Justice N.J. Jamadar delivered the judgment on 30 March 2026 in Second Appeal Nos. 121 and 122 of 2026, dismissing the appeals filed by Rare Townships Private Limited against homebuyer Mitul Gada. The Court upheld the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal’s order permitting the allottee to withdraw the refund amount deposited by the promoter during the pendency of the appeal.

Sequence of Events

• November 2015: Mitul Gada entered into two Agreements for Sale with Rare Townships for Flat Nos. 1503 and 1504 in the “North Sea Heights (A1)” project at Ghatkopar. The promoter promised possession by 31 December 2018. Gada paid ₹98,92,960 for Flat 1504 and ₹69,66,437 for Flat 1503.
• 2018–2020: Possession was not delivered. Construction came to a standstill. Gada filed complaints before MahaRERA seeking refund under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016.
• February 2020: MahaRERA referred the complaints to the Adjudicating Officer.
• March 2021: Adjudicating Officer directed refund with interest and compensation.
• 2021–2025: Promoter challenged the order in writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. The High Court directed the promoter to deposit the amounts (totaling over ₹3.26 crore) in Court. The writ petitions were disposed of in April 2025, remanding the matter to MahaRERA with liberty to the Authority to disburse the deposited amounts if found due to the allottee.
• September 2025: MahaRERA directed the promoter to refund the entire amount paid by Gada along with interest at SBI’s highest marginal cost of lending rate + 2% (with COVID moratorium benefit).
• Late 2025: Promoter filed appeals before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal and sought stay on execution. The Tribunal granted stay on further recovery but allowed Gada to withdraw the deposited amounts subject to an undertaking to refund the money with interest if the promoter ultimately succeeds.
• January–March 2026: Aggrieved by the withdrawal permission, the promoter approached the Bombay High Court in second appeals.

Court’s Strong Observations on Homebuyer Vulnerability

Dismissing the appeals, Justice Jamadar observed:

“The promoter and allottee cannot be placed on an equal footing. The capacity to withstand the deprivation of the legitimate amount vastly differs and the position of the allottee is generally very vulnerable.”

The Court noted that over 11 years had passed since the agreements were signed and more than seven years since the promised possession date, yet the project remained incomplete. The allottee continued paying EMIs on home loans while his hard-earned money remained blocked with the promoter.

The judgment clarified that the pre-deposit requirement under the proviso to Section 43(5) of RERA (at least 30% of the penalty or the total amount payable to the allottee) is meant to safeguard the allottee’s interest. However, this does not freeze the money indefinitely. The Appellate Tribunal has discretion to release the deposited amount in deserving cases, especially where long delays and clear default by the promoter are established.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP (2021) but clarified that the pre-deposit provision is not a bar on disbursement during appeal when equities demand it.

Key Takeaways

• Homebuyers’ money paid years ago is not “developer’s money” — it remains the buyer’s legitimate amount plus interest for deprivation.
• Appellate Tribunals can permit withdrawal subject to undertakings, balancing the promoter’s right to appeal with the buyer’s immediate hardship.
• The ruling reinforces RERA’s beneficial intent to protect vulnerable homebuyers from prolonged litigation and financial distress.

The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the interim applications also disposed of. The allottee can now withdraw the deposited refund amount upon furnishing the required undertaking.

Also Read: Refund Allowed — But Not Final: Homebuyers Must Repay If Builder Wins Appeal

The post Homebuyers Are Vulnerable, Developers Not on Equal Footing: Bombay High Court appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Tribunal’s order dated March 13, 2026, in Appeal No. AT005000000204830 of 2024, delivered a scathing rebuke to MahaRERA’s November 8, 2023, decision, which had effectively rewritten the contract by shifting the interest liability start date from the original agreed possession date to the date when the homebuyers amended their complaint prayer. The Tribunal held that such interference amounted to impermissibly “re-writing the contract,” a power no authority under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) possesses.

