In a significant ruling that strengthens homebuyers’ rights under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has held that even when an Agreement for Sale does not specify a possession date, the builder is expected to hand over possession within a reasonable period of three years from the date of the agreement. Failure to do so entitles the allottee to interest for the delayed period.
The order, pronounced on 12 January 2026 by Member II Shri. Ravindra Deshpande in Complaint No. CC006000000282167, came in the matter of Sabirali Tufhel Shaikh (Complainant) versus Mauli Sai Developers Private Limited (Respondent), promoter of the project Mauli Omkar (MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51800001198).
Background of the Dispute
The complainant had initially booked a 1BHK flat in March 2013, making a down payment of ₹12,99,982 (excluding service tax). In February 2016, the unit was upgraded and shifted to a 2BHK flat (Flat No. 1001, B-Wing, super area 49.63 sq.mtrs) for a total consideration of ₹73,40,000.
A registered Agreement for Sale was executed between the parties on 11 February 2016 (Registration No. BRL-1265-2016). Crucially, the agreement did not mention any specific date by which possession was to be handed over.
The complainant paid 97.98% of the total consideration (approximately ₹71,92,195 plus stamp duty and registration) by November 2018 through multiple bank disbursements (loan from Bank of Maharashtra) and self-contributions. The last disbursement was made on 3 November 2018.
The promoter had represented through advertisements (on Magicbricks, hoardings, newspapers, and verbally) that possession would be delivered around March 2019. However, possession was not offered until 23 March 2023, when the promoter handed over fit-out possession. The complainant accepted this on 30 April 2023 and immediately rented out the flat to a tenant from 1 May 2023.
The Core Legal Issue: What Happens When Possession Date Is Missing?
The complainant sought interest for delayed possession under Section 18(1) of the RERA Act, along with rent compensation, ₹30 lakh for mental agony/harassment, and directions for repair of defects (leakage issues in the master bedroom).
The promoter defended the delay citing multiple factors: SRA rehabilitation component issues, regulatory approvals, labour and material shortages, inflation, COVID-19 lockdowns, and certain legal disputes. The project registration had been extended till 8 July 2023.
However, the most important aspect of the case was the absence of a possession date in the registered Agreement for Sale.
How MahaRERA Calculated the Delay
Relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Fortune Infrastructure (Now Known as Hicon Infrastructure) & Anr. vs. Trevor D’Lima & Ors. [(2018) 5 SCC 442], MahaRERA held that:
- When no specific possession date is mentioned in the Agreement for Sale, the promoter is required to deliver possession within a reasonable time.
- The Supreme Court has consistently treated three years from the date of the Agreement as a reasonable period for handing over possession in such cases.
Accordingly:
- Agreement date: 11 February 2016
- Reasonable possession due date: February 2019
- Delay period for interest calculation: 1 March 2019 to 29 April 2023 (day before fit-out possession was accepted)
The Authority observed that the promoter had admitted the delay and had received almost the entire consideration well before the COVID-19 period, yet failed to justify the full extent of the postponement.
Final Order
MahaRERA partly allowed the complaint and directed:
- The promoter to provide a copy of the Occupation Certificate to the complainant.
- Payment of interest for delayed possession from 1 March 2019 to 29 April 2023 at the rate of SBI MCLR + 2% (as prescribed under Maharashtra RERA Rules, 2017), calculated only on the amount paid towards the flat consideration (excluding stamp duty, registration charges, and taxes).
- Payment of ₹20,000 towards the cost of the complaint.
The Authority declined to award separate house rent compensation (as Section 18 provides only for interest on delay) or the ₹30 lakh claimed for mental agony. The complainant’s grievance regarding ongoing leakage/repair issues was not addressed in this order but can be pursued separately under Section 14(3) of the RERA Act.
This ruling reinforces that the absence of a possession date in the agreement does not give builders unlimited time. Homebuyers can now rely on the three-year benchmark from the agreement date to claim interest for delays, making it a strong protective precedent for Maharashtra homebuyers.
