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 scheme aims to clear a long-standing backlog of OCs by allowing eligible societies and individual flat owners to regularise violations, pay prescribed charges (with concessions), and obtain OC without being held up by several common compliance bottlenecks.

Who issued the circular and when does it apply?

• Issuing authority: Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), Building Proposal Department.
• Circular number & date: No. ChE/DP/15310/GEN, dated 08 September 2026.
• Legal/policy basis: UDD directives (11.12.2025); Standing Committee sanction (08.07.2026); Corporation sanction (18.08.2026).
• Effective from: The policy states that time limits for submission are calculated from the date of issuance of this policy circular (i.e., 08 Sep 2026).

Who is eligible?

The amnesty applies to residential, hospital and school buildings that satisfy all of the following:

• Occupied before 17/11/2016.
• Have valid IOD (Intimation of Disapproval), approved plan(s) and Commencement Certificate (CC) as per prevailing BMC rules.
• Have not received OC to date.
• Unit carpet area ≤ 80 sq.m (RERA carpet as per DCPR 2034 definition) at the time of regularization; post-regularization carpet may exceed 80 sq.m.
• For residential buildings, residential use must be >50%; commercial shops/offices in such buildings can be included but get no financial concession.

Proof of pre-2016 occupation must be submitted: property assessment record from Assessment & Collection Dept, authorized electricity bill, municipal notice regarding occupation without OC, or architect’s BCC.

What the scheme allows (key entitlements)

• OC to societies and individual flat/tenement owners, including partial OC for a specific flat without insisting that the applicant clear unrelated common-area violations.
• Use of proportionate additional FSI / fungible compensatory area / TDR to regularise, with a cap that total FSI on the plot must not exceed permissible limits.
• No additional parking will be insisted since occupant load does not increase under this method.
• Rehab components in redevelopment schemes can get OC independently, delinked from violations in sale components (subject to MC approval).
• For layouts with multiple buildings, if only some buildings apply, additional FSI for regularization can be permitted on a pro-rata basis without NOC from other societies.

Step-by-step: How to apply under the OC Amnesty Scheme

1. Appoint professionals: Engage an Architect / Licensed Surveyor (and other required professionals). If the earlier Professional on Record is uncooperative, a new Architect/LS can certify executed work and submit amended/OC plans and BCC.
2. Prepare documents: Fill the prescribed application form and attach all necessary documents, including proof of pre-2016 occupation, IOD/CC/approved plans, and mandatory NOCs.
3. File online via Auto-DCR: Submit the proposal through BMC’s Auto-DCR portal; a dedicated tab “OC Amnesty Scheme” will list all proposals.
4. Public notice & objections: The proposal is published on Auto-DCR for 15 days for objections/complaints/representations or prohibitory orders. After 15 days, the Building Proposal (BP) department scrutinizes the file.
5. Deficiency letter: If documents are incomplete, BMC issues a compliance letter; the applicant must resubmit within 15 days. Failure leads to the application being deemed recorded and losing concession benefits; a fresh application resets the concession timeline.
6. Payments: Pay applicable revalidation fees, penalties, balcony/otla/loft fees, and premiums as per policy rates (concessions apply where eligible).
7. OC grant: Upon satisfaction of conditions and statutory NOCs, the Zonal Dy. Ch. Eng. (Building Proposal) grants OC.

Charges, penalties and concessions (money matters)

The circular spells out specific concessions to encourage early applications:

• 50% discount on regular charges for revalidation fees, balcony/otla/loft fees, penalties, etc., for regularizing violations in tenements.
• Converting elevation/FSI-free features to habitable use:
  • 0% penalty if proposal is received within first 6 months from SOP issuance date.
  • 50% discount on penalty for proposals between 6–12 months.
  • No discount after 12 months.
• 50% concession in premium for Additional FSI & Fungible Compensatory FSI (at RR rate prevailing at submission) applies only where regularization involves no additional horizontal/vertical construction beyond approved building line and for units with RERA carpet ≤ 80 sq.m in the approved plan/sale deed. Units above 80 sq.m get no concession on premium or penalty under this scheme.

