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 common judgment, delivered on 9th April 2026 by Member (Judicial) Shri Shriram R. Jagtap and Member (Administrative) Dr. Rajagopal Devara, allows two appeals filed by Mr. Pankaj Mohan (aged 50) and Mrs. Sudha Agarwal (aged 46), residents of Vishnu Shivam Towers, Thakur Village, Kandivali East.

Case Background

The couple had jointly booked two flats — Flat No. 36-A and 36-B — in the Winter Green wing of Rivali Park through letters of allotment dated 28 April 2012. The promoter had promised possession within 48 months plus 6 months grace period from the commencement of construction (30 June 2011), meaning the original deadline was 31 December 2015.

The allottees paid approximately 90% of the consideration value — ₹1,32,33,859 out of ₹1,39,75,566 per flat. However, possession was not delivered on time. The project, which was ongoing when RERA came into force in 2017, was registered with MahaRERA with a revised completion date of December 2019. The promoter eventually obtained the Occupation Certificate on 7 April 2021, and the allottees took physical possession on 17 May 2021 after executing sale agreements in December 2020.

Aggrieved by the prolonged delay, the homebuyers filed complaints before MahaRERA seeking two main reliefs:

• Direction to execute and register Agreements for Sale.
• Payment of interest/compensation for delayed possession under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

The MahaRERA Order Dated 3 April 2023

On 3rd April 2023, MahaRERA passed a common order in Complaint Nos. CC006000000055723 of 2023 and CC009000000055728 of 2023. The Authority largely rejected the buyers’ claim for delay interest. It appeared to accept the promoter’s defence that the allottees had acquiesced to the delays by continuing to make payments without strong protests and by not objecting promptly to revised timelines communicated via letters in 2015 and 2017.

MahaRERA gave credence to the promoter’s explanations for the delay, including changes in Development Control Regulations (DCR), funding issues with lender Indiabulls Finance, sand scarcity, and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result, no interest was awarded to the buyers.

MREAT’s Ruling in Favour of Homebuyers

The allottees challenged the MahaRERA order before the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos. AT006000000154496 of 2023 and AT006000000154497 of 2023, represented by Adv. Manan Sharma. The promoter was represented by Adv. Abir Patel.

In a detailed 24-page common judgment, the Tribunal held that:

• The promoter cannot unilaterally revise possession dates through letters. The dates mentioned in the 2012 allotment letters are binding unless mutually agreed upon in writing by both parties.
• Continued payments or silence by the allottees does not amount to waiver of their right to claim interest under Section 18 of RERA. They never expressly consented to the extensions.
• The promoter’s force majeure excuses (DCR changes, financial crisis with Indiabulls, sand scarcity, and Covid-19) were not sustainable. Covid-19 occurred much after the original 2015 and even the RERA-registered 2019 deadlines.
• Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), the Tribunal reiterated that if the delay is not attributable to the allottee, they have an unqualified right to interest for delayed possession, regardless of external factors.

The Tribunal observed that the allottees had paid nearly the entire amount without default and had even inquired about compensation via email in 2015, showing they did not relinquish their rights.

Final Directions by MREAT

The Appellate Tribunal allowed both appeals and directed CCI Projects Pvt. Ltd. to:

• Pay interest to the allottees on the amounts paid at State Bank of India’s highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) + 2% per annum, from 1 January 2016 till 17 May 2021 (date of possession).
• Pay costs of ₹10,000 in each appeal.

All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

This ruling reinforces the strong buyer-protection provisions under RERA and sends a clear message that promoters cannot escape liability for delayed possession through unilateral extensions or general excuses.

The dispute is part of a series of cases involving the Rivali Park (Winter Green) project, where multiple homebuyers have approached authorities over delays and related issues.

