In a significant ruling for homebuyers, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has firmly stated that property allottees did not consent to the repeated extensions of the “Joys Adinath Tower-II” project completion dates. This decision, issued on July 9, 2025, underscores the rights of homebuyers against unilateral project delays by developers.
The Tribunal’s judgment in a series of appeals filed by allottees against Joy Homecreation Limited highlights the developer’s failure to provide any documentary proof of such consent, a key contention raised by the promoter.
Timeline of Delay and Extensions:
| Event | Original Date/Period | Extended To | Further Extended To | Latest Extended To |
| Project Completion Date | May 18, 2020 | June 30, 2021 | June 30, 2023 | December 31, 2024 |
| Flat A-1203 Possession | June 3, 2018 | – | – | – |
| Flat A-702 Possession | December 30, 2018 | – | – | – |
| Flat A-701 Possession | December 31, 2020 | – | – | – |
The Core of the Dispute: Consent and Delay
The appellants, including Makarand Vasant Raut, Yogita Makarand Raut, Sanjay Vastimal Jain, Indira Sanjay Jain, Yogesh Jayantilal Jain, and Vinita Y. Baldota, had purchased flats in the “Joys Adinath Tower-II” project. Despite paying substantial amounts towards their flats, the promoter, Joy Homecreation Limited, failed to hand over possession by the dates stipulated in their respective agreements for sale.
The promoter had repeatedly extended the project’s completion date and argued that these extensions were consented to by the complainants, and that delays were also due to “force majeure” events like the COVID-19 pandemic.
MahaRERA’s Initial Stance & Tribunal’s Firm Findings:
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) had partly allowed the original complaints, rejecting the claim for compensation but directing the promoter to pay interest for delayed possession. MahaRERA had noted that for two complaints (serial no. 1 and 2), the possession dates were prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and NCLT proceedings, thus disallowing extensions based on these events for those specific cases. Crucially, MahaRERA also found no documentary proof of allottee consent for extensions.
The Appellate Tribunal, after reviewing the case, unequivocally supported the allottees on the issue of consent. “The promoter has not submitted any documentary proof on record to show that the complainants have ever given their consent for extension of dates of possession mentioned in the respective agreements for sale,” the Tribunal stated, finding no merit in the promoter’s contention.
Key Findings of the Appellate Tribunal:
- No Allottee Consent for Extension: The Tribunal explicitly stated that the promoter failed to provide any documentary evidence that allottees consented to the extension of possession dates.
- Entitlement to Interest: The appellants are entitled to interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016, due to the inordinate delay in handing over possession and obtaining the occupation certificate.
- Grace Period Denied (for Sr. No. 1 & 2): The promoter is not entitled to the six-month grace period granted by MahaRERA for appeals at serial no. 1 and 2, as the agreements for sale for these complaints pre-date the RERA Act, 2016 coming into force. The Tribunal found the grant of such a grace period “without any basis and not sustainable in the eyes of law”.
- Moratorium Period Allowed (for Sr. No. 3): The promoter is entitled to the benefit of the “moratorium period” as mentioned in MahaRERA notifications issued on April 2, 2020, May 18, 2020, and August 6, 2021, but only for the appeal at serial no. 3, where the agreement for sale was executed after the RERA Act came into force and the COVID-19 pandemic occurred prior to the date of possession.
- Immediate Interest Payment: The Tribunal set aside the MahaRERA’s direction that interest amounts would only be paid after obtaining the full occupancy certificate. The promoter is now directed to pay interest on the amounts paid by the allottees at SBI’s Highest Marginal Cost Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2% from the revised dates of possession.
- Compensation for Mental Agony: While the appellants sought Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, the Tribunal’s order does not explicitly grant this, focusing on the interest for delayed possession.
This ruling serves as a crucial reminder to developers regarding their obligations under RERA and the necessity of adhering to agreed-upon timelines, especially when allottee consent for extensions is lacking.
Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Against Developer Over Redevelopment Dispute