Important relaxations and “do not get stuck” clauses

The guidelines list 22 operational points to prevent OCs from being held up unnecessarily. Key highlights:

• BCC not submitted: New Architect/LS can certify as-built status and submit amended/OC plans with BCC.
• PR Cards (area in words) missing: OC can be granted without insisting area in words; Zonal BP offices will forward such cases to UDD/Collector.
• Incomplete layout infrastructure (roads, SWD, street lights, water mains, sewer, RG): OC granted “as is where is” with society’s undertaking/indemnity to complete later; ward offices to proactively take over reservations.
• Setback/DP Road handing over: OC can proceed without insisting transfer; however, further additional FSI use on that plot is blocked until compliance. For individual apartment OCs, no insistence on handing over.
• ULC/MHADA reserved flats not handed over: OC can be granted to other flats; lists to be sent to authorities for action against developers.
• Statutory safety NOCs still required: CFO completion certificate, Lift Inspector certificate, Drainage Completion Certificate (DCC) from Licensed Plumber (or new LP if earlier LP uncooperative), Rain Water Harvesting completion certificate.
• AAI (Civil Aviation) height NOC: OC may not be granted unless fresh AAI NOC is submitted; if height isn’t permissible per CCZM, cases go to a joint meeting (AAI–State–BMC).
• Unauthorized additions/alterations: Regularize if permissible; if not, AC (Ward) to take action and OC refused for that part.
• Structures proposed for demolition not demolished: If additional FSI/premium/TDR was utilized, OC only after demolition; if not utilized, OC can be granted with a condition that future additional FSI use will be allowed only after demolition.
• Tax clearance (A.A. & C.) held up: If no response within 7 days after informing Assessor & Collector, OC can be granted; recovery/action remains with Assessment Dept.
• Cases pending with ACB or courts: Generally, no OC without order of competent authority/court (with limited exceptions for certain occupation proceedings under MMC/MRTP).

Who can apply: society vs individual flat owner

• Both Housing Societies and individual flat/tenement owners can apply.
• For individual applicants, the scheme explicitly states that removal of encroachments on RG or non-buildable reservations will not be insisted, and partial OC can be issued without forcing the applicant to clear common-area violations unrelated to their premises.
• NOC from owner/developer is required; if unavailable, BMC can issue notice under MMC Act, and Auto-DCR website notice is deemed service. However, implementation of this NOC waiver for societies/individuals awaits temporary amendments to MMC Act/MRTP Act as proposed to UDD; BMC will intimate on its portal once sanctioned.

Important caveats

• The scheme cannot be used to authorize new unauthorized constructions; non-regularizable violations will face action and OC can be restricted to compliant portions.
• All decisions under the scheme do not absolve owners/developers of liabilities; BMC/State/regulators may still take action under applicable laws.
• Zonal offices must maintain a separate register of penalties/fees/charges waived per case.

Why this matters for Mumbai’s housing market

Thousands of older buildings in Mumbai have been occupied for years without OC due to procedural gaps, legacy violations, or developer-related issues. This amnesty provides a structured, time-bound route to secure OC—critical for bank loans, resale, insurance, and legal clarity—while offering meaningful fee/penalty relief for early movers.

Also Read: Exclusive: BMC OC Amnesty Scheme; Draft to be Presented in Standing Committee Tomorrow

The post BMC OC Amnesty Scheme: Pre-2016 Buildings Can Now Apply For Occupancy Certificates appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Tribunal, in its order dated 19 August 2026, partly allowed the appeal filed by Mumbai-based homebuyers Aditya Sachdeva and Vrishali Mahindroo Sachdeva against Acme Housing India Private Limited and others. It directed the promoters to pay interest from the agreed possession date of 1 January 2019 till the actual date of physical possession on 23 October 2023 — more than two-and-a-half years beyond the Occupancy Certificate date.

The Flat and the Agreement

The allottees had purchased Flat No. 3103 on the 31st floor of Oasis Tower-II. The flat measures 85.55 square metres carpet area and comes with two car parking spaces. The total consideration fixed under the Agreement for Sale dated 8 December 2017 was ₹1,98,25,757.

As per the Agreement, the promoters were required to hand over possession on or before June 2018, with a six-month grace period, making the final agreed date 31 December 2018 / 1 January 2019. The allottees paid ₹1,51,74,534 towards the sale consideration, besides stamp duty and registration charges.

What Happened on the Ground

The promoters obtained the Occupancy Certificate on 27 March 2021. However, physical possession was given to the allottees only on 23 October 2023 — more than two-and-a-half years later — and that too only after the Appellate Tribunal directed the homebuyers to deposit the balance amount of ₹37,04,497 (including one year’s advance maintenance).

MahaRERA’s Original Order and the Challenge

In its order dated 8 April 2022, Member-1 of MahaRERA had directed the promoters to hand over possession and pay interest only from 1 January 2019 till the date of Occupancy Certificate (27 March 2021). The Authority had also granted the promoters the benefit of the COVID-related moratorium.

The homebuyers challenged this limited period of interest before the Appellate Tribunal. They argued that under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the right to interest continues till actual possession is handed over.

