A Pune homebuyer who accepted the keys to his flat and only then approached the regulator has been granted delay interest. In a final order dated 2 September 2026, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority Member Ravindra Deshpande held that handing over possession later does not cancel the allottee’s statutory right under Section 18 of RERA.

The message for other buyers is direct: signing a possession letter is not the same as waving goodbye to compensation for the months you waited.

The promise on paper

Ankit Rawat booked Apartment No. 1106 in Building B-2 of Avon Vista at Village Mahalunge, Taluka Mulshi, Pune. The project is registered as MahaRERA No. P52100023133. The promoter before the Authority was Anand Hemant Naiknavare, authorised signatory and director of Naiknavare Profile Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

The registered Agreement for Sale is dated 26 March 2021. Carpet area: 94.31 sq. mtrs. Total consideration: ₹98.81 lakh. Clause 6 fixed possession by 30 December 2022.

That date is the backbone of this case. Everything else — COVID, environmental clearance, an NGT petition, and a later extension of the project’s MahaRERA registration — was tested against that one line in the agreement.

Then the project stalled

The builder’s written say set out a long chain of events.

A proposal to amend or expand the Environmental Clearance had been pending since February 2020. SEAC recommended it in January 2022. Around the same time, a third party who was neither an allottee nor linked to the promoter, Shashikant Vitthal Kamble, filed Original Application No. 07/2022 before the National Green Tribunal, Western Zone, alleging illegal construction.

NGT did not stay the work, but it appointed a Joint Committee. SEIAA deferred the expansion proposal. The promoter said RCC work on Buildings B-2, B-3 and A-3 stopped from 21 March 2022. The committee inspected the site on 26 March 2022; its report came only on 27 September 2022 — about 26 weeks later.

The promoters moved the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 7135 of 2022. NGT later recorded that there was no stay and allowed SEIAA to decide the amendment. SEIAA approved it on 9 January 2023. Construction resumed.

The original MahaRERA registration ran till 30 December 2022. Citing the pandemic and the NGT–EC episode, the Authority later extended registration to 29 June 2024.

The Occupancy Certificate for Rawat’s unit was obtained on 10 January 2024. A possession notice followed. He took possession on 9 April 2024. The complaint was filed on 8 May 2024 — a month after the keys.

What the buyer asked for

Rawat invoked Section 18(1)(a). He sought:

• interest for delay from 31 December 2022 until possession
• rent of ₹4.80 lakh (₹31,500 a month for 12 months and ₹34,000 a month for 3 months)
• ₹1 lakh for mental distress
• costs of the complaint
• a proper SUV-sized parking space, or the difference in value

On parking, he said dedicated SUV bay CP4-2S was promised, but the puzzle-parking plate given at possession was about 1770 mm wide against an SUV width of around 1800 mm. He alleged seven-plate puzzle parking had been squeezed into a five-plate space.

He also said a gas stove and chimney given by the promoter were described only as a “goodwill gesture,” not as compensation for delay, and that the same item went to every flat.

He relied on the Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters and Fortune Infrastructure, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in Jyoti Narang and Kunal Kumbhat, and the principle that a wrongdoer cannot profit from his own wrong.

His core legal point: the contractual possession date and the MahaRERA registration validity date are not the same thing. An extension of registration, including after COVID circulars, does not rewrite the agreement.

What the builder argued

The promoter called the complaint an afterthought. It said Rawat had not uploaded a proper complaint copy at the outset, had suppressed material facts, and had accepted possession “satisfactorily and to his satisfaction” with no protest.

It pointed to Clause 6(vii) of the agreement, which allowed reasonable extension for events beyond the promoter’s control. Allottees, it said, were told about the NGT case through communications, a webinar, minutes dated 15 October 2022 and an email dated 12 July 2023, including a stand that no compensation would be payable for such unforeseen delay.

NGT’s final order of 22 March 2024, the builder added, found no infirmity or non-compliance against the promoter.

The Authority’s finding: delay is not in dispute

Deshpande framed one principal question: is the complainant entitled to interest under Section 18(1)?

