Telangana REAT Holds That Extension of Project Registration Does Not Automatically Extend Contractual Possession Date

 

Telangana REAT Holds That Extension of Project Registration Does Not Automatically Extend Contractual Possession Date

Case: M/s Vasavi Realtors LLP v. Taru Trivedi & Connected Matters
Case Nos.: T.A. Nos. 17 to 47 of 2026
Forum: Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (TSREAT)
Decision: 9 September 2026

The appeals arose from 31 complaints filed by homebuyers concerning the promoter's project “Vasavi Lake City-West” at Hafeezpet, Hyderabad. The Telangana RERA had directed the promoter to pay interest for delayed possession and to complete the project and hand over possession.

Background

The homebuyers had entered into agreements of sale with Vasavi Realtors in 2022. Under those agreements, possession was to be delivered by 31 August 2024, with a six-month grace period extending the date to 28 February 2025, subject to the applicable force-majeure provision.

The promoter subsequently obtained an extension of the RERA registration of the project. It contended that this extension should also affect the possession timeline.

The homebuyers, however, approached Telangana RERA after possession was not delivered within the agreed period.

Finding of the Telangana REAT

The Tribunal rejected the contention that an extension of RERA registration automatically extends the contractual possession date.

It held, in substance, that:

Extension of registration of a project does not, by itself, extend the possession date agreed between the promoter and the homebuyer.

The Tribunal treated the Agreement of Sale as a legally enforceable contract and held that the promoter could not unilaterally alter the agreed possession date. A change in that date would require agreement between the parties.

COVID-19 defence

The promoter also sought to rely upon the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification for the delay.

The Tribunal did not accept this contention because the agreements in question were executed after the lockdown periods, and they themselves stipulated specific possession timelines. The promoter therefore could not retrospectively rely upon COVID-19 to avoid its contractual and statutory liability for delay.

Interest for delayed possession

Telangana RERA had directed the promoter to pay interest at 10.70% per annum on the amounts actually paid by the respective homebuyers, calculated from 1 March 2025 until lawful possession was handed over.

The REAT found no illegality or procedural irregularity in these directions and confirmed the orders passed by Telangana RERA.

Important RERA proposition

The judgment is useful for the proposition that:

An extension granted by RERA to the validity/registration period of a real estate project does not automatically modify the possession date contractually agreed between the promoter and the allottee.

Thus, regulatory extension of project registration and contractual extension of possession are distinct matters. Unless the possession date is validly altered with the consent of the parties or otherwise justified under the governing contractual/statutory provisions, the original contractual date continues to be relevant for determining delay under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

Final outcome

The Telangana REAT dismissed all 31 appeals filed by Vasavi Realtors LLP and upheld Telangana RERA's orders directing payment of delay interest and completion/handing over of the project.

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.