In a significant order reinforcing the rights of homebuyers under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has rejected a builder’s attempt to make a refund conditional upon resale of the flat. The Authority directed Viva Homes Private Limited, the developer of the “Viva Vishnupuram – Anant” project, to refund the entire amount paid by a homebuyer along with interest, citing an inordinate delay of more than a decade in handing over possession.
The order was passed on 1 January 2026 in Complaint No. CC006000000012766, filed by Pramod Kumar Gajelli.
Background of the Case
The homebuyer booked Flat No. A/304, A-Wing, admeasuring 43.94 sq. m., in the building “Anant”, part of the Viva Vishnupuram project, in January 2013. The total consideration agreed under the registered Agreement for Sale dated 21 September 2013 was Rs. 18.15 lakh, with possession promised by March 2014.
By early 2014, the buyer had already paid the entire consideration, along with statutory charges such as service tax and MVAT. However, possession was not handed over within the agreed timeline. Over the years, the project remained incomplete, with construction reportedly stalled for long periods.
According to MahaRERA records, the project’s completion date was revised multiple times — from 31 March 2014 to 30 June 2021, and later to 30 December 2024, reflecting a delay of more than seven years beyond the original promise.
What the Homebuyer Argued
The homebuyer contended that:
- Full payment of Rs. 18.15 lakh was made by January 2014.
- Despite repeated follow-ups, possession was never handed over.
- Construction progress was slow and stagnant, raising concerns about structural safety.
- In September 2019, the buyer formally communicated his decision to withdraw from the project and sought a refund.
- Even after this clear request, the builder neither refunded the amount nor delivered possession.
The buyer argued that such an abnormal delay gave him an absolute right to exit the project under Section 18 of RERA, which mandates refund with interest when possession is not delivered as agreed.
What the Builder Claimed
The builder, Viva Homes Private Limited, opposed the refund on multiple grounds:
- The delay was attributed to factors beyond its control, including changes in sanctioned plans, demonetisation, GST implementation, COVID-19 disruptions, and regulatory approvals.
- MahaRERA had granted blanket extensions to projects during the pandemic period.
- The builder claimed the project was substantially complete and possession could now be offered.
- It was argued that the buyer had entered into consent terms in July 2023, agreeing to take fit-out possession.
- Crucially, the builder submitted that if refund was to be granted, it should be allowed to sell the flat in the open market first, and only thereafter refund the buyer, citing financial constraints and project viability concerns.
The developer warned that immediate refunds could adversely impact other allottees and the overall financial health of the project.
Why MahaRERA Rejected the Builder’s Stand
MahaRERA decisively rejected the builder’s arguments, making several key observations:
- Delay Was Inordinate and Unjustified
The Authority noted that possession promised in March 2014 had not been delivered even by 2026. Such a prolonged delay could not be justified by extensions or external factors. - Right to Refund Under Section 18 Is Unconditional
MahaRERA held that once a buyer chooses to withdraw due to delay, the promoter is statutorily bound to refund the amount with interest. The law does not permit conditional refunds, such as linking repayment to resale of the flat. - Builder’s Financial Constraints Are Not a Defence
The Authority categorically stated that project viability or impact on other buyers cannot override an individual allottee’s statutory rights under RERA. - Consent Terms Were Not Enforceable
Even after the alleged consent terms of July 2023, possession was not handed over. Moreover, the consent terms were not properly recorded before the Authority, and therefore could not be enforced against the buyer. - Buyer Cannot Be Forced to Wait Indefinitely
MahaRERA observed that allowing the builder to first sell the flat and then refund would unfairly shift the project’s financial burden onto the homebuyer, which RERA expressly seeks to prevent.
Final Order
MahaRERA directed the builder to:
- Refund Rs. 18,15,250 to the homebuyer
- Pay interest from 1 January 2014 at SBI’s highest MCLR + 2% per annum
- Pay Rs. 20,000 as litigation costs
- Complete the refund within 30 days
Why This Order Is Important for Homebuyers
This ruling sends a clear message:
- Refunds under RERA cannot be postponed or made conditional
- Builders cannot say “sell first, refund later”
- Homebuyers are not financiers of stalled projects
- Long delays strengthen, not weaken, the buyer’s right to exit
For thousands of buyers stuck in delayed projects, this order reaffirms that RERA protects their money, not the builder’s cash flow.
Also Read: MahaRERA Rules Developer Cannot Forfeit Entire Booking Amount Upon Cancellation