What Section 18 Actually Says

Section 18 of the RERA Act provides that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale, the allottee is entitled, without prejudice to any other remedy, to claim interest for every month of delay till the handing over of possession (if the allottee chooses not to withdraw from the project).

The Tribunal 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). Both judgments make it clear that the allottee’s right to interest under Section 18 is unqualified and is not extinguished merely because the promoter later obtains an Occupancy Certificate or gets the project registration period extended.

COVID Force Majeure Argument Rejected

The promoters tried to claim the benefit of the COVID-19 pandemic and the related MahaRERA circulars of 2020. The Tribunal rejected this outright. It noted that the contractual possession date had already expired in December 2018 / January 2019 — more than a year before the pandemic and the nationwide lockdown began in March 2020. Events that occurred after the agreed date cannot be used to erase the delay that had already taken place.

Other grounds raised by the promoters — delay in TDR approvals, sand shortage, demonetisation, GST implementation, and changes in Development Control Regulations — were also not accepted as valid excuses to escape liability under Section 18 when the delay was not attributable to the allottees.

New Claim Raised for the First Time Rejected

During the appeal, the promoters for the first time claimed ₹11.26 lakh towards alleged delayed payment interest from the allottees. The Tribunal refused to entertain this plea. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Ram Sarup Gupta, it held that a party cannot be allowed to travel beyond its pleadings and raise a new ground for the first time at the appellate stage. The Tribunal also recorded that the allottees had not defaulted in payments; in fact, the promoter’s own email of April 2019 had acknowledged excess payment by the homebuyers.

Final Directions of the Tribunal

The Appellate Tribunal ordered:

• The promoters shall pay interest at the rate of SBI MCLR + 2% on the actual amount paid by the allottees from 1 January 2019 till the actual date of possession, 23 October 2023.
• The amount must be paid within one month. If not paid, it will carry further interest at the same rate till realisation.
• The promoters shall also pay costs of ₹25,000 to the allottees.

Why This Ruling Matters

This judgment draws a clear line. Obtaining an Occupancy Certificate is a statutory requirement, but it does not by itself discharge the promoter’s contractual and statutory obligation to hand over physical possession. For the purpose of calculating delay interest under Section 18, the clock stops only when the keys are actually handed over to the homebuyer.

Homebuyers facing similar situations — where OC has been obtained but possession is still delayed — now have a strong precedent to claim interest for the entire period till actual handover.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Refund Paid for Seven Flats in Godrej RKS Project

The post Physical Possession, Not OC, Ends Builder’s Duty: MahaREAT Orders Interest Till Keys Are Handed Over appeared first on Square Feat India.

The judgment, delivered on 21 July 2026 by Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member (Administrative) Dr. Rajagopal Devara in Appeal No. AT006000000063805 of 2022, sets aside key portions of the earlier MahaRERA order and sends a clear message on three critical issues that routinely trouble allottees: when interest stops, who bears maintenance until possession, and whether authorities can grant reliefs never asked for by the parties.

Garry Vasant Ashar and Tejal Garry Ashar had booked Flat No. 204 in Building A of Sunteck City Avenue 1 (promoted by Skystar Buildcon Private Limited and Sunteck Realty Limited) under an Agreement for Sale dated 28 May 2015 for a total consideration of ₹2,21,96,500. Clause 16 of the agreement promised possession within 54 months plus a nine-month grace period — that is, on or before 25 August 2020.

The promoters obtained a part occupancy certificate on 8 September 2020 and purported to offer possession on 15 September 2020. However, the offer was not unconditional. The allottees were told they must first clear a demand of ₹41.97 lakh that included unexplained “other charges” of ₹7.21 lakh and alleged interest on delayed payments. Despite repeated requests for clarification, the promoters refused to hand over the flat until the entire amount, including the disputed charges, was paid. The allottees finally paid the full amount on 22 March 2021. Even then, physical possession was given only on 14 March 2023 — and that too only after the Appellate Tribunal directed it and after the allottees deposited an additional sum in the Tribunal.

In the original complaint, MahaRERA (Member-1) on 14 March 2022 directed the promoters to hand over possession and pay interest only from the agreed date of possession until the date of the part OC (8 September 2020). The Authority also allowed the promoters two benefits they had never prayed for: (i) a set-off of any interest the allottees allegedly owed for delayed payments against the interest payable by the promoters, and (ii) the benefit of the COVID-19 moratorium periods notified by MahaRERA.

The allottees challenged this order, arguing that the interest should run until actual physical possession, that the offer of possession was conditional and therefore ineffective, that maintenance charges for the intervening period could not be demanded from them, and that the Authority had granted reliefs never sought by the promoters.

