What was the case about?
The case involved homebuyers Neha and Nitin Walavalkar, who booked a flat in the Clan City-Ruby project at Taloja by Supreme Construction and Developers. The agreement for sale (May 2013) promised possession by December 31, 2017, but the promoter failed to deliver.
What did MahaRERA decide earlier?
In February 2024, MahaRERA member Mahesh Pathak extended the possession date to 2020, based on a prior March 2023 common order. MahaRERA directed the promoter to pay interest only from January 2021, effectively granting a unilateral extension to the builder.
Why did MREAT overrule MahaRERA’s order?
MREAT found that MahaRERA’s decision to extend the possession date without the consent of the homebuyers was unlawful. The tribunal ruled that such unilateral changes alter the agreement for sale, which is legally impermissible under the RERA Act.
What did MREAT direct regarding interest payment?
MREAT modified MahaRERA’s order and directed the promoter to pay interest to the homebuyers from January 2018 (immediately after the promised possession date) instead of January 2021.
Did the promoter get Covid-19 moratorium benefit?
No. MREAT rejected the promoter’s argument that delays were due to the Covid-19 moratorium. The tribunal clarified that since the original possession date (Dec 2017) was before the pandemic, the delay could not be attributed to Covid.
What about delays caused by statutory approvals and MMRDA’s offsite infrastructure?
MREAT rejected these excuses, holding that such delays do not qualify as force majeure under Section 6 of the RERA Act. The tribunal said that routine delays in approvals or infrastructure are part of the developer’s responsibility.
What did MREAT say about MahaRERA’s earlier observations?
The tribunal strongly criticized MahaRERA’s approach of extending possession dates through common orders without analyzing each case’s specific facts. It said MahaRERA’s order was arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
Can MahaRERA change the possession date without homebuyers’ consent?
No. MREAT made it clear that MahaRERA cannot unilaterally amend possession timelines in an agreement for sale without the allottees’ consent. Doing so undermines the rights of homebuyers under the RERA Act.
What was ruled regarding possession and Occupancy Certificate (OC)?
MREAT held that interest is payable from the agreed possession date, regardless of whether the Occupancy Certificate is received. MahaRERA’s earlier directive that interest accrues only after OC was declared legally untenable.
What is the significance of this ruling for other homebuyers?
This ruling strengthens homebuyers’ rights by affirming that:
-
Builders cannot escape liability by citing Covid or routine approval delays.
-
MahaRERA cannot arbitrarily extend possession deadlines.
-
Interest is payable from the agreed possession date, not from OC.
