ORERA Establishes Conciliation and Dispute Resolution Cell for Amicable Settlement of RERA Disputes

ORERA Establishes Conciliation and Dispute Resolution Cell for Amicable Settlement of RERA Disputes

The Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (ORERA) has established a Conciliation and Dispute Resolution (CDR) Cell and issued operational guidelines for resolving disputes between homebuyers, promoters and real estate agents through conciliation.

The CDR Cell will function as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism to facilitate amicable settlement of disputes arising under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Disputes falling within the scope of the Act may be referred to the Cell either by ORERA or upon an application made by any of the parties.

ORERA may refer a complaint to the CDR Cell, with the consent of both parties, where it is satisfied that there is a genuine possibility of resolving the dispute through conciliation. A party seeking conciliation is required to submit an application, which is then communicated to the opposite party by post or email. The opposite party must communicate its consent within seven days of receiving the communication.

Upon receipt of consent, the applicant is required to deposit ₹500 with the Secretary, ORERA, following which the matter is referred to the CDR Cell. The parties are thereafter informed of the date, time and venue of the hearing. The Cell is required to endeavour to resolve the dispute within two months.

The guidelines require both parties to remain present at the hearing. Where the parties arrive at a settlement, the terms must be reduced to writing and signed by both parties. The resulting consent agreement is binding upon the parties and persons concerned. Any failure to comply with such binding settlement may be taken into consideration in subsequent proceedings before ORERA.

Where conciliation fails and the parties are unable to reach a settlement, the matter is to be forwarded to ORERA or the appropriate court, as applicable.

ORERA Chairman Asit Kumar Mohapatra stated that legal experts would be appointed to assist the CDR Cell. He also noted that previous attempts to establish a similar mechanism in Odisha had not become operational, including an initiative undertaken in January of the previous year due to the absence of requisite government approval. The Authority subsequently examined successful conciliation models adopted in other States, including Maharashtra, while formulating the present mechanism.

Key Takeaway: The ORERA CDR Cell provides a structured conciliation mechanism for promoters, agents and allottees to seek an amicable resolution of RERA disputes, with settlements recorded through binding consent agreements and unresolved matters capable of being pursued before the appropriate forum.

Builder Bound by Its Own Assurances of Earlier Possession; Cannot Rely on Distant Contractual Date: TNRERA

Builder Bound by Its Own Assurances of Earlier Possession; Cannot Rely on Distant Contractual Date: TNRERA

Case Title: Namasivayam v. Casa Grande Smart Values Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: R.C.P. No. 107 of 2025
Date of Decision: 3 September 2026

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA), comprising Chairperson K. Phanindra Reddy and Members A. Nazir Ahamed and Reeta Harish Thakkar, held that a promoter cannot rely solely upon a distant possession date stipulated in the agreement when it has subsequently made a specific commitment to hand over possession on an earlier date through its own communications.

The complainant had booked a villa in the Casagrand Divinity Project, Chengalpattu, for approximately ₹1.91 crore and had paid more than ₹1.58 crore in 2023, partly through a housing loan obtained from the State Bank of India. Although the agreement contemplated completion by April 2027, the promoter subsequently communicated to the complainant that possession would be handed over by December 2023, with a grace period extending up to March 2024.

The promoter subsequently extended the promised date to April 2024, citing floods, but cancelled the complainant's booking in February 2024 on the ground that certain dues remained unpaid. The promoter contended that April 2027 was the only binding contractual date and that its communications regarding earlier possession were merely tentative estimates. It further alleged that the complainant was himself in default and therefore could not claim compensation under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016.

TNRERA rejected this contention and observed that the complainant was entitled to rely upon the promoter's specific representations regarding the earlier date of handover. Significantly, the project obtained its Completion Certificate only in November 2024, demonstrating that possession could not have been delivered even by the subsequently promised date of April 2024.

The Authority accordingly held that the promoter's failure to honour its commitment attracted liability for delay and that the complainant was entitled to interest from March 2024 until actual handing over of possession in April 2026, pursuant to the earlier directions of the Authority.

The promoter was directed to pay interest at 10.90% per annum on the amount paid by the complainant, together with ₹25,000 towards litigation costs, within 30 days.

Key Takeaway: A promoter may be held to an earlier possession commitment communicated to the allottee, notwithstanding a later contractual possession date, particularly where the promoter's own subsequent conduct demonstrates that the earlier commitment could not be fulfilled.

UP-RERA Introduces Digital Filing of Professional Certificates Along with QPRs

UP-RERA Introduces Digital Filing of Professional Certificates Along with QPRs

UP-RERA has introduced through a notifiation letter/9478/UP-RERA/tak-cell/2026-27 dated 12.09.2026 a digital filing system for Architect (REG-1), Engineer (REG-2) and Chartered Accountant (REG-3) certificates accompanying Quarterly Progress Reports (QPRs), as part of the transition to the UP-RERA 2.0 portal.

Under the new system, the three certificates will be filed sequentially through structured digital forms and authenticated with the respective professionals’ Digital Signature Certificates (DSCs). The QPR can be finalized only after all three certificates have been submitted. The digital system also auto-populates core project details and requires consistency with previous-quarter filings.

The initiative is intended to improve the accuracy, verifiability and real-time monitoring of project progress and fund utilisation, while reducing inconsistencies arising from separate PDF uploads.

Effective from the quarter ending September 2026, digital submission of these certificates is mandatory. 

LINK : - https://www.up-rera.in/pdf/Digital-QPR.pdf

Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 43(5) RERA Is a Condition Precedent for Maintainability of Promoter’s Appeal: Haryana REAT

Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 43(5) RERA Is a Condition Precedent for Maintainability of Promoter’s Appeal: Haryana REAT

Elan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Switi Gupta & Anr. — Haryana REAT (H-REAT-31-2026)

 Date of Decision 14-Aug-2026

The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (HREAT), by order dated 14 August 2026, dismissed two appeals filed by Elan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. for failure to make the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, 2016.

The appeals challenged a HRERA Gurugram order dated 8 July 2025, which directed the promoter to pay delayed possession charges at 11.10% p.a. on the amounts paid by the allottees from the contractual possession date of 30 April 2022 until the offer of possession plus two months. The Authority also directed revision of the account statement, payment of specified utility charges, execution of the conveyance deed, and prohibited the promoter from levying holding charges.

The promoter argued that the allottees themselves owed approximately ₹55.22 lakh, whereas the delayed-possession interest payable by the promoter was ₹5.53 lakh. It therefore contended that the outstanding amount payable by the allottees should be adjusted against the statutory pre-deposit.

HREAT rejected this contention, relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., holding that where a promoter challenges an order involving payment to an allottee, the promoter must make the requisite statutory pre-deposit before the appeal can be entertained. There is no provision for waiver or exemption from the pre-deposit requirement.

