The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA), Gurugram, has ruled that developers cannot rely on the Covid-19 pandemic to justify delays in handing over apartments when the agreements with homebuyers were executed after the pandemic began. In significant orders dated September 29 and October 8, 2026, the authority rejected claims for a Covid-related extension of possession deadlines in cases involving Godrej Properties Limited and its group company, Godrej Real View Developers Private Limited.
The orders concern complaints filed by homebuyers of Godrej Meridien, a luxury residential project spread across 15 acres in Sector 106, Gurugram. The project was launched in May 2018, with apartment prices starting at ₹1.65 crore and possession originally promised in September 2023 for Phase II.
The authority held that developers who entered into contractual relationships with homebuyers after the pandemic began could not subsequently rely on Covid-19 disruptions to escape their contractual obligations. It also rejected arguments that recurring winter construction bans and shortages of raw materials justified delays.
Godrej Meridien Homebuyers Approach HARERA Over Delayed Possession
Godrej Properties launched Godrej Meridien in Gurugram’s Sector 106 in May 2018. The project comprises multiple residential towers spread across approximately 15 acres.
Despite the promised possession timelines, several homebuyers alleged that their apartments were not delivered within the stipulated periods. At least 85 homebuyers out of approximately 750 purchasers approached HARERA, Gurugram, seeking interest for delayed possession.
The complaints were filed in 2025 against Godrej Properties Limited and its group company, Godrej Real View Developers Private Limited.
According to the builder-buyer agreements referred to in the authority’s orders, the developer had committed to delivering apartments in Phase I by September 30, 2022, and apartments in Phase II by September 30, 2023.
The developer submitted that construction had slowed during the Covid-19 pandemic and that it obtained Occupation Certificates for towers in the project in March 2023 and September 2024.
The dispute centred on whether the developer could claim the benefit of a six-month extension granted by HARERA during the pandemic, particularly for agreements executed after Covid-19 had already begun affecting the real estate sector.
HARERA’s May 2020 Circular on Covid-19 Extension
In May 2020, during the first wave of Covid-19, HARERA issued a circular granting an automatic six-month extension to eligible real estate projects whose construction had been affected by government-imposed lockdowns.
The measure was intended to address disruptions caused by the pandemic and the restrictions imposed to control its spread.
However, disputes subsequently arose when developers sought to rely on this extension in cases where the agreements with homebuyers had been executed after the pandemic began.
HARERA examined whether developers could claim the benefit of the pandemic-related relief when they had entered into agreements with purchasers at a time when the pandemic and its associated disruptions were already known.
The authority concluded that the Covid-19 extension could not automatically be claimed by developers for agreements executed after the pandemic had begun.
October 8 Order: HARERA Rejects Covid-19 Defence in Phase I Case
In its October 8, 2026, order, HARERA member Phool Singh Saini rejected the Covid-19 extension claimed by the developer in a case involving a couple who had booked an apartment in Godrej Meridien Phase I.
The couple booked the apartment in August 2020, and the agreement for sale was executed on November 5, 2020. The possession deadline under the agreement was September 30, 2022.
When the buyers sought interest for the delay in handing over the apartment, the developer relied on the six-month extension granted under HARERA’s May 2020 circular.
However, the authority rejected the argument because the booking and agreement had taken place after the pandemic had already begun.
Member Saini observed that the booking application and allotment letter had been issued on August 31, 2020, and the agreement for sale was executed on November 5, 2020.
The order stated:
“Hence, grace period is not allowed to the respondent.”
The authority further emphasised that the promoter could not be granted leniency in circumstances where it sought to rely on events that were already known when the contractual relationship was established.
The decision reinforces the principle that a developer cannot take advantage of its own wrongs to avoid obligations undertaken under an agreement for sale.
September 29 Order: Agreement Executed After Covid-19 Cannot Claim Pandemic Relief
A similar conclusion was reached by a bench presided over by HARERA chairman Arun Kumar in an order dated September 29, 2026.
The case involved Godrej Real View Developers Private Limited. The builder-buyer agreement was executed on June 23, 2023, with possession promised by September 30, 2023.
The developer sought an extension by relying on the Covid-19 pandemic and the associated disruptions.
However, the authority rejected the claim for force majeure relief, noting that the contractual relationship between the parties had come into existence after the pandemic period had already begun.
The chairman observed that the respondent could not claim an extension on account of Covid-19, particularly when the agreement itself had been executed subsequent to the relevant period.
The order establishes an important distinction between projects whose contractual commitments predated the pandemic and agreements entered into when the pandemic’s effects were already known.
