Mrs. Urmila Kumari Kadam v. M/s Y.B. Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Haryana REAT)
Appeal No. 696 of 2026
Decision: 31 August 2026
Bench: Justice Rajan Gupta, Chairman, and Dinesh Singh Chauhan, Technical Member.
1. Core issue
The principal question before the Tribunal was:
Whether a homebuyer is entitled to delayed-possession charges when the promoter makes a valid offer of possession before the contractual/stipulated possession date, even though actual physical possession is handed over later?
The Haryana REAT answered No, holding that a valid offer of possession made before the due date ends the promoter's liability for delay compensation, provided the offer is legally valid.
2. Facts of the case
Mrs. Urmila Kumari Kadam had booked a unit in the Nimai Palace project developed by Y.B. Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Nimai Developers.
The relevant financial details were:
Total sale consideration: ₹67,37,923
Amount paid by the allottee: ₹50 lakh
Builder Buyer Agreement: No agreement was executed between the parties.
The possession date became an important point of controversy.
The Tribunal accepted 11 June 2023 as the possession due date.
However, the promoters had made an offer of possession on 1 April 2023, i.e. more than two months before the stipulated possession date.
There was also an important regulatory development:
Occupation Certificate in principle: 10 February 2023
Final Occupation Certificate: 12 April 2023
Offer of possession: 1 April 2023.
3. Buyer's claim
Mrs. Kadam approached the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA), Gurugram, on 1 July 2025.
Her principal claim was for delayed-possession charges/interest up to the date of actual handing over of possession.
Her case was essentially that the possession due date had been incorrectly calculated and that she remained entitled to compensation for the period before actual possession.
4. Promoters' defence
The promoters disputed the claim.
They contended, among other things, that:
the allottee had not adhered to the payment schedule;
repeated communications had been sent requesting payment;
she had not come forward to execute the Builder Buyer Agreement; and
a valid offer of possession had already been made on 1 April 2023.
The promoters therefore argued that there was no continuing delay for which delayed-possession compensation could be claimed.
5. Order of the Haryana RERA Authority
The Haryana RERA Authority, by its order dated 12 March 2026, rejected the allottee's claim for delayed-possession charges.
It also directed the allottee to clear the outstanding dues.
If she defaulted, the promoters were permitted to charge interest at the prescribed rate of 10.80%.
The Authority further directed the promoters to:
hand over physical possession within 30 days after payment of outstanding dues, if any; and
execute the conveyance deed within 90 days after payment of requisite charges.
Mrs. Kadam challenged this decision before the Haryana REAT.
6. Findings of Haryana REAT
The Tribunal upheld the Authority's decision.
A. Possession due date
The Tribunal agreed with the Authority that the possession due date was 11 June 2023.
B. Offer of possession
The decisive factor was that the promoters had made an offer of possession on 1 April 2023.
This was before 11 June 2023.
The Tribunal held that this constituted a valid offer of possession.
C. Effect of a valid offer
Once a valid offer of possession was made before the stipulated date, the Tribunal held that the allottee could not claim delayed-possession charges.
The Tribunal specifically observed that because the valid offer was made on 1 April 2023, the allottee was not entitled to delay-possession charges.
7. The important legal principle
The case establishes an important distinction between:
Date of actual physical possession
and
Date of valid offer of possession.
For the purpose of determining delay liability, the latter can be decisive.
In simplified form:
Stipulated possession date: 11 June 2023
Valid possession offer: 1 April 2023
Since:
1 April 2023 < 11 June 2023
the promoter was not treated as being in delay merely because physical possession was handed over later.
8. Why “valid” offer is important
The most important word in the judgment is “valid.”
The decision should not be read as saying that a promoter can simply issue a possession letter before the due date and automatically escape liability.
The offer must actually constitute a legally valid offer of possession.
This is particularly important because the facts show that the final Occupation Certificate was issued on 12 April 2023, whereas the possession offer was made on 1 April 2023.
