As per the Agreement for Sale, registered on 9th July 2026 (document number MBI11-14803-2026), Salman Salim Khan transferred Flat No. 1401 on the 14th floor of Shiv-Asthan Heights, standing on Plot No. 31 of TPS III, 16th Road, Bandra West, to three buyers — Munira Akberali Dandawala (also recorded as Muneera Akberali Dandawala), Mahdiali Akberali Dandawala, and Zehra Mahdiali Dandawala.

The flat admeasures 758 square feet of carpet area and comes with 10 fully paid-up shares of the Shiv-Asthan (Khar) Co-operative Housing Society Limited, bearing distinctive numbers 501 to 510. The sale also includes two car-parking spaces — one located on the ground floor and one on the first podium level of the building.

The transaction structure, as laid out in the agreement, involved a lump-sum payment of Rs 3,50,00,000, broken into three components: Rs 2,46,50,000 paid at the time of execution of the agreement, Rs 3,50,000 withheld as Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) and deposited into the government account, and the balance Rs 1,00,00,000 payable on the completion date, which was fixed as 15th July 2026.

The stamp duty paid on the transaction was Rs 21,00,000, with an additional registration fee of Rs 30,000, taking the total statutory outgo to Rs 21,30,000. The government valuation (ready reckoner value) of the property was recorded at Rs 3,45,11,665, against which the actual transacted value of Rs 3.5 crore reflects a premium over the circle rate.

The document also reveals that Salman Khan executed the agreement through a General Power of Attorney holder — his mother, Salma Khan — who signed on his behalf. Separately, the buyers acted through their own power of attorney arrangements for signing formalities. The property in question was originally acquired by Salman Khan via an Agreement for Sale dated 21st September 2015 with Zears Developers Private Limited, with possession handed over in January 2017. The building received its full occupancy and completion certificate from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in January 2017.

The society, Shiv-Asthan (Khar) Co-operative Housing Society Limited, registered under registration number BOM/HSG/2839 of 1971, issued its No-Objection Certificate for the transfer on 25th June 2026, confirming that all society dues on the flat had been cleared till 30th June 2026.

This transaction adds to the steady stream of high-value residential deals being registered in Bandra West, one of Mumbai’s most sought-after micro-markets, where celebrity and HNI property transactions continue to draw attention from homebuyers and market watchers alike.

Also Read: Salman Khan’s sister Arpita sells her Bandra flat for ₹22 crore.

The post Salman Khan Sells Bandra Flat for Rs 3.5 Crore in Shiv-Asthan Heights appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a detailed final order dated 18 May 2026 passed by Member II Ravindra Deshpande, MahaRERA disposed of two complaints filed against the promoter and other respondents.

Case 1: Partial Refund Allowed (CC006000000209849)

Complainant: Bharat Babu Ishwar Peta Booking: Flat No. 3604, Tower-4 on 21 September 2021 Amount Paid: ₹5,00,000 (booking amount)

The complainant cancelled the booking within 16–18 days citing inability to secure a home loan. He claimed the promoter had advertised a “pre-launch refundable booking” and sought full refund with interest.

MahaRERA observed that the cancellation was on personal grounds and not due to any fault of the promoter. However, noting that the Application Form was not countersigned by the promoter and the cancellation occurred at a very early stage, the Authority held that full forfeiture of ₹5 lakh was not justified.

Ruling: Applying MahaRERA Order No. 60/2024, the promoter was allowed to forfeit 1% of the total consideration (₹1,26,46,880), i.e., ₹1,26,469. The promoter must refund the balance ₹3,73,531 within 45 days from the date of the order without interest. In case of delay, interest at SBI’s Highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate + 2% p.a. shall apply. No costs were awarded.

Case 2: Complaint Dismissed (CC006000000198880)

Complainants: Manoj Agiwal & Nutan Lohia Booking: Flat No. 1905, Tower-1 in March 2021 Amount Paid: ₹4,27,590 + ₹1,57,100 (stamp duty & registration)

The complainants challenged four clauses in the draft Agreement for Sale — primarily Clause 4.1(iv) (payment milestones), Clause 28 (transfer/NOC charges of ₹2,422 per sq.mtr.), Clause 30.8, and Clause 31 (area variation).