Also Read: Developers With Incomplete RERA Applications Asked to Reapply After MahaRERA Closes Old Portal Cases

The post MahaRERA Order Overturned: Homebuyers Win Delay Interest from CCI Projects in Rivali Park’s Winter Green Project appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case pertains to Unit No. 3502 on the 35th floor of Tower C in Omkar 1973, Worli. Here is the complete chronological sequence of events:

• March 2015 – April 2016: The Mehta family (Mr Mahendra Mehta, Mr Vikram Mehta and Mrs Hinal Mehta) applied for and received a Letter of Allotment dated 26 April 2016 for the flat. They paid ₹7.33 crore as advance consideration plus ₹35.41 lakh towards TDS, Service Tax and VAT — a total of ₹7.69 crore. The allotment letter promised possession on or before 30 June 2019, extendable latest to 30 June 2020.
• 2018: Construction of Tower C came to a complete standstill after multiple Bombay High Court orders restrained the developer from carrying out further construction and creating any third-party interest on the top floors. On 1 August 2018, the Mehtas issued a legal notice demanding full refund with 14% interest and cancellation of the allotment.
• 2021: With no response or refund from the developer, the family approached MahaRERA by filing Complaint No. CC009000000195169 of 2021.
• 19 December 2022: MahaRERA Member-I directed Omkar Realtors to refund the amount paid. However, the Authority allowed the builder to deduct 2% of the total consideration (as per MahaRERA Order No. 35 of 2022) and crucially denied any interest on the refunded sum.
• 2023: Aggrieved by the absence of interest and the 2% deduction, the Mehta family filed Appeal No. AT006000000144304 of 2023 before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
• 23 March 2026: The appeal was heard through video conferencing.
• 8 April 2026: In a detailed judgment authored by Member (A) Dr Rajagopal Devara (and concurred by Member (J) Shriram R. Jagtap), the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal. It held that under Sections 18(1)(a) and 19(4) of the RERA Act, the allottees have an “unqualified right” to full refund along with interest when the promoter fails to deliver possession. The Tribunal ruled that the delay was solely attributable to the builder and court orders, not the homebuyers. It set aside the 2% deduction and the denial of interest.

The Tribunal modified the MahaRERA order and directed Omkar Realtors to refund the full ₹7.69 crore along with interest at SBI MCLR + 2% per annum, calculated from the respective dates of payment till actual realisation. Parties are to bear their own costs.

Advocate Akash Rebello appeared for the homebuyers, while Advocate Sonali Jain represented the developer.

This order is seen as a strong reinforcement of homebuyer rights under RERA, especially in cases where projects are stalled due to the promoter’s litigation issues.

Also Read: Omkar Sells 9 Flats Worth ₹131 Crore To A Buyer

The post Omkar 1973: Builder Delayed Possession, MahaRERA Denied Interest & Cut 2%; Tribunal Grants Full Refund + Interest appeared first on Square Feat India.

The final order, passed on April 7, 2026 by Member-II Shri. Ravindra Deshpande in Complaint No. CC006000000196093, involved buyers in the “Gaurav Samruddhi” project (MahaRERA Registration No. P51700009724) developed by Ravi Developments in Mira Bhayandar, Thane district.

MahaRERA’s Clear Stance on Group vs Individual Complaints

MahaRERA has consistently maintained through its guidelines (including Order No. 11 of 2019 and the official complaint filing portal) that:

• An aggrieved person must file a separate (individual) complaint when seeking personal or individual reliefs.
• Group complaints are entertained only for truly common reliefs, such as those under Section 7 (revocation of registration) & Section 8 (remaining projects after revocation) of the RERA Act, or for common amenities affecting the entire project.
• The Authority may, at its discretion, club multiple similar individual complaints for joint hearing, but it does not encourage mixed joint filings where individual prayers (like specific parking allotment, personal refunds, or interest calculations) are clubbed together.

In the present case, the Authority noted at the outset that the 11 complainants had filed a common complaint seeking a mix of common and individual reliefs. This made it “difficult for this Authority to ascertain which Complainant has purchased which parking” and to grant buyer-specific directions in the absence of clear, per-complainant documentary evidence.

The order explicitly referenced the earlier 2018 directive and MahaRERA’s procedural framework, highlighting that such joint filings often lead to procedural hurdles and partial or limited relief.

This approach aligns with recent MahaRERA observations in other matters, where collective grievances affecting a larger group of allottees are expected to be pursued through a registered Association of Allottees, Co-operative Housing Society, or with explicit authorisation from the majority of homebuyers, rather than by a small group acting in their individual capacity.

Background of the Gaurav Samruddhi Case

The flat buyers had earlier succeeded in a 2018 complaint before the then Chairperson of MahaRERA, which directed the developer to hand over possession by October 31, 2018, pay delay interest if applicable, and initiate society formation.

