The order was passed on 1 January 2026 in Complaint No. CC006000000012766, filed by Pramod Kumar Gajelli.

Background of the Case

The homebuyer booked Flat No. A/304, A-Wing, admeasuring 43.94 sq. m., in the building “Anant”, part of the Viva Vishnupuram project, in January 2013. The total consideration agreed under the registered Agreement for Sale dated 21 September 2013 was Rs. 18.15 lakh, with possession promised by March 2014.

By early 2014, the buyer had already paid the entire consideration, along with statutory charges such as service tax and MVAT. However, possession was not handed over within the agreed timeline. Over the years, the project remained incomplete, with construction reportedly stalled for long periods.

According to MahaRERA records, the project’s completion date was revised multiple times — from 31 March 2014 to 30 June 2021, and later to 30 December 2024, reflecting a delay of more than seven years beyond the original promise.

What the Homebuyer Argued

The homebuyer contended that:

• Full payment of Rs. 18.15 lakh was made by January 2014.
• Despite repeated follow-ups, possession was never handed over.
• Construction progress was slow and stagnant, raising concerns about structural safety.
• In September 2019, the buyer formally communicated his decision to withdraw from the project and sought a refund.
• Even after this clear request, the builder neither refunded the amount nor delivered possession.

The buyer argued that such an abnormal delay gave him an absolute right to exit the project under Section 18 of RERA, which mandates refund with interest when possession is not delivered as agreed.

What the Builder Claimed

The builder, Viva Homes Private Limited, opposed the refund on multiple grounds:

• The delay was attributed to factors beyond its control, including changes in sanctioned plans, demonetisation, GST implementation, COVID-19 disruptions, and regulatory approvals.
• MahaRERA had granted blanket extensions to projects during the pandemic period.
• The builder claimed the project was substantially complete and possession could now be offered.
• It was argued that the buyer had entered into consent terms in July 2023, agreeing to take fit-out possession.
• Crucially, the builder submitted that if refund was to be granted, it should be allowed to sell the flat in the open market first, and only thereafter refund the buyer, citing financial constraints and project viability concerns.

The developer warned that immediate refunds could adversely impact other allottees and the overall financial health of the project.

Why MahaRERA Rejected the Builder’s Stand

MahaRERA decisively rejected the builder’s arguments, making several key observations:

1. Delay Was Inordinate and Unjustified
   The Authority noted that possession promised in March 2014 had not been delivered even by 2026. Such a prolonged delay could not be justified by extensions or external factors.
2. Right to Refund Under Section 18 Is Unconditional
   MahaRERA held that once a buyer chooses to withdraw due to delay, the promoter is statutorily bound to refund the amount with interest. The law does not permit conditional refunds, such as linking repayment to resale of the flat.
3. Builder’s Financial Constraints Are Not a Defence
   The Authority categorically stated that project viability or impact on other buyers cannot override an individual allottee’s statutory rights under RERA.
4. Consent Terms Were Not Enforceable
   Even after the alleged consent terms of July 2023, possession was not handed over. Moreover, the consent terms were not properly recorded before the Authority, and therefore could not be enforced against the buyer.
5. Buyer Cannot Be Forced to Wait Indefinitely
   MahaRERA observed that allowing the builder to first sell the flat and then refund would unfairly shift the project’s financial burden onto the homebuyer, which RERA expressly seeks to prevent.

Final Order

MahaRERA directed the builder to:

• Refund Rs. 18,15,250 to the homebuyer
• Pay interest from 1 January 2014 at SBI’s highest MCLR + 2% per annum
• Pay Rs. 20,000 as litigation costs
• Complete the refund within 30 days

Why This Order Is Important for Homebuyers

This ruling sends a clear message:

• Refunds under RERA cannot be postponed or made conditional
• Builders cannot say “sell first, refund later”
• Homebuyers are not financiers of stalled projects
• Long delays strengthen, not weaken, the buyer’s right to exit

For thousands of buyers stuck in delayed projects, this order reaffirms that RERA protects their money, not the builder’s cash flow.

