Pranav B Prem

In a significant shift from its previous stance, the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Gurugram) has held that a delay of more than three years in filing a complaint under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 amounts to unreasonable delay. The bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), dismissed a complaint filed by a homebuyer against Emaar MGF Land Ltd., citing delay beyond a reasonable period despite the absence of a specific limitation clause under the RERA Act.

Also Read: NCLT Mumbai Rules, Bank Can Classify Corporate Debtor's Account As Fraud During CIRP, Such Classification Is Not Hit By S.14 Of IBC

Earlier, RERA authorities, including Haryana RERA itself, had entertained complaints filed after considerable delay, sometimes even beyond six years from the date of possession. These decisions were often backed by Section 89 of the Act, which provides the legislation overriding effect over other laws. However, the present order departs from that view by recognising the need for a reasonable time frame to approach the Authority, guided by principles of natural justice under Section 38.

Background and Complaint

The complainant, Kamal Singhal, had purchased a flat in the “Gurgaon Greens” project in Sector 102, Gurugram. The flat, originally allotted to a third party in 2013, was endorsed in favour of the complainant and her husband in 2020, and subsequently only in the complainant’s name. The total sale consideration was ₹89.34 lakhs, whereas the complainant claimed to have paid ₹97 lakhs to the builder.

As per the Builder Buyer Agreement executed on 4 April 2013, the possession was to be handed over within 36 months from the start of construction, which began on 14 June 2013. Taking into account a 5-month grace period, the due date for possession was 14 November 2016. However, the offer of possession came only on 12 December 2018, and the physical handover occurred much later on 28 September 2020. The conveyance deed was executed on 17 December 2021. Alleging delay, the complainant sought delayed possession charges from the builder, stating that she was misled about the construction progress and was forced to make payments without corresponding progress on-site.

Builder’s Defence

Emaar MGF Land Ltd. contested the complaint on multiple grounds, most notably on limitation. They submitted that the cause of action arose on 12 December 2018—the date on which the offer of possession was made. However, the complaint was filed on 30 April 2024, after a delay of more than five years. The builder argued that such a delay is unjustified and cannot be condoned under the garb of there being no statutory limitation in the Act.

Further, the respondent pointed out that the complainant accepted the possession in 2020 and executed a conveyance deed in 2021. According to the builder, the complainant had also signed the unit handover letter, which stated that "the liabilities and obligations of the Company as enumerated in the allotment letter/ Agreement executed in favour of the Allottee stand satisfied." Hence, they contended that there was no subsisting cause of action. The builder also contended that the complaint was a belated attempt to unjustly extort compensation despite the transaction having been closed and the property being enjoyed without protest for years.

Authority’s Findings

The Authority acknowledged that RERA, 2016 does not explicitly prescribe a limitation period. However, it clarified that it is required to be guided by the principles of natural justice as per Section 38 of the Act. Quoting the maxim that the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights, the Authority held that "three years is a reasonable time period for a litigant to initiate litigation to press his rights under normal circumstances." It noted that in this case, the cause of action arose on 12 December 2018, yet the complaint was filed on 30 April 2024. The Authority concluded that such a delay of more than five years was beyond reasonable limits.

Also Read: NCLT New Delhi Rules, Development Rights Crystallised Before Termination Of Collaboration Agreement Form Part Of Corporate Debtor's Assets

Holding the complaint to be barred by limitation, the Haryana RERA dismissed the matter. This decision reflects a firm stance on encouraging timely assertion of rights under the RERA Act and deterring litigants from filing stale claims. The complaint was consigned to the registry accordingly.

Appearance

For Complainant: Sushil Yadav (Advocate) 

For Respondent: Dhruv Rohtagi (Advocate) 

Cause Title: Kamal Singhal V. Emaar MGF Land Limited

Case No: Complainant No 1885 of 2024

Coram: Shri. Ashok Sangwan (Member)