The buyers claimed they took “fit-out” possession in July 2018. However, even years later, the building lacked a formal Occupation Certificate (OC) from Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation. They alleged missing basic amenities (reliable water supply, consistently working lifts, boundary wall), non-allotment of dedicated car parking despite payments, unpaid property taxes by the developer for the pre-possession period, and demands for additional charges.

Notably, the buyers themselves formed and registered the Gaurav Samruddhi CHS Ltd. in 2021 after the developer failed to do so, despite collecting society formation charges.

What the Order Granted and Rejected

After examining the pleadings, rejoinder, sur-rejoinder, and written submissions (with the final hearing on June 24, 2025), the Authority held:

Granted:

• Direction to the developer (Ravi Developments) to obtain the Occupation Certificate from the Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation within 30 days from the date of the order (i.e., by approximately May 7, 2026). No proof of OC having been received was placed on record.

Rejected:

• Fresh claims for delay interest (as buyers had admitted taking possession in July 2018, before the 2018 deadline).
• Compensation for mental agony/harassment under Section 18(3).
• Specific directions on dedicated car parking (due to lack of clarity in the joint filing).
• Refund of property taxes paid by buyers for the pre-possession period (buyers became liable after taking possession and occupying the flats).
• Directions regarding society formation (already done by buyers in 2021).
• Restraints on additional charges or GST on maintenance (society is now handling maintenance).

No costs were awarded to either side. The complainants were represented by Adv. Godfrey Pimenta, while the respondent was represented by Adv. Makrand Raut.

Implications for Homebuyers Across Maharashtra

This order serves as a reminder to homebuyers that:

• For personal reliefs (interest calculation per flat, specific parking, individual refunds, or accounting of payments), filing individual complaints is safer and more effective.
• For project-wide or common issues (such as obtaining OC, major common amenities, or revocation-related matters), approaching through a registered Co-operative Housing Society or Association of Allottees (with majority backing) carries more weight.
• Joint complaints mixing individual and common prayers risk partial rejection or procedural complications.

Homebuyers in similar delayed or lapsed projects are advised to:

• Coordinate through their registered society for common reliefs like OC and handover of accounts.
• File fresh individual complaints where personal monetary claims (interest, compensation) remain unaddressed.
• Consider appealing the order before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) within the stipulated 60 days, if they believe stronger grounds exist for interest or compensation.

The ruling comes at a time when MahaRERA continues to handle thousands of complaints annually, emphasising procedural discipline to ensure efficient redressal while protecting the rights of genuine homebuyers.

Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Against Developer Over Redevelopment Dispute

The post MahaRERA Rejects Joint Complaints by Homebuyers Seeking Individual Reliefs appeared first on Square Feat India.

Member II Shri. Ravindra Deshpande passed the order on 06.04.2026 in Complaint No. CC006000000193290, filed by Manohar Shetty and Lalita M. Shetty. The Authority partly allowed the complaint, awarding interest for the period of delay while rejecting the buyers’ initial demand for a full refund since they ultimately took possession.

Case Details

The complainants had booked Flat No. WING F 0804 by executing an Agreement for Sale on 28.07.2017 for a total consideration of ₹4,32,15,892. They paid approximately ₹4.09 crore (precisely ₹4,06,71,685 as on the agreed possession date). Clause 8.1 of the agreement stipulated possession by September 2019.

Despite the contractual timeline, the project faced delays. The developer cited challenges such as pending municipal sanctions, arbitration proceedings initiated by society members, torrential rains, and later the COVID-19 lockdown. The project received its Occupation Certificate (OC) on 02.03.2020, and buyers were informed via email on 04.03.2020. A final demand notice for the balance ₹25,44,207 was issued on 28.05.2020 during the lockdown period.

The Shettys filed the complaint on 15.06.2020, initially seeking a full refund of the principal amount, taxes, stamp duty, registration charges, interest, rent compensation, and ₹10 lakh for mental agony. They paid the outstanding amount and took possession on 23.10.2020 under protest. Their claim later shifted to interest for delayed possession.

Developer’s Defense and Authority’s Observations

Kolte-Patil argued that the agreement mentioned possession “on or before or about” September 2019, subject to force majeure events. The company highlighted delays due to approvals, arbitration, infrastructure work (including club house), and the pandemic, which prevented physical handover despite the OC.