MahaRERA noted that three of the clauses were already addressed by the promoter. On Clause 28, the Authority held that it was not among the non-negotiable clauses declared by MahaRERA (Orders 38/2022, 54/2024, 57/2024, etc.) and was a standard administrative charge. The complainants had also shown inconsistency by withdrawing and re-joining the transaction.

Ruling: The entire complaint was rejected. The Authority held that no violation of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was established.

Key Observations by MahaRERA

• The promoter’s reliance on clauses in the Application Form and MahaRERA-approved model Agreement for Sale was upheld in the second case.
• Early cancellations before Agreement for Sale execution are governed by MahaRERA’s forfeiture guidelines.
• Homebuyers must act consistently and cannot indefinitely challenge standard clauses after booking.

The order underscores MahaRERA’s balanced approach — protecting genuine homebuyer interests in early-stage cancellations while upholding the sanctity of promoter agreements that comply with regulatory norms.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Refund Paid for Seven Flats in Godrej RKS Project

The post MahaRERA Orders Partial Refund in Godrej City Panvel Case, Rejects Clause Challenge appeared first on Square Feat India.

The judgment, pronounced on 8 May 2026 by a bench of Chairperson Shri S.S. Shinde (J) and Member (A) Shrikant M. Deshpande, is a textbook case of a promoter attempting to weaponize a homebuyer’s delayed payments — payments the promoter was legally barred from even demanding in the first place.

The core finding

A promoter who collects over 90% of the sale price without executing a registered Agreement for Sale — violating both MOFA and RERA — cannot then cancel the allotment on the grounds of “non-payment.” The wrongdoer cannot profit from their own wrong.

The Homebuyer’s Story

Pramod Yagnarayan Singh booked flat No. A-2, 302 in Hatkesh Heights — a 408.40 sq. ft. carpet area apartment on the 3rd floor — in December 2014. The total sale price was ₹35,05,000. Over the next four years, Singh faithfully responded to every demand letter sent by the promoter, paying a total of ₹28,63,375 — more than 81% of the agreed price — along with service tax, bringing his total outgo to approximately ₹29 lakh.

Through all these years, the promoter sent over 20 demand letters asking for payments. What the promoter did not do — not once — was share a draft Agreement for Sale, communicate a date for its execution, or inform the buyer of applicable stamp duty and registration charges. Under both the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), a promoter is legally prohibited from accepting more than 10–20% of the consideration price without first executing and registering an Agreement for Sale.

Then, on 12 February 2019, came the letter that shocked Singh: the promoter cancelled his flat, citing “outstanding dues” and inviting him to collect a refund after deducting “interest till date.”

Singh’s advocate responded swiftly on 11 March 2019, reminding the builder of its statutory obligations, enclosing cheques for the entire outstanding balance — ₹6,06,575 towards consideration and ₹1,44,789 towards GST. The promoter never replied. The cheques were never deposited.

“A wrongdoer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong.”
— Supreme Court, cited in the order

A Decade-Long Legal Battle

• 2014Allotment letter issued; Singh begins paying instalments against builder’s demand notices.
• 2015–18Over 20 demand letters sent by builder. No draft Agreement for Sale ever shared. Builder keeps collecting money.
• Feb 2019Builder cancels the allotment for “non-payment.” Singh sends balance cheques by letter — ignored by builder.
• Jul 2019Singh files complaint before MahaRERA. Occupation Certificate for the project is issued in May 2019.
• Nov 2019MahaRERA directs builder to execute Agreement for Sale. Builder appeals to MREAT.
• Dec 2021MREAT remands the matter back, noting the cancellation letter was never addressed.
• Jun 2022MahaRERA sets aside cancellation, again directs Agreement for Sale execution. Builder files this appeal.
• May 2026MREAT dismisses builder’s appeal; delivers sweeping relief to Singh including possession and interest.

