The case, Appeal No. AT006000000154550 of 2023 (arising from MahaRERA Complaint No. CC006000000197059 of 2021), was pronounced on February 13, 2026, by a bench comprising Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Member – Judicial) and Dr. Ratnagopal Devara (Member – Administrative). The appeal was heard ex-parte as the respondents did not appear despite notices.

The appellants/homebuyers were Mr. Mohammed Saeed Ali Mullaji and Mrs. Fawziyah Mohammed Saeed Mullaji, residents of 303, Citi View, Plot No. L27/128, Near Canara Bank, Sector 30, Owe, Kharghar, Panvel, Navi Mumbai – 410210.

The respondents/promoters were Onyx Builders and Mr. Zahid Iltiza Khan, with their address at 318, G.K. Estate, Near Deluxe Hotel, L.B.S. Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400070.

In July 2013, the homebuyers initially booked Flat No. 602 (925 sq.ft. on the 6th floor) in the promoter’s project “Onyx Aura”, located at CTS No. 177, Village Kurla-IV, L Ward, L.B.S. Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400070, for a total consideration of approximately ₹76.88 lakh. They paid ₹60 lakh as part-payment, and the promoter issued a letter of allotment dated 29.07.2013. No registered agreement for sale was ever executed, in violation of Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA).

Construction made no progress for years. Later, the promoter proposed switching to another project, “Onyx Residency” (also at 318, G.K. Estate, Near Deluxe Hotel, L.B.S. Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400070), with a higher consideration of ₹1.50 crore. The parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 19.06.2019, agreeing to adjust the earlier ₹60 lakh and accept the balance ₹90 lakh at possession. However, this project too stalled due to lack of necessary approvals since around 2016.

Feeling defrauded, the homebuyers filed a complaint with MahaRERA in 2021 seeking withdrawal from the project under Section 12 of RERA and refund with interest under Section 18.

In its impugned order dated 04.05.2023, MahaRERA directed full refund of the ₹60 lakh (which the promoter had accepted in conciliation) but denied interest from payment dates. Instead, it awarded interest only from 30.12.2021 (treated as the project’s default/completion date) till realization, citing the absence of a registered agreement for sale and thus no agreed possession date.

Challenging this, the homebuyers appealed to MahaREAT. Represented by Advocate Godfrey W. Pimenta, they argued that interest under Section 18 is an unqualified right starting from receipt of money, as defined in Section 2(za)(ii) of RERA and reinforced by Rule 19 of the Maharashtra RERA Rules, 2017.

MahaREAT agreed, setting aside the limitation on interest. The Tribunal held:

• The promoter contravened MOFA by accepting substantial advances without a registered agreement.
• Failure to deliver possession entitled the allottees to withdraw and claim refund with interest under Section 18.
• Interest is payable from the dates the promoter received the amounts (here, from July 2013) till realization, at State Bank of India’s highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) + 2%.
• The allottee’s right is unconditional; the Authority cannot impose restrictions or shift the start date contrary to statute, even without a registered agreement or specified possession date.

The Tribunal partly modified the MahaRERA order:

• Upheld full refund of ₹60 lakh.
• Directed interest from respective payment dates till realization.

This ruling is a major boost for homebuyers in stalled or delayed projects, especially where promoters delay or avoid executing registered agreements. It clarifies that promoters cannot evade full interest liability by procedural lapses, ensuring compensation reflects the true period the buyer was deprived of their funds.

The order has been communicated to MahaRERA and the parties as per Section 44(4) of RERA.

Also Read: Parking Issue: Shift The Wall Orders MahaRERA

The post Homebuyers Entitled to Interest on Refund from Date of Payment Receipt, Not Project Default Date – Landmark Win in Withdrawal Case appeared first on Square Feat India.

The judgement was delivered on 23 June 2025 in Appeal No. AT005000000235139 of 2024 (Lalit Rade vs. Atul Ratnakar Mahashabde), overturning an earlier dismissal by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA).

Case Background and Facts

• Homebuyer Lalit Rade booked a flat (No. 925, carpet area ≈513.46 sq.ft.) in the project “Tropica Phase-II” (MahaRERA Registration No. P2100008711, Pune), developed by Omkar Developers (with Atul Ratnakar Mahashabde as partner).
• The registered Agreement for Sale was executed on 9 March 2017, promising possession within 30 months + 6 months grace period (due date: effectively 6/9 September 2019).
• The buyer paid the full consideration of ₹36,94,150/- plus ₹2,83,428/- GST.
• The developer failed to deliver possession by the agreed date and had not obtained the OC even years later.
• In 2022, the buyer filed a complaint before MahaRERA seeking possession with OC, amenities, and interest for delay under Section 18 of RERA.