MahaRERA, however, held that the developer failed to provide timely intimation or formally revise the possession date in the agreement. The Authority noted that extensions granted on the MahaRERA website for project completion do not override the contractual possession date agreed with individual allottees.

Citing the Bombay High Court’s observation in the Neelkamal Realtors case, the Member ruled that the right to interest for delayed possession under Section 18 of the RERA Act is unconditional and absolute, regardless of unforeseen events, once the agreed date lapses.

Interest Awarded

The Authority granted interest only from 01.10.2019 to 03.03.2020 on the amount paid by the complainants up to 30.09.2019 (₹4,06,71,685). Interest is to be calculated at the highest Marginal Cost of Funds based Lending Rate (MCLR) of SBI plus 2% per Rule 18 of the Maharashtra RERA Rules, 2017. This applies monthly and covers only the consideration paid toward the flat (excluding stamp duty, registration charges, and taxes paid to the government).

No interest was awarded after 03.03.2020, as the flat was ready post-OC. The period from 15.03.2020 to 14.09.2020 was treated as a force majeure moratorium under MahaRERA’s Order No. 14/2020, during which interest under Section 18 is not payable.

Additionally, Kolte-Patil was directed to pay ₹20,000 toward the cost of the complaint. The developer must comply within 60 days of the order.

The Authority did not entertain the developer’s counter-claim for interest on the buyers’ delayed payment of the balance amount, as no separate complaint was filed.

Key Takeaways from the Ruling

• Contractual possession dates in the Agreement for Sale take precedence over RERA-registered project completion timelines for calculating delay interest.
• Promoters must proactively communicate delays and revise dates formally; failure to do so weakens force majeure defenses.
• COVID-19 moratorium provides limited relief to developers but does not erase pre-pandemic delays.
• Homebuyers who take possession retain the right to claim interest for the delay period.

This order aligns with MahaRERA’s consistent approach in similar delayed possession cases, balancing buyer protection with practical realities like pandemics.

Homebuyers in ongoing redevelopment or delayed projects in Mumbai are advised to review their agreements and monitor project updates closely. Developers must ensure transparent communication to avoid such disputes.

Also Read: Builder cancels booking, MahaRERA orders refund

The post MahaRERA Orders Kolte-Patil Developers to Pay Interest for Delayed Possession in Vile Parle Redevelopment Project appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, in his judgment pronounced today, refused to declare the December 17, 2019 order — directing Marvel to refund ₹1,35,99,246 along with 10.20% interest per annum to flat purchaser Mr. Siddharth Mohan Palesha — as a nullity. The court also declined to interfere with the subsequent October 8, 2021 Recovery Order, which treats the unpaid amount as arrears of land revenue recoverable through the Collector.

The developer had argued that the Adjudicating Officer who passed the refund order lacked jurisdiction, relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP. Marvel contended that only compensation could be adjudicated by such officers under Section 71 of the RERA Act, rendering any refund direction non est (non-existent in law) even years later.

Justice Sundaresan rejected this interpretation, holding that Newtech primarily addressed the powers of Whole Time Members of RERA to order refunds and delegation under Section 81 of the Act. The Supreme Court did not rule that Adjudicating Officers were barred from directing refunds when powers were validly delegated. Reading judgments out of context or like statutes was cautioned against.

More crucially, the court emphasised delay and laches. The 2019 order attained finality because Marvel never filed a statutory appeal under Section 44 of the RERA Act within the prescribed 120-day limit (60 days + 60 days condonable). The writ petition itself was filed only in August 2024 — nearly five years after the original order and almost three years after the Newtech judgment.

Citing Supreme Court precedents such as U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh and State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, the judge observed that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be used to reopen long-crystallised rights, especially by parties who remained indolent.

The court noted that Marvel appeared to have adopted a reactive approach, filing the petition after the homebuyer approached the High Court in a separate writ (WP 2271 of 2024) seeking enforcement. It also highlighted that Marvel is connected to Marveledge Realtors (a sister concern where a Division Bench had granted some relief in a similar matter), but distinguished the facts due to the inordinate delay here.

The judgment underscores that even if a subsequent higher court ruling clarifies the law, it does not automatically reopen matters that have attained finality without timely challenge. Homebuyers’ rights, once crystallised through unappealed RERA orders, cannot be easily disturbed years later.

