NCDRC - Wherever the builder commits a particular date or time frame for completion of the construction and offering possession to the buyer, he must necessarily honour the commitment made by him, If the builder can indefinitely postpone and delay the construction of the flat and the flat buyer has no option but to wait till the builder decides to complete the construction and offer possession to the buyer, that would be nothing but a travesty of justice.

 In the Matter of Pradeep Narula & Anr. Vs. M/s. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Complaint no. Consumer Case No. 315 OF 2014 decided on 23.08.2016 before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

The NCDRC in this case Observed that 

"10.   ...........  The primary purpose of a consumer in booking a residential flat which the builder is to construct for him, is to start living in that house on or about the date committed to him by the builder for delivering possession of the flat booked by him.  If the builder does not deliver upon his contractual obligation and at the same time, is unable to show that the delay in completion of the flat and offering its possession to the consumer was on account on circumstances beyond his control, this would constitute deficiency on the part of the builder / service provider in rendering services to the consumer.  If I accept the contention that the builder can indefinitely postpone and delay the construction of the flat and the flat buyer has no option but to wait till the builder decides to complete the construction and offer possession to the buyer, that would be nothing but a travesty of justice and result in a situation where the flat buyer is left at the mercy of the builder, without recourse to an appropriate legal remedy.  Such an interpretation, if taken, is bound to defeat the very objective behind the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, as far as housing construction is concerned.  Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party.  In my view, wherever the builder commits a particular date or time frame for completion of the construction and offering possession to the buyer, he must necessarily honour the commitment made by him, though a minor delay may not constitute deficiency in the service rendered by him to the buyer.  Of course, if the builder is able to how that the delay in completion of the construction and offering possession to the buyer is attributable wholly to the circumstances beyond his control, that may not be a case of deficiency in the services rendered to the consumer".

MahaRERA - Subsequent allottees are not entitled to any interest under Section 18 of the Act.

 In the Matter of Devindersingh Harbajansingh Anand and others Versus Poona Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. And others Complaint no.CC005000000011586 decided on 09.01.2019 before Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

It has been held that subsequent allottees are not entitled to any interest under Section 18 of the Act. In the instant case, the complainants purchased the flat from the original allottees and were now claiming rent from the developer for the delay in possession on the basis of the date of possession mentioned in the earlier agreement between the original allottees and the developer.

MahaRERA stated that the subsequent allottees were aware at the time of purchase of the flat that the date of possession had lapsed and hence they were not entitled to any relief.

The order can be accessed on http://www.jclex.com/reradossier/subsequent%20allottees%20not%20entitled%20to%20interest.pdf

That Just because home buyers continued to pay even after the promised possession date had lapsed, they had not "acquiesced" and not consented to the delay in possession

 In the Matter of Saurabh Mehrotra Vs.CCI Projects Pvt Ltd Complaint no.CC006000000078611  decided on 06.08.2020  Before Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority.

x

• The Rivali Park project, rechristened as Wintergreen, has been delayed for more than three years. The developer CCI Projects Ltd had sought last mile funding for the project from the Rs 20,000 crore stress fund created by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and the  funds were sanctioned for builder CCI Projects Ltd. 

• The developer had revised the possession date to December 2019, and further extended it to June 30, 2021.

• Home buyer had filed complaints seeking relief after the project was delayed. However, The buyer made remaining payments for the flat even after the possession date in their registered agreements had lapsed.

• Advocate, appearing for the developer, contended that the developer had informed the revised possession dates to the buyers from time to time and they have made payments even after the possession dates had passed. This showed that they had "acquiesced" and had consented to the revised possession dates.

• However, rejecting the argument, The Court observed that the payments were structured as slab-wise payments, and after investing big amounts, the complainants were helpless and continued making payments in the hope of early possession."Therefore, this conduct of the complainants does not amount to acquiescence. 

• The Court Observed that “ when the statute imposes strict duty for completing the project as per timeline, and speaks about the consequences of delay, the allottees' consent for condoning the delay must be unequivocal and it must be in writing. No such document is produced before me,".

• The Plea for granting Delayed Possession charges under Section 18 was granted.