What the Tribunal Found

The Tribunal was categorical: the promoter violated Section 4 of MOFA and Section 13 of RERA by accepting over 90% of the consideration amount without executing a registered Agreement for Sale. These are not technical violations — they are the foundational consumer protections at the heart of real estate law.

The promoter’s argument that it sent 20 letters asking Singh to come and register the agreement was dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the letters were merely demand notices for more money, with a one-liner stating the agreement was “ready for stamp duty.” No draft agreement was ever shared. No registration date was ever communicated. No stamp duty amount was ever specified. On direct query from the bench, the promoter’s advocate confirmed that no such communication existed.

The Tribunal also invoked the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dr. Amit Arya v. Kamleh Kumari (2025) to hold that Singh’s conduct — sending the balance cheques, writing formally to the builder, demanding possession — demonstrated clear readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Non-payment of balance consideration within a time period does not amount to abandonment of contract; the real test is whether there was a “positive refusal” to perform. There was none from Singh.

Crucially, the Tribunal applied the principle that a party cannot take advantage of its own wrongdoing — citing the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar. The promoter who was legally barred from demanding further payments without first executing the Agreement for Sale cannot then cancel the allotment on the very ground of non-payment of those illegal demands.

Going Beyond — The Tribunal Steps In

In a noteworthy exercise of its appellate powers, the Tribunal observed that the original MahaRERA order had failed to address two key prayers by Singh: direction for possession and interest for delayed possession. Rather than remanding the case yet again — forcing the parties into another round of litigation after more than a decade — the Tribunal decided to adjudicate these issues itself, invoking Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and its own inherent powers under MREAT Regulations 2019.

The Tribunal calculated the deemed date of possession as 31 December 2017 — three years from the allotment letter, following the Supreme Court’s formula in Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’Lima (2018) for cases where no possession date is specified. The occupation certificate was obtained by the promoter only in May 2019 — already over a year late. And Singh has been out of possession for over seven years since.

The Final Order: Builder Punished on Every Count

Tribunal’s directions — Appeal No. AT006000000113946 of 2022

1 Execute and register the Agreement for Sale in terms of the allotment letter (with deemed possession date of 31.12.2017) within 30 days.

2 Hand over possession of the flat within 30 days of receiving the balance consideration of ₹6,41,625 with applicable taxes — without charging any interest on delayed payment from the buyer.

3 Execute the Sale Deed within 30 days of balance payment, at the cost of the promoter.

4 Pay interest on ₹28,63,375 (amount already paid by Singh) from 1 January 2018 until the date of actual possession — under Section 18 of RERA.

5 Pay litigation costs of ₹2,00,000 to the allottee.

Why This Ruling Matters

This judgment is significant for several reasons. First, it reaffirms that the RERA Act is retroactive — protecting homebuyers even in projects that began before RERA came into force in 2016, as long as they were ongoing and lacked a completion certificate. Second, it establishes that a builder who systematically collects money without fulfilling the mandatory Agreement for Sale obligation is in no position to invoke equity or claim non-payment by the buyer. Third, the Tribunal’s willingness to adjudicate possession and interest at the appellate stage — rather than remanding — offers a model for resolving long-pending disputes without further delay.

For tens of thousands of homebuyers across Maharashtra who find themselves in similar situations — paying crores to builders who evade formal agreements and then attempt cancellations — this order sends a clear message: the law is on your side.

Also Read: Builder Sold Flat… Then Mortgaged It! MahaRERA Tribunal; Says Builder Must Clear Mortgage, Give Possession & Pay Interest

The post Builder Pockets 90% of Your Money,Then Cancels Your Flat — Tribunal Says: Not on Our Watch appeared first on Square Feat India.

The order was passed by Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA, in Complaint No. CC005000000116882, decided on January 13, 2026.

Background of the Case

The complaint was filed by Mohammad Iqbal Pathan, a homebuyer, against Xrbia Mirth Properties, the promoter of a residential real estate project titled “Xrbia Singapune”, located at Dhanori, Taluka Haveli, District Pune (MahaRERA Registration No. P52100021752).

