MahaRERA Rejects Delay Claims From Ekta Tripolis Buyers
MahaRERA, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, has recently turned down the claims of two homebuyers from the Ekta Tripolis project in Goregaon who sought compensation and interest for delays in possession of their flats. The decision has raised questions about the regulatory body’s stance on delay claims and the responsibilities of both developers and buyers under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
According to the regulatory authority’s ruling, compensation or interest for delays in possession can only be sought under Section 18 of the RERA when the promoter fails to complete the project or fails to hand over possession as per the date specified in the agreement. In this case, MahaRERA highlighted that the complaints were filed only after the receipt of the Occupation Certificate (OC) and after the developers offered possession to the buyers in 2023, long after the specified deadline of December 31, 2020. The two homebuyers had initially entered into agreements with the project developers, promising possession of their flats on or before the end of 2020. However, the developers failed to meet this deadline. Despite the delay, the developers provided possession along with the OC in 2023. Yet, the buyers did not complete further payments as per the agreement, preventing them from taking possession of their homes.
The homebuyers filed complaints seeking compensation in January 2024, long after the completion of the project. MahaRERA pointed out that had the buyers approached the regulatory body when the cause of action was still in existence, their claims for interest could have been considered on their merits. The regulatory authority expressed that the delay in approaching the body had ultimately limited its ability to review the claim properly. Furthermore, MahaRERA criticised the buyers for not adjusting the outstanding dues against the interest payable by the developer at the time of possession, which, according to the body, was an improper claim. In its ruling, MahaRERA also referenced provisions under Sections 19(10) and 19(6) of RERA, which relate to the obligations of buyers to accept possession once offered, provided they have fulfilled their financial commitments.
By failing to take possession of their flats, the buyers were seen as breaching these provisions. While the ruling may be seen as a setback for the buyers, it highlights the complexities surrounding RERA’s guidelines regarding delayed possession claims. In the case of Ekta Tripolis, the decision reiterates the importance of both parties—developers and buyers—adhering to agreed timelines, and underlines the necessity for homebuyers to promptly seek remedies when project delays occur. RERA’s refusal to offer compensation for delays in possession may also lead to further scrutiny of how developers handle timelines and agreements. The authority has consistently emphasised that homebuyers need to take proactive measures when their rights are at risk, and waiting too long to file complaints can result in losing the ability to seek redressal.
As Mumbai’s real estate market continues to grow, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency, clear agreements, and timely action from both homebuyers and developers to avoid legal complications in the future.