The answer, in substance, was yes — but only for a defined window, and without the extra heads of rent and mental agony.

The order records that the agreement “specifically stipulated that possession of the subject premises was to be handed over on or before 30.12.2022.” OC came in January 2024. Possession was on 9 April 2024. “Thus, there is a clear delay beyond the contractual date of possession.”

On the builder’s explanation, the Authority was blunt:

“The Respondent has sought to explain the delay by referring to the environmental clearance proceedings, NGT proceedings and other circumstances. However, the fact remains that possession was not delivered by the date contractually agreed between the parties.”

And further:

“the factum of delay is not in dispute and stands admitted from the Respondent’s own submissions.”

Registration extension is not a new possession date

This is the paragraph homebuyers should read twice.

“The mere fact that the project registration was subsequently extended does not, by itself, alter the contractual obligation of the Promoter to hand over possession within the agreed period. The Complainant cannot be deprived of the statutory remedy merely because the Promoter relies upon subsequent events or extension of the project registration.”

Section 18, the order says, kicks in when the promoter fails to give possession “in accordance with the terms of the Agreement for Sale.” If the allottee does not withdraw, interest is payable “for every month of delay till the handing over of possession.”

The Authority relied on the Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Taking the keys is not a waiver

The builder had leaned hard on the fact that Rawat accepted possession and only then sued. The Authority shut that door.

“The liability to pay such interest arises from the statutory consequence of delayed possession and cannot be defeated merely because possession was subsequently accepted by the Complainant. The acceptance of possession does not amount to waiver of the accrued statutory entitlement for the period during which possession remained delayed.”

That is the human warning in this file. A possession letter can record that the flat was handed over to your satisfaction. It does not, by itself, erase the months you paid EMI or rent while the building was unfinished.

What he did not get

Separate compensation for mental agony was refused. The Authority quoted the Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India:

“The requirement to pay interest under Section 18 of the RERA is not a penalty since payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay being suffered by the flat purchaser, who had paid for his flat but did not get the possession.”

Rent of ₹4.80 lakh was not awarded as a distinct head. The parking dispute, though argued in writing, does not appear in the operative directions. No separate penalty under other RERA provisions was imposed.

The operative order

The complaint was partly allowed.

1. The respondent must pay delay interest under Section 18(1) at SBI’s highest MCLR plus 2% from 1 January 2023 till the date of Occupancy Certificate (stated in the operative part as 9 January 2024) on the actual amount paid towards consideration. GST, stamp duty, registration charges and other statutory charges are excluded.
2. Costs of ₹20,000 to the complainant.

Interest was not stretched to the possession date of 9 April 2024. It stops at OC. That is a narrower window than the 464 days Rawat had counted till early April.

What this order means if you already have the keys

If your agreement date has passed, the promoter later got a registration extension, and you still took possession because you needed a roof — this order says the Section 18 clock does not automatically stop the day you collect the keys.

What still matters, on these facts:

• the registered agreement date, not the later MahaRERA validity date
• whether you are claiming interest while staying in the project, not a refund after withdrawal
• that interest is treated as compensation, so a second cheque for “mental harassment” is harder
• that rent is not automatically added on top
• that side disputes (parking size, free gadgets called “goodwill”) need to be proved and decided; they were not granted here

The complaint number is CC005000000350899. Hearing was on 30 September 2025. Final order: 2 September 2026.

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

The post Took the keys? You can still claim delay interest, MahaRERA tells buyers appeared first on Square Feat India.

The common judgment was reserved on 30 June 2026 and pronounced on 31 August 2026 by Chairperson Justice S. S. Shinde and Member (Administrative) Dr. Rajagopal Devara. The judgment was authored by Dr. Devara. The appeals were heard by video conference.

The two appeals are AT006000000134063 of 2022 arising from complaint CC006000000192464, and AT006000000134074 of 2022 arising from complaint CC006000000192380.