According to the complaint, the developer launched the project in 2020 and invited bookings for residential flats. Relying on the developer’s representations, the homebuyer booked Flat No. B-2-213, situated on the 2nd floor of Wing ‘B’, for a total consideration of ₹25 lakh.

Between March 2020 and September 2020, the homebuyer paid a total amount of ₹1,28,954 towards booking. However, no Agreement for Sale was ever executed or registered between the parties.

Cancellation and Refund Dispute

In June 2021, citing severe financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic and health issues in the family, the homebuyer requested cancellation of the booking and sought refund of the booking amount through an email dated June 15, 2021.

The developer allegedly refused the refund, stating that the booking amount was non-refundable. Despite a legal notice dated December 17, 2021, no refund was made, prompting the homebuyer to approach MahaRERA seeking refund, interest, and compensation.

Builder’s Stand

The developer opposed the complaint, arguing that:

• The booking amount was non-refundable
• The complaint under Section 18 of the RERA Act (refund due to delay in possession) was not maintainable
• The project had received extensions due to COVID-19 being treated as a force majeure event
• Possession timelines had not yet expired

The developer further claimed that the buyer had defaulted on payment obligations and that the complaint was premature.

MahaRERA’s Findings

After examining the record, MahaRERA noted several key facts:

• The homebuyer had indeed paid ₹1,28,954 as booking amount
• No Agreement for Sale was executed
• The booking was cancelled after about one year
• The developer failed to show any actual financial loss caused by the cancellation

The Authority held that Section 18 of the RERA Act does not strictly apply in the absence of an Agreement for Sale. However, it emphasized that RERA is a beneficial and consumer-oriented legislation, and a promoter cannot act unfairly or unjustly enrich itself by forfeiting money without justification.

Why Only 2% Deduction Was Allowed

MahaRERA relied on its earlier Order No. 35/2022 dated August 12, 2022, which lays down a standard principle for cases where:

• A booking is cancelled
• No Agreement for Sale exists
• The promoter cannot prove actual loss

As per this order, a promoter may deduct only 2% of the total cost of the unit as administrative charges and must refund the remaining amount.

In this case:

• Flat value: ₹25,00,000
• Permissible deduction (2%): ₹50,000

Accordingly, MahaRERA directed the developer to refund the balance amount to the homebuyer.

Final Order

MahaRERA ordered that:

1. Xrbia Mirth Properties may deduct 2% of the flat value
2. The remaining amount must be refunded within 30 days
3. If the refund is delayed, the developer must pay interest at SBI’s MCLR plus 2%
4. Both parties shall bear their own litigation costs

Why This Order Is Important

This ruling is significant for homebuyers and the real estate sector for several reasons:

• It clarifies that “non-refundable booking amount” clauses cannot override fairness, especially when no Agreement for Sale is signed
• It reinforces that builders cannot forfeit large sums without proving actual loss
• It standardizes the 2% deduction rule, bringing predictability to pre-agreement cancellations
• It strengthens consumer confidence by reaffirming MahaRERA’s role as a protector of homebuyer interests, even where strict statutory provisions may not apply

Conclusion

The order sends a clear message: booking a flat does not give developers a free hand to retain buyers’ money, particularly in the absence of a formal agreement. While MahaRERA recognizes that builders may incur administrative expenses, it has drawn a firm line against excessive and unfair forfeiture—an important reassurance for thousands of prospective homebuyers across Maharashtra.

Also Read: Homebuyers Can Face Jail Too for Disobeying MahaRERA Tribunal Orders?

The post Booked a Flat but Didn’t Sign Agreement? MahaRERA Says Builder Can’t Keep Your Money appeared first on Square Feat India.

The ruling came in Complaint No. CC006000000303572, decided on 20 January 2026, in a dispute involving the project Ajmeri Heights, located at Andheri (East), Mumbai, developed by Ajmeri Realty Pvt. Ltd. The complaint was filed by Deepesh Nair, a homebuyer who had paid a substantial portion of the flat consideration without ever receiving a registered Agreement for Sale.

