The Tribunal’s order dated March 13, 2026, in Appeal No. AT005000000204830 of 2024, delivered a scathing rebuke to MahaRERA’s November 8, 2023, decision, which had effectively rewritten the contract by shifting the interest liability start date from the original agreed possession date to the date when the homebuyers amended their complaint prayer. The Tribunal held that such interference amounted to impermissibly “re-writing the contract,” a power no authority under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) possesses.

Chronological Sequence of Events

• October 26, 2017: Homebuyers Mrs. Vrushali Janardan Shinde and Mr. Anil Arvind Patil executed a registered Agreement for Sale for Flat No. 603/8 in the project Cavansite (MahaRERA Registration No. P52100004059, earlier referenced as P52400004058 in some records), developed by S2 Realty (a partnership firm), with its partners Sachin Balkrishna Kulkarni and Vijay Ramesh Jasuja, along with land-owner promoters (including Gajanand Sundarrao Bhelke, Uttamrao Sundarrao Bhelke, and others) as confirming parties. The total consideration was ₹56,95,300, of which the buyers paid ₹51,25,710 (plus stamp duty and registration charges). The agreed date of possession was explicitly fixed as July 31, 2019.
• July 31, 2019: The promoter failed to hand over possession as per the agreement. The delay continued for nearly four years.
• February 15, 2019 (pre-default): The promoter acknowledged delay in a letter and offered ₹12,000 per month compensation from June 2019, which the buyers rejected, insisting on statutory interest under RERA.
• February 26, 2020: Buyers issued a legal notice demanding possession, interest for delay, and compliance.
• June 16, 2020: Aggrieved by non-response, the buyers filed Complaint No. CC005000000064285 before MahaRERA, initially seeking refund of paid amounts with interest under Section 18 of RERA.
• Mid-2023 (exact amendment allowed around August 1, 2023): Due to prolonged litigation and funds remaining stuck, the buyers amended their prayer — opting to continue with the project instead of exiting. They now sought possession plus interest for the delay from July 31, 2019, along with compensation.
• June 19, 2023: The promoter finally obtained the Occupation Certificate (OC) for the project, enabling physical possession (though significantly delayed).
• November 8, 2023: MahaRERA passed the impugned order. It rejected the bulk of the interest claim, holding that:
  • The change in relief (from refund to continuation) caused “prejudice” and “hardship” to the promoter by requiring realignment of cash flows.
  • Interest would run only from August 1, 2023 (post-amendment), not from the original due date.
  • By then, OC was already issued → interest claim “infructuous.”
  • The Authority also appeared to grant some benefit of COVID-19 moratorium notifications (issued from 2020 onward).
• 2024: The homebuyers appealed to MahaREAT, arguing that MahaRERA’s order was contradictory (it mentioned both “no specific date” and “31.07.2019”), ignored the clear agreement terms, and wrongly shifted the possession date without basis.
• March 5, 2026 (hearing reserved) / March 13, 2026 (judgement pronounced via video conferencing): MahaREAT, presided over by Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande, partly allowed the appeal in a detailed 20-page order.

Key Holdings and Harsh Critique of MahaRERA

The Tribunal answered the core issue in the affirmative: the homebuyers are entitled to interest under Section 18 of RERA for the full delay period.

• The possession date of July 31, 2019, is binding and sacrosanct; authorities cannot change it to rewrite contracts.
• MahaRERA’s reasoning on “prejudice” to the promoter was “legally unsustainable and extraneous,” as no pleadings or evidence supported hardship claims.
• Shifting the interest start date to the amendment date was impermissible — “the Authority has no power under the Act to change the due date of possession.”
• Observations in the MahaRERA order were factually contradictory and ignored the registered agreement.
• No force majeure or COVID moratorium benefit applies, as the default predated the pandemic (March 2020); the Tribunal emphasized that promoters must realistically assess timelines as domain experts.
• Citing Supreme Court precedents (Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni, Newtech Promoters vs. State of UP), the Tribunal reiterated that interest for delayed possession is an “unqualified and indefeasible right” of allottees when they choose to continue.

The Tribunal directed all respondents (S2 Realty, its partners, and land-owner promoters) to pay interest jointly and severally on ₹51,25,710 at SBI’s highest MCLR + 2% from August 1, 2019 (one month post-default) to June 19, 2023 (OC date), within 30 days. Any delay attracts further interest on the outstanding amount.

The claim for ₹10 lakh compensation was rejected, as it applies mainly when allottees exit the project.

This judgement serves as a stern reminder to MahaRERA and promoters alike: statutory rights under RERA cannot be diluted by extraneous considerations of promoter convenience. It reinforces buyer protections in delayed possession cases, especially for those who opt to stay invested despite years of wait.

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

The post Date of Possession is Sacrosanct: Tribunal Slams MahaRERA for Illegally Altering Agreed Timeline appeared first on Square Feat India.

