BENGALURU: Rakesh Singh, chairman of the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-Rera), has called on the state government to establish clear guidelines regarding the interpretation of occupancy certificates (OC) and completion certificates (CC), amidst growing concerns among homebuyers over regulatory ambiguity.
In a comprehensive five-page letter, Singh highlighted that inconsistent interpretations of OC and CC across various laws are generating confusion and adversely impacting homebuyers in Bengaluru.
Singh noted the differences in definitions of OC and CC in the RERA Act, the Karnataka Municipal Corporations (KMC) Act, the BBMP Act, and the newly implemented Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) Act.
In his correspondence with chief secretary Shalini Rajneesh, additional chief secretary (urban development) Tushar Girinath, and additional chief secretary to the chief minister Anjum Parvez, Singh pointed out that urban local bodies are interpreting OC and CC provisions inconsistently, resulting in delays, uncertainty, and in some cases, allowing developers to exploit gaps within the law.
“According to the RERA Act, the definitions of completion certificate and occupancy certificate are clear and distinct. However, local laws—including the KMC, BBMP, and GBA Acts—either provide differing definitions or use the terms interchangeably, which adds to the confusion,” Singh stated in an interview with TOI.
While both certificates fundamentally aim to confirm that a project is complete and suitable for occupation, K-Rera emphasized that urban local bodies often adjust their definitions based on administrative convenience. “For instance, the GBA Act-2024 defines an occupancy certificate as proof of completed construction, making it mandatory for securing water and electricity connections. In contrast, older municipal laws often refer to completion certificates in similar situations,” explained a senior GBA official.
Authorities have warned that the current processes for issuing OCs and CCs by local bodies could have significant repercussions for housing projects registered with RERA. According to RERA’s framework, obtaining both CC and OC falls entirely on the promoter. Nevertheless, many local authorities treat the two as synonymous, undermining RERA’s regulatory purpose and affecting its overall implementation across the state.
To resolve the issue, K-Rera has urged the government to clarify which interpretation should be prioritized. Alternatively, it has suggested that all urban local bodies and planning authorities adopt the definitions outlined in the RERA Act.
However, Dhananjaya Padmanabhachar, convener of the Karnataka Home Buyers Forum, argues, “The RERA Act clearly differentiates between an occupancy certificate and a completion certificate. A government notification issued in 2016 explicitly stated that these are not identical. It clarified that a completion certificate must be secured before a promoter transfers common area maintenance to an apartment association. This directive was disseminated to all state governments, yet Karnataka has not acted on it for nearly a decade, which is perplexing.”
He further emphasized, “The issue lies not with the law but with the state’s inaction on central directives. The protection of homebuyers has not been a priority—government entities continuously favor promoters, disregarding buyers’ rights, even when the Centre’s stance is clear.”
He cited an example from his own community, stating, “Promoters handed over maintenance based on partial certificates for one block while construction continued in others, leading to residents covering costs for power consumed in ongoing construction. After a fire incident in 2024, we were informed that RERA had no jurisdiction as the ‘handover’ had occurred, which is outrageous.”
“Without a completion certificate, the calculation of defect liability cannot commence from any arbitrary handover date. Buyers are losing their statutory five-year protection as authorities mistakenly treat OC as the final completion. This interpretation is fundamentally flawed and grossly unfair to homebuyers,” Padmanabhachar added.
