The Tribunal, comprising Chairperson Shri S.S. Shinde (J.) and Member (A) Dr. Rajagopal Devara, delivered the judgment on 11 August 2026 in Appeal No. AT006000000093910 of 2022. The case involved allottees Shweta Phene and Shadab Rizvi versus Rishiraj Developers Private Limited in the “Pearl Crest” project at Dadar, Mumbai.

Background of the Dispute

The allottees entered into an Agreement for Sale on 21 November 2017 for a flat in Pearl Crest (RERA Registration No. P51900002961). The total consideration was ₹2,88,75,950. As per Clause 12.1 of the agreement, the promoter had undertaken to hand over possession on or before December 2019.

By the time the complaint was filed in May 2021, the allottees had paid approximately ₹2,43,87,477 — around 80% of the consideration — along with ₹14,74,000 towards stamp duty and registration charges. Possession was finally offered only after the Occupancy Certificate was obtained on 16 February 2022.

The allottees also disputed certain demand letters raised by the promoter for an instalment linked to completion of staircase, lift wells, doors and windows, arguing that the stage of construction specified in the agreement had not been achieved.

What MahaRERA Had Ordered

In its order dated 11 April 2022, the MahaRERA Chairperson partly allowed the complaint. It directed the promoter to pay interest for the delay in handing over possession from 1 January 2020 to 15 February 2022 at the rate prescribed under the Rules. However, the Authority directed that the moratorium period granted under various MahaRERA notifications issued during the COVID-19 pandemic be excluded while computing the interest.

Arguments of Both Sides

The allottees contended that the promised possession date of December 2019 had already expired much before the COVID-19 outbreak and nationwide lockdown in March 2020. Therefore, the promoter was already in default and could not take advantage of subsequent force majeure notifications to curtail their statutory entitlement to interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

They also argued that the promoter was not entitled to demand certain instalments prematurely and that any amounts payable by them should have been adjusted against the interest due from the promoter.

The promoter, on the other hand, submitted that the delay in obtaining the Occupancy Certificate was caused by the time taken to shift a BEST bus stop and secure necessary approvals from various authorities. It relied on Clauses 12.2 and 12.3 of the Agreement for Sale, which contemplated extension of time in exceptional circumstances and force majeure events. The promoter argued that the COVID-19 pandemic and the related MahaRERA notifications entitled it to exclusion of the moratorium period (particularly 15 April 2021 to 14 October 2021). It also claimed that the allottees had unreasonably refused to grant extension of time.

Tribunal’s Key Findings

The Tribunal rejected the promoter’s claim for the benefit of the COVID moratorium. It observed:

“It is an admitted position that under the Agreement for Sale, the Respondent/Promoter had undertaken to handover possession on or before December 2019. It is not in dispute that the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent nationwide lockdown happened only thereafter, i.e. March 2020. Therefore, the Respondent/Promoter had already committed default in fulfilling contractual obligation prior to the occurrence of alleged force majeure event.”

The Bench further held:

“In our considered view, the benefit of moratorium period granted under various notifications of MahaRERA cannot be made applicable to the Promoter who was already in breach of contractual obligation to deliver possession before the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. The statutory liability under Section 18 of RERA Act, 2016 has already accrued in favour of Appellants/Allottees on account of Promoter’s failure to handover possession within the agreed timeline.”

The Tribunal noted that while reasons for delay (including shifting of the BEST bus stop) may be relevant for seeking extension of the project completion date before MahaRERA, such extension does not affect or curtail the allottee’s statutory right to claim interest for delayed possession under Section 18.

Reliance on Supreme Court Judgments

The Tribunal heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP (2021) and M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni (2020). It quoted the Newtech judgment to emphasise that the right of an allottee to interest under the proviso to Section 18(1) is absolute and is not dependent on unforeseen events or stay orders not attributable to the allottee.

The Tribunal observed that Section 18 does not provide any waiver, relaxation or exception on account of force majeure while determining the promoter’s liability to pay interest for delayed possession when the allottee chooses to continue with the project.

Outcome

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of MahaRERA warranted interference and that the allottees were entitled to the reliefs sought in the appeal. The practical effect is that the promoter cannot exclude the COVID moratorium periods while calculating interest for the delay from the contractual possession date onwards.

Why This Matters for Homebuyers

This ruling draws a clear line: COVID force majeure protection is not a blanket shield. If a builder had already missed the agreed possession date before March 2020, the subsequent pandemic cannot be used to reduce the period for which interest is payable under Section 18. The decision reinforces the absolute nature of the allottee’s right to interest for delay and prevents promoters from retrospectively taking advantage of pandemic-related notifications in cases of pre-existing default.

For homebuyers stuck in delayed projects where possession was promised before the pandemic, this order provides strong support to claim the full period of interest without deduction of the COVID moratorium window.

Also Read: Recklessness in behaviour cause of COVID: Awhad

The post Builder Can’t Use COVID Excuse If Possession Was Due Before Pandemic appeared first on Square Feat India.