Over 70% Collected Without Agreement, Clear Section 13 Violation

As per the order, the complainant had paid ₹64 lakh out of a total flat consideration of ₹87.24 lakh in 2014, amounting to over 70% of the total cost. Despite receiving these payments, the promoter failed to execute a registered Agreement for Sale, issuing only an undated allotment letter.

MahaRERA observed that this conduct amounted to a blatant violation of Section 13 of RERA, which prohibits promoters from accepting more than 10% of the apartment cost without first entering into a registered Agreement for Sale.

Allotment Letter Has No Statutory Sanctity

The authority reiterated that an allotment letter does not confer enforceable contractual rights under RERA. In the absence of a registered Agreement for Sale, there was:

• No binding possession date,
• No defined obligations of the promoter, and
• No contractual safeguards for the allottee.

MahaRERA noted that such practices weaken buyer protection and cannot be permitted to defeat the purpose of the Act.

Section 18 Not Strictly Applicable, But Relief Cannot Be Denied

While considering the refund claim, MahaRERA acknowledged that Section 18 of RERA, which governs refunds for delayed possession, ordinarily requires the existence of:

• A registered Agreement for Sale, and
• A contractually defined possession date.

Since neither existed in the present case, the authority held that Section 18 could not be applied in its strict form. However, it categorically rejected the argument that this technical gap should allow the promoter to retain the buyer’s money indefinitely.

MahaRERA Invokes Inherent Powers to Prevent Unjust Enrichment

To ensure justice, MahaRERA invoked its inherent powers under Regulation 39 of the MahaRERA General Regulations, 2017, observing that RERA is a beneficial and social welfare legislation.

The authority held that allowing the promoter of Ajmeri Heights, Andheri to retain over ₹64 lakh without executing an agreement or offering possession would result in unjust enrichment and defeat the objectives of RERA.

Accordingly, MahaRERA directed Ajmeri Realty Pvt. Ltd. to:

• Refund ₹64,00,000 to the complainant,
• Pay interest at SBI MCLR + 2% per annum from the respective dates of payment made in 2014 until realization, and
• Pay ₹20,000 towards litigation costs,
• Within 30 days of the order.

Builder’s Absence Weighed Against Them

The order records that the respondent developer:

• Remained absent during proceedings,
• Filed no written reply, and
• Did not dispute receipt of the amounts paid.

MahaRERA treated the complainant’s assertions as uncontroverted, strengthening the case for granting relief.

Supreme Court’s Newtech Judgment Distinguished

MahaRERA also clarified that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. was not applicable to the facts of this case, as that judgment presupposes the existence of a registered Agreement for Sale with a stipulated possession timeline — conditions absent in the Ajmeri Heights matter.

Why This Order Is a Big Signal for Homebuyers

Legal experts say the order has wide implications for:

• Pre-RERA bookings,
• Projects where builders deliberately avoided executing agreements, and
• Buyers trapped in long-stalled developments.

The ruling makes it clear that promoters cannot take advantage of their own statutory violations and that MahaRERA will step in to ensure equity, even where technical requirements are missing due to the promoter’s fault.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Full Refund with Interest to Homebuyer for Possession Delay

The post Even Without Agreement for Sale, MahaRERA Can Order Refund to Prevent Injustice appeared first on Square Feat India.

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:

1. The promoter to provide a copy of the Occupation Certificate to the complainant.
2. 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).
3. 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.

Also Read: Builder cancels booking, MahaRERA orders refund

The post No Possession Date in Agreement? MahaRERA Rules: Builder Must Deliver in 3 Years appeared first on Square Feat India.

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

The post MahaRERA While Dismissing Homebuyer’s Complaint: “We Cannot Guess the Possession Date” appeared first on Square Feat India.

For years, homebuyers in Maharashtra faced uncertainty on this very issue. Developers often included vague clauses in booking forms, with some retaining 10% or more of the total cost upon cancellation. Such arbitrary deductions frequently led to disputes, especially when buyers had barely crossed the initial booking stage.

