MahaREAT Upholds Homebuyers’ Right To Interest, Rejects Waiver And Arbitration Defences

Introduction

Delay in handing over possession remains one of the most persistent issues in the Indian real estate sector. Homebuyers often make substantial financial commitments based on possession timelines promised by developers, and delays result in significant hardship, including continued rent obligations, loan repayments, and blocked investments. To address these concerns, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA Act”) introduced a statutory framework ensuring greater transparency, accountability, and protection for allottees, including the right to claim interest and compensation for delayed possession.

The present common ruling delivered by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (“MahaREAT/Tribunal”) in the appeals filed by CCI Projects Private Limited concerning the “Wintergreen” project at Rivali Park, Borivali, Mumbai, is an important pronouncement on the enforcement of allottee rights under the RERA regime.

The dispute arose after the Promoter failed to hand over possession of flats within the timelines recorded in the agreements for sale. The allottees approached MahaRERA seeking interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act. MahaRERA allowed the complaints and directed payment of interest, which orders were challenged before MahaREAT through 40 appeals.

By its common decision dated 27 April 2026, MahaREAT dismissed all the appeals and upheld the orders passed by MahaRERA. The Tribunal rejected several defences commonly raised in delayed possession disputes, including unilateral extension of possession timelines through letters issued by the Promoter, alleged waiver based on continued payments made by purchasers, exclusion of RERA jurisdiction on account of arbitration clauses, and reliance on possession letters or undertakings executed by allottees to defeat statutory claims under Section 18.

The ruling reaffirms that obligations undertaken by promoters in agreements for sale are binding and that statutory rights conferred upon allottees under the RERA Act cannot be defeated through unilateral communications, contractual clauses, or standard-form undertakings obtained in unequal bargaining circumstances. The Tribunal also clarified that disputes relating to delayed possession and statutory compensation remain within the jurisdiction of MahaRERA and MahaREAT notwithstanding arbitration clauses in agreements for sale.

This article examines the background of the dispute, the issues considered by the Tribunal, the rival submissions advanced by the parties, the reasoning adopted by MahaREAT, and the broader implications of the ruling for homebuyers, developers, and the real estate sector in India.

Parties to the Dispute

The appeals before the MahaREAT were filed by CCI Projects Private Limited, referred to as the “Promoter.” The respondents primarily comprised various flat purchasers/allottees of the “Wintergreen” residential project, collectively referred to as the “Allottees” or homebuyers. In certain appeals, Cable Corporation of India Limited was also impleaded as Respondent No. 2 and referred to as the “Land Owner.”

Genesis of the Dispute

The present series of appeals bearing Appeal Nos. AT006-53079 to 53179 of 2021 was filed by CCI Projects Private Limited before MahaREAT challenging various orders passed by MahaRERA in complaints filed by the allottees.

The dispute related to the “Wintergreen” residential project situated at Rivali Park, Borivali, Mumbai, forming part of a larger township development. The allottees had booked flats in the project and executed agreements for sale with the Promoter, under which the Promoter undertook to hand over possession within specified timelines recorded in the agreements.

The allottees paid substantial amounts towards the purchase consideration of their respective flats. Depending on the terms of the individual agreements, the agreed possession dates ranged from February 2016 to December 2019. However, despite receiving substantial payments, the Promoter failed to hand over possession within the agreed timelines.

Aggrieved by the delay, the allottees filed separate complaints before MahaRERA under Section 18 of the RERA Act seeking interest for delayed possession along with consequential reliefs.

After considering the record and submissions of the parties, MahaRERA passed various orders directing the Promoter to pay interest to the allottees for delayed possession. These orders, including orders dated 13.11.2020, 02.12.2020, 09.12.2020, and various common orders passed between July and November 2020, were challenged before MahaREAT in the present appeals.

As the facts, issues, and reliefs involved in the matters were largely identical, the appeals were heard together and decided through a common decision.

Key Issues for Determination Before the Tribunal

The Tribunal examined the following issues whether:

1. the allottees, by accepting delayed performance and continuing with the agreements, had waived their right to claim interest or compensation under Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872;
2. arbitration clauses in the agreements for sale excluded MahaRERA’s jurisdiction and required disputes under the RERA Act to be referred to arbitration;
3. possession letters or undertakings executed without protest constituted waiver or full and final settlement of the allottees’ statutory claims under the RERA Act;
4. the Tribunal examined whether the orders passed by MahaRERA directing payment of interest for delayed possession warranted interference in appeal.

