MUMBAI: The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has overturned a prior ruling by MahaRERA that had extended the possession deadline for a Navi Mumbai project. In its updated decision, MREAT underlined that such unapproved extensions from the developers, without the homebuyers’ consent, are illegal.
This case involves homebuyers Neha and Nitin Walavalkar, who have been expecting possession of their flat since December 2017. In a modification of MahaRERA’s February 2024 order, MREAT clarified that the unilateral extension of the possession date had effectively changed the conditions of the original sale agreement, which is not permissible by law. MREAT ordered the developer to start accruing interest for the Walavalkars from January 2018, rather than from January 2021, as previously set by MahaRERA on March 27, 2023.
The ruling also addressed the developer’s plea for a Covid-related “moratorium period,” which was rejected due to the original possession date being established prior to the pandemic, thus the delay could not be attributed to Covid. MREAT critiqued previous comments from MahaRERA as legally unsound, specifically those allowing the developer to argue delays from issues such as overdue statutory approvals and insufficient offsite infrastructure from MMRDA, decisions MREAT found inappropriate for force majeure claims.
The Walavalkars, represented by lawyer Godfrey Pimenta, had purchased a flat in the Clan City-Ruby project at Taloja, agreeing to pay over ₹32 lakh of the total ₹35 lakh contract for the flat with a stipulated possession date of December 31, 2017, which the developer failed to meet. After filing a complaint with MahaRERA, the order from February 2024 extended the possession date to 2020 based on a similar MahaRERA ruling in March 2023. MREAT found this methodology arbitrary, stating it occurred without a thorough evaluation of the respective cases. The tribunal ruled against MahaRERA’s unilateral adjustment of the possession date without the allottees’ agreement.
MREAT also criticized MahaRERA’s stipulation that interest should only commence once the full occupancy certificate (OC) was issued. The tribunal asserted that this directive was inconsistent with the RERA Act, 2016, and thus legally untenable. It dismissed the developer’s argument regarding delays due to MMRDA’s lack of offsite infrastructure as not qualifying as force majeure under Section 6 of the RERA Act.