But things have changed. A regulatory order issued by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) in 2022 has finally brought clarity — and relief — to homebuyers by placing firm limits on what developers can forfeit.

A Uniform Rulebook for All Developers

MahaRERA’s 2022 directive was designed to end confusion and standardize documents used in property transactions. It made it mandatory for every developer registering a project to upload the model allotment letter and agreement for sale, both of which clearly spell out the dos and don’ts when a booking is cancelled.

This move ensured transparency right from the early stages of the transaction, when buyers typically pay up to 10% of the flat’s cost as a booking advance — often before the main sale agreement is signed. Cancellations at this stage are common, whether due to financing issues, delays, or personal reasons.

Before the order, there was no uniform rule — and forfeiture amounts varied wildly from one project to another. MahaRERA’s intervention created a single, state-wide framework to ensure fairness for all.

Gradual Deduction, Strict Limits

Under the new framework, the forfeiture depends on how long the buyer holds the booking before cancelling.
If a buyer cancels within 15 days of receiving the allotment letter, no deduction is allowed.
Between 16 and 30 days, the developer can deduct up to 1% of the apartment cost.
For cancellations between 31 and 60 days, the limit rises to 1.5%, and beyond 60 days — before the agreement for sale is executed — the builder can retain a maximum of 2%.

That’s the ceiling. Whether the apartment costs ₹50 lakh or ₹1 crore, the developer cannot legally forfeit more than 2% before the agreement is registered.

If the builder takes longer than 45 days to refund the remaining amount, they must pay interest at the SBI marginal cost of lending rate (MCLR) plus 2%, ensuring buyers aren’t left waiting indefinitely for refunds.

Even in Default, Fairness Prevails

The MahaRERA order also outlines what happens if a buyer fails to move ahead after allotment — such as missing further payment deadlines or not showing up to register the agreement for sale. In such cases, the builder must first send a 15-day notice asking the buyer to comply. If the buyer still does not proceed, the developer can cancel the booking — but even then, forfeiture cannot exceed the 2% cap.

All remaining money must be returned within 45 days. Any delay again triggers the same interest penalty.

Why This Order Matters

Before RERA came into effect, developers routinely retained hefty sums — often 20% or more — in the name of cancellation charges. Homebuyers rarely had a legal footing to challenge this practice. The 2022 MahaRERA order changed that landscape by aligning forfeiture norms with transparency and accountability, the very principles the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, stands for.

Developers now have to upload their allotment letter formats and highlight any deviation from MahaRERA’s approved model in colour, so buyers can easily see what’s changed. This makes it harder for builders to sneak in unfavourable terms or clauses that go beyond what the law permits.

For homebuyers, this means peace of mind — knowing that a decision to cancel won’t lead to massive financial loss. For developers, it means clear boundaries and fewer legal disputes.

A Safer Market for Homebuyers

Today, any project registered after 2022 in Maharashtra must comply with these guidelines. For buyers, this ensures transparency not just in pricing and possession, but even in the event of a change of mind. MahaRERA has also made it easier to file complaints online if a developer violates the refund norms.

With a clear forfeiture cap and structured refund timelines, Maharashtra’s real estate sector is gradually becoming more equitable — one rule at a time.

Also Read: Homebuyer Loses Flat, Payment Forfeited After Ignoring MahaRERA Order to Clear Dues

The post How Much Money Can a Builder Forfeit If a Homebuyer Cancels a Deal? appeared first on Square Feat India.

The original MahaRERA order, dated November 28, 2024, had partly allowed a complaint filed by several allottees, directing Siddhitech Developers to execute and register an agreement for sale in their favor. Furthermore, the developer was ordered to pay interest for delayed possession of the flats, calculated from December 31, 2023, until the actual handover of possession along with the occupation certificate.

Siddhitech Developers sought the stay, primarily arguing that the impugned order was passed ex parte, without proper service of notice of the complaint, thereby depriving the developer of a fair hearing. The developer’s counsel emphasized that Section 38(2) of the RERA Act, 2016, mandates the Authority to adhere to principles of natural justice.