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. Recovery proceedings against Marvel can now proceed.

This ruling is likely to discourage developers from belatedly challenging old RERA refund orders on jurisdictional grounds post-Newtech, sending a strong message on timely compliance and the protection of homebuyer interests under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Also Read: No Agreement Of Sale Means No Refund, says MahaRERA

The post Bombay HC Dismisses Marvel Landmarks Petition; Upholds 2019 RERA Refund Order to Homebuyer appeared first on Square Feat India.

The ruling came in the high-profile case involving Thane-based homebuyers Meghana and Abhishek Lakhotia against Deep Homes & Constructions LLP, the developer of the “Auralis – The Twins” project in Thane.

What Compensation Do Homebuyers Lose?

According to the Tribunal, claims for mental harassment compensation and rent reimbursement fall under the broader head of “compensation” under Section 18 of the RERA Act. These additional reliefs are available primarily when a homebuyer chooses to withdraw from the project and seeks a full refund of the amount paid.

Once the buyer accepts possession — even if it is delayed — the only remedy that survives is interest on the money paid for the period of delay. Separate claims for rent paid elsewhere or mental agony are not entertained in addition to interest.

The Case in Detail

Meghana and Abhishek Lakhotia had booked flat No. 1601 (16th floor, Tower-1) in the promoter’s project “Auralis – The Twins” (RERA Registration No. P51700009177). They executed a registered Agreement for Sale on 31 January 2019 for a total consideration of ₹1.36 crore, with the promoter promising possession on or before 31 March 2019.

Despite paying nearly the entire amount (₹1.30 crore as admitted by the promoter), the Lakhotias received only “fit-out possession” on 25 March 2021 — without an Occupation Certificate (OC). The promoter obtained the OC on 14 June 2021 and formally offered possession with the OC on the same day.

Aggrieved by the delay of more than two years, the couple filed a complaint before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) in August 2021. They demanded:

• Interest on the amount paid from 1 April 2019 till actual possession with OC,
• ₹3 lakh as compensation for mental harassment,
• ₹7.70 lakh towards rent paid by them during the delay,
• Refund of excess GST, and
• Proper documents and parking space.

The promoter opposed the complaint, citing various delays beyond its control (environmental clearances, FSI issues, MMRDA approvals, and later the Covid-19 pandemic) and claimed some payments were still outstanding.

Chronology of Events

• 31 January 2019: Agreement for Sale executed; possession promised by 31 March 2019.
• 31 March 2019: Promised possession date lapses.
• 25 March 2021: Promoter hands over fit-out possession without Occupation Certificate.
• 14 June 2021: Promoter receives Occupation Certificate and offers formal possession.
• 10 August 2021: Lakhotias file complaint before MahaRERA (after taking possession).
• 27 May 2022: MahaRERA directs promoter to pay delay interest till fit-out possession date and grants moratorium benefit to the promoter.
• 2022: Both sides file cross-appeals before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
• 25 March 2026: Appeals reserved for judgment.
• 2 April 2026: Tribunal pronounces final order.

Tribunal’s Ruling (2 April 2026)

In a detailed judgment authored by Member (A) Shrikant M. Deshpande (with Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde concurring), the Appellate Tribunal:

• Dismissed the promoter’s appeal.
• Partly allowed the homebuyers’ appeal.
• Held that giving possession without an Occupation Certificate does not amount to legal possession under RERA. Therefore, interest must run till 14 June 2021 (date of OC).
• Directed the promoter to pay interest on ₹1,30,50,167 at SBI’s highest Marginal Cost Lending Rate (MCLR) + 2% from 1 April 2019 to 14 June 2021, payable within 30 days.
• Rejected the promoter’s claim for Covid-19 moratorium benefit, as the original possession date (March 2019) was well before the pandemic.
• Explicitly rejected claims for mental harassment compensation and rent reimbursement, observing that such reliefs are available only when the allottee withdraws from the project.

Both parties have been directed to bear their own costs.

Significance of the Order

The judgment reinforces a consistent principle followed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal: once a homebuyer accepts the apartment, the dispute shifts from “refund + compensation” to “interest only”. It serves as an important reminder for delayed-project buyers — accepting possession limits their financial remedies to statutory interest, however long the delay may have been.

