Pranav B Prem

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has upheld the right of builders to cancel registered agreements for sale when homebuyers repeatedly default on payment obligations, holding that timely payment of instalments is a statutory duty cast upon allottees under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Also Read: Homebuyer Who Continues In Delayed Project Entitled Only To Interest, Not Compensation: Punjab RERA

The ruling was delivered in an order dated December 18, 2025, by MahaRERA Chairperson Manoj Saunik, while deciding six connected complaints arising out of the “Sunteck West World-1” residential project at Naigaon East in Palghar district. The complaints were filed by Sunteck Realty Limited along with its co-developers, DDPL Global Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Unicorn Infrastructure and Estates Pvt. Ltd.

Five of the complaints were instituted by the developers seeking confirmation of termination of registered agreements for sale, contending that the concerned allottees were persistent defaulters who failed to pay instalments despite repeated reminders. A sixth complaint was filed by an allottee, Ashish Kumar Tiwari, seeking refund of the amount paid by him towards booking of a flat.

MahaRERA noted that the project had received its Occupation Certificate on May 20, 2022, and that the homebuyers were thereafter required to make payments strictly in accordance with the timelines stipulated in their respective agreements for sale. In the five complaints filed by the developers, the authority found that duly registered agreements for sale were in existence and that the allottees had repeatedly failed to clear outstanding dues even after service of demand notices and termination notices.

The developers contended that the cancellations were effected strictly in terms of the contractual provisions and Section 11(5) of the RERA Act, which permits a promoter to cancel an allotment in accordance with the agreement for sale. It was further argued that continued defaults by the allottees had adversely affected the financial discipline of the project and prevented the promoters from selling the units to other prospective purchasers.

Some of the allottees alleged that they had already paid substantial portions of the consideration and accused the developers of selectively encashing post-dated cheques. MahaRERA, however, observed that the allottees had failed to place any material on record to substantiate these claims. The Authority noted that no proof of tendering or encashment of such cheques was produced and that the allottees had remained absent during the proceedings despite service of notices.

Examining the statutory scheme, MahaRERA referred to Section 19(6) of the Act, which obligates every allottee to make payments in the manner and within the time specified in the agreement for sale. The Authority found that the allottees in the five complaints had clearly violated this statutory duty. It observed that the promoters had issued multiple reminders and granted adequate opportunities to cure the defaults before proceeding with termination.

In these circumstances, MahaRERA held that “the termination of the agreement for sale by the complainant is valid” and confirmed that the promoters were entitled to cancel the agreements under Section 11(5) of the Act. The Authority directed the defaulting allottees to execute the deeds of cancellation and permitted the developers to proceed in accordance with the contractual terms governing refund after cancellation.

A different conclusion was reached in the sixth complaint filed by Ashish Kumar Tiwari. In this case, the homebuyer contended that no valid agreement for sale had been executed and that the flat allotted to him was subsequently found to be double-booked. MahaRERA relied on the developer’s own email acknowledging that it was “a double-booking case” and seeking confirmation to process a refund. The Authority noted that the booking form in this case was not signed by the developer and could not be treated as a binding agreement for sale.

Also Read: Homebuyer Cannot Be Compelled To Take Possession Of Unallotted Flat; Full Refund With Interest Directed: Rajasthan REAT

Holding that the homebuyer could not be treated as a defaulter in the absence of a valid agreement and in light of the admitted double booking, MahaRERA directed the developer to refund the amount paid by the complainant within 60 days, excluding statutory charges such as taxes and registration fees. MahaRERA ultimately allowed all six complaints. It confirmed the termination of registered agreements for sale in the five cases involving persistent payment defaults by homebuyers and ordered refund in the sixth case arising out of double booking, while making no order as to costs.

Appearance

For Developers: Advocate Rupesh Geete; Advocate Gayatri Tikale

For Homebuyers: Advocate Gulnaz Khan for some allottees

Cause Title: Sunteck Realty Limited & Ors. v. Sapna Arjun Solanki & Ors. (and connected matters)

Case No: CC006000000395937, CC006000000395940, CC006000000395941, CC006000000395938, CC006000000395939, CC006000000197341

Coram: Chairperson Manoj Saunik