In a notable ruling that offers both immediate relief and a prolonged battle for a homebuyer, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has ordered a developer, Sanvo Resorts Private Limited, to pay ₹25,000 to a flat allottee, Mr. Amit Mishra. This payment, however, is not a final compensation but a penalty the builder must pay for the tribunal to hear its delayed appeal against an earlier pro-homebuyer order.
The case stems from a complaint filed by Mr. Mishra against the developer of the ‘Marathon Nexzone Atria-1’ project. On November 11, 2024, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) had directed the builder to pay interest to Mr. Mishra for a significant delay in handing over possession of his flat. The builder was found liable for the period between August 1, 2022, and June 7, 2024.
Sanvo Resorts failed to challenge this order within the statutory 60-day period, filing an appeal with a delay of around 220 days. The developer claimed they were never formally notified of the MahaRERA order and only discovered its existence by chance in August 2025 while checking the authority’s website for an unrelated matter.
The Appellate Tribunal, presided over by Chairperson S. S. Shinde, J., and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande, accepted the developer’s explanation. Citing legal principles that favor deciding cases on merit over technical dismissals, the tribunal stated that the delay did not appear to be deliberate or in bad faith. It ruled that “substantial justice deserves to be preferred” and that the builder’s valuable right to appeal should not be defeated on technical grounds.
What This Order Means for Homebuyers
This ruling is a double-edged sword for homebuyers and highlights crucial aspects of the real estate legal process.
- An Immediate Win, But a Continuing Battle: The ₹25,000 awarded to Mr. Mishra is direct compensation for the inconvenience caused by the builder’s delayed legal action. The tribunal has mandated this payment as a “condition precedent,” meaning the builder cannot proceed with the appeal until Mr. Mishra is paid. While this provides some financial justice, it also means the homebuyer’s original victory for interest on delayed possession is no longer final and must be defended again in the appeal.
- The System Can Be Forgiving of Delays: The order demonstrates that legal bodies can adopt a “liberal consideration” towards procedural delays if they believe the cause is sufficient. For homebuyers, this means a builder who misses a deadline isn’t automatically out of the fight, potentially extending legal timelines and uncertainty.
- Persistence is Key: The journey from the original complaint to the final resolution can be long and multi-layered. A win at the RERA level is a significant step, but it can be challenged. This case underscores the need for homebuyers to be prepared for a potentially protracted legal process, including appeals.
Ultimately, while Mr. Mishra has a small, tangible victory in hand, the larger war over compensation for the delayed possession of his home is set to continue.
Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaints Due to Pre-RERA Contracts,