The Appellate Tribunal agreed on all major points.

First, on the question of interest, the Tribunal held that under Section 18 of the RERA Act, an allottee who elects to continue in the project is entitled to interest for the entire period of delay until physical possession is handed over. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Tribunal reiterated that this right is not dependent on unforeseen events or force majeure factors that are not attributable to the allottee. The Tribunal observed that mere issuance of an occupancy certificate or a conditional offer of possession does not extinguish the statutory claim for interest. In this case, because the offer was contingent on payment of disputed and unexplained charges, the interest liability continued till 14 March 2023. The Tribunal specifically directed the promoters to pay interest on the amounts paid by the allottees from 1 August 2020 to 14 March 2023 at the rate of the State Bank of India’s highest Marginal Cost of Funds Based Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2 per cent, simple interest, within 30 days.

Second, on maintenance charges, the Tribunal held that Section 11(4)(g) of the RERA Act places a clear obligation on the promoter to pay all outgoings — including maintenance charges — until physical possession is transferred to the allottee. The promoters’ demand that the allottees pay maintenance from 15 September 2020 to 14 March 2023 was therefore illegal. The Tribunal noted that the promoters had continued to hold the flat and could not shift the burden of outgoings on to the allottees for a period during which possession was wrongfully withheld.

Third, the Tribunal strongly deprecated the grant of unprayed reliefs. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, it held that a court or tribunal cannot grant relief that has neither been pleaded nor specifically prayed for. The set-off of alleged delayed-payment interest and the COVID-19 moratorium benefit had never been sought by the promoters in their pleadings. Granting them, the Tribunal said, travelled beyond the scope of the proceedings and could not be sustained.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, modified the impugned order accordingly, and also directed the promoters to pay costs of ₹25,000 to the allottees.

The judgment is significant for homebuyers across Maharashtra. It clarifies that an occupancy certificate or a paper offer of possession does not automatically stop the interest clock if the offer is conditional or if actual keys are not handed over. It also makes it clear that promoters cannot recover maintenance for the period they themselves delay handing over possession, and that regulatory authorities cannot gift reliefs that the parties never asked for.

For allottees facing similar situations — where possession is offered only after clearing disputed charges or where interest is restricted only up to the OC date — this order provides strong judicial support for claiming interest till the actual date of handover and for resisting illegal maintenance demands.

Also Read: MahaRERA Asks Builder to Submit Completion Milestones to Homebuyers While Granting Extension

The post OC in 2020, Keys Only in 2023: Tribunal Forces Builder to Pay Interest Till Actual Possession appeared first on Square Feat India.

The order was passed on 1 July 2026 by Member II Ravindra Deshpande in Complaint No. CC001000000080355 filed by homebuyer Narayan Kashinath Pathare against the promoter. The hearing was held through hybrid mode on 23 December 2025 and the matter was reserved for orders.

Background of the Case

The complainant booked Row House No. 33 in the MahaRERA-registered project (P51600021855) for a total consideration of ₹17,27,600 under an Agreement for Sale dated 17 December 2020. The project’s proposed completion date was 21 June 2024, and it received part occupancy certificate on 19 June 2024 (earlier part OC on 28 February 2023).

The complaint was filed on 18 October 2023 highlighting several issues, with the non-execution of the conveyance deed being the central grievance even after nearly three years.

Complainant’s Claims

Narayan Kashinath Pathare submitted:

• Possession was delayed by almost one year and given only in June 2022.
• He had to pay home loan EMIs without possession and claimed compensation for mental agony and financial loss at ₹10,000 per month from June 2021 to May 2022.
• The developer promised rent of ₹5,000 per month (total ₹60,000) but did not pay.
• No drinking water facility was provided after possession; he had to spend ₹3,000 per month for one year.
• Despite repeated requests, the conveyance deed was not executed. He demanded immediate execution without any conditions or extra cost.
• Penalty and compensation under Sections 18 and 31 of RERA.

Respondent’s Defence

The promoter, represented by CA Parnesh Lodha, argued:

• Possession was handed over on 1 June 2022, well before the agreed date of 21 June 2023 mentioned in Clause 12 of the Agreement for Sale. Hence, no delay occurred.
• The complainant had requested a kitchen trolley upgradation and owed ₹1,31,000 in outstanding payments.
• The buyer had breached the agreement terms and was providing misleading information to avoid his liabilities.