Adding to their defense, Siddhitech Developers contended there was no privity of contract between the parties, asserting that the offer to purchase the subject flat was never accepted by the non-applicants, and the alleged consideration was not received by the developer, implying the non-applicants were never true allottees.

However, the developer also highlighted that it had already deposited the requisite amount, as mandated by Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, 2016, with the Tribunal’s registry, arguing this fully protected the interests of the non-applicants.

The non-applicants, on the other hand, opposed the stay application, asserting it was misconceived and lacked merit. Their advocate stated that the applicant had chosen to remain absent for three consecutive hearing dates (October 8, 2024, October 15, 2024, and October 28, 2024), despite notices being sent to their registered email addresses via MahaRERA’s standard online procedures. They argued that the developer could have monitored the complaint’s progress through its online dashboard. Granting a stay, they contended, would cause them irreparable harm, potentially allowing the developer to dispose of the subject flat.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal acknowledged that the impugned order was indeed passed ex parte. While noting that the “privity of contract” argument would be decided on the merits during the appeal hearing , the Tribunal found that the applicant’s deposit of the ordered amount fully secured the non-applicants’ interests.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application, staying the effect, operation, and implementation of the impugned order until the final disposal of the appeal. Crucially, to safeguard the allottees, the Tribunal directed Siddhitech Developers not to create any third-party rights on the subject flat until the appeal is resolved. The Tribunal clarified that its observations in this stay order are prima-facie and apply only to the current application.

Also Read: MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal Overturns RERA Order, Emphasizes Homebuyer Rights Over Arbitration Agreements

The post Ex Parte MahaRERA Ruling Put on Hold appeared first on Square Feat India.

Case Details:

The complainants in Complaint CC005000000085619 had purchased Flat No. D2-704 and Flat No. D2-705 in the Gagan Nulife Phase 1 project (MahaRERA Project Registration No. P52100009642). Despite paying ₹1.45 crore in full, they were never given an Agreement for Sale, leaving them in a precarious legal situation.

MahaRERA’s Orders:

• Execute the Agreement: MahaRERA has directed Gagan Lifespaces to complete and register the Agreement for Sale within 60 days to secure the buyers’ ownership rights.
• Compensation: Buyers can now approach the Adjudicating Officer to claim compensation for financial loss, mental stress, and inconvenience.
• Ex-Parte Ruling: Since Gagan Lifespaces failed to appear for hearings, the case was decided in the homebuyers’ favor.

Key Observations:

• The Gagan Nulife Phase 1 project was initially set for completion by December 31, 2016, later revised to March 31, 2018.
• The Occupancy Certificate was issued on November 28, 2017, allowing buyers to move in—but without signed agreements.
• Without a registered agreement, buyers had no legal security over their properties.

Why This Ruling Matters:

MahaRERA’s decision underscores the risks of taking possession without a legally registered Agreement for Sale. Without a signed agreement, homebuyers may face ownership disputes, resale issues, and financial insecurity. The ruling serves as a wake-up call to ensure the Agreement for Sale is completed before possession.

What’s Next for Homebuyers:

With MahaRERA’s directive in place, the complainants can now secure legal ownership by completing the Agreement for Sale. They may also pursue compensation claims through legal avenues.

This case highlights the importance of homebuyers demanding proper legal documentation before moving in, ensuring their investments remain protected under real estate law.

SFI Analysis

MahaRERA’s ruling against Gagan Lifespaces highlights a critical issue in real estate—possession without a legally registered Agreement for Sale. Despite paying in full, homebuyers lacked legal security, making resale, ownership claims, and financial protection uncertain. This case underscores the risks buyers face when agreements are delayed or withheld. MahaRERA’s intervention ensures accountability, requiring the builder to complete the agreements within 60 days. Additionally, buyers can seek compensation for financial and mental distress. This decision reinforces the importance of legal documentation in real estate transactions, urging buyers to demand proper agreements before taking possession to safeguard their investments.

Also Read: MahaRERA Order

The post Possession Without an Agreement for Sale? MahaRERA Cracks Down on Builder appeared first on Square Feat India.