Project Completion Extension Does Not Dilute Homebuyers’ Right To Interest For Delayed Possession: MahaRERA
Pranav B Prem
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has clarified that homebuyers are entitled to claim interest for delayed possession once the possession date promised under their individual agreements for sale has expired, even if the regulator has extended the overall project completion timeline. The authority held that such extensions granted to the project do not dilute or override the contractual rights of allottees arising from their agreements.
The ruling was delivered in an order dated December 26, 2025, by a coram of Chairperson Manoj Saunik, while deciding a batch of 27 complaints filed against KBC Global Limited, formerly known as Karda Constructions, in relation to the MahaRERA-registered “Hari Vasant” housing project at Nashik.
The complaints were instituted by homebuyers who had entered into registered agreements for sale with the developer. As per these agreements, possession of the flats was promised between December 2020 and June 2022. Despite the passage of the agreed timelines, the project has not received an Occupation Certificate, and possession has not been handed over. The homebuyers contended that they had complied with their payment obligations and that the delay automatically triggered their statutory right to interest under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
The complainants also pointed out that the developer had created a charge of about ₹23 crore in favour of Capri Global Capital Limited without proper disclosure in the agreements for sale. They sought interest for delayed possession, compensation for mental agony and financial loss, and directions for time-bound completion and handover of possession.
Opposing the complaints, the developer relied on an interim order passed by a civil court directing the parties to maintain status quo in a pending suit before a Nashik court. It was also alleged that several agreements for sale were executed using a special power of attorney that had been revoked, rendering such agreements invalid. The developer further contended that some of the complainants were defaulters in making stage-wise payments and that one of the complaints had already been settled.
MahaRERA rejected the allegations of fraud and misuse of power of attorney, observing that they were not supported by any cogent material on record. On a prima facie examination of the agreements for sale, the authority found that they demonstrated direct execution by the respondent promoter. The plea that MahaRERA lacked jurisdiction was also turned down, with the authority noting that the agreements clearly established the relationship of promoter and allottee under the Act.
At the same time, MahaRERA took serious note of the undisclosed encumbrance created in favour of Capri Global Capital Limited. The authority also considered the effect of the interim injunction dated January 10, 2025, passed by the civil court directing maintenance of status quo. Holding that the injunction restrained further progress of the project beyond the control of the promoter, MahaRERA treated this period as one falling within force majeure and ruled that no interest would be payable during the subsistence of the status quo order.
Clarifying the scope of Section 18 of the RERA Act, the authority observed that the provision is absolute in nature and becomes operative only after the expiry of the agreed possession date. It categorically held, “Section 18 is an absolute provision. It is clear that remedy under the section 18 is available to the allottees only after the promised date of possession/completion is expired and not before”
On facts, MahaRERA found that two complaints could not be adjudicated on merits as the concerned complainants had failed to place complete agreements for sale on record, making it impossible to ascertain the agreed possession dates. Those complaints were therefore dismissed. The remaining complaints were allowed after the authority found that the developer had failed to hand over possession along with an Occupation Certificate within the agreed timelines.
Accordingly, MahaRERA directed the builder to pay interest on the amounts paid by the successful allottees, excluding statutory charges such as stamp duty and registration fees, for the period commencing from July 1, 2022 until January 9, 2025. The authority further directed that interest would again become payable from the date on which the status quo order is vacated until actual handover of possession with an Occupation Certificate. It was also ordered that the interest payable be adjusted against any outstanding dues, and the allottees were granted liberty to approach the Adjudicating Officer for determination and computation of compensation. The batch of complaints was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
Appearance
For complainants: Advocate Durgaprasad Halwai for complainants
Cause Title: Mahesh Ramesh Bansod & Ors. v. KBC Global Limited & Ors.
Case No: CC001000000050298 and batch of connected complaints
Coram: Chairperson Manoj Saunik
