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.

In a significant ruling favouring homebuyers, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has declared that “substantial justice must prevail over technical considerations”, as it condoned a 394-day delay in an appeal filed by buyers of flats in the Ruparel Ariana project at Parel.

The applicants, Mahrukh Khushrow Patel and others, had challenged MahaRERA’s order rejecting their refund claims. The Tribunal found their delay justified because they pursued a review application in good faith, and there was no evidence of “deliberate or mala fide conduct.”

What the Tribunal Noted

In its detailed order, the Tribunal remarked:

“Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late… Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the threshold.”

The Tribunal further emphasized that:

“When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred.”

Case Background

• The buyers had booked flats with Shree Sukhakarta Developer Pvt Ltd.
• MahaRERA rejected their refund claim on 27 July 2023, though it permitted withdrawal under the sale agreement.
• After receiving a copy of the order belatedly in August 2023, the buyers filed a review application, which was dismissed in June 2024.
• The final appeal was filed on 31 October 2024, leading the builder to argue the delay was excessive and “forum shopping.”

Tribunal’s Decision

While acknowledging the appeal was late, the Tribunal ruled that:

• The 265 days spent pursuing the review should be excluded.
• The effective delay was 129 days, not 394.
• The buyers had acted without malice or gross negligence.
• A ₹25,000 cost would be imposed as a condition for condoning the delay.

“There is no material on record to show that the applicant has malafidely preferred the captioned appeal after expiry of the period of limitation,” the Tribunal observed.

Implications

The decision underscores that courts can and will adopt a liberal approach to delays, especially where litigants have pursued available remedies in good faith and without intent to abuse process.

Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Against Developer Over Redevelopment Dispute

The post “Justice Over Technicalities”: Tribunal Condones Delay, Admits Ruparel Ariana Buyers’ Appeal appeared first on Square Feat India.

Ordinarily, MahaRERA hears complaints in the sequence they are filed. However, the newly released circular lists seven exceptional situations where this chronological order may be set aside to fast-track hearings.

Circumstances Eligible for Priority Hearing:

1. Life-threatening illness: If the complainant is suffering from a life-threatening medical condition. A doctor’s certificate from a relevant specialist is mandatory.
2. Review or rectification requests: Cases seeking a review, rectification, or alleging non-compliance of an existing MahaRERA order.
3. Court directives: When an appellate tribunal or higher court instructs MahaRERA to dispose of a complaint in a time-bound manner or orders a fresh hearing.
4. Mutual settlements: If parties have mutually settled the matter either through MahaRERA’s Conciliation Bench or outside court.
5. Withdrawal of complaint: If the complainant intends to withdraw the complaint.
6. Maintainability challenges: Where the core issue is whether the complaint is legally maintainable.
7. Multiple complaints from the same project: All such complaints may be clubbed, and the seniority of the first petition filed will apply.

To apply for priority hearing, appropriate documentary evidence must accompany the complaint. In absence of such supporting documents, the request will not be considered.

The circular also states that in special situations, the MahaRERA Chairperson retains the discretion to allow or deny out-of-turn hearings, depending on the merits of each case.

The guidelines are effective immediately and aim to provide timely relief to complainants facing extraordinary situations, ensuring that procedural rules do not become a hurdle in delivering justice.

Also Read: MahaRERA to Hold Monthly Open Houses to Assist Developers with Project Registration

The post MahaRERA to Fast-Track Complaint Hearings in Exceptional Cases, Issues Detailed Guidelines appeared first on Square Feat India.

The tribunal, presided over by Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial) and Shri S.M. Deshpande (Administrative), issued the directive after repeated non-compliance with previous orders to attach movable and immovable properties belonging to the developers. The case was heard via video conferencing on January 2, 2025.

Key highlights of the order include:

1. Delay in Property Attachment:
   Despite a fresh attachment warrant issued on September 27, 2024, the Collector of Mumbai Suburban failed to submit a compliance report. The tribunal has now instructed the Registry to issue another attachment warrant and seek an explanation from the Collector.
2. Failure to Serve Notices:
   Notices issued under Section 64 of the RERA Act, 2016, have reportedly not been served to the developers, prompting the tribunal to demand updates on their status.
3. Imprisonment Directive:
   The tribunal asked the Registry to request the City Civil Court, Mumbai, to execute the arrest and imprison the judgment debtors who in this case are the developers for three months.

This landmark ruling aims to enforce accountability and ensure justice for homebuyers who have been waiting for resolution. The tribunal has scheduled the next hearing for February 20, 2025.

The decision highlights the increasing stringency of RERA enforcement to safeguard homebuyers’ interests and bring erring developers to justice.

Also Read: MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal

The post Mumbai Developers Face 3 Months Imprisonment in Landmark RERA Case appeared first on Square Feat India.