Dark Mode
Image
Logo
Project Registration Cannot Be Extended Beyond One Year Under Section 6, Clarifies WBREAT

Project Registration Cannot Be Extended Beyond One Year Under Section 6, Clarifies WBREAT

Pranav B Prem


The West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (WBREAT), comprising Justice Rabindranath Samanta (Chairperson) and Dr. Subrat Mukherjee (Administrative Member), has held that the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulatory Authority exceeded its statutory power by granting a project registration extension beyond the one-year limit prescribed under Section 6 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). The Tribunal clarified that while force majeure extensions under Section 6 are open-ended, all other extensions cannot exceed one year under the statutory framework.

 

Also Read: Haryana RERA Orders Neo Developers to Pay ₹26,000 Monthly Assured Returns and Execute Conveyance Deed In Favour Of Homebuyer

 

The dispute concerns the real estate project “Essense,” developed by Respondent No. 1, which originally obtained registration valid from September 6, 2019, to June 30, 2024. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Regulatory Authority granted an extension of nine months, valid until March 30, 2025. The developer later sought—and was granted—another extension until December 31, 2026. A homebuyer/allottee who had booked a flat in the project for ₹74,64,164 challenged this extended timeline, contending that the Authority acted beyond the scope of its powers under Section 6.

 

According to the appellant, the extension severely prejudiced his rights as he had already paid ₹58,06,744 and was contractually entitled to possession by June 30, 2024. He argued that the Authority passed the order dated January 31, 2025 without granting him an opportunity of hearing, and that the extension contradicted the statutory limit imposed by Section 6. The developer, however, justified the request for additional extension by pointing to a stop-work order issued by the Howrah Municipal Corporation and subsequent proceedings before the Supreme Court.

 

Also Read: West Bengal REAT Clarifies SBI MCLR To Be Applied For Calculating Interest On Delayed Refunds Under RERA

 

The Tribunal first examined whether the homebuyer had the locus standi to challenge the Authority’s order. Referring to Section 44(1) of the RERA Act, it held that any “person aggrieved” by the decision of the Authority may approach the Appellate Tribunal. Since the extended registration directly impacted the allottee’s right to timely delivery of possession, the Tribunal concluded that he qualified as an aggrieved person.

 

Turning to the core statutory issue, the Tribunal analysed Section 6 of the RERA Act in detail. It noted that the provision contains two distinct limbs: (i) extensions on account of force majeure, and (ii) extensions in “reasonable circumstances” subject to a maximum period of one year. The Tribunal held that the Authority erred in granting an extension until December 31, 2026, as it exceeded the statutorily permissible limit of one year for non-force-majeure circumstances. While the pandemic justified the initial nine-month extension, the subsequent extension was based not on force majeure but on ancillary circumstances relating to local administrative orders. Such an extension, the Tribunal held, could not legally exceed one year.

 

The WBREAT also noted that although the builder had cited difficulties arising from municipal restrictions and interim directions of higher courts, these factors could qualify as “reasonable circumstances” but still fell within the statutory one-year cap. Accordingly, the Tribunal modified the extension, holding that the project registration could be extended only until March 30, 2026, not December 31, 2026.

 

Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Against Piramal Estate; Holds Builder Not Liable For Delay In Homebuyer’s Loan Approval

 

On the issue of compensation sought by the homebuyer, the Tribunal held that such claims could not be adjudicated in the present appeal. It clarified that the allottee is at liberty to invoke Section 31 of the RERA Act before the appropriate forum to seek refund, interest, or compensation for delayed possession. The appeal was allowed in part, reinforcing the statutory ceiling on RERA project registration extensions and emphasizing that regulatory bodies must operate strictly within the boundaries of Section 6.

 

 

Cause Title: Suman Bhaumik Versus Periwal Constructions L.L.P. & Anr

Case No: WBREAT/Appeal No. 010/2025

Coram: Justice Rabindranath Samanta (Chairperson)Dr. Subrat Mukherjee (Administrative Member)

Comment / Reply From

Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!