The Tribunal further observed that the pre-deposit is intended to secure the interest of the allottee. The amount is kept in a fixed deposit and carries interest, with disbursement being subject to the final outcome of the appeal. Therefore, the promoter's argument for adjustment could not dispense with the statutory requirement.

Held

Since the promoter had failed to make the required ₹5,53,544 pre-deposit, the appeals were held not maintainable and were dismissed without examination on merits. However, the promoter was given liberty to seek revival of the appeals if the requisite pre-deposit was made within one month.

Key takeaway: A promoter cannot avoid or seek adjustment of the mandatory Section 43(5) pre-deposit on the ground that the allottee owes money to the promoter. Compliance with the statutory pre-deposit is a condition precedent for maintainability of the promoter's appeal. 

RERA Review Powers Are Limited; Review Cannot Be Used to Rehear a Matter on Merits: MP REAT

RERA Review Powers Are Limited; Review Cannot Be Used to Rehear a Matter on Merits: MP REAT

Title: Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority v. Aarti Soni & Anr.

The Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MP REAT) recently dismissed a review petition filed by the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, reiterating that the power of review is limited and cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal.

The Tribunal held that review is maintainable only where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new material/evidence, or another sufficient reason. A party cannot seek a rehearing of the matter merely because it is dissatisfied with the earlier appellate decision.

The Authority contended that subsequent action taken under Section 59 of RERA, including imposition of a ₹1 lakh fine, demonstrated compliance with the earlier directions. The Tribunal, however, found that the subsequent penalty did not establish effective compliance with the earlier order and that the requirements arising under Sections 7 and 8 of RERA continued to remain unfulfilled.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found no ground for review, dismissed the review petition and directed the Authority to proceed with compliance after affording the concerned parties an opportunity of hearing.

Key takeaway: A review petition under RERA cannot be used to reopen the merits of a reasoned appellate order. Subsequent regulatory action will not, by itself, establish an error in the original decision or cure continuing non-compliance with statutory directions. 

MahaREAT Allows Homebuyers to Withdraw Statutory Pre-Deposit in Cases of Prolonged Possession Delay and Financial Hardship

MahaREAT Allows Homebuyers to Withdraw Statutory Pre-Deposit in Cases of Prolonged Possession Delay and Financial Hardship

Case Title :  Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Ketan Ashokrao Nage & Connected Matters Case Number :  M.A. Nos. 1123/26, 1723/26, 1178/26, 1124/26, 1125/26, 691/26 & 712/26 in connected appeals

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has permitted two homebuyers to withdraw amounts deposited by the promoter, Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd., towards the mandatory pre-deposit required for its appeals under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

The Tribunal, comprising Justice S.S. Shinde, Chairperson, and Shrikant M. Deshpande, Administrative Member, considered applications filed by eight homebuyers seeking withdrawal of amounts deposited by the promoter pursuant to the orders passed by the MahaRERA.

The underlying proceedings arose from a MahaRERA order dated 8 May 2025, whereby the promoter was directed, inter alia, to pay interest to several homebuyers for delay in handing over possession from the respective contractual possession dates until the date of possession along with the Occupancy Certificate. Refunds were also directed in respect of certain homebuyers.

The promoter challenged the MahaRERA order before MahaREAT and deposited the amounts required under Section 43(5) of RERA as a condition for maintaining the appeals.

The homebuyers thereafter sought withdrawal of the amounts deposited in the respective appeals. While six applications were rejected, MahaREAT allowed the applications of two homebuyers on account of the exceptional financial hardship caused by prolonged delay in possession.

In one case, the Tribunal noted that the project had remained incomplete for more than four years, requiring the homebuyer to continue residing in rented accommodation while simultaneously servicing the home loan. The Tribunal observed:

“While applicant is paying EMIs the applicant is also required to pay the rental amount for rented accommodation. We are of the view that this has been causing great hardship to the applicant.”

The promoter contended that payment of EMI was an obligation that would have continued even after possession and, therefore, could not constitute a sufficient ground for release of the pre-deposit. The Tribunal, however, accepted the homebuyer's contention regarding the combined burden of EMI and rent arising from the prolonged delay in possession.

In the second case, possession was contractually due by 31 December 2014. The homebuyer had already paid approximately 92.8% of the consideration through an HDFC Bank loan and had been bearing the burden of both EMI payments and rent for approximately 10 years. MahaREAT considered the prolonged delay and the resulting financial hardship sufficient to justify release of the deposited amount.

Accordingly, the Tribunal permitted withdrawal of ₹12,33,145 and ₹53,99,195, respectively, together with accrued interest.

At the same time, MahaREAT emphasised that the statutory pre-deposit ordinarily remains custodia legis, i.e. in the custody of the law, during the pendency of the appeal. Mere pendency of an appeal does not ordinarily entitle a homebuyer to withdraw the amount. The Tribunal held that exceptional or compelling circumstances must be demonstrated.

Thus, applications based merely on general financial difficulties, investment of life savings or alleged financial losses were not accepted where the grounds were considered generic. Similarly, where appeals had been dismissed but the applicants failed to establish a specific compelling circumstance warranting release, the amounts were not permitted to be withdrawn.

The withdrawals in the two successful cases were also made subject to an undertaking by the homebuyers to refund the amounts with interest if the promoter ultimately succeeds in the appeals.

Key Principle

The decision indicates that while the Section 43(5) pre-deposit is ordinarily protected during the pendency of an appeal, MahaREAT may permit its withdrawal in exceptional cases where prolonged delay in possession creates demonstrable and continuing financial hardship, particularly where the homebuyer is compelled to bear both housing-loan EMIs and rent for an extended period.

Importantly, the Tribunal did not treat financial hardship as an automatic ground for release. The distinction drawn was between generic financial hardship and circumstances demonstrating a specific, prolonged and continuing hardship attributable to delayed possession.

If you are preparing this for a RERA case-law compilation/commentary, I can also convert it into a concise “Held / Ratio / Key Takeaway” case-note format, including the case title, appeal/application numbers, date of judgment and relevant statutory provisions.

Co-operative Society Without Land or Layout for Real Estate Project Not a Promoter Under RERA: Karnataka REAT

Case Title: V. Suresh Kumar v. BSNL Employee Welfare House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: Appeal No. (K-REAT) 3/2026

The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Karnataka REAT) has held that a housing co-operative society that had neither acquired land for development nor undertaken any real estate project could not be treated as a “Promoter” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act).

The Tribunal consequently held that a complaint seeking relief under RERA was not maintainable before the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, as the complainant could not be treated as an “Allottee” and the society did not fall within the statutory definition of a “Promoter.”

A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. dismissed an appeal filed against the BSNL Employee Welfare House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. and upheld the order of Karnataka RERA dismissing the complaint.

No Land Acquired, No Real Estate Project

The Tribunal observed:

“Undisputedly, the Respondent No.1/Co-operative Society has not acquired any land for development and consequently it does not fall into the definition of Promoter and there is no project in existence let alone Complainant could be called as an Allottee.”