Also Read: Homebuyers Come Before Banks: MahaRERA Pulls Bank For Ignoring Homebuyers While Lending Money to Builder

The post Homebuyers Lose Right to Compensation & Rent Refund Once They Accept Delayed Possession appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice N.J. Jamadar delivered the judgment on 30 March 2026 in Second Appeal Nos. 121 and 122 of 2026, dismissing the appeals filed by Rare Townships Private Limited against homebuyer Mitul Gada. The Court upheld the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal’s order permitting the allottee to withdraw the refund amount deposited by the promoter during the pendency of the appeal.

Sequence of Events

• November 2015: Mitul Gada entered into two Agreements for Sale with Rare Townships for Flat Nos. 1503 and 1504 in the “North Sea Heights (A1)” project at Ghatkopar. The promoter promised possession by 31 December 2018. Gada paid ₹98,92,960 for Flat 1504 and ₹69,66,437 for Flat 1503.
• 2018–2020: Possession was not delivered. Construction came to a standstill. Gada filed complaints before MahaRERA seeking refund under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016.
• February 2020: MahaRERA referred the complaints to the Adjudicating Officer.
• March 2021: Adjudicating Officer directed refund with interest and compensation.
• 2021–2025: Promoter challenged the order in writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. The High Court directed the promoter to deposit the amounts (totaling over ₹3.26 crore) in Court. The writ petitions were disposed of in April 2025, remanding the matter to MahaRERA with liberty to the Authority to disburse the deposited amounts if found due to the allottee.
• September 2025: MahaRERA directed the promoter to refund the entire amount paid by Gada along with interest at SBI’s highest marginal cost of lending rate + 2% (with COVID moratorium benefit).
• Late 2025: Promoter filed appeals before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal and sought stay on execution. The Tribunal granted stay on further recovery but allowed Gada to withdraw the deposited amounts subject to an undertaking to refund the money with interest if the promoter ultimately succeeds.
• January–March 2026: Aggrieved by the withdrawal permission, the promoter approached the Bombay High Court in second appeals.

Court’s Strong Observations on Homebuyer Vulnerability

Dismissing the appeals, Justice Jamadar observed:

“The promoter and allottee cannot be placed on an equal footing. The capacity to withstand the deprivation of the legitimate amount vastly differs and the position of the allottee is generally very vulnerable.”

The Court noted that over 11 years had passed since the agreements were signed and more than seven years since the promised possession date, yet the project remained incomplete. The allottee continued paying EMIs on home loans while his hard-earned money remained blocked with the promoter.

The judgment clarified that the pre-deposit requirement under the proviso to Section 43(5) of RERA (at least 30% of the penalty or the total amount payable to the allottee) is meant to safeguard the allottee’s interest. However, this does not freeze the money indefinitely. The Appellate Tribunal has discretion to release the deposited amount in deserving cases, especially where long delays and clear default by the promoter are established.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP (2021) but clarified that the pre-deposit provision is not a bar on disbursement during appeal when equities demand it.

Key Takeaways

• Homebuyers’ money paid years ago is not “developer’s money” — it remains the buyer’s legitimate amount plus interest for deprivation.
• Appellate Tribunals can permit withdrawal subject to undertakings, balancing the promoter’s right to appeal with the buyer’s immediate hardship.
• The ruling reinforces RERA’s beneficial intent to protect vulnerable homebuyers from prolonged litigation and financial distress.

The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the interim applications also disposed of. The allottee can now withdraw the deposited refund amount upon furnishing the required undertaking.

Also Read: Refund Allowed — But Not Final: Homebuyers Must Repay If Builder Wins Appeal

The post Homebuyers Are Vulnerable, Developers Not on Equal Footing: Bombay High Court appeared first on Square Feat India.