 

Complainant is stopped from denying/withdrawing his consent given for the re-planning of the building ,the Complainant's claim for withdrawal after accepting the offer is not maintainable.

 In The Matter of Sunil Wadhwani v. Pashmina Realty Private Limited Complaint number CC006000000078745 Decided on 07.01.2020 before Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

• The Complainant had booked flat no. C-701 having carpet area of 1,436 square feet consisting of 4 (four) bedrooms in the Respondent's project 'Pashmina Lotus' situated at Chandivali, Powai ("the Original Flat"), at and for a consideration of Rs. 2,76,00,000/-.

• The Respondent agreed to handover possession of the Original Flat by 30th September, 2016. However, the project was not viable, the plans were revised and two bedroom and three-bedroom flats were proposed to be constructed with the consent of 2/3rd (two-third) allottees of the project including the Complainant. 

• A new development manager was brought in and the development was rebranded and re-registered under RERA under a new name.

• The Complainant gave express consent for the change in plan on 27th December, 2017 in the form of consent terms ("Consent Letter") whereby the Complainant has given consent to two flats being flat no. B-1104 admeasuring 770 square feet carpet area and flat no. A-1101 admeasuring 812 square feet carpet area ("New Flats") and gave consent for re-planning the building under Section 14(2) of RERA.

• After the Consent, the Complainant sought refund of his amount with interest under Section 18 of the RERA claiming that the Respondent failed to hand over the possession of the Original Flat on the agreed date.

Issue:

• Whether the Complainant is stopped from denying/withdrawing his consent given for the re-planning of the building?

Observations of Maha-RERA:

• The consent under Section 14(2) of RERA of 2/3rd (two-third) allottees for re-planning has been given to the Respondent and the Respondent has revised the plans. The Respondent is ready to execute the agreements of the flats revised by them i.e. New Flats. Not only that, in terms of the Consent Letter, the Complainant has given his consent to accept the New Flats each consisting of two bedrooms in lieu of the Original Flat consisting of four bedrooms. The Complainant also showed his readiness to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- for additional carpet area which he is going to obtain. These facts, therefore, establish that on the consent of the Complainant, the Respondent has acted to its dis-advantage and hence, the Complainant is estopped under Section 115 of the Evidence Act from withdrawing his consent and his status as an allottee of the New Flats.

• In context of the aforesaid, Maha-RERA observed that provisions of Section 62 of the Contract Act can also be pressed into service, which Section 62 reads as follows:

"62. If the parties to a contract agree to substitute a new contract for it, or to rescind or alter it, the original contract need not be performed."

• Maha-RERA also relied upon the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of Section 62 of the Contract Act in Lata Construction and Others v. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah (2001)1 SCC 586 whereby it was observed:

"Section 62 of the Contract Act contains the principle of "Novation" of contract. One of the essential requirements of "Novation", as contemplated by Section 62, is that there should be complete substitution of a new contract in place of the old. It is in that situation that the original contract need not be performed. Substitution of a new contract in place of the old contract which would have the effect of rescinding or completely altering the terms of the original contract, has to be by agreement between the parties. A substituted contract should rescind or alter or extinguish the previous contract. But if the terms of the two contracts are inconsistent and they cannot stand together, the subsequent contract cannot be in substitution of the earlier contract."

Order of the Maha-RERA:

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Maha-RERA found that there is novation of the contract and only a formal contract in writing is to be executed. The consideration of the Original Flat is to be adjusted against the New Flats, otherwise the terms and conditions are similar. In view of the same, the Complainant's claim for withdrawal is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.

Maha-RERA, in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, in the capacity of the regulator, directed the parties to enter and register the agreement for sale of New Flats in consonance with terms and the conditions of the Consent Letter and the Previous Agreement within period of 1 (one) month.

The cause of action for claiming possession after the lapse of agreed date of possession becomes a recurring course of action

 In the Matter of Avinash Saraf, Neha Duggar Saraf v/s Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. Complaint number CC006000000000032 decided on 13.10.2017 before Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

The complainants contended that they have paid 97% of total consideration of the flat. The date of possession of the flat was August, 2016, as per agreement of sale executed in November 2014, but the respondent failed to give the Possession in time.hence the complainant demanded the amount of consideration with interest @ 21% p.a. from the respondent with compensation for the amount expended towards stamp duty and registration charges.

The respondent contended that MAHARERA has come into effect from 1st May 2017. Therefore MAHARERA has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The date of possession was delayed due to delay in getting permission for constructing parking from MCGM (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai), for reasons beyond control of the respondent.

Point for consideration before The Honorable judge was whether the complainant is entitled to get back the amount paid to respondent with interest and compensation? He answered affirmatively with the following reasons.

The cause of action for claiming possession after the lapse of agreed date of possession becomes a recurring course of action. Therefore MAHARERA has the jurisdiction under section 79 of the Act. The reasons given by the respondent for delay in possession is also not acceptable, since the agreement was executed in November 2014 it means the respondent was aware of the time for giving possession.

The honorable judge has delivered the following judgment.

• To refund the entire amount paid to the respondent till date with interest and compensation for amount paid towards stamp duty and registration charges. Rate of interest upto the date of 30th April 2017 was decided @  9% per annum. And from 1st May 2017 the rate of interest was decided to be the interest at SBI’s highest marginal cost of lending rate + 2% p.a. till the date of final payment to the complainant.

x

Even when the Agreement does not contain the Date of Possession the Complaint is maintainable for refund. when no date of possession is mentioned in the agreement the Promoter is expected to hand over the possession within reasonable time.

 In the Matter of Vrajesh Hirjee v/s Skyline Construction Company Complaint number CC006000000057101 decided on 21.02.2019

the matter was before Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Parties have entered into agreement for sale but there is no mention of the date of possession. The learned advocate of the respondents therefore submits that  the date of possession is kept blank with the consent of the Parties and no date of possession was agreed upon The respondents have pleaded not guilty and have filed their reply to contend that the complaint is not maintainable because there is no agreed date of possession mentioned in the agreement

According to the Honorable court Section 13(2) of RERA  the promoter is liable to enter into a written agreement for sale and mention in it the date by which the possession of the flat is to be handed over to the Purchaser, Hence, the respondents cannot take disadvantage of their own wrong. In this case the Honorable court relied upon the matter of Fortune Infrastructure-v/s-Travor D'lima (2018) 5 SCC 442 so The respondents were directed to pay the aforesaid amount with simple interest at the rate of 10 55% per annum from the date of receipt till their repayment.

Section 12 Refund - Developer to deal with Bank Directly in case of Refund in Subvention Scheme

 In the Matter of Mohan Vamsi Vs M/s Dewan housing Finance  ( Complaint no. CC006000000193176) the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority has Ruled that

In Case of Refund in the Project where the Subvention Scheme is involved, the Builder has to deal directly with the bank and to return the money taken under Subvention scheme. The Complainant will have not  have any role between the builder and the bank.

 In the Earlier matter of khyati shah v/s rajsanket realty limited Complaint number CC006000000141031 Decided on 08/01/2020

The Complainant Filed the complaint seeking directions to the respondent to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant along with interest under the provision of section 18. The complainant purchased the flat in respondent’s project under the Subvention scheme whereby paying 20% of total amount 1,98,14,750/- . Agreement to sale was also registered on 06/09/2013. Out of The remaining amount 75% was to be paid by the ICICI bank immediately on registration of agreement to sale and balance 5% on the Possession of the flat. The interest on that amount in the form of PRE-EMIs was to be paid by the respondent builder.

Date of Possession was not mentioned in the agreement of sale. The respondent builder in contravention of the agreement stopped paying pre-emi to the Icici bank so icici issued several demand letters to the complainant to pay the pending amount.

The honourable tribunal observed that “the date of possession was not mentioned in the agreement for sale but the respondent no. 1 agreed to pay the monthly EMI to the respondent no. 2 till the possession is given to the complainant. since it has stopped paying EMI from march,2019 the same can be taken as the date of possession, Hence the complainant, who is an allottee is entitled to seek relief under section 18 of the RERA and the refund sought by the complainant, under section 18 is justified.”