The appellant had worked with BSNL for more than 18 years and had become a member of the society, which was formed by BSNL employees with the objective of providing houses or residential plots to its members at relatively lower rates.

According to the appellant, the society represented that sites were available at Madhavanagara and accepted payments towards the proposed BSNL Madhavanagara Project Phase-II, situated off Nelamangala Road.

The appellant paid an aggregate amount of ₹7,66,800 in 2013 and 2014 towards the proposed purchase of a site. However, the site was not delivered or registered in his favour. Despite repeated follow-ups seeking a refund, the amount was allegedly neither refunded nor was the promised site registered.

Society Contended RERA Had No Jurisdiction

Before Karnataka RERA, the society contended that the complaint was not maintainable under the RERA Act.

It submitted that the alleged project was not registered with the Authority and that the receipts issued to the appellant did not constitute allotment letters. According to the society, the amounts were not collected towards any identified or specific plot and no Agreement for Sale had been executed between the parties.

The society further maintained that it had not acquired any land for development. Consequently, there was no real estate project within the meaning of the RERA Act and the society could not be regarded as a Promoter.

It also disputed the appellant's status as an Allottee, contending that no plot or apartment had been allotted or transferred to him.

Karnataka RERA accepted these submissions and dismissed the complaint.

Sections 2(d), 2(zk) and 2(zn) of RERA Examined

Challenging the RERA order, the appellant contended before the Tribunal that the Authority had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and relevant provisions of the Act.

He also argued that since the project remained incomplete, he was entitled to relief under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

The Tribunal examined the statutory framework governing the relationship between a Promoter and an Allottee.

Section 18 provides remedies to an Allottee where a Promoter fails to complete a project or give possession in accordance with the Agreement for Sale. Where an Allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, the provision contemplates refund of the amount paid, together with interest and compensation in accordance with the Act.

The Tribunal noted that:

• Section 2(zn) defines a “Real Estate Project” to include development of land into plots or apartments;

• Section 2(zk) defines a “Promoter” to include a person who develops land into plots or apartments; and

• Section 2(d) defines an “Allottee” as a person to whom a plot, apartment or building has been allotted, sold or otherwise transferred by the Promoter.

Applying these provisions, the Tribunal found that the society had not acquired any land for development and no real estate project was in existence.

Consequently, the society could not be treated as a Promoter and the appellant could not be regarded as an Allottee under the Act.

Membership and Collection of Money Not Sufficient

The Tribunal noted that the society had enrolled members and collected various amounts towards the proposed purchase of sites, which were to be allotted if and when the society developed the requisite project or layout.

However, the mere fact that money had been collected from members towards prospective sites did not, in the circumstances of the case, bring the transaction within the statutory framework of RERA.

The Tribunal therefore agreed with Karnataka RERA that the RERA Act had no application to the dispute and that the complaint was not maintainable before the Authority.

Registration Requirement Cannot Arise Where No Project Exists

The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Newtech and the Bombay High Court's judgment in Macrotech while considering the jurisdictional issue.

It observed that where a project has not been registered, the Authority must first determine whether the project was one that was required to be registered under Section 3 or was exempt from registration. If registration was not required, the Authority could not assume jurisdiction over the complaint merely on the basis of the alleged transaction.

Section 3 generally requires prior registration of a real estate project before a Promoter can advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale any plot, apartment or building, subject to the statutory exemptions and provisions applicable to ongoing projects.

In the present case, however, the issue was more fundamental. The Tribunal found that no project had come into existence at all, since the society had not acquired land for development.

Accordingly, the statutory obligations imposed upon a Promoter and the remedies available to an Allottee could not be invoked against the society.

Alternative Remedies Available

While dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal observed that the appellant was not without a remedy. He was free to approach the Registrar of Co-operative Societies or the Consumer Forum for recovery of the amount paid.

The Tribunal also took note of the fact that counsel appearing for the society had made an offer to refund the amount with 6% interest. The appellant, however, did not accept the offer.

Finding no justifiable ground to interfere with the order passed by Karnataka RERA on September 2, 2025, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

There was no order as to costs.

Key Takeaway

The Karnataka REAT's decision highlights that the applicability of RERA depends upon the existence of the statutory ingredients of a real estate project, Promoter and Allottee. Mere membership of a housing co-operative society and payment of money towards a proposed future site do not, by themselves, establish the existence of a real estate project or confer the status of an Allottee under RERA where the society has neither acquired land nor undertaken development of the project.

Landowner Liable for Project Registration Despite Development Agreement: Rajasthan RERA

Case Title: Suo Motu v. K.D. Developers
Case No.: F.15 (326) RJ/RERA/C/2024 (RAJ-RERA-Suo Motu-2026-77)

The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Rajasthan RERA) has held that a landowner cannot evade statutory obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act) merely because a development agreement assigns construction and other development responsibilities to a developer.

In proceedings concerning the unregistered multi-storey residential project “99 Avenue” in Jaipur, the Authority imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh each on Siddharth Landmark LLP, the developer, and Brajesh Saxena, one of the landowners, for contravention of the registration requirement under Section 3 of the RERA Act. The Authority further directed them to apply for registration of the project within 45 days.

Development Agreement Does Not Extinguish Landowner's Statutory Obligations

Chairperson Veenu Gupta observed:

“The contractual allocation of particular development responsibilities to the developer cannot, by itself, absolve the landowner from the statutory obligations arising under the Act in respect of the project.”

The project, situated at B-99-A, Surya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, comprised 12 residential units. The proceedings arose from a complaint alleging that K.D. Developers was developing the project and had commenced bookings without obtaining the mandatory registration under the RERA Act. It was also alleged that requisite permissions from the Jaipur Development Authority and other competent authorities had not been obtained.

Rajasthan RERA issued a show-cause notice dated September 12, 2024, under Sections 3 and 59 of the Act concerning the failure to register the project. An interim direction under Section 36 was also issued restraining further booking, sale or purchase in relation to the project.

Pursuant to directions issued on March 12, 2025, a site inspection was conducted. The inspection report dated May 5, 2025 recorded the existence of a basement, ground floor and six additional floors. The project comprised 12 residential units spread over approximately 970 square metres. The structural framework had been completed, while interior and exterior works were still in progress.

Landowner's Defence Rejected

The inspection report recorded the involvement of Siddharth Landmark LLP and identified Brajesh Saxena as a landowner.

Saxena admitted that he had executed a Development Agreement dated February 8, 2023. However, he contended that his role was confined to that of a landowner and that he had not participated in the management, promotion, marketing or day-to-day affairs of the project.

The Authority rejected this defence.

The Development Agreement described Saxena as the First Party/Landowner and Siddharth Landmark LLP, through its partners Nischal Bhandari and Pradeep Moolrajani, as the Second Party/Developer. Although the agreement entrusted the developer with construction and the sale of the flats, it also provided for the constructed flats to be divided between the developer and the landowner.