MahaRERA’s Impugned Order (19 April 2024) MahaRERA dismissed the complaint, reasoning:

• “Soft possession” was allegedly given on 23 September 2023 via conciliation.
• Interest claim was an “afterthought” since possession was taken.
• No cause of action survived under Section 18 for possession.
• Amenity/defect issues were premature without OC.

MahaREAT’s Landmark Ruling The Tribunal (Coram: Justice S.S. Shinde, Chairperson, and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande) heard the appeal ex-parte (developer did not appear) and allowed it fully. Key holdings:

1. No successful conciliation existed — Records showed conciliation failed in 2019, and the matter was referred back for adjudication. The Authority wrongly assumed settlement and soft possession.
2. Soft/fit-out possession without OC is not lawful — Possession under RERA means handing over a completed, habitable flat with valid OC from the competent authority. Anything less (e.g., access for fit-outs while construction/approvals pending) does not discharge the developer’s obligation.
3. Right to interest under Section 18 is absolute and indefeasible — Citing Supreme Court judgements in Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni (2020) and Newtech Promoters vs. State of UP (2021), the Tribunal held that once delay occurs beyond the agreed date (and buyer is not at fault), interest is payable unconditionally till lawful possession with OC. Full payment by buyer and no fault on their part strengthen the claim.
4. Developer’s liability continues — The promoter remains bound to obtain OC and hand over lawful possession.

Directions Issued

• Set aside the MahaRERA order of 19 April 2024.
• Developer to pay interest on ₹36,94,150/- at SBI’s highest MCLR + 2%:
  • From 7 September 2019 till 23 June 2025 — payable within 30 days.
  • If delayed, further interest on outstanding amount (as on 23 July 2025) till realization.
  • Continuing interest at same rate from date of order till OC is obtained.
• Developer to obtain OC and hand over lawful possession with OC.
• Parties bear own costs.

Why This Matters for Homebuyers This ruling reinforces that developers cannot use “soft possession” as a tactic to escape interest liability for years-long delays. Homebuyers should:

• Insist on possession only with valid OC and all amenities.
• Not accept soft possession if it risks waiving delay compensation claims.
• Approach RERA/MahaREAT promptly for interest even after partial access.

Such judgements strengthen buyer protections under RERA and deter incomplete handovers.

Also Read: What Is Carpet Area?

The post Soft possession without OC is not lawful possession: MahaREAT rules in favour of homebuyer appeared first on Square Feat India.

The ruling came in M.A. No. 751 of 2025 (Delay) in Appeal No. AT06/00319/2025, between allottee Anubhav Virmani and promoter Kanakia Spaces Realty Pvt. Ltd., and underscores how procedural mistakes can completely extinguish a homebuyer’s appellate rights under RERA.

What Triggered the Homebuyer’s Loss

The homebuyer sought to appeal against a MahaRERA Authority order dated 30 January 2025, which had dismissed his complaint as premature.
Under Section 44 of the RERA Act, an appeal must be filed within 60 days, i.e., by 30 March 2025.

The allottee claimed:

• Appeal was filed online on 08 April 2025
• Delay was only 8 days
• Delay occurred due to frequent professional travel

On this basis, a delay condonation application was filed.

Developer’s Advocate Exposes Critical Filing Defects

The decisive blow to the homebuyer’s case came from Advocate Vinod Talreja, appearing for Kanakia Spaces Realty Pvt. Ltd., who highlighted serious procedural defects in the appeal filing.

Adv. Talreja pointed out that:

• The appeal memo uploaded on 08.04.2025 was unsigned
• It was neither affirmed nor notarized
• No vakalatnama or authorization existed on the claimed filing date
• All documents—including affidavits and appeal memo—were signed, affirmed, and notarized only on 04 August 2025

Based on these defects, Adv. Talreja argued that:

An unsigned and unexecuted appeal cannot be treated as a valid appeal in law, and such filing does not stop the clock of limitation.

This argument proved pivotal.

Tribunal’s Finding: No Valid Appeal Without Proper Execution

The Appellate Tribunal, comprising Justice S.S. Shinde (Chairperson) and Shri Shrikant M. Deshpande (Member A), accepted the promoter’s submissions and held that:

Unsigned, unaffirmed, and unnotarized documents do not constitute a valid appeal.