The Honourable tribunal further added that “ The respondent number 1 ( The builder) is further directed to deal with the bank under subvention scheme for the remaining amount payable to the respondent number 2 viz. ICICI bank as the complainant is not liable to pay anything to the respondent number 2.”

SUPREME COURT in Consumer Protection Act: Flat buyers are entitled to just reasonable compensation on gross delay & execution of the Deed of Conveyance by a flat purchaser Does not precludes a consumer claim being raised for delayed possession

 IN THE MATTER OF: 

Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleys Sultana and Ors. Vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. (now known as BEGUR OMR Homes Pvt. Ltd.) & Ors. (Decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 24.08.2020)

Issues: 

Issue 1.Whether the flat buyers are entitled to compensation in excess of what was stipulated in the Apartment Buyers Agreement?

Issue 2.Whether the execution of the Deed of Conveyance by a flat purchaser precludes a consumer claim being raised for delayed possession?

Facts: 

1.The Complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) was initially instituted by nine flat buyers. These Complainants had booked residential flats in a project called Westend Heights at New Town, DLF, BTM Extension at Begu, Bengaluru. The brochure of the first respondent advertised the nature of the project and the amenities which would be provided to buyers. Responding to the representation held out by the developer, the complainants booked flats in the residential project. The flat buyers entered into agreements with the developer. Clause 11(a) of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement (ABA) indicated that the developer would endeavor to complete construction within a period of thirty-six months from the date of the execution of the agreement save and except for force majeure conditions. The developers issued various communications indicating the progress of the work and kept on changing the timeline of delivery of possession. Further, there was an admission of the fact that until 2015, the occupation certificate had not been received. Thus, the obligation to handover possession within a period of thirty-six months was not fulfilled.

2.The first batch of nine flat purchasers moved a consumer complaint before the NCDRC complaining of a breach by the developer of the obligation, contractually assumed, under the terms of the ABA. Since the nine complainants purported to represent the entire group of flat purchasers, a notice of the complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act 19863 was published in the newspapers. An I.A. was filed before the NCDRC under Section 12(1)(c) which was subsequently disposed of by NCDRC, which led to an appeal before the Apex Court. Procedural directions issued upon several impleadment applications resulted in a further order of the Apex Court reiterating that the complaint would be treated as having been filed on behalf of 339 persons. By the aforesaid order, the Apex Court had laid down a peremptory time schedule of six months for the disposal of the complaint.

3.The NCDRC divided the group of 339 flat buyers into six groups based on whether or not they had taken possession, executed deeds of conveyance, settled the dispute or sold the flats before or during the pendency of the complaint or their applications for impleadment. While recording a finding of fact that there was an admitted delay on the part of the developer, the NCDRC held that the agreements provided compensation at the rate of Rs.5/- per square foot of the super area for every month of delay. The NCDRC held that the flat purchasers who agreed to this stipulation in the agreements were not entitled to seek any amount in addition. Further, the execution of the Deed of Conveyance by a flat purchaser would preclude a consumer claim being raised for delayed possession.

4.The NCDRC dismissed the consumer complaint filed by 339 flat buyers, accepting the defense of DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Annabel Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. that there was no deficiency of service on their part in complying with their contractual obligations and, that despite a delay in handing over the possession ofthe residential flats, the purchasers were not entitled to compensation in excess of what was stipulated in the Apartment Buyers Agreement (ABA). Aggrieved by the order of the NCDRC, the Appellants have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations:

 ❑ The Counsel for Appellants submitted that – 

     i) There is a gross delay ranging between two and four years in handing over possession and the flat buyers ought not to be constrained by the terms of the agreement which are one-sided and unreasonable; 

(ii) The execution of conveyances or settlement deeds would not operate to preclude the flat buyers from claiming compensation; and 

(iii) The amenities which have been contracted for have not been provided by the developers. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the Counsel for Respondents submitted that –         i) No evidence has been led by the complainants to discharge the onus placed upon them to establish coercion or duress while executing conveyances or settlements; 

            (ii) Possession of the complex, comprising of 813 apartments in nineteen towers has been handed over between four to six years ago and the developer has transferred his right, title and interest to the Residents‟ Welfare Association (“RWA”); 

            (iii) Out of 171 applicants, 145 have received compensation at the agreed rate while handing over possession; and (iv) Under clause 14 of the ABA, the flat buyers have been compensated at the rate of Rs 5 per square foot per month. No proof or measure of actual loss suffered has been adduced. 

