The Heart of the Matter: Delayed Possession and Homebuyer Rights

The case involves Mr. Mitul Shah and Hemalini H. Shah, who purchased a flat in the “INDIABULLS SKY FOREST -A3” project back in 2015. As per their agreement for sale, the developer had promised possession of the flat by December 31, 2018, with a grace period extending to September 30, 2019. However, the project faced significant delays, with the completion date on MahaRERA’s website being subsequently revised to September 30, 2023. Despite obtaining a part occupation certificate on April 20, 2022, covering the subject flat, possession was not handed over as promised.

Aggrieved by these delays, the homebuyers approached the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), seeking a refund of their paid amount of Rs. 2,18,83,105/- with interest. They contended that the developer unilaterally extended possession dates and altered plans without the consent of allottees.

Developer’s Defence: Force Majeure and Subvention Scheme

M/s. Indiabulls Properties Private Limited argued that the delays were due to “unforeseeable circumstances” such as the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai’s (MCGM) delay in taking possession of parking spots and the COVID-19 pandemic, classifying these as force majeure events under their agreement. They also highlighted that the homebuyers had only contributed around 20% of the flat’s consideration, with the developer having paid pre-EMIs under a subvention scheme with Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited.

MahaRERA’s Initial Stance and the Appeal

MahaRERA initially allowed the homebuyers to withdraw from the project and directed a refund with interest applicable from October 1, 2019. The Authority emphasized that Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016, is an “absolute provision” that entitles allottees to interest for delays, irrespective of force majeure events cited by developers. MahaRERA also granted the developer the benefit of a moratorium period due to COVID-19 for interest calculation.

However, the homebuyers appealed this decision, primarily seeking interest on their full refund amount from the

dates of their respective payments, rather than a fixed later date.

Tribunal’s Landmark Decision: Interest from Payment Date

The MahaREAT, after reviewing the case, partially allowed the homebuyers’ appeal, modifying the original order. The Tribunal directed M/s. Indiabulls Properties Private Limited to refund Rs. 1,66,60,389/- along with interest at a rate of 2% above the State Bank of India’s highest marginal cost lending rate,

from the date of respective payments of these amounts. This significantly shifts the burden of delay onto the developer by making interest applicable from an earlier point for a substantial portion of the refund. The developer has 30 days to comply, failing which further interest will apply from September 1, 2025.

Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered the developer to execute a deed of cancellation within two months to facilitate the refund of stamp duty and other government taxes paid by the homebuyers. This ruling reaffirms the robust protections offered by RERA to ensure homebuyers are not unduly penalized for developer defaults.

Also Read: MahaRERA’s Real Estate Agents exam to begin from April End

The post Indiabulls Sky Forest Case: Landmark RERA Ruling Orders Developer to Issue Full Refunds with Interest appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Tribunal’s judgment in a series of appeals filed by allottees against Joy Homecreation Limited highlights the developer’s failure to provide any documentary proof of such consent, a key contention raised by the promoter.

Timeline of Delay and Extensions:

The Core of the Dispute: Consent and Delay

The appellants, including Makarand Vasant Raut, Yogita Makarand Raut, Sanjay Vastimal Jain, Indira Sanjay Jain, Yogesh Jayantilal Jain, and Vinita Y. Baldota, had purchased flats in the “Joys Adinath Tower-II” project. Despite paying substantial amounts towards their flats, the promoter, Joy Homecreation Limited, failed to hand over possession by the dates stipulated in their respective agreements for sale.

The promoter had repeatedly extended the project’s completion date and argued that these extensions were consented to by the complainants, and that delays were also due to “force majeure” events like the COVID-19 pandemic.

MahaRERA’s Initial Stance & Tribunal’s Firm Findings:

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) had partly allowed the original complaints, rejecting the claim for compensation but directing the promoter to pay interest for delayed possession. MahaRERA had noted that for two complaints (serial no. 1 and 2), the possession dates were prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and NCLT proceedings, thus disallowing extensions based on these events for those specific cases. Crucially, MahaRERA also found no documentary proof of allottee consent for extensions.

