63-Day Delay in Filing RERA Appeal Cannot Be Condoned Without Sufficient Cause: UP REAT

Case Title: S.J.P. Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. Arnab Das
Forum: Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (UP REAT)
don

The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that a 63-day delay in filing an appeal under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 cannot be condoned in the absence of a satisfactory explanation demonstrating sufficient cause.

The Tribunal considered an application filed by S.J.P. Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. seeking condonation of the delay in challenging an order passed by the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority.

Delay in Filing Appeal

The appellant acknowledged that it was aware of the impugned RERA order when the order was uploaded on the Authority's portal. However, it applied for a certified copy only after approximately 60 days.

The appellant subsequently relied upon the time taken for consultation, collection and collation of records and preparation of the appeal to explain the delay.

Tribunal Finds Explanation Insufficient

The UP REAT rejected the explanation, holding that the reasons cited did not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had knowledge of the impugned order and could not satisfactorily explain why it waited for such a substantial period before taking steps to obtain the certified copy and institute the appeal.

The Tribunal therefore declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the appellant.

Limitation Under RERA

The proceedings arose in the context of Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, which prescribes the limitation framework for appeals before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

The decision reiterates that although an appellate forum has discretion to condone delay where sufficient cause is established, such discretion cannot be exercised merely because an appellant cites administrative or preparatory difficulties.

Importance of Prompt Legal Action

The ruling highlights the importance of acting promptly after an adverse RERA order is passed or uploaded.

A litigant seeking condonation of delay must provide a specific and convincing explanation covering the period of delay. General references to consultations, collection of documents or drafting of an appeal may not, by themselves, satisfy the requirement of sufficient cause.

Key Takeaway

The UP REAT decision reinforces that limitation provisions under RERA cannot be treated casually. An appellant who is aware of an adverse order must take timely steps to obtain the necessary documents and file an appeal.

Where the delay remains inadequately explained, the Tribunal may refuse to condone the delay and decline to entertain the appeal on merits.

MahaREAT Rejects 266-Day Delay Condonation Plea, Holds Litigant Cannot Shift Entire Blame to Advocate

 

MahaREAT Rejects 266-Day Delay Condonation Plea, Holds Litigant Cannot Shift Entire Blame to Advocate

Case: Shashank Vengasarkar & Anr. v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
Case No.: M.A. No. 1357/26 (Delay) in Appeal No. AT06/00334/2026
Arising from: Complaint No. CC006000000354526
Forum: Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT)
Decision: 10 September 2026

Background

The appellants were homebuyers who had purchased a flat from Larsen & Toubro Ltd. under an Agreement for Sale dated 7 December 2016. Possession was handed over on 20 July 2018. They subsequently filed a complaint before MahaRERA seeking interest for alleged delay in possession.

MahaRERA dismissed their complaint on 3 April 2025. The limitation period for filing an appeal expired on 2 June 2025, but the appellants filed the appeal only on 23 February 2026, resulting in a 266-day delay.

Grounds for seeking condonation

The homebuyers submitted that:

• they had not received the email communicating the MahaRERA order;

• they came to know about the order only on 17 February 2026, when they met their advocate after returning to India;

• they were residing outside India for substantial periods; and

• their earlier advocate had failed to properly follow up on the proceedings.

They therefore sought condonation of the 266-day delay. 

Finding of MahaREAT

MahaREAT rejected the application.

The Tribunal held that a litigant cannot place the entire responsibility for the conduct of litigation upon an advocate. A party is expected to remain vigilant regarding proceedings initiated by them and cannot rely entirely upon the advocate to monitor the case.

The Tribunal found that the circumstances relied upon by the appellants—including their residence outside India and alleged difficulties in communicating with their advocate—did not adequately explain such an inordinate delay.

The Tribunal further observed that negligence, inaction or lack of due diligence cannot constitute sufficient cause merely because a liberal approach is generally adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay.

Important legal principle

The Tribunal relied upon decisions including Rajneesh Kumar v. Ved Prakash, S.R. Vediappan v. S.P. Ramalingam, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary and Pathapati Subba Reddy v. The Special Deputy Collector, reiterating that condonation of delay requires a satisfactory explanation demonstrating sufficient cause and reasonable diligence.

Conclusion

The 266-day delay was not condoned, and the application filed by the homebuyers was dismissed.

Key RERA proposition:

A litigant seeking condonation of substantial delay cannot attribute the entire lapse to the advocate; the party must demonstrate reasonable diligence and provide a convincing explanation constituting sufficient cause for the delay.

