Authority Says It Cannot Determine Delay When Agreement for Sale Is Incomplete
In a significant ruling highlighting the importance of complete documentation, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed a homebuyer’s complaint in the Bhakti Meadows project after finding that the Agreement for Sale (AFS) submitted by the complainant did not contain a possession date.
The order, issued on 6 November 2025 by MahaRERA Chairperson Manoj Saunik, notes that the missing pages of the AFS made it legally impossible for the Authority to assess whether there was any delay by the promoters, Midas Builders and Navin Kothari (HUF).
Buyer Alleged Delay, Excess Payment, and Sought Compensation
The complainant, who had booked Flats 901 and 902 in the Borivali-based Bhakti Meadows (Project Reg. No. P51800013457), approached MahaRERA seeking:
- Interest for delayed possession under Section 18
- Refund of an alleged ₹58 lakh excess recovery
- ₹11 lakh as compensation
- Litigation costs
The buyer argued that the project was delayed and that the promoters had violated several provisions of RERA.
However, all claims were ultimately rejected due to the lack of a complete and valid agreement.
Key Turning Point: Incomplete Agreement Missing the Possession Clause
MahaRERA: “We Cannot Guess the Possession Date”
When scrutinising the documents, MahaRERA found that the Agreement for Sale submitted by the complainant was incomplete, with crucial pages missing — including the page that should contain the possession date.
This missing clause became the deciding factor.
Since determining delay under Section 18 requires a clearly defined promised possession date, the Authority held that it could not assume or infer the date.
MahaRERA categorically stated that it “cannot guess the possession date” in an incomplete agreement, making the complaint impossible to adjudicate.
Claims of Excess Payment Also Dismissed
The complainant’s allegation that the promoters had taken ₹58 lakh extra also did not stand scrutiny. MahaRERA noted that no supporting evidence — such as receipts, bank transfers, or payment records — had been provided.
Without documentary proof, the Authority held that it could not order any refund.
Not a Clean Chit to Builder; Complaint Dismissed Only on Procedural Grounds
MahaRERA clarified that the dismissal does not mean the project or promoter is fault-free. Instead, the complaint failed solely due to incomplete documentation.
The Authority added that the homebuyer is free to file a fresh complaint after submitting:
- A complete Agreement for Sale
- Proper proof of payments
- Relevant correspondence
Context: Four Other Buyers in Same Project Received Relief
Interestingly, in the same batch of cases related to Bhakti Meadows, four other homebuyers received relief, including interest for delayed possession.
In their cases, complete agreements with clearly stated possession dates were available.
This contrast underscores how the absence of a single clause — the possession date — can make or break a RERA complaint.
Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Against Developer Over Redevelopment Dispute