The Tribunal nevertheless accepted the possession offer as valid in the circumstances of this case.
Therefore, in applying this judgment to another matter, one should examine:
whether the requisite approvals were available;
whether the unit was legally capable of being possessed;
whether the offer was unconditional or subject to material conditions;
whether statutory requirements had been satisfied;
whether the allottee was actually in a position to take possession; and
whether any outstanding obligations of the promoter prevented effective possession.
9. Builder Buyer Agreement — an interesting aspect
Another notable aspect is that no Builder Buyer Agreement had been executed.
The Tribunal nevertheless proceeded to determine the possession due date based on the relevant material before it.
The Tribunal also noted that the promoters had already received more than 10% of the sale consideration despite there being no Builder Buyer Agreement.
This observation is significant because Section 13 of RERA restricts a promoter from accepting more than 10% of the cost of the apartment, plot or building without first entering into a written Agreement for Sale.
However, despite noticing this aspect, the central issue in the appeal remained the entitlement to delayed-possession charges.
10. Was physical possession being handed over later enough to create delay?
No.
This is the central takeaway.
The Tribunal did not equate the date of actual physical handover with the date from which delay compensation necessarily becomes payable.
Instead, it focused on whether there had been a valid offer of possession within the stipulated period.
Thus:
A valid offer of possession before the contractual possession deadline can prevent the accrual of delayed-possession compensation, even if actual physical possession follows later.
11. Practical significance for homebuyers
This judgment makes the possession offer letter an extremely important document in RERA disputes.
A homebuyer seeking delay interest should carefully examine:
the contractual possession date;
the date on which possession was offered;
the date of the Occupation Certificate;
whether the possession offer complied with statutory requirements;
whether the promoter had completed the promised facilities;
whether the possession offer was genuine and capable of being acted upon; and
the reason for the gap between the offer and actual possession.
Simply demonstrating that physical possession came later may not, by itself, establish entitlement to delay compensation.
12. Practical significance for promoters
The decision reinforces the importance of making a proper and legally sustainable possession offer.
A promoter seeking to avoid delay liability should be able to demonstrate that the possession offer:
was made within the stipulated period;
was supported by the requisite approvals;
related to a unit actually capable of being handed over; and
complied with the applicable statutory and contractual requirements.
A defective or merely paper-based possession letter may present a different legal question.
13. Ratio Decidendi
The ratio of the decision can be stated as:
Where a promoter makes a valid offer of possession before the stipulated possession date, the allottee is not entitled to delayed-possession charges merely because actual physical possession is handed over subsequently.
The Tribunal therefore found no legal infirmity in the HRERA order and dismissed the appeal and connected applications. (Live Law Biz)
14. Key RERA provisions involved
Section 11
Concerns the promoter's obligations and functions, including adherence to project disclosures and obligations towards allottees.
Section 13
Relevant because the Tribunal noted that more than 10% of the consideration had been received despite the absence of a Builder Buyer Agreement.
Section 18
The principal provision relevant to an allottee's entitlement to interest/refund/compensation in cases of delay or failure by the promoter.
The crucial question was whether the promoter had actually remained in default after making a valid possession offer before the due date.
15. One important caution about the precedent
This judgment should not be cited for the broad proposition that every early possession letter extinguishes delay compensation.
The correct proposition is narrower:
A valid offer of possession made before the stipulated possession date can bar a claim for delayed-possession charges.
The validity of the offer remains a factual and legal question in each case.
This distinction could become particularly important where the promoter's alleged possession offer precedes an essential statutory approval or where the premises were otherwise not legally or practically ready for possession.
Final takeaway
Mrs. Urmila Kumari Kadam v. M/s Y.B. Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. is an important Haryana REAT decision on the distinction between “offer of possession” and “actual possession.” The Tribunal held that where a valid possession offer is made before the stipulated possession date, delay compensation does not become payable merely because physical possession is handed over later. (Live Law Biz)