The timing of the agreement became a key consideration in determining whether the developer could claim the benefit of the Covid-19 extension.
HARERA Allows Covid-19 Extension for Agreement Signed Before Pandemic
While rejecting the Covid-19 defence in the post-pandemic agreements, HARERA allowed the benefit of the six-month extension in a separate case involving an agreement executed before the pandemic.
The agreement for sale in that case was dated December 4, 2018.
Member Phool Singh Saini permitted the developer to claim the benefit of HARERA’s May 2020 notification, extending the possession deadline from September 30, 2023, to March 30, 2024.
This decision demonstrates that the authority did not reject the pandemic-related extension in every case.
Instead, the date on which the agreement was executed and the applicability of the pandemic-related relief were material considerations in determining whether the developer could claim additional time.
The distinction is significant for both developers and homebuyers because it indicates that the availability of an extension depends on the circumstances of the case and the applicable regulatory directions.
Godrej’s Defence Based on Winter Construction Bans Rejected
Apart from Covid-19, Godrej Properties also argued that recurring winter construction bans and shortages of raw materials had contributed to the project delays.
The developer referred to restrictions imposed by the National Green Tribunal, the Supreme Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court to control air pollution in the National Capital Region.
It contended that these restrictions, along with intermittent shortages of construction materials, constituted unforeseen circumstances that justified additional time for completing the project.
HARERA rejected the argument concerning recurring seasonal construction restrictions.
The authority observed that construction bans imposed during winter to control pollution in the NCR were routine and recurring in nature.
Since such restrictions occur regularly, promoters are expected to consider their potential impact while planning construction schedules and committing to possession deadlines.
The authority therefore did not accept recurring winter construction curbs as a sufficient basis for granting the developer additional time in the cases under consideration.
The ruling underscores the importance of realistic project planning and accounting for foreseeable regulatory restrictions when determining completion schedules.
Homebuyers Allege Delays of Up to Two Years
Advocate Srishti Singh, who represented a homebuyer couple in one of the cases, said the rulings addressed the use of pandemic-related extensions by developers who continued marketing homes after Covid-19 had begun.
According to the submissions described in the report, physical handovers to buyers in the project were delayed by periods ranging from six months to approximately two years beyond the agreed milestones.
The buyers argued that developers had made commitments to secure sales after the pandemic began but subsequently failed to meet those commitments.
The authority’s reasoning reflects the principle that developers cannot rely on circumstances already known to them when entering into contractual commitments to justify subsequent non-performance.
For homebuyers, the orders highlight the importance of examining the agreed possession date, the applicable extension provisions and the reasons cited by the promoter for the delay.
Implications for Developers and Homebuyers Under RERA
The HARERA orders have wider implications for residential real estate projects affected by delayed construction and possession.
1. Covid-19 Is Not an Automatic Defence for Every Delay
The orders indicate that the existence of the pandemic alone does not entitle a developer to an extension in every case. The date of the agreement and the applicability of the relevant regulatory relief must be considered.
2. Contractual Possession Dates Remain Important
Developers are expected to honour the possession timelines stipulated in their agreements, subject to legally permissible extensions and the facts of each case.
3. Recurring Construction Restrictions Must Be Anticipated
Seasonal construction bans imposed to control pollution are foreseeable events. Developers are expected to account for such restrictions while preparing project schedules and committing to possession deadlines.
4. Homebuyers Can Seek Relief for Delayed Possession
Where possession is delayed beyond the applicable contractual deadline, homebuyers may seek remedies available under the RERA Act and the relevant agreement. The relief available depends on the facts, applicable law and the authority’s findings.
5. Pandemic-Related Extensions Depend on the Circumstances
The decision allowing an extension for a pre-pandemic agreement shows that the authority considered the timing of the contractual relationship when assessing the developer’s claim.
Conclusion
The September 29 and October 8, 2026, orders of HARERA, Gurugram, clarify that developers cannot automatically rely on Covid-19 to justify delayed possession when they entered into agreements with homebuyers after the pandemic had begun.
The authority also rejected the argument that recurring winter construction bans were unforeseen events warranting additional time.
At the same time, it allowed pandemic-related relief in a separate case involving an agreement executed before Covid-19, demonstrating that the circumstances of each case remain relevant.
The rulings reinforce the importance of contractual accountability, realistic construction planning and timely delivery of homes. For developers, the decisions serve as a reminder to account for foreseeable disruptions when committing to possession dates. For homebuyers, they underline the importance of understanding contractual deadlines and the legal remedies available in cases of delayed possession.