Chronological Sequence of Events

• October 26, 2017: Homebuyers Mrs. Vrushali Janardan Shinde and Mr. Anil Arvind Patil executed a registered Agreement for Sale for Flat No. 603/8 in the project Cavansite (MahaRERA Registration No. P52100004059, earlier referenced as P52400004058 in some records), developed by S2 Realty (a partnership firm), with its partners Sachin Balkrishna Kulkarni and Vijay Ramesh Jasuja, along with land-owner promoters (including Gajanand Sundarrao Bhelke, Uttamrao Sundarrao Bhelke, and others) as confirming parties. The total consideration was ₹56,95,300, of which the buyers paid ₹51,25,710 (plus stamp duty and registration charges). The agreed date of possession was explicitly fixed as July 31, 2019.
• July 31, 2019: The promoter failed to hand over possession as per the agreement. The delay continued for nearly four years.
• February 15, 2019 (pre-default): The promoter acknowledged delay in a letter and offered ₹12,000 per month compensation from June 2019, which the buyers rejected, insisting on statutory interest under RERA.
• February 26, 2020: Buyers issued a legal notice demanding possession, interest for delay, and compliance.
• June 16, 2020: Aggrieved by non-response, the buyers filed Complaint No. CC005000000064285 before MahaRERA, initially seeking refund of paid amounts with interest under Section 18 of RERA.
• Mid-2023 (exact amendment allowed around August 1, 2023): Due to prolonged litigation and funds remaining stuck, the buyers amended their prayer — opting to continue with the project instead of exiting. They now sought possession plus interest for the delay from July 31, 2019, along with compensation.
• June 19, 2023: The promoter finally obtained the Occupation Certificate (OC) for the project, enabling physical possession (though significantly delayed).
• November 8, 2023: MahaRERA passed the impugned order. It rejected the bulk of the interest claim, holding that:
  • The change in relief (from refund to continuation) caused “prejudice” and “hardship” to the promoter by requiring realignment of cash flows.
  • Interest would run only from August 1, 2023 (post-amendment), not from the original due date.
  • By then, OC was already issued → interest claim “infructuous.”
  • The Authority also appeared to grant some benefit of COVID-19 moratorium notifications (issued from 2020 onward).
• 2024: The homebuyers appealed to MahaREAT, arguing that MahaRERA’s order was contradictory (it mentioned both “no specific date” and “31.07.2019”), ignored the clear agreement terms, and wrongly shifted the possession date without basis.
• March 5, 2026 (hearing reserved) / March 13, 2026 (judgement pronounced via video conferencing): MahaREAT, presided over by Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande, partly allowed the appeal in a detailed 20-page order.

Key Holdings and Harsh Critique of MahaRERA

The Tribunal answered the core issue in the affirmative: the homebuyers are entitled to interest under Section 18 of RERA for the full delay period.

• The possession date of July 31, 2019, is binding and sacrosanct; authorities cannot change it to rewrite contracts.
• MahaRERA’s reasoning on “prejudice” to the promoter was “legally unsustainable and extraneous,” as no pleadings or evidence supported hardship claims.
• Shifting the interest start date to the amendment date was impermissible — “the Authority has no power under the Act to change the due date of possession.”
• Observations in the MahaRERA order were factually contradictory and ignored the registered agreement.
• No force majeure or COVID moratorium benefit applies, as the default predated the pandemic (March 2020); the Tribunal emphasized that promoters must realistically assess timelines as domain experts.
• Citing Supreme Court precedents (Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni, Newtech Promoters vs. State of UP), the Tribunal reiterated that interest for delayed possession is an “unqualified and indefeasible right” of allottees when they choose to continue.

The Tribunal directed all respondents (S2 Realty, its partners, and land-owner promoters) to pay interest jointly and severally on ₹51,25,710 at SBI’s highest MCLR + 2% from August 1, 2019 (one month post-default) to June 19, 2023 (OC date), within 30 days. Any delay attracts further interest on the outstanding amount.

The claim for ₹10 lakh compensation was rejected, as it applies mainly when allottees exit the project.

This judgement serves as a stern reminder to MahaRERA and promoters alike: statutory rights under RERA cannot be diluted by extraneous considerations of promoter convenience. It reinforces buyer protections in delayed possession cases, especially for those who opt to stay invested despite years of wait.

Also Read: MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal Overturns RERA Order, Emphasizes Homebuyer Rights Over Arbitration Agreements

The post Date of Possession is Sacrosanct: Tribunal Slams MahaRERA for Illegally Altering Agreed Timeline 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.

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), under Chairperson Manoj Saunik, passed the consolidated order on January 16, 2026 (hearing held November 13, 2025), in two complaints concerning the lapsed project (Registration No. P51800010901). Originally promised completion by March 31, 2016 (revised to July 31, 2019, extended to January 30, 2021), the project has no Occupancy Certificate and lapsed on January 31, 2021.