❑ The Court observed that the developer has accepted that there was a delay on his part which triggered of the liability to pay compensation. A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency. There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service. Under Section 14(1)(e), the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to directing the opposite party inter alia to remove the deficiency in the service in question. 

Further, in assessing the legal position, it is necessary to record that the ABA is clearly one-sided. Evidently, the terms of the agreement have been drafted by the Developer. They do not maintain a level platform as between the developer and purchaser. The stringency of the terms which bind the purchaser are not mirrored by the obligations for meeting times lines by the developer. The agreement does not reflect an even bargain. Where, as in the present case, there has been a gross delay in the handing over of possession beyond the contractually stipulated debt, the Court is clear of the view that the jurisdiction of the consumer forum to award just and reasonable compensation as an incident of its power to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is not constrained by the terms of a rate which is prescribed in an unfair bargain. 

❑ The Court further observed that the flat purchasers have invested their hard earned money. It is only reasonable to presume that the next logical step is for the purchaser to perfect the title to the premises which have been allotted under the terms of the ABA. But the submission of the developer is that the purchaser forsakes the remedy before the consumer forum by seeking a Deed of Conveyance. To accept such a construction would lead to an absurd consequence of requiring the purchaser either to abandon a just claim as a condition for obtaining the conveyance or to indefinitely delay the execution of the Deed of Conveyance pending protracted consumer litigation. 

Thus, disapproving the view of NCDRC, the Apex Court held that flat purchasers who obtained possession or executed Deeds of Conveyance have not lost their right to make a claim for compensation for the delayed handing over of the flats. After making the aforesaid observations, the Court has directed that - 

        i) Except for eleven appellants who entered into specific settlements with the developer and three appellants who have sold their right, title and interest under the ABA, the respondents shall, as a measure of compensation, pay an amount calculated at the rate of 6 per cent simple interest per annum to each of the appellants. The amount shall be computed on the total amounts paid towards the purchase of the respective flats with effect from the date of expiry of thirty-six months from the execution of the respective ABAs until the date of the offer of possession after the receipt of the occupation certificate; 

         ii) The above amount shall be in addition to the amounts which have been paid over or credited by the developer at the rate of Rs 5 per square foot per month at the time of the drawing of final accounts; and 

          iii) The amounts due and payable in terms of directions (i) and (ii) above shall be paid over within a period of one month from the date of this judgment failing which they shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. until payment.

Consumer Protection Act: Entitlement of the Allottee / Homebuyer has to be reckoned in terms of the Date of the Agreement and not the RERA Registration date.

 IN THE MATTER OF: M/s. Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni and Another (Decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 02.11.2020) 

Issues: 

    1. Whether the remedies available to the consumers under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“CP Act”) would be additional remedies, not barred by the coming in force of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA Act”)? 

2. Whether the provisions of the RERA Act have made any change in the legal position with regards to remedies available to the Allottees? 

3. Whether the entitlement of the Allottee has to be reckoned in terms of the date of Agreement or the RERA registration date? 

Facts: 

    1. A Housing Scheme called “The ESFERA” in Gurgaon, Haryana was launched by the Appellant in 2011. All the Complainants booked their respective apartments by paying the requisite booking amounts and thereafter executed the Builder Buyer Agreement towards their individual units. The Agreement provided for delay due to reasons beyond the control of the Developer (Appellant) and failure to deliver possession due to Govt. Rules/Notifications, etc under the Force Majeure clause and the compensation thereof. Even after four yearsthere was no sign of Project getting completed. Thereafter, in 2017, the Project was registered with Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula (“HRERA”). 

2. The Consumer Complaint was filed by the Complainants for the delay in handing over of the possession of their respective apartments. In response, the Appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (“National Commission”) on the ground that the Complainants/Respondents would not come within the definition of consumers. After having heard the submissions, the Commission allowed the Complaint and granted relief of refund to the Complainants/Respondents. 