Significantly, Saxena retained a 58.33% share in the flats to be constructed. On this basis, the Authority found that he continued to possess a substantive proprietary interest in the project.

The Authority held that the contractual arrangement between the parties could not override or dilute statutory obligations imposed by the RERA Act. The fact that construction, development and sale-related responsibilities had been assigned to the developer did not, by itself, absolve the landowner from compliance with the statutory registration requirement.

Violation Was Not a Mere Technical Lapse

Rajasthan RERA further held that the contravention could not be characterised as a “mere technical or inadvertent lapse”.

The project was actively under development and comprised 12 residential units, notwithstanding the statutory requirement that the project be registered before commencement of activities falling within Section 3 of the Act.

The Authority accordingly concluded that continued development of the project without registration constituted a “wilful contravention” of Section 3.

Proceedings Against Another Landowner Dropped

The Authority, however, distinguished the position of Kunal Daga, another person identified as a landowner.

Proceedings against Daga were dropped as the material on record did not establish his participation in the development arrangement, construction or sale of the project. The Authority held that his “mere identification as a landowner” was insufficient to impose liability in the absence of material demonstrating his participation in, or nexus with, the development.

Liability of Siddharth Landmark LLP

The order also noted that the proceedings were initially instituted against K.D. Developers. However, the subsequent site inspection report and the Development Agreement identified Siddharth Landmark LLP as the developer actually undertaking the development of the project.

Since no material was placed on record establishing any continuing role of K.D. Developers in the development or sale of the project, the Authority determined liability on the basis of the material subsequently brought on record.

Penalty and Direction for Registration

Rajasthan RERA ultimately held that Siddharth Landmark LLP, being the developer responsible for construction and development, and Brajesh Saxena, being the landowner having a substantive share in the constructed project, could not avoid the statutory requirement of registration under Section 3 of the RERA Act.

Accordingly, exercising its powers under Section 59, the Authority imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh each upon Siddharth Landmark LLP and Brajesh Saxena.

They were further directed to apply for registration of the project “99 Avenue” within 45 days and comply with the requisite statutory formalities.

Key Takeaway

The order underscores that private contractual arrangements between a landowner and developer cannot, by themselves, determine or extinguish statutory liability under RERA. While the actual role and nexus of each party must be examined on the basis of the material on record, a landowner having a substantive proprietary or economic interest in a development project may remain subject to statutory obligations despite delegating construction, development and sale responsibilities to a developer.

 

TNRERA Cannot Adjudicate Disputed Questions of Title; Parties Must Approach Competent Civil Court: Madras High Court

Case Title: N. Balakrishnan v. Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Case No.: W.P. No. 32211 of 2026
Connected Applications: W.M.P. Nos. 35399 and 35401 of 2026
Court: Madras High Court
Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy

The Madras High Court has held that the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate disputed questions of title and that parties claiming competing rights over immovable property must approach the competent Civil Court for determination of such disputes.

The Court was considering a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by TNRERA concerning registration of a real estate project.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that although TNRERA is required to examine whether the promoter has the requisite legal title to the land at the stage of project registration, it cannot undertake a detailed adjudication of a genuinely disputed question of title. The Court held:

“However, it must be seen that when there are disputed questions of title, it is not for the TNRERA to go into the same and decide the issue itself. It is for the persons to approach the competent Civil Court.”

Factual Background

The petitioner claimed ownership over property situated in Thiruneermalai Village, asserting that the property had been purchased by his father. He also relied upon electricity, gas and telephone connections standing in respect of the property.

Meanwhile, the second respondent instituted a civil suit against the petitioner seeking a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the property. An interim injunction was also granted in favour of the second respondent.

According to the petitioner, although he had filed a counter in the civil proceedings, the matter remained pending for more than three years. The petitioner alleged that the second respondent had taken advantage of the ex parte interim injunction and applied to TNRERA for registration of a project proposed to be developed on the disputed property.

The petitioner consequently submitted an objection before the Chairperson of TNRERA, opposing registration of the project.

The petitioner had earlier sought information under the Right to Information Act, pursuant to which he was informed that no registration had been granted. However, he subsequently came to know that the project had been registered in favour of the second respondent.

Contentions of the Parties

The second respondent opposed the writ petition, asserting that he was the owner of the property and intended to develop it after obtaining the necessary permissions. It was submitted that the project had been duly registered with TNRERA in accordance with the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

The second respondent contended that TNRERA could not be called upon to adjudicate the title dispute raised by the petitioner.

Court's Reasoning

The High Court considered the requirements prescribed under Section 4(2)(l) of RERA, under which the promoter is required to make declarations regarding, inter alia, the promoter's legal title to the land and the absence of encumbrances.

The Court explained that TNRERA does have a statutory obligation to examine the promoter's declaration concerning title and encumbrances while considering an application for registration.

However, this regulatory scrutiny does not confer upon TNRERA the jurisdiction to finally adjudicate a contested question of ownership or title.

The Court observed that where, on the face of the record, the project proponent does not appear to possess legal title, or where the nature of an encumbrance is such that registration ought not to be granted, TNRERA may, depending upon the facts, refuse registration.

However, where the competing claims involve disputed questions of title requiring adjudication, the appropriate remedy lies before the competent Civil Court.

The Court held:

“With the said mandatory requirement in existence, if, prima facie, TNRERA is of view that the project proponent on the face of it does not qualify as somebody who is having title or that the nature of encumbrance is such that the registration cannot be granted, it may, in a given fact situation, reject the registration also.”

At the same time, the Court clarified:

“When there are disputed questions of title, it is not for the TNRERA to go into the same and decide the issue itself. It is for the persons to approach the competent Civil Court.”

Effect of Existing Civil Court Proceedings

An important factor considered by the High Court was that the dispute between the parties was already pending before the Civil Court and that an interim injunction had been granted in favour of the second respondent.

In those circumstances, the Court held that the matter did not warrant interference with the project registration merely because the petitioner asserted a competing claim to ownership.

The Court observed that mere registration of the project by TNRERA would not prejudice the petitioner's rights before the Civil Court. The petitioner remained entitled to pursue his claim of title and could even raise appropriate counter-claims or institute separate civil proceedings against the second respondent.

The Court stated:

“Mere grant of registration by the TNRERA will not prejudice the petitioner in any manner in canvassing its plea before the Civil Court or making even a counter-claim or filing even a suit as against the second respondent.”

Petitioner's Remedy Lies Before Civil Court

The High Court noted that in the earlier proceedings also, the petitioner had been relegated to the Civil Court for determination of his rights.

Accordingly, the Court left it open to the petitioner to raise the issue in the pending civil suit, including by filing an appropriate counter-petition, or to initiate separate civil proceedings concerning the property and the construction/project.