Complainants included:

• Rajiv Dayal, who filed Complaint No. CC0060000000210009 on February 13, 2022, for five proposed commercial units (B-1201 to B-1205) allotted via letters dated January 18, 2010. Total consideration exceeded Rs 3.7 crore, with significant payments made.
• Ashok Narang and Jyoti K. Narang, who filed Complaint No. CC0060000000344283 on February 10, 2023, for commercial unit B-401 (approx. 468 sq ft), allotted June 18, 2010, with Rs 49 lakh paid by July 2010 toward about Rs 87.5 lakh.

Buyers alleged the developer accepted funds for commercial spaces, later converted the project to residential (built only up to 11 floors), mortgaged the property (including their units), and failed to execute registered Agreements for Sale or deliver possession.

Advocates Involved Representing the complainants: Advocate Prakash Rohira (for Rajiv Dayal) and Advocate Twishi Pant (for Ashok and Jyoti Narang). For respondents (Parthesh Developers, Nirav Shah, Monica Shah, and Ganga Jamna Sangam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.): Abhinesh Yadav and Sachin Chokhani (society secretary).

The developer and society countered that no valid contracts existed — the redevelopment agreement with the society was executed only on February 23, 2011, more than a year after the 2010 allotment letters. They argued the letters were premature/invalid, no commercial units were finalized, and no privity or liability for interest/compensation arose.

After arguments and written submissions (due November 25, 2025), MahaRERA allowed the complaints for refund but rejected interest and most other reliefs (e.g., plan-change compensation, mental agony, penalties beyond directives).

Why No Interest — The Core Lesson The Authority granted full principal refund (payable in one installment within 60 days) but explicitly denied interest, stating in Para 12: the transactions “have not progressed beyond the issuance of an allotment letter and initial payment.” No registered Agreement for Sale was executed — a must under Section 13 of the RERA Act, 2016, to invoke statutory interest under Section 18 (typically SBI MCLR + 2%).

The decisive factor: allotments occurred before the developer gained legal authority via the 2011 redevelopment agreement. MahaRERA observed that without such prior rights, the developer “should not have proceeded with the issuance of allotment letters… nor accepted any payments.” Yet payments were accepted, receipts issued, and funds utilized for years without refunds or alternatives. Allotment letters (signed, with payment proofs like bank statements and SBI certificates on record) were admissible as transaction evidence but fell short of full RERA-compliant agreements.

Rajiv Dayal must pay additional filing fees (Rs 20,000 for four extra units, within 10 days). The developer must seek project extension within 30 days or face Section 63 penalties.

This case reinforces a critical real estate principle in Maharashtra: in redevelopment scenarios, buyers should wait for a registered development agreement between developer and society before booking or paying — premature allotments may yield principal refunds on payment proof but often forfeit interest claims due to the preliminary nature of the transaction.

The project remains lapsed, leaving buyers to recover principal only — a costly reminder of unchecked early bookings.

Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Homebuyers’ Refund Plea as They Relinquished Property to Lender

The post Don’t Book Before the Developer-Society Deal is Sealed: Khar Homebuyers Paid the Price with No Interest on Refund appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has delivered a landmark ruling clarifying that homebuyers who first approach a **civil court for property remedies cannot later pursue identical reliefs under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

In a detailed judgment delivered on 22 December 2025, the tribunal held that pursuing multiple forums for the same relief — a practice known as forum shopping — is legally unsustainable and amounts to an abuse of process.

The case involved a redevelopment project in Andheri (East), Mumbai, where buyers had simultaneously filed civil suits in the City Civil Court, Dindoshi and later lodged RERA complaints with MahaRERA — only to be rebuffed by MahaREAT on procedural grounds.

Background: Dispute Over Eco Heights Redevelopment

The dispute centres on a redevelopment project known as “Eco Heights” on land at Nityanand Nagar, Andheri (East). The property was owned by Shree Nityanand Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., which entered into a Development Agreement dated 18 August 2009 with Zenal Construction Pvt. Ltd.