Case Details:

• Appeal No.: AT006000000053767 of 2022
• Original Complaint No.: CC006000000078636
• Appellant (Homebuyer): Suchitra Sudam Patil, resident of Block No. 305, Manogat Apartment, Kharegaon, Pakhadi, Kalwa, Thane-400605
• Respondent (Promoter/Builder): Kailash Chattrapati Patil, Shop No.4, Sun Flower Tower, Old Police Line, Parvati Bhavan, Creek Road, Kharkar Ali, Thane (West)
• Project: “Kailash Heights” (RERA Registration No. P51700006977)
• Tribunal Members: Coram – Shri S.S. Shinde (J), Chairperson & Shri Shrikant M. Deshpande, Member (A)
• Reserved on: 13th February 2026
• Pronounced on: 23rd February 2026 (via Video Conferencing)

Chronological Timeline of Events:

1. 2011 – Booking and Agreement: In 2011, Suchitra Sudam Patil booked Flat No. 602 on the 6th floor of “Kailash Heights”. On 19 June 2011, she executed an Agreement for Sale with the promoter for a total consideration of ₹35,79,000. She paid ₹12,00,000 (over 33% of the price) as part consideration. Additionally, she paid ₹2,17,000 to the promoter towards stamp duty (₹1,70,000), registration charges (₹38,000), scanning charges (₹2,000), registration agent fees (₹5,000), and a later ₹10,000 instalment – all specifically for registering the agreement.
2. Promised Possession Date: The agreement clearly stated possession within 18 months from the date of agreement, i.e., on or before January 2013.
3. Builder’s Delay in Registration (2011–2013): Under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) Section 4 (and later RERA Section 13), the promoter was obligated to register the agreement after accepting more than 20% (pre-RERA) or 10% (post-RERA) of the consideration. Despite receiving full stamp duty and registration funds from the buyer in 2011, the promoter deposited only ₹1,79,000 towards stamp duty as late as 28 December 2012 – nearly a year late. This caused the original registration challan to expire on 17 April 2013. Meanwhile, government stamp duty rates increased. The promoter then demanded additional stamp duty (around ₹1,00,300 in 2013, later ₹1,00,200 + ₹35,200 penalty in 2017) from the buyer, blaming her for non-cooperation.
4. Further Delays and Builder’s Demands (2013–2016): Fresh adjudication was filed in February 2016, but the promoter again failed to pay the deficit amounts. The buyer demonstrated willingness by paying an additional ₹5,00,000 instalment on demand, but the promoter refused to encash the cheque, citing non-payment of interest. The promoter never completed registration.
5. Illegal Termination (2016): On 4 August 2016, the promoter issued a termination letter, claiming the buyer failed to register the agreement and come forward for further payments.
6. Buyer’s Complaint to MahaRERA (2019): In April 2019, the buyer filed Complaint No. CC006000000078636 seeking registration of the agreement, possession, interest under Section 18 of RERA for delay, and compensation.
7. MahaRERA Order (4 April 2022): The Authority dismissed the complaint, holding that without a registered agreement, there was no clear possession date, and parties were bound by original terms for refund. It noted the 2016 termination was unchallenged.
8. Appeal to MahaREAT (2022): Aggrieved, the buyer appealed. The promoter did not appear for oral arguments but filed replies claiming the buyer caused delays and the allotment stood terminated.
9. Tribunal’s Landmark Judgement (23 February 2026): The Appellate Tribunal set aside the MahaRERA order completely. Key holdings:
   • The 2011 Agreement for Sale is valid and binding even unregistered, as non-registration was solely the promoter’s fault (he who prevents a thing from being done cannot benefit from it – citing Supreme Court precedents).
   • RERA applies retroactively to ongoing projects (relying on Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters case, 2021).
   • Promoter violated MOFA Section 4 and RERA Section 13 by not registering despite receiving >30% payment.
   • The 2016 termination is unlawful and set aside – not binding on the buyer.
   • Buyer showed full willingness; extra stamp duty/penalty burden falls on promoter due to his delay.
   • Delay in possession starts from February 2013 (no force majeure proved).
   • Buyer entitled to unconditional interest under RERA Section 18 (citing Bombay High Court in Bombay Dyeing and Neelkamal Realtors cases – even unregistered agreements qualify if terms are clear).

Final Relief Granted to Homebuyer:

• Promoter must register the 19 June 2011 Agreement for Sale within 30 days, at his own cost, without altering terms.
• Pay interest on ₹12,00,000 from 1 February 2013 till realization at SBI’s highest MCLR + 2% (currently 8.70% MCLR for 1-year tenor as of February 2026, so ~10.70% p.a.) – within 30 days, failing which interest continues.
• Complete construction, obtain Occupancy Certificate, and hand over possession of Flat No. 602, subject to buyer paying any genuine balance per the 2011 agreement.
• No third-party rights or encumbrances allowed on the flat.
• Miscellaneous applications disposed of; parties bear own costs.

This ruling is a powerful reminder for homebuyers: Builders cannot exploit procedural lapses they caused themselves. Even pre-RERA deals from 2011 can get full RERA protection if the project was ongoing. Homebuyers facing similar issues should document payments and willingness meticulously – it can turn the tables in appeals.

Also Read: Mumbai Housing Market Slipping: Registration Fall, Rs 1 Cr Homes Disappearing From Market

The post Builder’s Fraud Backfires: Tried to Cancel Flat After Delaying Registration – Homebuyer Wins Big in Tribunal appeared first on Square Feat India.