MahaRERA has held that it cannot direct a promoter to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for a flat, even when homebuyers specifically ask for one. In an ex-parte order dated 4 September 2026 in the Navkar Heights project, Member-II Ravindra Deshpande rejected the buyers’ prayer for an NOC, saying the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not give the Authority power to force a builder to issue such a certificate.

The finding is significant because homebuyers routinely need a builder’s NOC for several practical purposes: bank home loans and mortgage creation, society membership or transfer, resale or further sale, property mutation and tax records, electricity and water connections, parking confirmation, and sometimes loan foreclosure or bank NOC at the time of sale. When a promoter delays or refuses that paper, buyers often turn to RERA. This order makes clear that, on the current wording of the Act, MahaRERA will not treat “issue NOC” as a relief it can grant.

Two Flats, One Project, Unregistered Agreements

The complaints were filed on 18 May 2023 by Prakash Gopal Bhanushali (Complaint No. CC006000000395849) for Flat 101 and Pasmina Prakash Bhanushali (Complaint No. CC006000000395850) for Flat 102 in Navkar Heights, registered as MahaRERA project P51800004596.

The promoter is Navkar Groups Private Limited. Two directors, Sachin Pravin Gosar and Sanjay Sadashiv Samant, were also made respondents. Each flat is 600 sq ft carpet, sold at ₹80 lakh plus one car parking space.

Unregistered agreements for sale were executed on 19 November 2020. The buyers said they were shown the original RERA registration certificate with a completion date of 31 December 2020 and were told possession would follow that timeline.

How Much Was Paid

• Flat 101: ₹61 lakh paid (₹11 lakh on 13 November 2020 and ₹50 lakh on 19 November 2020). About 76% of the price. Balance ₹19 lakh was payable at OC.
• Flat 102: ₹50 lakh paid on 19 November 2020. Balance ₹30 lakh was payable at OC.

The agreements recorded these payments. The buyers said they repeatedly asked for registration of the agreements and that a legal notice dated 11 November 2022 went unanswered.

Builder Stayed Away, Case Went Ex Parte

The matters were heard on 28 April 2026. Counsel appeared for the complainants. Nobody appeared for the respondents, despite notice and a hearing link. They had also failed to upload a reply by the earlier deadline of 16 February 2026. MahaRERA proceeded ex parte and reserved the order after written arguments were filed.

Section 13: More Than 10% Taken Without Registered Agreement

The Authority relied on Section 13 of the Act: a promoter cannot accept more than 10% of the cost of the apartment without first entering into a written agreement for sale and registering it.

Here, agreements were signed but never registered, and amounts far above 10% had already been collected. That, MahaRERA held, was a default of Section 13. It therefore directed the promoter to register the already executed agreements.

Delay, Lapsed Project and Section 18 Interest

The buyers also sought interest for delayed possession at 24% per annum. They did not formally pray for possession as a standalone relief, but the Authority treated registration of the agreement as a step toward possession.

The agreements did not contain a clear possession date. Annexure D, which was supposed to mention it, was not found in the papers. MahaRERA therefore used the original proposed completion date on the RERA certificate: 31 December 2020. Possession was not given by that date. The project was later extended to 31 December 2023 and is now shown as lapsed.

Under the proviso to Section 18(1), if the allottee does not withdraw, the promoter must pay interest for every month of delay until possession. The Authority granted interest at SBI’s highest MCLR + 2% from 1 January 2021 till actual possession — not the 24% the buyers had asked for.

It also directed the promoter to revive the lapsed project within 30 days.

What MahaRERA Granted

The complaints were allowed in part. The order directs:

1. Immediate steps to revive the project within 30 days of the order.
2. After revival, register the already executed agreements for Flats 101 and 102 within 30 days.
3. After receiving the remaining consideration, hand over possession of both flats with OC within 30 days of receipt of OC.
4. Pay delay interest at SBI highest MCLR + 2% from 1 January 2021 till possession.
5. Interest and unpaid sale consideration may be set off against each other.
6. Pay ₹20,000 costs to each complainant.

The two named directors are respondents along with the company, so the directions run against all of them.

The NOC Prayer — And Why It Was Rejected

Both buyers had asked MahaRERA to direct the respondents to “provide the Non-Objection Certificate (NOC) against the said Flat as and when required.”

The order does not record the specific use — loan, society, mutation, utilities or resale. MahaRERA rejected the prayer in one line of reasoning: no provision of the Act allows the Authority to direct a promoter to issue an NOC.

That is the peg. Even where the builder has taken most of the money, signed an unregistered agreement, delayed possession and let the project lapse, RERA still will not pass a direction saying “issue NOC.”

Why Homebuyers Usually Ask for a Builder NOC

In Mumbai and the rest of Maharashtra, allottees commonly need a promoter’s NOC for:

• Creating a mortgage or taking / enhancing a home loan
• Society formation, membership or transfer of share certificate
• Resale or further agreement with a new buyer
• Mutation and property-tax records
• Electricity, water or other utility connections
• Confirmation of parking allotment
• Bank formalities at the time of sale or loan closure

When the builder withholds that paper, the buyer is stuck even if RERA later orders registration and possession. This order underlines that gap: MahaRERA can order registration of the agreement, revival of a lapsed project, possession with OC and statutory interest. It will not, on the present Act, order an NOC.

What the Order Does Not Do

• It does not award 24% interest.
• It does not impose a project-wide penalty of up to 5% of estimated project cost.
• It does not revoke any licence.
• It does not grant an interim freeze in the form the buyers first sought, because the final order itself directs registration and possession.
• It does not explain what document the buyers meant by “NOC against the said Flat.”

For homebuyers, the practical takeaway is split. On money, delay and unregistered agreements, MahaRERA still has teeth. On a builder’s refusal to issue an NOC, this order says the statute does not give the regulator that lever.

Also Read: MahaRERA Launches New Website MahaCRITI

The post MahaRERA Says It Cannot Force Builders to Issue Flat NOCs to Homebuyers appeared first on Square Feat India.