The Verdict in Plain Language

“You accepted fit-out possession without an Occupation Certificate and stayed on. You acquiesced. You now get interest for 49 days — not 35 months.”

— MahaRERA Member II, in effect

The Story

In September 2016, Manasa Balumur — an NRI — purchased a flat in the Dinesh Kunj project in Goregaon (West), Mumbai, from builder Swastik Realty Pvt. Ltd. for a total consideration of ₹1,06,44,000. The Agreement for Sale was registered. The builder promised possession within 24 months — by 31 August 2018.

That date came and went. No Occupation Certificate. No lawful possession. Instead, in October 2018, the builder offered what it called “fitment possession” — a chance to enter the flat to carry out interior works, with no OC in sight. The buyer accepted, began her interiors, and moved in. The actual Occupation Certificate arrived only on 29 July 2021 — nearly three years after the promised possession date.

Her father, Anantha Krishna Balumur, armed with a registered Power of Attorney, filed a complaint before MahaRERA in October 2020 seeking interest on the full consideration for the period of delay and ₹10 lakh in compensation for mental agony.

The Timeline

Sep 1, 2016

Agreement for Sale registered. Builder promises possession within 24 months.

Aug 31, 2018

Contractual deadline for possession. Builder misses it. No OC obtained.

Oct 20, 2018

Builder offers “fitment possession” — flat handed over without Occupation Certificate. Buyer accepts for interior works.

Oct 31, 2020

Complaint filed before MahaRERA seeking interest and compensation.

Jul 29, 2021

Occupation Certificate finally obtained — 35 months after the agreed possession date.

Oct 2022

Buyer admitted to the Co-operative Housing Society.

Apr 20, 2026

MahaRERA passes final order. Interest awarded for 49 days only.

What the Law Says

This is not a grey area. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is explicit. Section 18(1) makes builders liable to pay interest for every month of delay in handing over possession. Section 19(10) gives allottees the right to receive possession only after the builder has obtained the Occupation Certificate. Without the OC, there is no lawful possession — period.

Rule 18 of the Maharashtra RERA Rules specifies the interest rate: SBI’s highest MCLR plus 2%. The law does not say this liability evaporates if a buyer, desperate after years of waiting, accepts entry into a flat she has already paid for in full, merely to begin her interiors.

“The flat had no OC. Under RERA, that means it legally did not exist as a deliverable unit. Yet the order penalises the buyer for daring to use what she paid ₹1.06 crore for.”

What MahaRERA Did

MahaRERA correctly dismissed several of the builder’s defences. It rightly held that the unregistered Deed of Cancellation — the builder’s claim that the entire sale agreement had been cancelled in September 2016 — was legally void. A registered agreement can only be cancelled by a registered instrument. The builder’s subsequent conduct — handing over possession, helping the buyer get society membership — confirmed the agreement was alive.

MahaRERA also rightly dismissed the builder’s claim that ₹45.3 lakh in dues were outstanding. The builder’s own cancellation deed admitted full consideration had been received. No contemporaneous demand for dues existed.

So far, so good. Then came the twist.

Having established that the Agreement for Sale was valid, that the builder was in breach, and that the OC only came 35 months late — MahaRERA then drastically curtailed the relief. The order held that because the buyer voluntarily accepted fitment possession in October 2018 and “continued to occupy the premises without raising any contemporaneous objection,” she had acquiesced to the delay. Therefore, interest would be awarded only for the gap between the contractual date (31 August 2018) and the fitment possession date (20 October 2018) — a grand total of 49 days.

The Arithmetic of Injustice

The buyer waited 35 months for a legal, OC-backed possession. MahaRERA awarded interest for 49 days. The remaining 34+ months of delay — during which the flat had no Occupation Certificate and therefore no legal standing as a completed unit — were wiped away because the buyer moved in to do her interiors.

The Fatal Flaw in the Reasoning

The order’s logic creates a perverse trap for homebuyers. Under RERA, a buyer is entitled to either interest for delay or a refund. The buyer here did not want a refund — she wanted her flat. After waiting, she accepted fitment possession to at least begin her interiors, mitigating her own losses while paying EMIs on her home loan. That act of pragmatic mitigation is now treated as a waiver of three years of statutory rights.

The order is silent on a crucial question: what was she supposed to do? Refuse entry into a flat she had paid ₹1.06 crore for, sit in limbo, and keep paying home loan EMIs while waiting for an OC that came three years later? If she had done that, would she have been entitled to interest? Apparently yes. Because she was practical and moved in, she is entitled to almost nothing.

