In a landmark ruling that serves as a stark warning to homebuyers and developers alike, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT), Mumbai, has pulled up reputed developer Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. (ormerly Propel Developers Pvt. Ltd.) for selling a flat in its Runwal Greens (Wing 5-8) project at Mulund with inflated carpet area claims. The Tribunal directed the promoter to refund ₹39,83,986 to allottees Shreeram Haribhau Telang and Kiran S. Telang for the shortfall, along with interest, while also awarding delayed possession interest.
Chronological Sequence of Events
- October 17, 2013: The allottees booked Flat No. 3305 (advertised as 1096 sq. ft. carpet area) in Runwal Greens, Mulund, and executed a registered Agreement for Sale for ₹2.46 crore. Promised possession: December 1, 2015.
- Post-booking period: Allottees paid nearly the entire amount. The developer revised possession dates multiple times — first to October 31, 2017, then to December 31, 2019 — citing various reasons.
- January 2016 onwards: Allottees repeatedly emailed the promoter highlighting the delay, financial losses, and demanding compensation/interest. Emails dated January-February 2016, March 2017, and June 2019 clearly asserted their rights.
- 2018-2019: Occupation Certificate obtained on July 7, 2018; possession offered later. Actual possession handed over on September 19, 2020.
- June 21, 2019: Allottees filed Complaint No. CC006000000100192 before MahaRERA, seeking interest on delayed possession under Section 18 of RERA and relief for alleged carpet area discrepancy.
- March 2, 2020: MahaRERA Chairman rejected the interest claim on delayed possession, holding that Section 18 ceases to apply once the project is complete and possession is offered. The Authority sided heavily with the promoter’s submissions.
The allottees appealed (Appeal No. AT006000000053112 of 2021). They took possession on September 19, 2020, “without prejudice” and expressly reserving rights to challenge the MahaRERA order.
Tribunal’s Key Findings – How MahaRERA Got It Wrong
The MREAT, in its judgment pronounced on March 12, 2026 (Coram: Shri Shriram R. Jagtap, Member (J) & Dr. Rajagopal Devara, Member (A)), set aside the MahaRERA order partly and ruled strongly in favour of the homebuyers.
On carpet area:
- Agreement promised 1096 sq. ft. (101.82 sq. mtr) carpet area.
- Approved plan (dated July 15, 2019) showed only 927 sq. ft. (86.16 sq. mtr) — a shortfall of approximately 168-169 sq. ft.
- Tribunal observed discrepancies in area calculations, noting that certain concessions under DCPR 2034 (including staircase, lift lobby treated as free of FSI) appeared improperly included in carpet area computations. It highlighted differences between MOFA-era and RERA definitions of carpet area.
- Promoter claimed actual constructed area was 1099 sq. ft. and cited Clause 20 of the agreement allowing variation, but the Tribunal rejected this, directing refund of ₹37,94,217 (excess charged) + ₹1,89,769 (stamp duty) = ₹39,83,986, with interest at SBI Highest MCLR + 2% from date of payments till realization.
On delayed possession:
- The Tribunal relied on Section 18(1)(a) of RERA and the Bombay High Court’s Neelkamal judgment. It held that interest is payable for the entire delay period from the original promised date (December 1, 2015) till actual possession (September 19, 2020), irrespective of reasons for delay or subsequent OC/possession offer.
- Allottees had consistently demanded interest through emails; there was no waiver by conduct. Continuing cause of action for delay.
- MahaRERA’s interpretation (that Section 18 stops operating once possession is given) was rejected as incorrect and contrary to precedents.
The Tribunal emphasized that statutory rights under RERA cannot be denied on technicalities like delay in filing or “one stage of appeal” arguments.
Developer’s Response
We contacted Subodh Runwal of Runwal Homes. His company sent us a statement which reads: “In the subject matter RERA rejected same prayers of customers, who approached to REAT (tribunal) and order was issued, Runwal will approach appropriate forum to seek relief against order.”
This order is indeed an eye-opener. While MahaRERA appeared to side with the developer on key issues, the Appellate Tribunal scrutinized the documents, exposed the mismatch between promised and delivered area, and upheld homebuyers’ rights under RERA. For reputed developers, such rulings underscore that marketing larger areas while delivering less — whether due to calculation changes or otherwise — will not escape scrutiny.
Homebuyers in ongoing or delayed projects, or similar developments, should carefully verify carpet area against approved plans and RERA registrations. This judgment reinforces that RERA’s protective provisions, including interest for delay and refund for shortfalls, remain enforceable even after possession.
Also Read: Sandeep Runwal takes charge as the new NAREDCO Maharashtra President
