In a strongly worded order that reinforces homebuyer protections under RERA, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has directed the promoters of Sunteck City Avenue 1 to pay interest on the entire delayed period right up to the date of actual physical possession — even though the part occupancy certificate was issued more than two-and-a-half years earlier.
The judgment, delivered on 21 July 2026 by Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member (Administrative) Dr. Rajagopal Devara in Appeal No. AT006000000063805 of 2022, sets aside key portions of the earlier MahaRERA order and sends a clear message on three critical issues that routinely trouble allottees: when interest stops, who bears maintenance until possession, and whether authorities can grant reliefs never asked for by the parties.
Garry Vasant Ashar and Tejal Garry Ashar had booked Flat No. 204 in Building A of Sunteck City Avenue 1 (promoted by Skystar Buildcon Private Limited and Sunteck Realty Limited) under an Agreement for Sale dated 28 May 2015 for a total consideration of ₹2,21,96,500. Clause 16 of the agreement promised possession within 54 months plus a nine-month grace period — that is, on or before 25 August 2020.
The promoters obtained a part occupancy certificate on 8 September 2020 and purported to offer possession on 15 September 2020. However, the offer was not unconditional. The allottees were told they must first clear a demand of ₹41.97 lakh that included unexplained “other charges” of ₹7.21 lakh and alleged interest on delayed payments. Despite repeated requests for clarification, the promoters refused to hand over the flat until the entire amount, including the disputed charges, was paid. The allottees finally paid the full amount on 22 March 2021. Even then, physical possession was given only on 14 March 2023 — and that too only after the Appellate Tribunal directed it and after the allottees deposited an additional sum in the Tribunal.
In the original complaint, MahaRERA (Member-1) on 14 March 2022 directed the promoters to hand over possession and pay interest only from the agreed date of possession until the date of the part OC (8 September 2020). The Authority also allowed the promoters two benefits they had never prayed for: (i) a set-off of any interest the allottees allegedly owed for delayed payments against the interest payable by the promoters, and (ii) the benefit of the COVID-19 moratorium periods notified by MahaRERA.
The allottees challenged this order, arguing that the interest should run until actual physical possession, that the offer of possession was conditional and therefore ineffective, that maintenance charges for the intervening period could not be demanded from them, and that the Authority had granted reliefs never sought by the promoters.
The Appellate Tribunal agreed on all major points.
First, on the question of interest, the Tribunal held that under Section 18 of the RERA Act, an allottee who elects to continue in the project is entitled to interest for the entire period of delay until physical possession is handed over. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Tribunal reiterated that this right is not dependent on unforeseen events or force majeure factors that are not attributable to the allottee. The Tribunal observed that mere issuance of an occupancy certificate or a conditional offer of possession does not extinguish the statutory claim for interest. In this case, because the offer was contingent on payment of disputed and unexplained charges, the interest liability continued till 14 March 2023. The Tribunal specifically directed the promoters to pay interest on the amounts paid by the allottees from 1 August 2020 to 14 March 2023 at the rate of the State Bank of India’s highest Marginal Cost of Funds Based Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2 per cent, simple interest, within 30 days.
Second, on maintenance charges, the Tribunal held that Section 11(4)(g) of the RERA Act places a clear obligation on the promoter to pay all outgoings — including maintenance charges — until physical possession is transferred to the allottee. The promoters’ demand that the allottees pay maintenance from 15 September 2020 to 14 March 2023 was therefore illegal. The Tribunal noted that the promoters had continued to hold the flat and could not shift the burden of outgoings on to the allottees for a period during which possession was wrongfully withheld.
Third, the Tribunal strongly deprecated the grant of unprayed reliefs. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, it held that a court or tribunal cannot grant relief that has neither been pleaded nor specifically prayed for. The set-off of alleged delayed-payment interest and the COVID-19 moratorium benefit had never been sought by the promoters in their pleadings. Granting them, the Tribunal said, travelled beyond the scope of the proceedings and could not be sustained.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, modified the impugned order accordingly, and also directed the promoters to pay costs of ₹25,000 to the allottees.
The judgment is significant for homebuyers across Maharashtra. It clarifies that an occupancy certificate or a paper offer of possession does not automatically stop the interest clock if the offer is conditional or if actual keys are not handed over. It also makes it clear that promoters cannot recover maintenance for the period they themselves delay handing over possession, and that regulatory authorities cannot gift reliefs that the parties never asked for.
For allottees facing similar situations — where possession is offered only after clearing disputed charges or where interest is restricted only up to the OC date — this order provides strong judicial support for claiming interest till the actual date of handover and for resisting illegal maintenance demands.
Also Read: 🏗 MahaRERA Asks Builder to Submit Completion Milestones to Homebuyers While Granting Extension