This reasoning also directly conflicts with the plain text of the Act. Section 18 creates an obligation on the promoter to pay interest. The allottee’s decision to occupy the flat — which she paid for, in full — does not extinguish the promoter’s statutory obligation. The RERA framework does not contain an “acquiescence” exception. If it did, builders across Maharashtra would simply hand over possession without OCs, wait for buyers to move in, and be immunised from all liability.

“RERA does not contain an acquiescence exception. If it did, every builder in Maharashtra would hand over flats without OCs, wait for buyers to move in, and declare themselves immune.”

The Compensation Denial

Beyond the interest question, MahaRERA denied the ₹10 lakh compensation claim for mental agony entirely, observing that “no separate and specific evidence” had been placed on record. The order concluded that statutory interest “would sufficiently meet the ends of justice.” Interest for 49 days on ₹1.06 crore — likely amounting to a few thousand rupees — is described as sufficient to compensate for three and a half years of living in a flat without legal occupation, dealing with incomplete amenities, and funding litigation.

The Cost Award: A Final Insult

The Respondent was directed to pay ₹20,000 toward the cost of the complaint. For context, the complainant’s advocate fees and years of litigation costs almost certainly far exceed this figure. The builder — which delayed the OC by 35 months, tried to pass off an unregistered cancellation deed as legally valid, and claimed fictitious outstanding dues — walks away paying twenty thousand rupees in costs and 49 days of interest.

What This Order Signals

MahaRERA was created precisely to correct the power imbalance between builders and homebuyers. The RERA Act gave buyers the right to compensation for delay, the right to possession only with an OC, and the right to approach a statutory authority for redress. An order that uses a buyer’s practical acceptance of an incomplete flat against her — to deny the very relief the Act provides — undermines the architecture of the legislation.

If this reasoning stands, it sends a clear message to builders: delay your OC, hand over fitment possession, and wait. Once buyers move in, your liability is capped at the narrow gap between contractual deadline and fitment date. The longer you delay the OC after that, the more liability you shed.

And it sends a clear message to buyers: do not accept fitment possession, no matter how desperate you are, no matter how many EMIs you are paying, no matter how many years you have waited — because the moment you do, your right to compensation effectively disappears.

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

The post “You Stayed in It — So Stop Complaining”: How MahaRERA Let a Builder Off the Hook After 35 Months of Illegal Delay appeared first on Square Feat India.

The notice, dated 24 June 2025, demands payment of ₹42,44,940 within 20 days. This amount arises from interest dues on ₹2.63 crore that the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) had ordered the builder to pay to a homebuyer.

According to officials, if the developer does not clear the dues promptly, the Tahsildar will proceed with compulsory recovery, including attachment and sale of movable and immovable properties.

Legal Basis of the Action
The recovery is being enforced under Section 267 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. This powerful provision allows the government to:

• Attach and sell any movable property, such as vehicles or equipment.
• Attach and sell land or flats owned by the defaulter to satisfy the payment.
• Seize the rights and interests in other immovable properties.

This section essentially treats the unpaid amount as if it were arrears of land revenue, giving the administration sweeping powers to recover dues without the need for fresh litigation.

Background
The action follows a MahaRERA order dated 25 March 2025 in Complaint No. CC006000000193619, which directed the developer to pay compensation, interest, and penalties under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Despite repeated reminders, the builder failed to comply, prompting the Collector Mumbai City to initiate recovery proceedings.

What This Means for Homebuyers
This development reinforces the enforceability of MahaRERA orders, sending a strong message that developers can no longer ignore their obligations. The Maharashtra government’s move demonstrates its commitment to protecting the interests of aggrieved homebuyers.

 Key Takeaway
If developers do not honour RERA orders, their properties can—and will—be attached and auctioned to recover dues.

Headline Suggestions for Homebuyer-Friendly Appeal

• “No Escape for Defaulting Builders: Govt to Attach Properties for MahaRERA Dues”
• “MahaRERA Triumph: Builder’s Assets Face Seizure Over Homebuyer Compensation”
• “Big Win for Homebuyers—Developer’s Property Attachment Begins for Non-Payment”

Also Read: MahaRERA Clarifies: Possession Without an OC is Not Legally Recognized

The post Developer Faces Property Attachment for Ignoring MahaRERA Payment Order appeared first on Square Feat India.