MahaRERA’s Observations and Decision

The Authority made these important findings:

• No Delay in Possession: Possession was given earlier than the contractual date. Therefore, all claims related to delay (interest, rent, mental agony) were rejected.
• Violation on Conveyance Deed: This was the key issue. Despite part occupancy certificates being issued and possession handed over, the promoter failed to execute the conveyance deed. This violated statutory obligations.
• Amenities: The promoter must provide all promised amenities, including proper drinking water supply.

Legal Provisions Explained

The order primarily rests on the following sections:

Section 11(4)(f) – Duties of the Promoter: The promoter shall execute a registered conveyance deed of the apartment/plot/building in favour of the allottee along with undivided proportionate title in the common areas.

Section 17 – Transfer of Title: The promoter must execute the registered conveyance deed and hand over possession within the period specified in sanctioned plans or local laws. In the absence of local law, it must be done within three months from the date of issue of occupancy certificate.

Section 61 – General Penalty: For contravention of any other provisions of the Act, the promoter is liable to a penalty up to 5% of the estimated cost of the project. MahaRERA imposed ₹50,000 in this case.

Final Order

A. Complaint allowed. B. Respondent directed to execute the conveyance deed forthwith and submit a copy to MahaRERA. C. Penalty of ₹50,000 imposed under Section 61 for violation of Sections 11(4)(f) and 17. D. Respondent to provide all amenities, including proper water supply. E. All other reliefs (financial compensation for delay, rent, water expenses) rejected. F. No order as to costs.

Also Read: “You Stayed in It — So Stop Complaining”: How MahaRERA Let a Builder Off the Hook After 35 Months of Illegal Delay

The post MahaRERA Penalises Developers ₹50,000 for Failing to Execute Conveyance Deed appeared first on Square Feat India.

The draft proposal, prepared by the Municipal Commissioner and dated 22 June 2026, seeks to grant Occupancy Certificates to buildings occupied before 17 November 2016. It follows the state Urban Development Department’s directive of December 2025 and aims to provide long-pending relief to homebuyers and societies facing hurdles in property transactions, loans, and redevelopment.

Key Provisions of the Draft

The scheme covers residential buildings (with predominant residential use), hospitals, and schools that have valid IOD and Commencement Certificate and were occupied before the cut-off date. For residential units, the benefit is available to those with carpet area up to 80 square metres (approximately 861 sq ft).

Major concessions include a 50% discount on regularization fees, balcony/otla penalties, and other charges. A time-bound penalty waiver has also been proposed for regularizing areas previously shown as free of FSI — zero penalty if applied in the first six months and 50% penalty if applied between six and twelve months.

Significantly, individual flat owners can now apply directly through a licensed surveyor. Their applications will be processed independently, with common area issues de-linked. Pending setback or DP road land transfers will also not block OC issuance; BMC will process the certificate and pursue land-related compliances separately.

“Priority to Up to 800 sq ft Homes”

BMC Leader of the House Ganesh Khankar said the civic body’s focus is on delivering relief to residents. “Our aim is to give relief to the residents and priority is up to 800 sq ft homes. The draft will be presented in the standing committee tomorrow (June 24) and shall sail through,” he said.

Concerns Over Implementation

While welcoming the intent, legal expert Adv Vivekanand Gupta pointed out practical difficulties in the draft. He said that while the proposal contains several positive elements, uploading documents on the Auto-DCR portal could prove cumbersome for common citizens.

“Instead of forcing people to upload documents online, officials in every ward of BMC in the city should have been made to sit and help take applications and facilitate the OC process,” Adv Gupta said, adding that ground-level facilitation would make the scheme more accessible and effective.

Limitations Remain

The current draft has some clear limitations. It does not cover general commercial buildings (only schools and hospitals qualify under non-residential). Units larger than 80 sq.m carpet area are excluded. The scheme applies only to authorised constructions and does not regularise unauthorised buildings. Broader demands — removal of the size cap and inclusion of all commercial properties — remain pending with the state government for revised guidelines.

Next Steps

The draft will be placed before the BMC Standing Committee on June 24. Once approved, it will go to the Municipal Corporation for final clearance. After notification, BMC will activate a dedicated “OC Amnesty Scheme” tab on the Auto-DCR portal for online applications.

Applications received during the validity period will be processed even after the scheme formally ends. BMC has clarified that the scheme does not absolve original developers of their legal responsibilities for other violations.

The proposed amnesty is expected to benefit thousands of old residential buildings across Mumbai, particularly smaller homes that have long struggled without Occupancy Certificates. However, the success of the scheme will largely depend on how effectively BMC implements the process on the ground and addresses the practical concerns raised by citizens and experts.