The Court further observed that, considering that the project had already been registered and that construction was at an advanced stage, it may not be appropriate for TNRERA to revoke the registration and reopen the title issue.

Decision

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, while preserving the petitioner's liberty to pursue his remedies before the competent Civil Court.

Key Takeaway

The decision draws an important distinction between regulatory scrutiny of title at the stage of project registration and judicial adjudication of a disputed title.

TNRERA is required to examine the promoter's statutory declarations concerning legal title and encumbrances under RERA. Where the promoter's lack of title is apparent on the face of the record, the Authority may take appropriate action, including refusal of registration.

However, where ownership itself is seriously disputed and requires evidence and adjudication, TNRERA cannot assume the jurisdiction of a Civil Court and conclusively determine the competing title claims. Such disputes must be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court.

The judgment also clarifies that registration of a project under RERA does not by itself confer or conclusively establish title over the underlying property, nor does it prevent a person claiming ownership from pursuing appropriate civil remedies.

Maharashtra REAT Imposes Penalty Equivalent to 2% of Project Cost on RA Associates for Altering Project Plan Without Allottees’ Consent

Case Title: RA Residences Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. RA Associates & Ors.
Case No.: Appeal No. AT06/00804/2025
Date of Decision: 16 September 2026
Forum: Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT)

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT), by its judgment dated 16 September 2026, imposed a penalty equivalent to 2% of the project cost upon RA Associates and its partners, the promoters of the “RA Residences” project in Mumbai, for altering the disclosed project plans and increasing the Floor Space Index (FSI) of the commercial building without obtaining the requisite prior consent of the allottees.

A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Administrative Member Shrikant M. Deshpande further directed the promoters to execute the conveyance of the residential building within 60 days. The Tribunal held that a promoter cannot indefinitely defer conveyance on the ground that additional FSI or Transferable Development Rights (TDR) may become available in the future.

The Tribunal observed:

“...In fact, once the FSI available in the project property is exhausted, the promoters are obligated to execute the conveyance and are not entitled to any further FSI, if available, due to change in policy within the property or procured from elsewhere.”

Background

The dispute arose in relation to the “RA Residences” project in Mumbai, comprising residential Wings A and B and a separate commercial/IT building. The promoters had initially proposed to complete the project by 30 June 2018, following which the registration of the project was extended by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA).

Part occupation certificates for the residential wings were obtained on 23 June 2020, 15 December 2020 and 9 December 2021, while the housing society was registered on 18 October 2022.

The society subsequently approached MahaRERA alleging, inter alia, that the promoters had:

• materially altered the sanctioned and disclosed plans;

• utilised additional FSI without obtaining the requisite consent of the allottees;

• altered common and recreational areas;

• failed to execute the conveyance; and

• failed to hand over project documents, amenities and other facilities.

MahaRERA, by its order dated 7 July 2025, partly allowed the complaint and held that the promoters had violated Section 14(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which requires the prior consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees for specified alterations or additions to sanctioned plans.

The society thereafter preferred an appeal before MahaREAT seeking further reliefs.

Alteration of Plans Without Consent

Before the Tribunal, the promoters contended that the residential buildings had been completed in accordance with the sanctioned plans and that occupation certificates had been obtained. They further relied upon the agreements for sale, contending that the contractual arrangements contemplated separate residential and commercial structures and permitted development through additional FSI/TDR.

The Tribunal, however, held that the promoters had violated Section 14 of RERA by altering the disclosed sanctioned plans without obtaining the requisite consent of the allottees.

The Tribunal also found violations of Section 11 of RERA, which prescribes the promoter's statutory obligations, including obligations concerning conveyance.

Consent Under RERA and MOFA Cannot Be Contractually Dispensed With

The Tribunal additionally held that the promoters had violated Section 7 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), which requires the consent of flat purchasers for additions or alterations to the structure disclosed to them.

In particular, the Tribunal noted that construction of the commercial C-Wing under the revised 2021 plan required the consent of two-thirds of the allottees.

Significantly, it rejected the promoters' reliance upon deemed-consent clauses contained in the agreements for sale, observing:

“the deemed consent in the clauses of the agreements for sale is not the consent within the meaning of consent under section 7 of MOFA or section 14 of RERA.”

Thus, contractual provisions cannot be treated as a substitute for the statutory consent contemplated under RERA and MOFA.

Additional FSI/TDR and Entitlement of the Societies

The Tribunal further held that the additional FSI/TDR utilised by the promoters, but not disclosed in the 2017 plan, belonged to the societies representing the residential and commercial buildings of the project.

The Tribunal therefore directed proportionate apportionment of the sale proceeds generated from commercial units constructed by utilising the additional 4,225.57 square metres of FSI.

The finding assumes significance in the context of the promoter's rights over additional development potential after the disclosure of the original project plans and the rights of the allottees/societies in such additional development potential.

Conveyance Cannot Be Deferred Indefinitely

Since Wings A and B had received occupation certificates and possession had been handed over to the respective allottees, the Tribunal directed the promoters to complete the conveyance of the residential building.

It specifically rejected the proposition that conveyance could be postponed merely because additional FSI or TDR might become available in the future. The Tribunal held that once the FSI available in the project property has been exhausted, the promoters are required to execute the conveyance and cannot retain rights over future FSI merely because of a subsequent change in policy or because additional FSI/TDR may be procured from another source.

Accordingly, the promoters were directed to convey the residential building's proportionate interest in the project property, together with the relevant common areas and amenities, within 60 days.

Maintenance, Clubhouse and Corpus Fund

The Tribunal also considered amounts collected by the promoters towards maintenance charges, clubhouse charges and corpus fund.

Since the residential buildings had been completed and possession had been handed over, MahaREAT directed the promoters to furnish audited accounts of the amounts collected under these heads.

The Tribunal observed:

“Since the residential building (wing 'A' and wing 'B') is completed with occupation certificate and the allottees have taken the possession of their respective flats, we deem it appropriate to direct the promoters to provide audited accounts of the amounts collected under agreements towards maintenance charges, clubhouse charges, and corpus fund and refund the amount as per the audited accounts to the appellant with accrued interest on the said amount, if kept in a separate account.”

The promoters were consequently directed to refund the balance amount to the society, along with accrued interest wherever applicable.

Other Directions

MahaREAT further directed the promoters to:

1. hand over the remaining 64 guest parking spaces;

2. execute the conveyance of the residential building's proportionate interest in the project property;

3. hand over the relevant common areas and amenities;

4. furnish audited accounts concerning maintenance, clubhouse and corpus-fund collections; and

5. refund the balance amounts to the society with applicable interest.

The issues relating to incomplete works, repairs, deficiencies in services and rectification of defects were remanded to MahaRERA for fresh adjudication.

Key Takeaway

The decision reiterates that the promoter's contractual rights under an agreement for sale do not override the statutory protections afforded to allottees under RERA and MOFA. Alterations to disclosed plans and structures requiring statutory consent cannot be justified merely by relying upon deemed-consent clauses in agreements for sale.