Relying on Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC and the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 2019, the Tribunal ruled that:

• Mere online uploading of defective documents is insufficient
• An appeal becomes valid only when duly signed and executed

From 8 Days to 125 Days: How the Delay Ballooned

On the basis of Adv. Talreja’s submissions, the Tribunal concluded that:

• The appeal became legally valid only on 04 August 2025
• Limitation expired on 30 March 2025
• Actual delay was 125 days, not 8 days

The Tribunal found that the homebuyer:

• Suppressed material facts
• Misrepresented the length of delay
• Did not approach the Tribunal with clean hands

Travel Excuse Rejected Despite Homebuyer’s Plea

The homebuyer, represented by Advocate Aman Shukla, argued that frequent travel for professional commitments caused the delay.

However, the Tribunal rejected this explanation, observing that:

• No compelling or documented reasons were shown
• No explanation was given for long periods of inactivity while in Mumbai
• In the digital era, appeals can be prepared and filed remotely
• Routine professional travel cannot override statutory limitation

Tribunal Warns Against Misuse of Online Filing

In strong words, the Tribunal cautioned that:

• Allowing defective appeals to be cured months later would create a dangerous precedent
• Parties could manipulate limitation by uploading unsigned documents
• Such practices would undermine the substantive law of limitation

Final Outcome: Homebuyer’s Appeal Ends Without Merits Hearing

• Delay condonation application rejected
• Appeal dismissed as non-maintainable
• No examination of the homebuyer’s grievance on merits
• Parties directed to bear their own costs

Why This Order Is a Wake-Up Call for Homebuyers

This case is a stark reminder that:

• Technical compliance is as critical as substantive rights
• Even genuine grievances can fail due to procedural lapses
• RERA’s appellate process is unforgiving of defective filings

For homebuyers, the message is clear:

A single technical mistake can cost the entire appeal.

Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Against Developer Over Redevelopment Dispute

The post One Signature Not on Time Costs Homebuyer His Entire Case in RERA Appeal appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Tribunal’s decision, delivered on 8 January 2026, stems from a dispute where the developer had purported to terminate the agreement for sale, alleging persistent payment defaults by the buyer. However, the buyer had already paid 95% of the total consideration, and the Tribunal held that non-payment of a part of the price cannot justify cancellation of a registered agreement under the law.

Supreme Court Principles Applied

In its reasoning, the Tribunal relied on established Supreme Court principles showing that the essence of a sale is the transfer of ownership, and cancellation cannot be justified merely on payment issues. As per Supreme Court precedents cited in the order:

• Actual payment of the whole price is not necessary for the completion of a sale once ownership transfer is intended and registered.
• Even if part of the sale consideration remains unpaid, cancellation is not an automatic legal remedy for the developer.
• The correct remedy for unpaid dues would be for the developer to seek legal recovery of the balance amount, not to rescind the sale agreement.

This legal interpretation reinforces the protection of homebuyers who have entered into registered agreements and paid substantial consideration, even if some payment delays have occurred.

Occupation Certificate and Possession Dispute

The dispute also involved disagreement over whether the subject flat was covered by a valid occupation certificate (OC). MahaRERA, in its impugned order, had classified the buyer’s complaint as premature because the flat allegedly was not covered under the part OC obtained by the developer.

However, the Tribunal emphasized that in cases where an OC is disputed, the developer cannot use this as a basis to deny possession and then unilaterally cancel the agreement for sale.

Balance of Convenience Favors Homebuyer

Given that the buyer had already paid nearly the full consideration for the flat (95%), the Tribunal found that the balance of convenience lies with the buyer. It reasoned that if the developer was permitted to sell the flat to a third party, the buyer would suffer irreparable harm — a loss that could not be adequately compensated solely in monetary terms.

As a result, the Tribunal:

• Stayed the operation and execution of MahaRERA’s order dated 2 June 2023
• Directed the promoter to not create any third-party rights in the flat
• Ordered both parties to maintain status quo until the appeal is finally heard

The statute and observations made are prima facie and will be fully adjudicated at final hearing.

Legal Implications for India’s Real Estate Sector

Lawyers and industry experts are calling the order a major legal validation for homebuyers who often face threats of termination from developers on the basis of alleged payment defaults.

This ruling sends a strong message that:

• Developers must adhere to legal remedies for recovery
• They cannot use payment delays as a unilateral justification for cancellation
• Registered sale agreements enjoy strong legal protection

Analysts believe this judgment may set a powerful precedent in RERA disputes across India, particularly for those involving delayed possession, OC disputes, and payment issues.

Also Read: Homebuyer To Pay Interest For Delayed Payment

The post Developers Cannot Cancel Sale Agreements Just for Payment Delays — Key Win for Homebuyers appeared first on Square Feat India.