Chronological Sequence of Events

• October 17, 2013: The allottees booked Flat No. 3305 (advertised as 1096 sq. ft. carpet area) in Runwal Greens, Mulund, and executed a registered Agreement for Sale for ₹2.46 crore. Promised possession: December 1, 2015.
• Post-booking period: Allottees paid nearly the entire amount. The developer revised possession dates multiple times — first to October 31, 2017, then to December 31, 2019 — citing various reasons.
• January 2016 onwards: Allottees repeatedly emailed the promoter highlighting the delay, financial losses, and demanding compensation/interest. Emails dated January-February 2016, March 2017, and June 2019 clearly asserted their rights.
• 2018-2019: Occupation Certificate obtained on July 7, 2018; possession offered later. Actual possession handed over on September 19, 2020.
• June 21, 2019: Allottees filed Complaint No. CC006000000100192 before MahaRERA, seeking interest on delayed possession under Section 18 of RERA and relief for alleged carpet area discrepancy.
• March 2, 2020: MahaRERA Chairman rejected the interest claim on delayed possession, holding that Section 18 ceases to apply once the project is complete and possession is offered. The Authority sided heavily with the promoter’s submissions.

The allottees appealed (Appeal No. AT006000000053112 of 2021). They took possession on September 19, 2020, “without prejudice” and expressly reserving rights to challenge the MahaRERA order.

Tribunal’s Key Findings – How MahaRERA Got It Wrong

The MREAT, in its judgment pronounced on March 12, 2026 (Coram: Shri Shriram R. Jagtap, Member (J) & Dr. Rajagopal Devara, Member (A)), set aside the MahaRERA order partly and ruled strongly in favour of the homebuyers.

On carpet area:

• Agreement promised 1096 sq. ft. (101.82 sq. mtr) carpet area.
• Approved plan (dated July 15, 2019) showed only 927 sq. ft. (86.16 sq. mtr) — a shortfall of approximately 168-169 sq. ft.
• Tribunal observed discrepancies in area calculations, noting that certain concessions under DCPR 2034 (including staircase, lift lobby treated as free of FSI) appeared improperly included in carpet area computations. It highlighted differences between MOFA-era and RERA definitions of carpet area.
• Promoter claimed actual constructed area was 1099 sq. ft. and cited Clause 20 of the agreement allowing variation, but the Tribunal rejected this, directing refund of ₹37,94,217 (excess charged) + ₹1,89,769 (stamp duty) = ₹39,83,986, with interest at SBI Highest MCLR + 2% from date of payments till realization.

On delayed possession:

• The Tribunal relied on Section 18(1)(a) of RERA and the Bombay High Court’s Neelkamal judgment. It held that interest is payable for the entire delay period from the original promised date (December 1, 2015) till actual possession (September 19, 2020), irrespective of reasons for delay or subsequent OC/possession offer.
• Allottees had consistently demanded interest through emails; there was no waiver by conduct. Continuing cause of action for delay.
• MahaRERA’s interpretation (that Section 18 stops operating once possession is given) was rejected as incorrect and contrary to precedents.

The Tribunal emphasized that statutory rights under RERA cannot be denied on technicalities like delay in filing or “one stage of appeal” arguments.

Developer’s Response

We contacted Subodh Runwal of Runwal Homes. His company sent us a statement which reads: “In the subject matter RERA rejected same prayers of customers, who approached to REAT (tribunal) and order was issued, Runwal will approach appropriate forum to seek relief against order.”

This order is indeed an eye-opener. While MahaRERA appeared to side with the developer on key issues, the Appellate Tribunal scrutinized the documents, exposed the mismatch between promised and delivered area, and upheld homebuyers’ rights under RERA. For reputed developers, such rulings underscore that marketing larger areas while delivering less — whether due to calculation changes or otherwise — will not escape scrutiny.

Homebuyers in ongoing or delayed projects, or similar developments, should carefully verify carpet area against approved plans and RERA registrations. This judgment reinforces that RERA’s protective provisions, including interest for delay and refund for shortfalls, remain enforceable even after possession.

Also Read: Sandeep Runwal takes charge as the new NAREDCO Maharashtra President

The post Runwal Greens Mulund: Tribunal Orders Runwal To Refund ₹39.8L for Less Carpet Area + Delay Interest appeared first on Square Feat India.

The final order, pronounced by Member II Ravindra Deshpande on 10 March 2026 in Complaint No. CC006000000194668, has sent ripples through Mumbai’s real-estate circles. It underscores a hard legal truth: paying full consideration does not automatically give you rights if the payment does not reach the promoter’s designated bank account.