Who is fighting whom

Appellants / allottees

• Vikas Bhauwala, 403/404, Building-J, Palm Court Complex, Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai 400064. He booked about 1,000 sq ft. Total consideration: ₹92,23,500. Amount paid: ₹20,00,000. Allotment letter dated 12 October 2010.
• Shushil Rajpal, D1/16, Flat No. 402, Yamuna Nagar, Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400053. He booked about 1,001 sq ft. Total consideration: ₹57,20,000. Amount paid: ₹19,30,500. Allotment letter dated 15 December 2007.

Respondents / promoters

• Respondent No. 1: Sahyog Homes Limited, 321 Morya Estate, New Link Road, opposite Infinity Mall, Andheri West, Mumbai 400053.
• Respondent No. 2: Sankalp Siddhi Developers Private Limited, A-3 Rajpipla, opposite Standard Chartered Bank, Linking Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400054. Respondent No. 2 was proceeded against ex parte.

Advocate Sanjeev R. Singh appeared for both allottees. Advocate Makarand Raut appeared for Sahyog Homes.

The registered project cited in the complaints is Verona, MahaRERA registration P51800003040, on land at Village Oshiwara, Andheri / Jogeshwari West — the Andheri–Versova–Oshiwara belt.

How the bookings began

In 2006 the promoters obtained a Slum Rehabilitation Authority letter of intent dated 8 December 2006 for development of a large slum-rehab-cum-sale layout on CTS parcels at Village Oshiwara.

Rajpal booked in December 2007. Bhauwala booked in October 2010. Both allotment letters described the building as BBJ Roma. The letters said an Agreement for Sale would be executed later, after a title certificate and commencement certificate. No date of possession was written.

The buyers paid more than 20 per cent of the price. No registered agreement followed.

Through 2008–2011 they kept asking about progress. The promoters’ representatives, the buyers told the Tribunal, kept assuring them that permissions were in place and work would resume shortly.

A commencement certificate dated 11 March 2011 is on record for the same Oshiwara land. On 9 July 2012, Sahyog Homes and Sankalp Siddhi executed a development agreement covering sale buildings described as S1 to S4 on that layout.

Cancellation letters, then a legal notice

On 26 July 2017 and 27 July 2017, the promoters wrote to the buyers saying it was difficult to proceed because slum dwellers still occupied the plot, and they sought to cancel the allotment letters.

The buyers’ case is that this explanation was false. Construction of sale buildings had already started on the same land under other names — BBJ Verona, BBJ Lamor and Sahyog Oshi.

On 24 July 2018 the buyers issued a legal notice seeking the likely date of possession. Sahyog Homes replied through its advocate on 24 September 2018: permissions for “BBJ Roma” had not come through, the plot was occupied, there was no likelihood of vacation soon, and the allotment letters should stand cancelled.

The buyers then approached MahaRERA. They asked for registered Agreements for Sale for 3 BHK flats of about 1,000 sq ft, on the strength of the old allotment letters, in any of the buildings then under construction on that land — Verona, Lamor or Sahyog Oshi — and for related relief under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

They filed the complaints against the Verona registration number, P51800003040.

What MahaRERA did in 2022

By a common order dated 29 August 2022, Member-1 of MahaRERA dismissed both complaints as not maintainable.

The Authority’s reasoning was that BBJ Roma was never registered, Verona was a different registered project, and the complainants were not allottees of Verona. It granted liberty to approach MahaRERA again if BBJ Roma was registered in future.

That is the order the buyers challenged.

Sahyog Homes defended the dismissal. It argued that Roma, Verona, Sahyog Oshi, Ahuja and Lamor were separate sale buildings with separate registrations; that Roma had no RERA number because the mandatory papers under Section 4 of the Act were not in place; and that filing under Verona’s number was misconceived.

The allottees pointed to an earlier MahaRERA matter, CC006000000057433, Viloo Keki Italia vs M/s. Sahyog Homes Ltd. & 18 Ors., where the Authority had treated complainants as allottees of BBJ Roma. They also relied on an Authority order dated 5 December 2019, extracted in the 2022 order, recording that SRA’s sanctioned layout showed the same project with sale buildings marked S2, S4 and so on.

