The Case of Fali Erach Poncha vs. Theme Infraprojects

The dispute centered on Flat No. 702 in Building A-I of the project “Signature Residency” (MahaRERA Reg. No. P51700008025), located in Thane. The appellant, Mr. Fali Erach Poncha, had purchased the flat from Theme Infraprojects Private Limited (the Respondent) via an agreement dated March 27, 2014.

Mr. Poncha had paid the entire consideration of ₹62,00,000 by June 2013. According to the agreement, the builder was supposed to hand over possession on or before March 2017. However, the project remained incomplete years after the deadline.

The Builder’s “Automatic Extension” Trap

When the homebuyer sought a refund due to the delay, the promoter pointed to Clause 12 of their agreement. This clause claimed the promoter was entitled to an “automatic extension” of time if construction was stalled due to reasons like:

• Non-availability of building materials (steel, sand, cement).
• Delay in government approvals or utility connections.
• Court orders or changes in statutory rules.

The builder argued that since the homebuyer had signed the agreement, they had “consented” to wait indefinitely for these reasons. They also cited the COVID-19 pandemic and various court stay orders as force majeure (acts of God).

Tribunal Strikes Down One-Sided Clauses

The Appellate Tribunal, comprising Justice S. S. Shinde and Shrikant M. Deshpande, rejected these arguments. The Tribunal’s reasoning provides a vital shield for all homebuyers:

1. RERA Overrides Contracts: The Tribunal noted that RERA is retroactive and applies to all ongoing projects. Contractual terms that contradict the spirit of the Act cannot be used to deprive a consumer of their rights.
2. Strict Definition of Force Majeure: The Tribunal clarified that under Section 6 of RERA, force majeure only includes natural calamities like floods, cyclones, or war. Delays in obtaining NOCs or materials do not count as “acts of God”.
3. Timeline Matters: The builder tried to blame a 2017 High Court stay and the 2020 pandemic for the delay. The Tribunal pointed out that the possession date (March 2017) had already passed before these events occurred, meaning the builder was already in default.
4. No “Indefinite” Waiting: The judgment stated that merely signing an agreement does not mean a buyer has consented to wait forever for a home.

The Rescue: Refund and Interest Ordered

The Tribunal set aside an earlier MahaRERA order that had allowed the builder to delay the refund until the project’s completion. It ruled that Section 18 of RERA gives a homebuyer an unqualified right to a refund “on demand” if the builder fails to give possession on time.

The promoter was directed to:

• Refund the entire principal amount of ₹62,00,000.
• Pay interest at the rate of SBI MCLR + 2% from the date of payment until realization.
• Execute a Deed of Cancellation and assist the buyer in getting a refund for stamp duty and registration charges from government authorities.

Also Read: MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal Orders Developer to Refund Buyers, Rejects Cancellation Fee

The post Deceptive “Automatic Extension” Clause Fails: MahaRERA Tribunal Rescues Homebuyer from Builder’s Delay appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Case Background: A Delayed Project in Vasai

The complainants, Sameer Khan and Falaknaz Shabbir Shaikh, booked Flat No. F-602 in the “RG-A, B, E, F” project (MahaRERA Registration No. P99000003885) located in Vasai, Palghar. The registered Agreement for Sale (AFS) was executed on July 1, 2016, for a total consideration of ₹18,90,000. The promoter committed to handing over possession by May 31, 2018, as per Clause 29 of the AFS and a confirmation letter to ICICI Bank, from which the buyers availed a 90% home loan.

Despite full payments (including VAT, Service Tax, legal charges, stamp duty, and registration), the project remained incomplete well beyond the deadline. The complainants filed the online complaint on July 14, 2024, under Section 31 of RERA, seeking interest and compensation for the delay under Section 18. They alleged illegal offers of possession in Wings A, B, and E without OC, unsafe site conditions (e.g., open lift shafts, tanker-supplied water, non-fire compliance), and unauthorized project extensions without allottee consent.

An amendment on April 15, 2025, added the co-allottee (Shaikh) and the firm Reliable Realtouch as a respondent, which was allowed unopposed on June 25, 2025.

Promoter’s Defenses: COVID, Partner’s Death, and “Fit-Out” Offers

The respondents, Salim Mehmood Khan (proprietor and partner) and Reliable Realtouch, contested the complaint as “defective and unauthorized.” They claimed possession was offered in March 2024, but the complainants refused it, demanding three parking spaces (against one per sanctioned plans). They cited external factors for delays:

• The sudden death of Managing Partner AliAsger Abid Bhanpurawala on March 4, 2017, disrupting finances and operations.
• COVID-19 pandemic halting construction from 2020 onward.
• Pending OC due to MHADA’s delay in allotting 36 flats via lottery – a statutory requirement for this redevelopment project on MHADA land.

The promoter asserted that 80% of flats in Wing F had been handed over as “fit-out possession,” and around 40 allottees had accepted it. They argued these were “extraordinary circumstances beyond control,” absolving them of liability.

In their rejoinder, the complainants denied lawful possession claims, highlighting the site’s uninhabitable state (e.g., ongoing construction in Wings C and D posing safety risks) and illegal GST/Service Tax charges. They relied on precedents like Jyoti K. Narang v. CCI Projects Pvt. Ltd. to argue strict promoter liability.

MahaRERA’s Key Finding: “Fit-Out Possession” is Invalid Without OC

In Paragraph 12 of the order, MahaRERA categorically stated: “Since the OC for the said project has not yet been obtained, the question of handing over possession (whether physical or otherwise) does not arise at all. Moreover, it is a settled legal position that ‘fit-out possession’ does not constitute valid or lawful possession in the eyes of law, as lawful possession can be delivered only upon receipt of the requisite statutory approvals, including the OC.”