Also Read: Maharashtra Announces Revised OC Amnesty Scheme to Regularize 20,000 Unauthorized Buildings in Mumbai

The post Exclusive: BMC OC Amnesty Scheme; Draft to be Presented in Standing Committee Tomorrow appeared first on Square Feat India.

The final order, pronounced on June 5, 2026 by Member Mahesh Pathak, highlights critical lessons for homebuyers regarding the binding nature of settlements and the jurisdictional nuances under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Background of the Dispute

The case pertains to Flat No. 308 in the “Piccadilly IV” project (MahaRERA Registration No. P51800004140) located at Survey No. 169, Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon East, Mumbai. Complainant Uma Masurkar claimed she had made full down payment for the flat. However, instead of a conventional Agreement for Sale, a registered Agreement of Lease dated 10-04-2019 was executed jointly between the promoter (as lessor) and Uma Masurkar along with her brother Siddhesh Masurkar (as lessees).

In November 2019, Uma Masurkar filed Complaint No. CC006000000161382 before MahaRERA, citing severe deficiencies: delay in obtaining Occupancy Certificate (OC), flooding, poor construction quality, contaminated water, structural defects, lack of fire safety, and health issues affecting her premature twins and elderly father. She sought ₹80 lakhs as full and final settlement or directions to hand over OC and statutory approvals within seven days, along with heavy compensation.

The Settlement That Proved Decisive

Just weeks after filing the complaint, on 26-11-2019, the parties executed a Settlement Letter. The promoter paid ₹6.25 lakhs to Uma Masurkar. In return, she agreed to treat all complaints before MahaRERA and other authorities as withdrawn. The promoter later produced proof of payment, which the complainant did not dispute.

An earlier MahaRERA order dated 01-06-2021 had favoured the complainant (directing OC or refund with interest), but this was passed without considering the settlement, as the matter was heard ex-parte against the promoter.

Appellate Intervention and Remand

The promoter challenged the 2021 order before the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal. In its order dated 04-02-2026, the Tribunal set aside the earlier ruling specifically for this complaint and remanded the matter back to MahaRERA for fresh adjudication on merits, giving due importance to the settlement letter. The Tribunal also rejected Siddhesh Masurkar’s intervention application.

Fresh Hearings and Key Arguments

During hearings in March-April 2026, several crucial issues emerged:

1. Lease vs Sale – Jurisdiction Question: The respondent strongly argued that since the transaction was a lease arrangement and not a sale, it fell outside the purview of RERA, which primarily governs allottees under Agreements for Sale. Despite this jurisdictional challenge, MahaRERA proceeded to hear the complaint in full on merits — a unique aspect of this order.
2. Non-Joinder of Co-Lessee: The promoter highlighted that Siddhesh Masurkar, the joint lessee and brother of the complainant, was a necessary party. Any refund or cancellation would require his involvement, as the lease remained valid in both names. Siddhesh Masurkar filed an intervention application claiming co-ownership interest, but MahaRERA noted that the Appellate Tribunal had already rejected his plea. The Authority declined to entertain fresh intervention while acknowledging that the joint nature of the lease complicated any relief.
3. Binding Settlement: The promoter emphasised that the complainant had accepted the ₹6.25 lakh settlement and agreed to withdraw all cases. The settlement letter explicitly stated that all pending complaints would be treated as withdrawn. MahaRERA held the complainant bound by these terms.
4. Occupancy Certificate Obtained: The promoter informed the Authority that the OC was received on 09-06-2022, addressing one of the core grievances.

MahaRERA’s Ruling and Reasoning

In the detailed order, Member Mahesh Pathak observed:

• The complainant is bound by the Settlement Letter dated 26-11-2019. Having accepted the consideration, she cannot reagitate the same cause of action.
• With the OC now in place, the primary grievance regarding possession formalities stood addressed.
• Issues relating to construction quality, amenities, water supply, fire safety, and health damages involve disputed questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated summarily in RERA proceedings, especially post-settlement.
• Due to the joint lease, granting refund or cancellation without the other co-lessee would be improper.

Result: The complaint was dismissed in its entirety. No refund, interest, or additional compensation was granted.

Implications for Homebuyers

This case underscores two important realities in RERA disputes:

• Settlements are final and binding. Accepting money and agreeing to withdraw cases can permanently close the door on higher claims, even if buyers later regret the decision.
• Document matters: Entering into a Lease Deed instead of an Agreement for Sale can fundamentally alter the legal relationship (from allottee-promoter to tenant-landlord) and affect remedies available under RERA. Buyers should exercise extreme caution before signing any document and ensure it aligns with their understanding of the transaction.