The Tribunal’s peg: look at the land, not the name

The Appellate Tribunal compared three sets of papers:

• the land description in the 2007 and 2010 allotment letters for BBJ Roma
• the commencement certificate of 2011
• the project land recorded in Verona’s MahaRERA registration certificate, P51800003040

It held they describe the same parcels.

“Registration of a real estate project is linked to the project land and not merely to the name of the building,” the Tribunal said. Merely because the building is later called Verona instead of BBJ Roma, the underlying land does not change. Changing the name cannot defeat rights that flowed from the allotment letters and from RERA.

On that finding it answered the first issue in the buyers’ favour: they are allottees of Verona.

Allotment letters treated as concluded contracts

The letters named the project, the land, the flat area, the price and the payment terms. Money was accepted and receipts issued. The Tribunal held that this met the Contract Act tests of proposal and acceptance, and the RERA definitions of “allottee” and “agreement for sale”.

The letters pre-date RERA. That did not matter. Relying on the Supreme Court in M/s. Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P., the Tribunal repeated that RERA is retroactive for ongoing projects that had no completion certificate when the Act came into force. Verona was registered as an ongoing project. The old letters are therefore enforceable under RERA.

Because no possession date was written, the Tribunal applied the Supreme Court’s three-year rule in Fortune Infrastructure vs Trevor D’Lima. Deemed due dates:

• Rajpal: 15 December 2010
• Bhauwala: 12 October 2013

It also recorded statutory breaches. More than 20 per cent was taken without a registered agreement, contrary to Section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, and more than 10 per cent without a registered agreement, contrary to Section 13 of RERA. MOFA also required a possession date in the agreement. None was given.

Why the Tribunal did not send the case back

The buyers had mainly asked the Tribunal to set aside the 2022 order and remand the complaints to MahaRERA for a hearing on merits.

The Tribunal refused to stop there. It invoked Order 41 Rules 24 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure: if the record is enough, the appellate court can decide the dispute finally and pass the decree that ought to have been passed. Sending the parties back, it said, would only prolong litigation after the Authority had already had the papers but dismissed the complaints only on maintainability.

It cited the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling in Mahendra Prasad Agarwal vs Arvind Kumar Singh on the need to grant relief when the claim is made out, instead of “throwing the ball out of the court”.

Points 1, 2 and 3 were all answered in the affirmative. The 29 August 2022 MahaRERA order was held unsustainable.

What the Tribunal finally directed

1. Both appeals are partly allowed.
2. The MahaRERA order dated 29 August 2022 is set aside.
3. The two allottees must pay the remaining balance consideration within 90 days of the judgment. If they fail, they will pay the promoter interest on the unpaid balance at SBI MCLR + 2% per annum.
4. Within 30 days of receiving that balance, Sahyog Homes must execute and register Agreements for Sale in favour of the two buyers.
5. Sahyog Homes must pay the buyers interest on the amounts already paid, from 15 December 2010 (Rajpal) and 12 October 2013 (Bhauwala) until actual possession, at SBI MCLR + 2% per annum.
6. A copy of the order is to go to MahaRERA and the parties under Section 44(4) of RERA.

The order does not hand over ready flats tomorrow. It first makes the buyers pay the large unpaid price, then forces a registered agreement, and runs delay interest from dates that are now 13 to 16 years old until the keys are actually given.

Why the name-change defence mattered

On large SRA layouts, promoters often float several sale buildings, register some, leave others unregistered, and argue that early allottees belong only to the unregistered name. MahaRERA accepted that split in 2022.

The Appellate Tribunal closed that door on these facts. If the CTS numbers, commencement certificate and RERA land schedule match, the allottee of “Roma” is an allottee of “Verona”. The brochure name is not a firewall against Section 13, delay interest, or the duty to execute a registered agreement.

That is the news in this judgment: the builder’s attempt to keep pre-RERA allotment-letter holders outside the registered project was examined against the RERA website record of the land and thrown out.

Also Read: Homebuyer Paid to Director of Real Estate Firm, Director Died, Surviving Directors Claimed Ignorance — MahaRERA Steps In to Deliver Justice

The post Same land, different name: Tribunal throws out builder’s plea that early allotments are outside RERA appeared first on Square Feat India.