This ruling dismisses the promoter’s shelter under “fit-out” offers, emphasizing that RERA mandates full compliance with building norms. The authority rejected allegations of buyer default for refusing such possession, reinforcing that allottees cannot be forced to accept incomplete or unsafe units.

Delay Liability and Interest Calculation Under Section 18

MahaRERA analyzed the delay under Section 18 of RERA, which entitles allottees to monthly interest (SBI MCLR + 2%) for delays if they choose to stay in the project. The AFS date (May 31, 2018) was undisputed, but the promoter’s excuses were scrutinized:

• COVID-19: Invalid for pre-2020 delays but entitled to MahaRERA’s moratorium benefits (Orders 13 and 14 of 2020–2021, excluding March 15, 2020–February 28, 2022).
• Partner’s Death: Not “force majeure”; an internal business risk.
• Even assuming force majeure, the pre-RERA AFS allowed only a 6-month extension under MOFA Section 8(b), pushing the deadline to November 30, 2018.

Thus, interest accrues from December 1, 2018, till the date of lawful possession with OC, on actual consideration paid (excluding taxes, stamp duty, etc.).

Rejection of Compensation and Rent Claims

The complainants’ demands for separate compensation and rent reimbursement were rejected (Para 21). MahaRERA clarified that Section 18 limits relief to interest for allottees opting to continue, with no provision for additional compensation or rent loss.

Deferred Payment and Set-Off: Balancing Buyer Rights with Project Viability

In a pragmatic move (Para 23), MahaRERA deferred interest payment until full OC is obtained, to prevent fund diversion that could stall the project (valid till December 2025). This aligns with RERA’s objectives under Sections 11, 14, 34, and 37 to ensure timely completion for all allottees.

Key directions (Para 24):

• Mutual set-off: Promoter can deduct outstanding dues (e.g., society charges) from interest at possession time.
• Equity safeguard: If interest exceeds dues, dues are waived immediately; no further demands.

This protects the project’s cash flow while ensuring buyers aren’t burdened further.

Broader Implications for Homebuyers and Developers

The order underscores RERA’s dual focus: protecting allottees from delays while incentivizing project completion. It warns promoters against using “fit-out” as a workaround and highlights the need for transparent extensions and OC timelines. For buyers in similar situations, it advises documenting payments and refusing invalid possession offers. With thousands of delayed projects in Maharashtra, this precedent could embolden more complaints, pushing for stricter compliance.

The complaint was partly allowed and disposed of, with no further hearings scheduled.

Also Read: MahaRERA Inaugurates the First batch of Real Estate Agents Training

The post “Fit-Out Possession” Declared Legally Invalid Without OC: MahaRERA Rules in Favor of Delayed Homebuyers appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a significant ruling highlighting the importance of complete documentation, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed a homebuyer’s complaint in the Bhakti Meadows project after finding that the Agreement for Sale (AFS) submitted by the complainant did not contain a possession date.

The order, issued on 6 November 2025 by MahaRERA Chairperson Manoj Saunik, notes that the missing pages of the AFS made it legally impossible for the Authority to assess whether there was any delay by the promoters, Midas Builders and Navin Kothari (HUF).

Buyer Alleged Delay, Excess Payment, and Sought Compensation

The complainant, who had booked Flats 901 and 902 in the Borivali-based Bhakti Meadows (Project Reg. No. P51800013457), approached MahaRERA seeking:

• Interest for delayed possession under Section 18
• Refund of an alleged ₹58 lakh excess recovery
• ₹11 lakh as compensation
• Litigation costs

The buyer argued that the project was delayed and that the promoters had violated several provisions of RERA.

However, all claims were ultimately rejected due to the lack of a complete and valid agreement.

Key Turning Point: Incomplete Agreement Missing the Possession Clause

MahaRERA: “We Cannot Guess the Possession Date”

When scrutinising the documents, MahaRERA found that the Agreement for Sale submitted by the complainant was incomplete, with crucial pages missing — including the page that should contain the possession date.

This missing clause became the deciding factor.

Since determining delay under Section 18 requires a clearly defined promised possession date, the Authority held that it could not assume or infer the date.

MahaRERA categorically stated that it “cannot guess the possession date” in an incomplete agreement, making the complaint impossible to adjudicate.

Claims of Excess Payment Also Dismissed

The complainant’s allegation that the promoters had taken ₹58 lakh extra also did not stand scrutiny. MahaRERA noted that no supporting evidence — such as receipts, bank transfers, or payment records — had been provided.

Without documentary proof, the Authority held that it could not order any refund.

Not a Clean Chit to Builder; Complaint Dismissed Only on Procedural Grounds

MahaRERA clarified that the dismissal does not mean the project or promoter is fault-free. Instead, the complaint failed solely due to incomplete documentation.

The Authority added that the homebuyer is free to file a fresh complaint after submitting:

• A complete Agreement for Sale
• Proper proof of payments
• Relevant correspondence

Context: Four Other Buyers in Same Project Received Relief

Interestingly, in the same batch of cases related to Bhakti Meadows, four other homebuyers received relief, including interest for delayed possession.
In their cases, complete agreements with clearly stated possession dates were available.

This contrast underscores how the absence of a single clause — the possession date — can make or break a RERA complaint.

Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Against Developer Over Redevelopment Dispute

The post MahaRERA While Dismissing Homebuyer’s Complaint: “We Cannot Guess the Possession Date” appeared first on Square Feat India.