A man bought a flat from a builder but did not get possession of it in the promised time period in the sale agreement. (Image for representative purpose only)
When buying your dream home, timely possession is an important point. Yet in some cases builders fail to deliver flats and houses within the stipulated time period.In one such recent case, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has ruled that a builder cannot escape responsibility for delaying possession of flats by blaming administrative changes involving government authorities when the delay stems from its own failure.
What the case is about
A man bought a flat from a builder but did not get possession of it in the promised time period in the sale agreement.The builder, on its part, claimed that the delay was due to changes in government jurisdiction. The builder argued that, during 2022-2023, planning authority over Wagholi, where the project is located, shifted between the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) and the Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority (PMRDA).Also Read | Woman buys Rs 1.03 crore 3BHK in Bengaluru, but builder fails to provide specially-enabled parking; Karnataka RERA orders provision within 60 days and audited maintenance accountsAccording to the builder, this change led to revised plans and fresh approvals, which held up the construction.The homebuyer, however, challenged this explanation before the MahaRERA tribunal by filing a rejoinder. He submitted documents to argue that the builder already knew Wagholi fell under PMC's jurisdiction before the sale agreement was executed.The homebuyer relied on a notification issued by the Urban Development Department (UDD) on June 30, 2021, which clearly placed Wagholi under PMC's jurisdiction.
The homebuyer also pointed out that the plans for Wing C of the project, in which he had purchased a flat, had been approved by the RERA authority in January 2022. The sale agreement was then signed in September 2022, with possession scheduled for December 2024.The homebuyer alleged that the builder had invoked the PMRDA-PMC jurisdiction dispute only after the delay happened, using it as an excuse to explain why the flat had not been handed over to the buyer on time.Defending its position before the MahaRERA tribunal, the builder said it had offered compensation of Rs 35,000 as a goodwill gesture, without accepting liability for any inconvenience caused to the homebuyer.Also Read | Man invested Rs 10 lakh, which tax department treated as unexplained; he first cited cash loan, then bank withdrawals as source, ITAT Nagpur deletes addition and Rs 2.11 lakh penalty
Why did the homebuyer win the case?
In an order dated September 8, 2026, MahaRERA directed the developer to pay interest from January 1, 2025, until it hands over possession with the required Occupancy Certificate.The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) rejected the builder’s explanation that changes involving the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) and Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority (PMRDA) had held up approvals for its Wagholi project.The buyer relied on a June 30, 2021 notification from the state Urban Development Department that placed Wagholi under PMC’s jurisdiction.The authority did not accept the builder’s explanation as adequate justification for missing the agreed deadline. Securing approvals and obtaining the certificates required for a lawful handover remained the developer’s responsibility. It also needed credible evidence linking the administrative difficulties it cited to the delay.Also Read | Grandmother and her son gifted 2.5-acre land to his second wife, who sold it; his daughter from first marriage claimed it was ancestral, but Madras HC rejects her pleaThe builder had offered Rs 35,000 as a goodwill gesture, without admitting liability. That offer did not settle the matter. Under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, a homebuyer can seek relief when a promoter fails to meet its obligations relating to completion or possession. MahaRERA held the developer liable under this provision.Aradhana Bhansali, Senior Partner at Rajani Associates, told ET that the buyer had succeeded because possession was not delivered within the timeline set out in the registered Agreement for Sale.The flat was priced at Rs 41.85 lakh, and the buyer had paid Rs 39.15 lakh. The remaining amount can be adjusted against the interest payable by the developer. The interest rate specified in the order is SBI’s marginal cost of funds-based lending rate (MCLR) plus 2%.The interest liability continues until the developer hands over the flat with the required Occupancy Certificate.Also Read | Man enters JDA for land, gets 6 flats from builder and transfers 5 to wife, but gets tax notice; ITAT Delhi deletes Rs 4.14 crore additions after finding no stock-in-trade conversion or sale