sale for Flat No. 401 in Wing D of PALAAZIO, a premium project on Kurla-Andheri Road. The 835.96 sq ft apartment came with a price tag of ₹1.65 crore (excluding stamp duty), and the builder promised possession by 31st December 2017.
Like many middle-class families, the Prasads paid diligently at first — ₹1.19 crore in total. But as months turned into years with no sign of the Occupation Certificate (OC), frustration grew. Construction lagged, excuses piled up, and by 2020, the flat was still unfinished.
Finally, on 14th July 2020, Spenta Builders received the OC. The next day, they emailed the buyers:
“Your flat is ready. Pay the balance ₹65.76 lakh + interest on delayed payments, and take possession.”
But the Prasads had a counter-demand. They wanted interest for the 2.5-year delay — from January 2018 to July 2020 — as allowed under Clause 9 of the Agreement and Section 18 of RERA.
A tense back-and-forth followed: letters, emails, a legal notice in August 2020. When talks failed, the family approached MahaRERA on 31st August 2020, asking for:
- Interest from 1st Jan 2018 to 15th July 2020
- Interim deposit of the same
- Costs and other reliefs
They did not ask for interest beyond July 2020.
MahaRERA’s Balanced Order: Both Sides Told to Pay Up
On 21st June 2024, MahaRERA Chairperson delivered a pragmatic order that surprised many. Despite the buyers being in default, the authority granted them interest for the delay period — from 1st Jan 2018 to 14th July 2020 — at SBI MCLR + 2%.
But there was a catch.
The buyers were directed to:
- Pay the balance ₹65.76 lakh
- Plus interest on their own delayed installments
- Within 60 days
Both parties could set off what they owed each other. If the buyers failed to pay within 30 more days, the builder could cancel the allotment under Section 11(5) of RERA.
In short: MahaRERA didn’t punish the buyers for non-payment — it gave them relief, but tied it to fulfilling their obligations.
The Fatal Mistake in Appeal
Emboldened but unsatisfied, the Prasads appealed to the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. This time, they changed their demand:
“Give us interest from 1st Jan 2018… till date.”
That small phrase — “till date” — became their undoing.
The Tribunal, presided by Chairperson S.S. Shinde and Member (A) Shrikant M. Deshpande, heard arguments via video conferencing on 9th October 2025. The builder’s advocate, Sana Khan, pounced:
“They only asked for interest till 15th July 2020 in the original complaint. Now, five years later, they want it till 2025? That’s a new claim. It wasn’t pleaded, wasn’t argued, and we never got a chance to respond.”
She cited Supreme Court judgments:
- Om Prakash vs Ram Kumar (1991): You can’t get relief you never claimed
- Bhagwati Prasad vs Chandramaul (1965): No new grounds in appeal
- Bharat Amratlal Kothari (2010): Courts can’t grant unprayed relief
The buyers’ lawyer, Shashank Choudhary, argued that delays continued, so interest should too. But the Tribunal wasn’t convinced.
The Verdict: Appeal Dismissed for “Expanding Relief”
In a 19-page judgment pronounced on 17th October 2025, the Tribunal ruled:
“The appellants have enlarged the scope of relief in appeal… There are no pleadings in the complaint for interest beyond 15.07.2020. The appeal is not maintainable.”
Key reasons:
- The original complaint was filed after the OC was issued — they could’ve claimed ongoing interest then
- They never amended their plea during the MahaRERA proceedings
- Allowing new claims in appeal would prejudice the builder and violate natural justice
The appeal was dismissed with costs to be borne by each party.
What This Means for You – 5 Must-Know Rules Under RERA
- Claim everything in your first complaint Don’t assume you can “add later.” The Tribunal made it clear: no unpleaded relief.
- File early and update if needed If possession is delayed beyond your expected date, amend your MahaRERA complaint to extend the interest period.
- Pay your dues — even if the builder delays Section 19(6) is strict: default weakens your case. MahaRERA still gave interest, but only up to OC date.
- Take possession within 2 months of OC Under Section 19(10), refusal without paying balance can lead to cancellation.
- Keep records of every payment and communication Emails, demand letters, and receipts are your shield in court.
A Cautionary Tale with a Silver Lining
The Prasads didn’t lose because they defaulted — they lost because they changed the goalpost too late. Had they asked for interest “till actual possession” in their August 2020 complaint, the outcome might have been different.
For homebuyers stuck in delayed projects, this case is both a warning and a guide:
Act fast. Document everything. And most importantly — say exactly what you want, from day one.
As Mumbai’s real estate boom continues, thousands more will face similar battles. The Tribunal’s message is loud and clear: RERA protects you — but only if you play by the rules.
Also Read: MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal Rejects Developer’s Appeal Over Delay in Filing