3. The Appellant aggrieved by the order of the National Commission, preferred an appeal under Section 23 of the CP Act before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Court’s Observations: 

• The Counsel for Appellants submitted that once the RERA Act came into force, all questions concerning the Project including issues relating to construction and completion thereof, would be under the exclusive control and jurisdiction of the authorities under RERA Act. The National Commission, therefore, ought not to have entertained the Consumer Complaint. Further, the Registration Certificate being valid upto 31.12.2020, the Appellant could not be said to have delayed the construction and consequently, there could be no finding that there was deficiency on part of the Appellant. The Counsel for the Respondents submitted that whether the delay occurred due to force majeure was already dealt by the National Commission and no reasonable explanation was available on record to dislodge that finding. It was further submitted that the remedy afforded by the CP Act would be an additional remedy to a consumer and such legal position remained unchained even after the enactment of the RERA Act. 

• The Court noted that conclusions drawn by the National Commission that – i) all the Complainants were consumers within the meaning of the Act; and ii) there was delay on part of the Appellant in completion the construction within time, are absolutely correct and does not call for interference of this Hon’ble Court. • While discussing various precedents, the Court observed that the Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held that the remedies available under the provisions of the CP Act are additional remedies over and above the other remedies including those made available under any special statutes;and that the availability of an alternate remedy is no bar in entertaining a complaint under the CP Act. The Hon’ble court further observed that insofar as cases where such proceedings under the CP Act are initiated after the provisions of the RERA Act came into force, there is nothing in the RERA Act which bars such initiation. The absence of bar under Section 79 to the initiation of proceedings before a fora which cannot be called a Civil Court and express saving under Section 88 of the RERA Act, make the position quite clear. Furthermore, Section 18 itself specifies that the remedy under said Section is "without prejudice to any other remedy available". Thus, the parliamentary intent is clear that a choice or discretion is given to the allottee whether he wishes to initiate appropriate proceedings under the CP Act or file an application under the RERA Act. 

• The Court held that in the present case the apartments were booked by the Complainants in 2011-2012 and the Builder Buyer Agreements were entered into in November, 2013. As promised, the construction should have been completed in 42 months. The period had expired well before the Project was registered under the provisions of the RERA Act. Merely because the registration under the RERA Act is valid till 31.12.2020 does not mean that the entitlement of the concerned Allottees to maintain an action stands deferred. It is relevant to note that even for the purposes of Section 18, the period has to be reckoned in terms of the agreement and not the registration. Therefore, the entitlement of the Complainants must be considered in the light of the terms of the Builder Buyer Agreements and was rightly dealt with by the Commission. 

The Hon’ble Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the view taken by the National Commission.

SPECIFIED “DATE OF POSSESSION” IS BINDING ON THE DEVELOPER AND NOT AFFECTED BY “GRACE PERIOD” CLAUSES UNDER Agreement For Sales

 In Suryakant Yashwant Jadhav & Anr. v. Bellissimo Hi-Rise Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the MahaRera Appellate Tribunal has held that 

• where the promoters had agreed to give possession with occupancy certificate on a specified date, the promoters were obligated under Section 19(10) of RERA to offer physical possession with occupancy certificate to allottees and the allottees were obligated to take such physical possession with occupancy certificate within two months of such delivery. 
• The Court said that failure to handover physical possession of the flat with occupancy certificate, would attract Section 18 of RERA With respect to the clause of “grace period” of one year (which was provided irrespective of the force majeure events or situations beyond control of the parties) contained in the Agreement for Sale (AFS), 
• The Tribunal held that Section 18 of RERA is absolute on the point of "specified date" mentioned in the agreement for giving possession and cannot be extended on the basis of such grace period. 
• The Tribunal held that upholding the ‘grace period’ clause of the AFS would be against the spirit of Section 18 of RERA and consequently against the object of safeguarding interest of customers.

The Order can be accessed at  https://maharera.mahaonline.gov.in/Upload/PDF/AT006-21407.pdf