The Appellate Tribunal, after reviewing the case, unequivocally supported the allottees on the issue of consent. “The promoter has not submitted any documentary proof on record to show that the complainants have ever given their consent for extension of dates of possession mentioned in the respective agreements for sale,” the Tribunal stated, finding no merit in the promoter’s contention.

Key Findings of the Appellate Tribunal:

• No Allottee Consent for Extension: The Tribunal explicitly stated that the promoter failed to provide any documentary evidence that allottees consented to the extension of possession dates.
• Entitlement to Interest: The appellants are entitled to interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016, due to the inordinate delay in handing over possession and obtaining the occupation certificate.
• Grace Period Denied (for Sr. No. 1 & 2): The promoter is not entitled to the six-month grace period granted by MahaRERA for appeals at serial no. 1 and 2, as the agreements for sale for these complaints pre-date the RERA Act, 2016 coming into force. The Tribunal found the grant of such a grace period “without any basis and not sustainable in the eyes of law”.
• Moratorium Period Allowed (for Sr. No. 3): The promoter is entitled to the benefit of the “moratorium period” as mentioned in MahaRERA notifications issued on April 2, 2020, May 18, 2020, and August 6, 2021, but only for the appeal at serial no. 3, where the agreement for sale was executed after the RERA Act came into force and the COVID-19 pandemic occurred prior to the date of possession.
• Immediate Interest Payment: The Tribunal set aside the MahaRERA’s direction that interest amounts would only be paid after obtaining the full occupancy certificate. The promoter is now directed to pay interest on the amounts paid by the allottees at SBI’s Highest Marginal Cost Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2% from the revised dates of possession.
• Compensation for Mental Agony: While the appellants sought Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, the Tribunal’s order does not explicitly grant this, focusing on the interest for delayed possession.

This ruling serves as a crucial reminder to developers regarding their obligations under RERA and the necessity of adhering to agreed-upon timelines, especially when allottee consent for extensions is lacking.

Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Against Developer Over Redevelopment Dispute

The post MahaRERA Tribunal Slams Developer: No Proof of Homebuyer Consent for Porject Delays appeared first on Square Feat India.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to July 25, 2019, when the complainant filed a grievance under Section 18 of RERA, seeking compensation for the delay in possession of a property. MahaRERA issued a final order on December 14, 2021, instructing the developer to pay interest from February 1, 2015, until possession with an occupancy certificate was provided.

However, as the developer failed to comply, the complainant filed a non-compliance application on April 12, 2022, demanding enforcement of the order.

Dismissal and Restoration of the Case

On July 4, 2023, MahaRERA dismissed the non-compliance application, citing:

• The complainant had already filed a civil suit in the Thane district court and a cheque dishonor case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
• The complainant failed to attend the scheduled hearing, leading to the assumption that they were not pursuing the case further.

However, the complainant later filed a restoration application, arguing that they were unaware of the hearing due to technical issues and had no deliberate intent to remain absent.

MahaRERA’s Latest Ruling

During a virtual hearing on November 28, 2024, MahaRERA observed that:

• The respondent (Kavya Mira Realty) failed to appear for three consecutive hearings, leading to an ex-parte decision.
• The complainant had genuine difficulties in accessing the hearing and should not be penalized on procedural grounds.

As a result, MahaRERA has restored the non-compliance case and directed its transfer to the Adjudicating Officer for further legal proceedings. The MahaRERA Registry has been instructed to facilitate the transfer.

Implications for Homebuyers

This ruling reaffirms MahaRERA’s commitment to protecting homebuyers’ rights and ensuring developers comply with their obligations. The decision highlights the importance of accountability in the real estate sector, giving hope to other buyers facing possession delays and non-compliance issues.

The MahaRERA order was passed on February 12, 2025, following a virtual hearing, after the matter was reserved for order on November 28, 2024.

Stay tuned for further updates on this case and more real estate news!

Also Read: maharera exam

The post MahaRERA Restores Case Against Developer Over Delayed Possession in Mumbai appeared first on Square Feat India.