The ruling also shows that while MahaRERA may entertain cases even when jurisdiction is contested, outcomes often hinge on documentary evidence like settlements and the nature of the underlying agreement.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Refund Paid for Seven Flats in Godrej RKS Project

The post Lease Deed, No Sale Agreement: MahaRERA Hears Case Anyway appeared first on Square Feat India.

The complainant had booked flat No. 103 on the first floor of B-Wing in Building No. 2 under the Agreement for Sale dated July 16, 2018, for a total consideration of ₹16.84 lakh. The developer had promised possession by June 30, 2019. However, the allottee received only physical possession in December 2020 and a formal possession letter on December 27, 2020.

Crucially, the Occupancy Certificate (OC) for the building was obtained by the developer only on March 23, 2021. MahaRERA held that handing over physical possession without a valid Occupancy Certificate does not constitute lawful delivery of possession under RERA provisions. The Authority therefore calculated the delay from July 1, 2019, to March 23, 2021.

The developer argued that the complainant had accepted possession and that delays were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, MahaRERA rejected the moratorium benefit, noting that the original promised possession date fell well before the pandemic outbreak. The Authority also observed that the complainant had amended the complaint to seek interest under Section 18 instead of refund, which was allowed during proceedings.

In its detailed order, MahaRERA ruled that the promoter failed to deliver possession in accordance with the Agreement for Sale. The respondent must pay interest at the rate prescribed under Rule 18 of the Maharashtra RERA Rules, 2017, on the entire amount paid by the allottee for the period of delay. The interest amount has to be paid within 60 days from the date of the order. Any outstanding dues of the complainant will be adjusted against this interest. Additionally, the developer has been directed to pay ₹20,000 towards the cost of the litigation.

This order reinforces two key principles under RERA: first, that legal possession is complete only after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate, and second, that developers cannot claim force majeure benefits for delays when the original deadline predates the disruptive event.

Homebuyer advocates have welcomed the ruling, calling it a reminder to developers that premature handover without OC will not help them escape liability for delay compensation. The Vrundavan project (MahaRERA Registration No. P51700003306) has seen multiple phases and staggered occupancy certificates over the years.

Also Read: Builder cancels booking, MahaRERA orders refund

The post MahaRERA Orders Interest for Delayed Possession in Kalyan’s Vrundavan Project appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case involves homebuyer Talat Asmat Falke, who booked two flats (No. 1201 and 1202) in the project in Kalyan West, Thane district, through agreements dated May 8, 2018. The buyer paid the full consideration: ₹40 lakh for one flat and ₹24 lakh for the other. The promised possession date was July 31, 2020.

Why This Order Matters for Homebuyers

Many buyers assume that getting keys or “physical access” means legal possession. This judgment clarifies that under RERA (Real Estate Regulation Act, 2016), possession is only formal and legal when:

• The builder obtains the Occupancy Certificate (OC) or Completion Certificate.
• The OC is shared with the buyer.
• Formal possession is handed over with documentation (like a possession letter or receipt).

Informal access (e.g., “fit-out” keys for interiors) before or even after OC doesn’t count if paperwork isn’t complete. The Tribunal stressed that builders can’t escape delay penalties by giving early keys while delaying formal handover.

Chronological Sequence of Events – Made Simple

Here’s the timeline of what happened, step by step, to make the confusing aspects crystal clear:

1. May 8, 2018 – Buyer signs agreements for two flats. Promised possession: July 31, 2020. Full payment made.
2. July 2020 – Builder gives informal “fit-out possession” (keys for interiors, permission to use lift for materials). No OC yet – so this is not legal possession under RERA. (Section 11(4)(b) requires OC before handover.)
3. January 5, 2021 – Builder obtains Part Occupancy Certificate from Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation (KDMC). Covid extensions by MahaRERA had pushed many project deadlines to around January 31, 2021.
4. March 2021 – Buyer files two complaints with MahaRERA, demanding:
   • Formal possession with interest for delay (under Section 18).
   • Other issues like unauthorized added floors, reduced parking, and no housing society formed.
5. September 2021 (letter dated 20/28.09.2021) – Builder writes an official letter to KDMC Town Planner admitting that possession has NOT been handed over to flat buyers (including this one). No possession receipts issued. This letter becomes key evidence.
6. During RERA proceedings – Builder’s own affidavit repeats: Possession still not handed over (citing pandemic delays).
7. December 9, 2022 – MahaRERA dismisses both complaints. Reason: OC obtained in Jan 2021 + Covid extension means no violation. They accepted builder’s claim of “physical possession” in July 2020.
8. 2023 – Buyer appeals to MahaREAT (Appeal Nos. AT006/144278 & AT006/144279 of 2023).
9. March 7–9, 2026 – Tribunal hears arguments, reserves order, and pronounces judgment:
   • Partly allows appeals.
   • Sets aside MahaRERA’s dismissal on delay issue.
   • Rules builder violated Section 18 by not giving formal possession even after OC.
   • Builder’s contradictions (early keys vs. later admissions of no handover) prove non-compliance.
   • Orders interest payment on full amount paid, at SBI highest MCLR + 2%, from January 31, 2021 until the date of actual formal possession (with OC provided).