In the Second Appeal , BOMBAY HIGH COURT upheld the Condonation of Delay granted by the MAHAREAT Stating that It is not unnatural for a flat purchaser, who had book the flat in 2011 and was yet to receive possession in 2018, to feel anxious especially when he was not permitted to inspect the flat.

In the Second Appeal , BOMBAY HIGH COURT  upheld the Condonation of Delay granted by the MAHAREAT Stating that It is not unnatural for a flat purchaser, who had book the flat in 2011 and was yet to receive possession in 2018, to feel anxious especially when he was not permitted to inspect the flat.

Lucina Land Developers Limited V/s Navin Kumar

SECOND APPEAL NO.585 OF 2020

Decided on 27 MARCH 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Question of Law framed in 2nd Appeal :-

“Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay of 395 days in filing the appeal by the original complainant (Respondent herein)?

Time line of the Matter :-

1. Respondent (Allottee) filed Complaint before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, (Maharera) complaining non-delivery of possession within the agreed period and claimed interest under provisions of section 18 of the Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
2. On 13/12/2017 Maharera disposed of the complaint holding that the Allottee failed to establish that the Appellant did not complete the project or was unable to deliver possession of the Apartment in accordance with the Agreement and directed the Appellant to handover possession of the Apartment with occupancy certificate to Allottee before 31 December 2018, failing which the Appellant was directed to pay interest as per Rule 18 with effect from 1 January 2019 till the actual date of possession on the entire amount paid by the Allottee. 
3. On 11/01/2019 Allottee filed Appeal before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Appellate Tribunal)  challenging the order along with an application seeking condonation delay in filing the appeal. 
4. On 19/08/2019 the Appellate Tribunal  allowed the application for condonation of delay.
5. The Appellant has filed this Second Appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 19th August 2019 passed by the Appellate Tribunal.

Fact of the Case :-

1. Allottee  purchased an apartment bearing No.203 in the project India bulls Greens-II situated at Panvel and Entered into Flat Buyer's Agreement on 18/10/2011.
2. As per the Flat Buyer's Agreement, possession was to be handed over within 60 months with grace period of 9 months.

Contentions of Appellant :-

1.  The Appellate Tribunal has committed a manifest error in condoning inordinate delay of 395 days in filing the Appeal.
2. Allottee  was not prevented by any disability or cause from filing the Appeal within the period of limitation.
3. Allottee took a false plea of heart disease, which was relatable to the year 2016.

Contentions of Respondent :- 

1. No substantial question of law is involved in the present Appeal as the impugned order merely condones delay of 395 days in filing the Appeal.
2. That Condonation of delay is the discretionary power exercised by the Appellate Court in which this Court cannot interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code).
3.  Technicalities cannot be permitted to overtake the substantive rights sought to be agitated by a flat purchaser.
4. That Allottee suffers from serious cardiac ailments for prolonged time, which is evidenced in various certificates produced before the Appellate Tribunal. 
5. That Allottee also faced financial distress on account of health issues suffered by him
6. The Allottee has excellent case on merits, and the same cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation without considering the merits involved in the Appeal.

Observations of the High Court:-

1. The short issue that requires consideration in the present Appeal is about correctness of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in condoning delay of 395 days in filing the Appeal.
2. Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion to be exercised by a Court. So long as exercise of discretion is sound, the Appellate Court shall not substitute its discretion with the discretion exercised by the Court condoning the delay 
3. it cannot be stated that there is complete absence of any cause in the application. Respondent, in his capacity as a flat purchaser first made an attempt to prosecute his complaint personally considering the ease of access provided to parties-in-person before Regulatory Authority.
4. There is sound exercise of discretion by the Appellate Tribunal in condoning the delay. So long as the exercise of discretion by the Appellate Tribunal is not arbitrary, interference by this Court in exercise of discretion is clearly unwarranted.
5.  the Respondent repeatedly pursued various issues with Appellant after passing of the order by the Regulatory Authority. The email correspondence started from 24 February 2018 and went on till 4 December 2018. Most of the emails were in respect of permission to visit the flat, since the Respondent believed that the same was not habitable
6. It is not unnatural for a flat purchaser, who had book the flat in 2011 and was yet to receive possession, to feel anxious especially when he was not permitted to inspect the flat.

Order of the High Court:-

1. the Appellate Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in filing the Appeal by Respondent.
2. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs.