Ready to move in homes are in high demand. Homebuyers are ready to pay more for ready to move in homes too.

By Varun Singh

Recently in Navi Mumbai, a real estate deal took place, where the buyer paid for a house, in spite of a cheaper one available within the vicinity.

The reason behind the homebuyer spending more claims Manohar Shroff, a developer from Navi Mumbai says is the house was a RTMI.

Homebuyers are inclined towards, ready to move in homes (RTMI) over under construction homes.

Shroff says, “There were two homes available, one was for Rs 80 lakh, while the other for Rs 85 lakh. The Buyer went with the costlier one, because it was RTMI and the cheaper was under construction.”

Homebuyers are opting for homes where they can move in, the reason Syed Shakir, who has spent 20-years into real estate says is safe investment.

“Homebuyers do not mind paying more when it is a RTMI because of the less risk associated with it. In under construction, there are many stories about projects getting delayed. So when there’s an option available, the homebuyer will go for a RTMI by paying more,” said Shakir.

Recently a report released by JLL, also claimed the quarter saw a preference for ready-to-move-in projects by reputed developers.

The real estate market has started looking upwards. September saw a jump in 112% of sale registration in Mumbai compared to August.

“The further easing of lockdown restrictions and the upcoming festive season might help in bringing buyers back to the market. An assessment of years to sell reveals that the expected time to liquidate stock has increased from 3.6 years in Q2 2020 to 4 years in Q3 2020. While the residential space remains unpredictable, favourable supply dynamics could deliver potential upside for both homebuyers and developers in the medium-term.”

 Dr.Samantak Das, Chief Economist and Head of Research & REIS, India, JLL.

Residential market in India, on road to recovery with strong sales

India’s residential market was more active in Q3 2020 with sales increasing by 34% versus Q2 2020.

Mumbai accounted for 29% of the total sales in the quarter, while 22% of sales was contributed by Delhi NCR. Growth in sales activity was also driven by stronger demand in Chennai, Hyderabad and Pune.

Residential market activity is also being supported by renewed interest from NRIs in Q3 2020,  resulting in more pent up demand in the market and increased enquiries received by developers.

Also Read: MMR Sold 4% More Homes in Jan-Sep 2020 Than It Did In Same Period OF 2018

Leave a Reply
You May Also Like

CIDCO’s Hits 1,00,000 Applications, Registration Extended Until December 26

CIDCO’s “My Preferred CIDCO Home” scheme has reached a milestone of 1,00,000 applications for its 26,000 affordable homes. The registration deadline has been extended to December 26, 2024, allowing more citizens to apply and providing them additional time to gather necessary documents.

Your Stalled Dream Home Could Finally Be Yours: New IBBI Report Offers Lifeline to Lakhs of Trapped Homebuyers

Homebuyers trapped in over 553 stalled projects affecting 1.08 lakh families finally have real hope. The new IBBI report, submitted last week on Supreme Court orders, promises project-wise resolution, ring-fenced funds, and a completion-first approach instead of liquidation. Here’s exactly how it could change your wait for possession forever.

MahaRERA’s Rule on Housing Society Formation: A Guide for Homebuyers in Maharashtra

Under MahaRERA guidelines, developers must enable the formation of a housing society or legal entity within three months from when 51% of apartments are booked or upon receiving the Occupancy Certificate (OC). This provision, per Section 11(4)(e) of the RERA Act, empowers homebuyers by shifting control from promoters to residents.

Reliance to Receive ₹647 Crores from MMRDA in the BKC Convention Centre Case

In a landmark ruling, the Bombay High Court has directed MMRDA to return nearly ₹647 crore to Reliance Industries, holding that demands for delay penalty on the BKC Convention & Exhibition Centre project were arbitrary and illegal. The court cited the composite nature of the project, court stay, statutory delays and discriminatory policy on construction timelines.