The ruling also emphasises that future availability of FSI/TDR cannot be used as an indefinite ground to postpone conveyance once the relevant project development has reached the stage where conveyance is required. Further, where additional development potential is utilised in a manner not disclosed in the original project plan, the Tribunal may examine the consequential rights of the societies/allottees in the benefits arising from such additional development.

IBC Prevails Over RERA On Individual Refund Rights In CIRP; Homebuyers Bound By Class Decision On Resolution Plan: NCLT Mumbai

 

IBC Prevails Over RERA in Case of Conflict with Individual Refund Rights; Homebuyers Bound by Collective Class Decision: NCLT Mumbai

Cause Title: Vivek Talwar & Others v. Rajesh Jhunjhunwala, Resolution Professional & Others
Case No.: I.A. (IB) No. 3688 of 2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 389/MB/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, has held that a resolution plan cannot be required to incorporate an individual homebuyer's right to seek refund under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”), where enforcement of such individual right is inconsistent with the collective insolvency resolution process contemplated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

A Bench comprising K.R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial), and Anil Raj Chellan, Member (Technical), dismissed an application filed by four homebuyers seeking reconsideration of the resolution plan of Spenta Enclave Private Limited and, alternatively, seeking directions for provision of an exit and refund mechanism for homebuyers who did not wish to continue with their respective units.

The applicants had booked two flats in the “Altavista” project developed by Spenta Enclave Private Limited and had paid approximately ₹89.23 lakh and ₹86.71 lakh towards the purchase consideration between 2017 and 2021. Although possession was initially represented to be delivered by December 2019 and subsequently by December 2020, the project remained incomplete. Consequently, the applicants sought refund and initiated proceedings before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in July 2022, prior to commencement of the CIRP.

The CIRP commenced on 24 March 2023. During the CIRP, the applicants submitted their claims as homebuyers, which were admitted by the Resolution Professional. They subsequently informed the Resolution Professional that they were unwilling to pay the balance consideration and did not wish to continue with the project. Their grievance was principally directed against the resolution plan on the ground that it did not provide an exit or refund mechanism for homebuyers seeking withdrawal under Section 18 of RERA.

The applicants relied upon Clause 18 of their respective Agreements for Sale, which contemplated refund with interest in the event of failure to deliver possession within the stipulated period. It was contended that the Successful Resolution Applicant (“SRA”), upon taking over the project, would step into the shoes of the erstwhile promoter and would consequently be bound by the contractual and statutory obligations owed to the applicants under RERA.

The resolution plan, however, specifically provided that “no cancellation of the Units by the Homebuyers will be entertained by the Resolution Applicant.” The applicants contended that such a provision amounted to an impermissible unilateral alteration of their contractual and statutory rights.

The Tribunal rejected the contention. It examined the scope of Section 18 of RERA, which enables an allottee, in specified circumstances, to seek return of the amount paid together with interest where the promoter fails to complete the project or is unable to give possession in accordance with the agreement. However, the Tribunal observed that, at the relevant stage, the SRA could not be treated as having stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile promoter.

The Tribunal noted that the resolution plan had not yet been approved by the Adjudicating Authority and, consequently, the SRA had not assumed control of the project. Its obligations to complete the project would arise in accordance with the resolution plan upon its approval. The SRA therefore could not, at that stage, be treated as having assumed all contractual obligations arising from agreements entered into between the applicants and the Corporate Debtor.

The Tribunal further noted that the CoC had considered the applicants' request for refund and had concluded that cancellation of units and consequent refund would adversely affect the cash flows of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that homebuyers constituted approximately 22.66% of the voting share in the CoC and had approved the resolution plan through their Authorised Representative, whereas the four applicants collectively represented approximately 0.22% voting share.

In this context, the Tribunal emphasised the collective nature of the insolvency resolution process and observed that the SRA ought to be permitted to take over the Corporate Debtor in accordance with the approved resolution framework, without being subjected to liabilities in a manner inconsistent with the resolution plan. The Tribunal also noted that the SRA was not a party to the proceedings and, therefore, relief affecting its rights and obligations could not appropriately be granted without affording it an opportunity of being heard.

Interplay between RERA and IBC

On the interplay between RERA and the IBC, the Tribunal observed that the two enactments operate in distinct fields. While RERA seeks to protect the interests of individual homebuyers and regulate the real estate sector, the IBC provides a collective statutory mechanism for resolution and revival of financially distressed corporate entities.

The Tribunal held that, where the provisions of the two enactments operate inconsistently, Section 238 of the IBC gives the Code overriding effect. Consequently, an individual remedy available to a homebuyer under RERA cannot be enforced in a manner that defeats or undermines the collective insolvency resolution process under the IBC.

The Tribunal also relied upon the statutory framework governing homebuyers as a class of financial creditors. In particular, it referred to Section 25A(3A) of the IBC, under which the Authorised Representative is required to cast votes in accordance with the decision taken by the requisite majority of the homebuyers comprising the relevant class. The Tribunal accordingly held that an individual homebuyer cannot seek treatment contrary to the collective decision of the class merely because such individual homebuyer may otherwise possess a separate remedy under another enactment.

The Tribunal further observed that it could not direct modification of the commercial terms of a resolution plan or compel the CoC or the SRA to renegotiate the terms of the plan.

The Tribunal underscored that the insolvency resolution process under the IBC proceeds on the basis of collective resolution of claims and balancing of the interests of various stakeholders. Since the applicants' claims had already been admitted within the CIRP, they could not insist upon a separate, individualised remedy outside the insolvency framework where such remedy was inconsistent with the resolution plan and the collective decision-making process under the IBC.

The Tribunal also took note of the fact that substantially similar refund claims had earlier been rejected in applications filed by the same applicants in 2024 and that the said orders had not been challenged before the Appellate Tribunal. The earlier orders had consequently attained finality.

In view of the above, the Tribunal found no sufficient ground to interfere with the resolution plan or to direct its reconsideration and accordingly dismissed the application without costs.

P&H HC - The Haryana Appellate Tribunal had "missed an important issue" by failing to address these specific agreement clauses and Force Majeure claims in its final order.

In the legal matter of M/s Signature Global (India) Limited vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta and 18 other connected cases (RERA-APPL-92-2025), the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh issued a final order on December 24, 2025. The Court set aside the previous orders of the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal and remanded the cases for fresh adjudication.

Key Legal Issues & Arguments

The primary dispute concerned whether the developer was liable for interest on delayed possession, or if the delay was justified under Force Majeure clauses within the Flat Buyer’s Agreements.

 * Appellant's Stance (Developer): The developer argued that the Appellate Tribunal failed to consider specific contractual clauses (such as Clause 5.1 and Clause 19) that defined "Force Majeure" to include epidemics (COVID-19), court orders, and government bans on construction (GRAP orders). They contended that these conditions automatically extended the possession deadline.