The Case in Brief

Complainant A.K. Enterprises claimed it was allotted Flat Nos. 801, 802 and 804 (8th floor) in the project “Ramkrishna Heights” (MahaRERA Registration No. P51800005327) at LBS Marg (West), Kurla, via three allotment letters dated 22 March 2013. The firm said it paid the full amount – ₹53.20 lakh for Flat 801, ₹38.25 lakh for Flat 802 and ₹46.55 lakh for Flat 804 – totalling ₹1.38 crore.

Despite the payment, the developer never executed registered Agreements for Sale nor handed over possession. The complainant approached MahaRERA seeking directions to the promoter, M/s. Pooja Enterprises and its partners, to register the agreements and deliver vacant possession within four weeks.

Developer’s Strong Defence

Pooja Enterprises (Respondent No. 1) and its partners (Respondents 2 to 7) flatly denied the claim. They told MahaRERA that:

• The project is fully completed, Occupation Certificate was received, and the society was registered on 29 June 2022.
• All flats, including the three in question, were sold to genuine third-party buyers through registered sale deeds in 2017 (dated 23.03.2017, 21.03.2017 and 23.05.2017) and possession handed over.
• No money was ever received in the promoter’s bank account from A.K. Enterprises.
• The complainant is not an allottee at all.

The Fatal Flaw That Cost the Buyer Everything

The turning point came when the complainant itself admitted in its rejoinder that the ₹1.38 crore was paid not to M/s. Pooja Enterprises (the RERA-registered promoter) but to M/s. Spaceline Realtors Pvt. Ltd., a separate private company. The buyer argued that some partners of the promoter firm were “associated” with Spaceline.

MahaRERA rejected this argument outright.

In a detailed 6-page order, Member Deshpande held:

“Payments made to third parties or to entities other than the registered promoter cannot automatically create rights of allotment in a RERA-registered project… Such an arrangement cannot bind the registered promoter unless it is demonstrated that the amount was actually received by or on behalf of the promoter.”

The Authority noted that:

• There were no bank entries, receipts or books of accounts of the promoter showing receipt of the money.
• Allotment letters dated 2013 do not constitute a registered Agreement for Sale as mandatorily required under Section 13 of the RERA Act.
• The three flats had already been legitimately transferred to other buyers via registered deeds years ago.

Consequently, the complainant failed to prove it was an “allottee” under Section 2(d) of the RERA Act. The complaint was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Why This Order Is a Wake-Up Call for Every Homebuyer

Maharashtra saw a massive 81% jump in homebuyer complaints in 2025 (6,945 cases disposed). This ruling comes at a time when buyers are increasingly routing payments through “convenient” channels – partners’ accounts, marketing companies, or group entities – to save on documentation or on the advice of middlemen.

MahaRERA has repeatedly emphasised that the promoter’s designated RERA project bank account is sacrosanct. Seventy per cent of buyer funds must flow into this escrow-like account and can be used only for project costs. Paying anywhere else breaks the legal chain.

Legal experts say the order reinforces three iron-clad rules:

1. Money must reach the promoter – not a related company, not a partner personally.
2. Registered Agreement for Sale is non-negotiable – allotment letters alone give no enforceable rights.
3. Third-party rights created later are protected – once flats are sold and registered to genuine buyers, courts will not disturb them.

What Buyers Must Do Now

Real-estate lawyers advise every prospective buyer to:

• Verify the exact name of the RERA-registered promoter and project number on the MahaRERA portal before paying even a rupee.
• Insist on the promoter’s designated project bank account details (mentioned in the allotment letter and Agreement for Sale).
• Never exceed 10% advance without a registered Agreement for Sale.
• Demand official receipts issued only in the promoter’s name.
• Avoid “pay to this account for convenience” requests.

A senior RERA practitioner in Mumbai told this newspaper: “This order is not against buyers – it is for them. It protects the sanctity of the RERA ecosystem so that genuine allottees are not cheated by clever routing of funds.”

The complainant may still pursue civil remedies against Spaceline Realtors or the individual partners, but under RERA its claim against the project promoter stands extinguished.

In an era when homebuyers are fighting hard for timely possession and refunds, this March 2026 order stands as a crystal-clear warning: the path to legal protection under RERA runs only through the promoter’s official account.

The message is loud and simple: Pay to the right account – or risk losing everything.

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

The post MahaRERA Shock: Buyer Pays ₹1.38 Cr for 3 Flats, Loses All Over Wrong Account appeared first on Square Feat India.