Key Takeaways for Homebuyers

• Don’t rely on verbal promises or early keys – always insist on formal possession letter + OC.
• If your builder delays formal handover (even after OC), you may claim interest under Section 18.
• Builder admissions in official letters or affidavits can be powerful evidence in appeals.
• This ruling strengthens buyer protections: Covid excuses don’t override the need for proper paperwork.

The project (a small development with ~57–62 units, mostly 1 & 2 BHK flats) was marketed as ready-to-move post-2021, but cases like this show how paperwork gaps can lead to long delays and compensation claims.

Parties bear their own costs. The order has been communicated to MahaRERA and the parties.

Also Read: Builders want stamp duty reduced to 1% for 4 months

The post Builder’s Own Letter Exposes Lie: No Possession Given Even After OC – Tribunal Orders Interest For Delay appeared first on Square Feat India.

Chairperson Manoj Saunik’s order dated February 12, 2026 (hearing January 8, 2026) emphatically rejected the promoter’s attempt to use a unilateral termination notice — issued on September 9, 2025 — to evade liability for delayed possession. The termination came nearly four years after the homebuyers (Pranav Pravinchandra Dhrafani, Siddhi P. Dhrafani, and Bhadra P. Dhrafani) filed their complaint in November 2021, and MahaRERA ruled it could not extinguish their statutory rights under Section 18 while the project remains incomplete.

The allottees booked flat A-2204 (plus car parking) in April 2017 under a subvention scheme, with the Agreement for Sale (AFS) executed belatedly on February 7, 2019, promising possession by December 31, 2021, for ₹1.25 crore (partly via DHFL home loan). No Occupancy Certificate (OC) has been obtained, and the project’s registration has lapsed, with the MahaRERA portal showing an extended completion date of December 30, 2025.

Buyers’ Case They alleged builder delays in AFS execution, default on subvention interest (causing lender recovery/arbitration against them), incomplete amenity disclosures, and persistent non-delivery. Reliefs sought included delay interest from 2019/2021, possession with timeline, compensation for agony/rental loss, and more.

Builder’s Defense & Termination Play The promoter blamed delays on slum rehab disputes (AGRC/HC orders, resolved by Supreme Court in 2022) and COVID-19. They claimed buyer payment defaults (₹29.89 lakh outstanding), a tripartite agreement, and lender arbitration. Key tactic: A termination notice dated September 9, 2025 — post-complaint — asserting cancellation due to buyer defaults, to argue the complaint was no longer maintainable.

MahaRERA’s Rejection of Termination Logic The Authority observed:

• Delay cause of action arose in 2021–2022; buyers approached MahaRERA first in 2021.
• No demand notices from builder 2023–2025; buyers emailed repeatedly for dues clarification — ignored — then sudden termination.
• Under Section 18(1)(a), delay triggers automatic interest liability — independent of contracts or unilateral terminations.
• Late, one-sided termination (after cause of action and complaint) cannot retroactively erase accrued rights while project incomplete and no lawful possession/OC offered.
• Builder’s non-response weakened “wilful default” claims.

Final Relief Granted

• Complaint partially allowed.
• Interest on paid amounts (excluding taxes/stamp duty/etc.) from January 1, 2022, at SBI highest MCLR + 2% till handover with full OC.
• Accrued interest adjustable against genuine dues; remaining paid by builder within 60 days.
• Ongoing interest till possession payable within 30 days post-handover.
• Builder to apply for extension within 30 days (else Section 63 penalty).
• COVID moratorium benefit (2020–2021 notifications) deducted from delay period.
• Other claims (extra compensation, costs, etc.) rejected; no costs awarded.

This ruling sends a strong message: Builders cannot dodge RERA accountability via late, unilateral terminations after buyers invoke statutory remedies. It aligns with Supreme Court views on indefeasible Section 18 rights in delayed projects.

Also Read: Homebuyers Can’t Double-Dip: MahaREAT Says Civil Suit Blocks Later RERA Complaints

The post Homebuyers File RERA Complaint – Builder Terminates Agreement 4 Years Later – Authority Says: No Escape appeared first on Square Feat India.