 * Respondent's Stance (Allottees): The allottees maintained that even if these clauses were considered, they were still entitled to substantial relief and challenged the accuracy of the developer's delay calculations.

Court's Findings on Force Majeure

The Court emphasized that when a specific contract exists, its terms govern the rights of the parties.

 * COVID-19 Impact: The developer sought extensions for both the first wave (March–September 2020) and the second wave (April–June 2021). While the Regulatory Authority had granted a 6-month extension for the first wave, the developer argued the second wave should also have been excluded from interest calculations.

 * GRAP Orders: The developer provided charts (Mark ‘A’ and ‘B’) detailing various periods where construction was halted in the National Capital Region (NCR) due to Supreme Court and government orders aimed at controlling air quality (Graded Response Action Plan).

 * Tribunal’s Error: The High Court found that the Appellate Tribunal had "missed an important issue" by failing to address these specific agreement clauses and Force Majeure claims in its final order.

Final Decision

The High Court ordered the following:

 * Remand: The matters were sent back to the Appellate Tribunal to be decided afresh, specifically taking into account the Force Majeure clauses of the buyer's agreements.

 * Appearance: All parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on January 15, 2026.

 * Financial Security: Pre-deposited amounts currently held by the Authority in Gurugram must be placed in a Fixed Deposit (FD) at the highest interest rate, with release pending the Tribunal's new decision.

HREAT = The Decree Holder is Entitled to Get the Interest for the period of Date of Expected Payment till the Actual Payment of Amount.

HREAT = The Decree Holder is Entitled to Get the Interest for the period of Date of Expected Payment till the Actual Payment of Amount.

Hari Ballabh Sharma V/s Pareena Infrastructure Private Limited

Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribual

Appeal No.133 of 2023

Date of Decision:  30.11.2023 

Fact of the Case :-

• In 2015 ,The appellant/allottee paid booking amount to the respondent/promoter for booking of a flat under Affordable Housing Policy” of Government of Haryana.
• on June 23, 2016 the appellant/allottee was allotted a flat in draw of lots.
• The total cost of the Flat was supposed to be Rs.17,49,330/- 
• on 19.07.2016 an ‘Apartment Buyer’s Agreement’ was executed between the parties.
• till May, 2018 The appellant/allottee made a total payment of Rs.15,70,537/-. 
• On 23.10.2018 The appellant/allottee through email and letter requested the respondent/promoter to cancel his booking after deduction of earnest money of Rs.25,000/- as per AH Policy and sought refund of the remaining amount.
• The respondent/promoter did not refund the money.

• Aggrieved with the above, the appellant/allottee filed the Original complaint number 26 of 2019 seeking relief of refund.

• On 02.04.2019 , the learned HRERA GURUGRAM Authority passed the Order of refund in favour of the appellant/allottee.

• the respondent/promoter paid the payment after 2 years in March 2021 did not pay any interest for the period it delayed the payment. 

• Aggrieved with the above, the appellant/allottee filed Execution complaint no.CR/3701/2021.

• On 05.01.2023 The said complaint was dismissed by Adjudicating Officer stating that the Decree is fully compiled.

Submissions by Appellant:-

• The appellant/allottee is aggrieved of the fact that the respondent/promoter did not make the payment to him as per the order of the Authority and forced him to file execution petition.
• The appellant contends that he is entitled to interest for the period of delay in payment of refund of Rs. 15,70,537/- from the date of the Authority's order (April 2, 2019) until March 2021, spanning two years @ 10% per annum which comes out to Rs. 3,14,107/-.

Observations made by the Hon’ble Court:-

• we deem it fit to grant interest to the appellant/allottee for the unjust delay in releasing the payment till March, 2021.
• the plea of the appellant/allottee for grant of interest of Rs. 3,14,107/- for the delay in payment beyond 90 days period till March, 2021 is legal and bonafide.

Court’s Order:-

• the said amount be paid to the appellant/allottee forthwith without any further delay.

Legal Maxim: Functus Officio

Legal maxim: Functus Officio

"Functus officio" is a Latin term meaning "having performed his or her office."

 In legal contexts, it signifies that an officer or official body no longer has further authority or legal competence because their original duties and functions have been fully accomplished.

For Example: A trial where a judge presides over a civil case. After the trial concludes, the judge renders a judgment, settling the dispute between the parties. Once the judgment is given, the judge becomes "functus officio." This means that the judge's authority to make changes to the decision ends.

Any further modifications or challenges to the judgment must be pursued through the appellate process, where other judges preside in higher courts of appeal.

A GPA (General Power of Attorney) holder can file a criminal case on behalf of the principal

A GPA (General Power of Attorney) holder can file a criminal case on behalf of the principal (the person who executed the GPA) in certain circumstances. Here are some citations:

Important case laws of Supreme Court:

1. "R. Rajagopal vs. C.J. Aravindan" (2003): The SC held that a GPA holder can file a criminal complaint on behalf of the principal
2. M/s. Haryana Telecom Ltd. vs. State of Haryana" (2011): The SC ruled that a GPA holder can file a criminal case, but the principal must be examined as a witness.

Important case laws of High Courts:

1. "Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar" (2012) - Patna High Court: The court held that a GPA holder can file a criminal complaint, but must obtain prior permission from the Magistrate.
2. K. Srinivas vs. State of A.P." (2015) - Andhra Pradesh High Court: The court ruled that a GPA holder can file a criminal case, but the principal's statement must be recorded under Section 200 CrPC.

MahaRERA - To ensure that the said project is not jeopardized due to the outflow of finances it is directed that the amounts of interest shall be paid by the respondent promoter to the said complainants after obtaining the full occupancy certificate.

 MahaRERA - To ensure that the said project is not jeopardized due to the outflow of finances it is directed that the amounts of interest shall be paid by the respondent promoter to the said complainants after obtaining the full occupancy certificate.

Anil Kumar Dattani Versus Real Gem Buildtech Private Limited & Ors. Complaint No. CC006000000292852 Before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority Mumbai Decided on 13th May 2024)

Fact of the Case :-

• Respondent no. 1 i.e. Realgem Buildtech Private Limited  is the Promoter of the project.
• Respondent no. 2 i.e. Bhishma Realty Limited is the landowner of the project.
• Respondent no. 3 i.e Kindmaker Developers Private Limited  has been appointed as a Development Manager under the development management agreement dated 18-03-2018 and is basically an agent of the respondent no. 1 functioning for a fixed fee. the respondent no. 3 was appointed for the purposes of 
• inter alia managing, 
• monitoring, 
• supervising and 
• coordinating the construction and 
• development of the said project 
• together with the sales and marketing related activities including customer relationship management.

