A household that purchased an house in Mumbai for ₹1.05 crore was denied any compensation for a possession delay of greater than two years after MahaRERA held that that they had accepted the flat with out protest.
The authority dominated that because the homebuyers neither raised objections nor sought a proper possession letter on the time of taking handover of the property, they may not later declare curiosity compensation for the delay.
The complainant had signed the sale settlement on February 25, 2022, and the builder promised to offer possession by June 30, 2022. Nevertheless, the house was handed over solely on March 15, 2025, after a delay of greater than two years, in line with a report by the Financial Occasions.
MahaRERA noticed that whereas Part 18 of the RERA Act (Actual Property Regulatory Authority) doesn’t specify a limitation interval, grievances regarding delayed possession have to be raised earlier than the challenge is accomplished and possession is accepted, not at a later date chosen by the homebuyer.
What grievances did the homebuyers elevate?
As per the report, the homebuyers had made partial funds even earlier than signing the sale settlement and continued making funds thereafter.
They even made a fee on March 10, 2025, simply days earlier than taking possession, however the builder allegedly failed to offer receipts for these funds. Though they acquired bodily possession on March 15, 2025, the builder by no means issued a proper possession letter until date.
The complainant additionally claimed that the builder failed to offer all of the widespread facilities that have been promised within the sale settlement, noting that the delayed possession has precipitated them psychological agony, hardship and monetary losses.
That is why they filed a case with MahaRERA looking for a compensation. The household requested curiosity on the fee of 18% each year on the quantities they paid for the house, from the respective dates of funds until March 15, 2025, that’s the date they acquired possession, totaling ₹50.6 lakh.
Builder defended delay citing approvals
The builder argued earlier than MahaRERA that the complainant have been conscious of the challenge’s building standing once they bought the flat and had been knowledgeable that the possession timeline was topic to statutory approvals and different elements past the developer’s management.
The builder’s legal professionals relied on clause 25 of the sale settlement, which allowed an extension of the possession date in circumstances involving delays in approvals, power majeure occasions or different unexpected circumstances.
The builder’s lawyer additionally contended that the homebuyers had accepted possession of the house and had not cleared their excellent dues. Due to this fact, they weren’t entitled to hunt curiosity or compensation for the delay in handing over possession.
“That the declare of the complainants for curiosity as much as 15.03.2025 is untenable because the complainants have been already in helpful occupation of the flat,” the property builder’s lawyer instructed MahaRERA authority.
On the homebuyers’ allegation that the builder failed to offer widespread facilities as per the phrases of the settlement on the market, MahaRERA held that that they had not positioned on report any pictures, paperwork or different proof to substantiate these claims. Within the absence of supporting materials, the authority declined to grant reduction on this floor.
On July 2, 2026, the homebuyers misplaced the case in MahaRERA because the authority refused to grant any curiosity compensation for this possession delay.
