Homebuyers Lose MahaRERA Case for Delay Compensation After Accepting Possession Without Protest

When the Savla family purchased an Mumbai apartment for Rs 1.05 crore by signing a sale agreement on February 25, 2022, the builder promised to give possession of the apartment by June 30, 2022.

However, the possession of this apartment was given by the builder on March 15, 2025, after a prolonged delay of more than two years. Despite this prolonged delay, the homebuyers did not get any interest compensation as MahaRERA authority held that the Salva family had accepted the apartment without raising any protest.

It's also important to mention that the Salva family had made partial payments even before signing the Agreement for Sale and continued making payments thereafter. They even made a payment on March 10, 2025, just days before taking possession, but the builder allegedly failed to provide receipts for those payments. Although they received physical possession on March 15, 2025, the builder never issued a formal possession letter till date.

The Salva family also claimed that the builder did not provide all the common amenities as promised in the agreement for sale and due to the delay in possession, they suffered hardship, mental agony and financial losses. This is why they filed a case with MahaRERA seeking compensation for the lengthy delay in possession.

The Salva family requested interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amounts they paid for the flat, from the respective dates of payments till March 15, 2025, that is the date they received possession, totalling Rs 50.6 lakh.

The builder argued that the Salva family were aware of the construction status at the time of purchase and had been informed that the possession timeline was subject to statutory approvals and other factors beyond his control. The builder's lawyers pointed to clause 25 of the agreement for sale, which allowed for an extension of time in case of delays due to approvals, force majeure events or circumstances beyond their control.

The builder's lawyer also pointed out to MahaRERA authority that since the Salva family accepted possession and didn't settle their outstanding dues, they can't ask for interest or compensation for delay.

The builder's lawyer said: "That the claim of the complainants (Salva family) for interest up to 15.03.2025 is untenable as the complainants were already in beneficial occupation of the flat."

On July 2, 2026, the Salva family lost the case in MahaRERA as the authority refused to grant any interest compensation for this possession delay (COMPLAINT NO.: CC12504320).

Advocate Maulik K Tanna appeared for Salva family and Advocate Jill Raychana appeared for the builder.

Avikshit Moral, partner, S&R Associates, said to ET Wealth Online: The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has held that any grievance arising under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, must be raised prior to the date of completion of the project, and not at any future date that may be unilaterally chosen by a homebuyer.

According to Moral, the MahaRERA Authority further observed that, while Section 18 does not prescribe an express period of limitation, the provision contains an inbuilt limitation period by virtue of its operative language. Accordingly, the Authority concluded that all grievances pertaining to delay in handing over possession must be preferred before the date of completion of the project as specified therein.

Moral says that on the basis of the aforementioned order, the MahaRERA Authority has adopted the view that all proceedings pertaining to delayed completion of a project, instituted under Section 18, ought to be initiated prior to the stipulated date of completion.

Moral says that it is pertinent to note that in relatively similar circumstances, both the Appellate Authority and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court have taken a divergent view on the question of limitation for seeking redress under Section 18.

Moral says: "Be that as it may, the underlying takeaway for homebuyers remains clear: in the event of any delay in the handing over of possession, it is imperative that they act in time and proceed with due diligence and also seek competent legal advice at the earliest opportunity."

A summary of the judgement is as follows:

Homebuyer did not raise any protest or reservation and did not seek issuance of a formal possession letter at the time of taking possession.

The MahaRERA authority said that while Section 18 of the RERA Act (Real Estate Regulatory Authority) does not specify a limitation period, the Section has an inbuilt limitation as it does not provide for raising and addressing grievances which are known today, in the future.

Hence, MahaRERA Authority said that they are constrained to rule that any grievance of delayed possession must be raised before the date of completion of the project and not on any future date chosen by the allottees (homebuyers).

MahaRERA authority said: "Any grievance raised later on account of delayed possession would clearly be estopped by Section 18."

MahaRERA authority said that the long delay in possession cannot be attributable to the builder as it obtained the occupation certificate on February 27, 2025 and thereafter handed over the possession to the Salva family.

MahaRERA said: "It is further noted that the complainant (Salva family) accepted physical possession of the said flat on March 15, 2025 without raising any protest or reservation and did not seek issuance of a formal possession letter at the time of taking possession."

The Salva family thereafter filed a complaint before MahaRERA on December 6, 2025, i.e. after a lapse of approximately 10 months, claiming interest on alleged delay in possession.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, MahaRERA authority said the Salva family's claim appears to be an afterthought, and thus they are not entitled to the reliefs sought under Section 18. Accordingly, the complaint is not maintainable.

The MahaRERA authority observed from the records that on January 15, 2024, the builder had offered a soft possession of the apartment to the Salva family which was duly signed and acknowledged by them and this was done much before the occupation certificate was issued on February 27, 2025.

The MahaRERA authority said that though the Salva family (homebuyers) alleged that the builder has failed to provide common amenities as per the terms of the agreement for sale, they failed to place on record any photographs or any other document or evidence to substantiate these claims.

On these grounds, MahaRERA denied any compensation for possession delay to the homebuyer (Salva family).