• The subject matter of the case is flat bearing no. 2302 on 23rd floor in the “RUSTOMJEE CROWN - PHASE I" at Prabhadevi, Mumbai.
• On 16-01-2019 The respondent issued  the allotment letter in the complainant's name. 
• On 25-01-2019 The complainant and the respondents entered into a registered agreement for sale.
• The respondent had assured to handover the possession of the said flat on 31-12-2021.
• The Flat was for a total consideration of Rs. 7,69,86,000/-
• The Complainant has already paid Rs. 7,41,83,995/- to the respondents from time to time..
• The respondent did not give the possession by the said date.
• On 27-09-2022 the complainant filed the present complaint..

Submissions by Appellant:-

• As per the RERA, the all 3 respondents are jointly and severally liable as per circular no. 12/2017 dated 04-12-2017.

Submissions by Respondent(s):

• The date of possession mentioned in the agreement for sale is 31-12-2021 and the same was subject to provisions of clause 8 of the said agreement which provides for a reasonable extension on occurrence of mitigating events.
• The Covid 19 pandemic was a force majeure event and therefore covered under clause 8 of the agreement for sale. 

Observations made by the Hon’ble Court:-

• the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 being the promoters of this project registered with the MahaRERA are liable to perform their part as stipulated in the registered agreement for sale dated 25-01-2019 signed with the complainant herein.
• With regards to respondent taking the plea on the issue of jurisdiction as per clause 16.1 of the said agreement for sale wheras the complainant has agreed for arbitration in case of any dispute arising in respect of the said agreement for sale.MahaRERA is of the view that the same is raised at a belated stage by filing its reply on record of MahaRERA,
• Further, there are no explicit provisions under RERA about the arbitration clause. Hence,the same stands rejected.
• As far as the issue raised by the complainant about GST input credit not being provided to him, the MahaRERA is of the prima facie view that the same does not fall within the purview of the MahaRERA under the provisions of the RERA. 
• However, it is for the concerned competent forum to deal with such issues. Hence, the complainant need to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the said grievances about the GST. 
• The MahaRERA is not going to deal with the said issue for want of jurisdiction.
• the MahaRERA is of the view that the delay cited by the respondent such as delay in obtaining CFO NOC due to change in fire norms and the delay in obtaining NOC from MPCB do not fall within the force majeure factors mentioned in the draft model agreement for sale prescribed under the RERA and the relevant rules made thereunder.

Court’s Order:-

• The respondent promoter is directed to pay interest for the delayed possession to the complainants from 01-01-2023 ( as per agreements for sale i.e. 31-12-2021 + 1 year grace period due to Covid-19 Pandemic i.e. 31-12-2022) for every month till the actual date of possession of the said flat to the complainant or till the date of offer of possession with OC if any obtained by the respondent promoter. 
• to ensure that the said project is not jeopardized due to the outflow of finances it is directed that the amounts of interest shall be paid by the respondent promoter to the said complainants after obtaining the full occupancy certificate.

MAHA RERA - The delay in obtaining NOCs including Fire NOC do not fall within the force majeure factors prescribed under the RERA and the relevant rules made thereunder.

 MAHA RERA - The delay in obtaining NOCs  including Fire NOC do not fall within the force majeure factors prescribed under the RERA and the relevant rules made thereunder.

Anil Kumar Dattani Versus Real Gem Buildtech Private Limited & Ors. Complaint No. CC006000000292852 Before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority Mumbai Decided on 13th May 2024)

Fact of the Case :-

• Respondent no. 1 i.e. Realgem Buildtech Private Limited  is the Promoter of the project.
• Respondent no. 2 i.e. Bhishma Realty Limited is the landowner of the project.
• Respondent no. 3 i.e Kindmaker Developers Private Limited  has been appointed as a Development Manager under the development management agreement dated 18-03-2018 and is basically an agent of the respondent no. 1 functioning for a fixed fee. the respondent no. 3 was appointed for the purposes of 
• inter alia managing, 
• monitoring, 
• supervising and 
• coordinating the construction and 
• development of the said project 
• together with the sales and marketing related activities including customer relationship management.

• The subject matter of the case is flat bearing no. 2302 on 23rd floor in the “RUSTOMJEE CROWN - PHASE I" at Prabhadevi, Mumbai.
• On 16-01-2019 The respondent issued  the allotment letter in the complainant's name. 
• On 25-01-2019 The complainant and the respondents entered into a registered agreement for sale.
• The respondent had assured to handover the possession of the said flat on 31-12-2021.
• The Flat was for a total consideration of Rs. 7,69,86,000/-
• The Complainant has already paid Rs. 7,41,83,995/- to the respondents from time to time..
• The respondent did not give the possession by the said date.
• On 27-09-2022 the complainant filed the present complaint..

Submissions by Appellant:-

• As per the RERA, the all 3 respondents are jointly and severally liable as per circular no. 12/2017 dated 04-12-2017.

Submissions by Respondent(s):

• The date of possession mentioned in the agreement for sale is 31-12-2021 and the same was subject to provisions of clause 8 of the said agreement which provides for a reasonable extension on occurrence of mitigating events.
• The Covid 19 pandemic was a force majeure event and therefore covered under clause 8 of the agreement for sale. 

Observations made by the Hon’ble Court:-

• the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 being the promoters of this project registered with the MahaRERA are liable to perform their part as stipulated in the registered agreement for sale dated 25-01-2019 signed with the complainant herein.
• With regards to respondent taking the plea on the issue of jurisdiction as per clause 16.1 of the said agreement for sale wheras the complainant has agreed for arbitration in case of any dispute arising in respect of the said agreement for sale.MahaRERA is of the view that the same is raised at a belated stage by filing its reply on record of MahaRERA,
• Further, there are no explicit provisions under RERA about the arbitration clause. Hence,the same stands rejected.
• As far as the issue raised by the complainant about GST input credit not being provided to him, the MahaRERA is of the prima facie view that the same does not fall within the purview of the MahaRERA under the provisions of the RERA. 
• However, it is for the concerned competent forum to deal with such issues. Hence, the complainant need to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the said grievances about the GST. 
• The MahaRERA is not going to deal with the said issue for want of jurisdiction.
• the MahaRERA is of the view that the delay cited by the respondent such as delay in obtaining CFO NOC due to change in fire norms and the delay in obtaining NOC from MPCB do not fall within the force majeure factors mentioned in the draft model agreement for sale prescribed under the RERA and the relevant rules made thereunder.

Court’s Order:-

• The respondent promoter is directed to pay interest for the delayed possession to the complainants from 01-01-2023 ( as per agreements for sale i.e. 31-12-2021 + 1 year grace period due to Covid-19 Pandemic i.e. 31-12-2022) for every month till the actual date of possession of the said flat to the complainant or till the date of offer of possession with OC if any obtained by the respondent promoter. 
• to ensure that the said project is not jeopardized due to the outflow of finances it is directed that the amounts of interest shall be paid by the respondent promoter to the said complainants after obtaining the full occupancy certificate.