A joint venture (JV) — Etco Zenal Developers — comprising Zenal Construction and **Etco Builders’ director Ramesh D. Shah — was formed to carry out the redevelopment. Flats and commercial premises were offered for sale, and several buyers — including Bhavna Ashvin Jhaveri, Ashvin Hirendra Jhaveri, Saumil A. Jhaveri, Mugdha S. Jhaveri, and Mehul P. Mistry — made substantial payments under registered agreements for sale, with possession dates ranging from late 2015 to 2016.

Termination and Transfer of Promoter Status

In 2015, the society purportedly terminated the original development agreement with Zenal Construction and appointed Etco Builders Pvt. Ltd. as the new promoter.

Buyers were concerned that this transfer — which they alleged was a camouflage to avoid liabilities — would jeopardise their rights, including:

• Possession of units
• Rights under agreements for sale
• Entitlement to interest for delayed possession

Parallel Legal Proceedings — Civil Suits and RERA Complaints

Civil Court Action in 2016

The buyers filed Civil Suits Nos. 744–748 of 2016 in the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, seeking:

• Specific performance of agreements for sale
• Recognition of their rights to the flats
• Interim protection against transfer or encumbrance

The civil court granted a prima facie interim order recognizing the buyers’ rights.

RERA Complaints in 2019

Despite the pending civil suits, the buyers later approached MahaRERA in 2019, filing multiple complaints seeking:

• Declaration of allottee status
• Directions to hand over possession
• Interest for delayed possession under Section 18 of RERA Act 2016
• Injunction against third-party rights

MahaRERA allowed the complaints in an order dated 21 March 2022 — prompting appeals by both buyers and promoters before MahaREAT.

MahaREAT’s Core Legal Finding: Forum Shopping Is Not Permissible

The key legal issue MahaREAT was asked to determine was not whether buyers had valid claims, but whether their RERA complaints could proceed despite parallel civil suits with identical reliefs already pending.

In its unanimous judgment, the tribunal held:

• The reliefs claimed in the civil suits and the RERA complaints were identical
• The civil suits were filed before the RERA complaints
• Buyers did not withdraw their civil suits after filing RERA complaints
• Pursuing the same reliefs in multiple forums amounts to forum shopping, which courts do not allow

MahaREAT referenced established Supreme Court precedent to underline that a litigant cannot “shuffle from forum to forum” in hopes of obtaining favourable results.

Justice (Member J) Shriram R. Jagtap and Dr Rajagopal Devara (Member A) observed that since the civil suits and RERA complaints conflicted in subject matter and claimed the same remedies, the RERA proceedings were not maintainable.

Tribunal Sets Aside MahaRERA Order, Dismisses Appeals

Given this finding, MahaREAT ruled:

1. The impugned MahaRERA order dated 21 March 2022 is set aside
2. RERA appeals filed by the allottees (buyers) are dismissed
3. Appeals filed by the developer and society are partly allowed
4. Civil suits remain the appropriate forum for the dispute
5. Parties shall bear their own costs

The tribunal’s order did not decide on the merits of possession, interest, or developer liability. Instead, it focused squarely on the procedural question of maintainability.

Why This Ruling Matters

1. Procedural Clarity for Homebuyers

Buyers across India often file multiple cases in different forums — Civil Court, Consumer Court, and MahaRERA — seeking the same reliefs. This ruling emphasises that:

• Once a civil suit for the same relief is pending,
• RERA complaints seeking identical outcomes will be dismissed

This prevents abuse of the judicial process and reduces unnecessary litigation.

2. Strategic Considerations for Future RERA Cases

The judgment serves as a caution to:

• Homebuyers
• Legal practitioners
• RERA authorities

about the pitfalls of parallel litigation. If your remedy lies in civil court first, you may lose the chance to pursue RERA claims on the same issue.

3. Impact on Developer and Society Disputes

The ruling clarifies that disputes over:

• Termination of development agreements
• Transfer of promoter status
• Rights under agreements for sale

Should be resolved in the first forum where the compliant claim was initiated.

Expert Take

Legal analysts note this decision reflects a trend where tribunals are taking a strict procedural view to avoid conflicting judgments and inconsistent enforcement of rights. It also underscores that RERA is not a catch-all remedy when identical disputes are already under adjudication elsewhere.

Also Read: MahaREAT Landmark Ruling: Housing Societies Not Automatically ‘Promoter’ for Erstwhile Developer’s Liabilities

The post Homebuyers Can’t Double-Dip: MahaREAT Says Civil Suit Blocks Later RERA Complaints appeared first on Square Feat India.