Also Read: MahaRERA Rules Developer Cannot Forfeit Entire Booking Amount Upon Cancellation

The post MahaRERA Rejects Builder’s Plea to Sell Flat Before Refunding Buyer appeared first on Square Feat India.

A homebuyer, Amit Shah, has successfully approached the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) against real estate developer Sylvanus Properties Limited over serious violations relating to delayed possession, illegal collection of money, and non-execution of an agreement for sale in the “Indiabulls Savroli-2” project at Savroli village in Raigad district.

In a detailed order passed on December 16, 2025, MahaRERA Member II Ravindra Deshpande allowed the complaint and held that the homebuyer was entitled to withdraw from the project and seek refund under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Background of the Dispute

The complainant booked a 3 BHK flat (Flat No. G-4/A301) in Phase-2 of the project in May 2013 for a total consideration of ₹84.98 lakh. At the time of booking, the project did not have amended construction permissions.

The buyer paid ₹13.14 lakh directly to the developer and availed a housing loan of ₹70.08 lakh from Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd under a subvention scheme, where the builder was to bear the pre-EMI interest until possession.

A tripartite agreement was executed on July 30, 2013 between the buyer, the developer, and the lender.

Allegations by the Homebuyer

The complainant alleged that despite the payment plan being linked to construction progress, the lender disbursed the entire loan amount in a lump sum in August 2013 without his consent and at a time when no construction had commenced and requisite approvals were absent.

He further contended that:

• No registered Agreement for Sale was executed even after collecting over 90% of the flat cost
• The builder failed to commence or complete Phase-2 of the project
• Promised amenities and timelines were misrepresented
• Possession, originally represented around 2015, was never offered

Invoking Sections 12 and 18 of RERA, the buyer sought to withdraw from the project and claim a full refund with interest and compensation.

Builder’s Defence Rejected

The developer denied the allegations and argued that:

• The booking was only provisional
• No possession date was agreed
• The buyer defaulted in loan repayment
• The dispute should be resolved through arbitration

MahaRERA rejected all these defences, holding that arbitration clauses cannot override statutory remedies under RERA and that promoters cannot escape liability by failing to execute an agreement for sale.

Key Findings of MahaRERA

MahaRERA recorded multiple serious violations:

• Illegal collection of funds: The builder received ₹83.22 lakh without executing a registered Agreement for Sale, violating Section 13 of RERA, which permits collection of only 10% without such an agreement.
• Unauthorized loan disbursement: The entire loan was released without the buyer’s request or consent and before construction approvals were obtained.
• Prolonged delay: Even the project’s declared completion dates of July 1, 2017 and later November 30, 2020 had long expired.
• Absolute right to refund: The Authority reiterated that under Section 18, once possession is delayed beyond the declared date, an allottee has an unconditional right to withdraw and seek refund with interest.

The Authority relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’Lima to hold that buyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely and that three years is a reasonable period for completion in the absence of a fixed possession date.

Final Order

MahaRERA directed Sylvanus Properties Limited to:

• Refund ₹13,14,135 paid by the complainant
• Pay interest at SBI’s highest MCLR + 2%
• Calculate interest from July 2, 2017 till actual refund
• Complete payment within 30 days from the date of the order

The Authority clarified that it does not have jurisdiction to pass directions against the housing finance company, as RERA applies only to promoters, allottees, and real estate agents.

Why This Order Is Important for Homebuyers

This order is significant because it clearly establishes that:

• Builders cannot collect large sums without executing a registered Agreement for Sale
• Delays beyond declared RERA completion dates automatically trigger refund rights
• Subvention schemes do not dilute homebuyer protections
• Arbitration clauses cannot block RERA remedies
• Banks and builders can be scrutinised for premature loan disbursement, even if relief against lenders must be sought elsewhere

For thousands of homebuyers stuck in delayed or stalled projects, this order reinforces that RERA is a buyer-protection law with overriding statutory force.

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

The post Amit Shah Approaches MahaRERA Against Builder In Indiabulls Project appeared first on Square Feat India.