In recent developments, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has declined homebuyer complaints against developers for alleged delayed possession, citing the absence of a clearly mentioned possession date in the agreement for sale. This decision has raised questions about homebuyers’ rights in seeking interest for delayed possession and highlights the importance of clarity in contractual agreements.
Two homebuyers, Gaurav Barve and Avani Barve, filed a complaint with MahaRERA alleging delayed possession of their flat purchased in Boisar near Mumbai. The absence of a specified possession date in the agreement for sale led to complications in determining the developer’s obligations.
Refund under Section 18 of RERA
Section 18 of the Real Estate Regulatory Act, 2016, allows homebuyers to seek interest when developers fail to meet their obligations regarding possession. However, the eligibility for refund with interest hinges on the developer’s inability to complete the project within the agreed timeline.
MahaRERA’s recent order emphasized the significance of a clearly defined possession date in the agreement for sale. As the agreement lacked a specified possession date, MahaRERA considered the deadline submitted by the developer, extending until December 31, 2028. Consequently, MahaRERA declined the homebuyers’ request for refund with interest, deeming it premature given the project’s completion timeline.
Implications and Homebuyers’ Options
While MahaRERA’s decision may seem unfavorable to the homebuyers, it underscores the importance of comprehensive agreements and adherence to regulatory guidelines. However, the order grants homebuyers the option to exit the project based on the terms outlined in the allotment letter and agreement for sale.
Conclusion
The case highlights the significance of clarity in contractual agreements, particularly regarding possession dates, in real estate transactions. Homebuyers must ensure that agreements explicitly specify possession timelines to safeguard their rights in case of delays. While MahaRERA’s decision may appear stringent, it underscores the need for compliance with regulatory norms and the importance of legal clarity in protecting homebuyers’ interests.