Submissions and Contentions of the Promoter

The Promoter challenged the orders passed by MahaRERA directing payment of interest to the allottees for delayed possession of flats in the “Wintergreen” project on the following grounds:

Extension of Possession Timelines on Account of Unavoidable Circumstances

The Promoter contended that under the agreements for sale, it was entitled to extension of the possession timelines due to several unavoidable and mitigating circumstances beyond its control. These included changes in Development Control Regulations requiring modification of sanctioned plans, non-disbursal of construction funds by lender Indiabulls, scarcity of sand required for construction activities, and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It was argued that these factors materially affected completion of the project and justified extension of the agreed possession dates.

1. Continued Payments Indicated Acceptance of Revised Timelines

The Promoter submitted that the allottees had been informed from time to time about the revised possession timelines through letters and other communications. It was argued that the allottees neither objected to the revised timelines nor disputed receipt of such communications. Instead, they continued making payments towards the consideration amount, thereby accepting the revised possession dates.

2. Waiver of Right to Claim Interest Under Section 18

Relying on Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Promoter argued that the conduct of the allottees constituted waiver of their right to claim interest or compensation for delayed possession. It was contended that since the allottees accepted delayed performance without protest and continued with the agreements, they were barred from subsequently claiming interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

3. Financial Difficulties and Impact on Project Completion

The Promoter submitted that the project faced severe financial stress due to the liquidity crisis affecting Indiabulls and the NBFC sector, resulting in non-disbursal of sanctioned funds required for construction. Although additional funding had subsequently been obtained under the Government of India’s “Last Mile Funding Scheme” for completion of the project, the Promoter contended that directing payment of interest from such funds would adversely affect completion of the project.

4. Challenge to MahaRERA’s Jurisdiction Based on Arbitration ClausesArbitration Clauses Ousted MahaRERA’s Jurisdiction

The Promoter contended that MahaRERA lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes since the agreements for sale contained arbitration clauses, and therefore the disputes were required to be referred to arbitration.

5. Possession Letters Constituted Full and Final Settlement

The Promoter argued that certain allottees had waived or relinquished their claims by executing possession letters and undertakings unconditionally and without protest while taking possession of their flats. It was contended that such documents constituted full and final settlement of all claims, thereby disentitling the allottees from claiming interest or compensation under the RERA Act.

6. Judicial Precedents Relied Upon by the Promoter

In support of its submissions, the Promoter relied upon various judicial precedents, including CCI Projects Private Limited v. Vrajendra Jogjivandas Thakkar, Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, and Pallab Ghosh v. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd.

Key Findings and Reasoning of the Tribunal

While dismissing the appeals, the Tribunal reaffirmed the following

1. Possession Dates in Agreements Are Binding

While considering the contention under Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Tribunal held that the possession dates recorded in the agreements for sale were mutually agreed and binding contractual commitments. Such dates could not be unilaterally revised or extended by the Promoter through letters or communications issued to the allottees.

The Tribunal observed that any extension of the possession timeline required the consent of the allottees, and in the absence of such consent, revised possession dates could not be imposed upon them.

2. Continued Payments Do Not Constitute Waiver

The Tribunal found no material on record showing that the allottees had consciously or expressly agreed to the revised possession dates proposed by the Promoter.

It was further held that continued payments made by the allottees towards the purchase consideration in accordance with the agreed payment schedules did not amount to waiver of their legal or statutory rights. The Tribunal observed that the allottees were merely performing their contractual obligations under the agreements for sale, and such conduct could not deprive them of their right under the RERA Act to claim interest or compensation for delayed possession.

3. Statutory Right to Interest for Delayed Possession

While examining Section 18 of the RERA Act, the Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and held that the right of an allottee to claim interest for delayed possession is a statutory and enforceable right.

The Tribunal observed that once delay in handing over possession is established, and such delay is not attributable to the allottee, the promoter becomes liable to pay interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act. It was further held that such statutory liability cannot be avoided on the ground of financial difficulties, funding issues, administrative problems, unforeseen events, or stay orders not attributable to the allottees.

4. Waiver Must Be Clear and Voluntary

The Tribunal held that waiver of a legal right cannot be readily presumed and must involve a conscious, intentional, and voluntary relinquishment of a known right.

The Tribunal observed that mere silence on the part of the allottees, or continued payments made under the agreements for sale, did not amount to waiver of their statutory rights under the RERA Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the contention that the allottees had waived their right to claim interest by continuing with the agreements without immediately raising protest.

5. RERA Prevails Over Section 55 of the Contract Act

The Tribunal examined the interplay between Section 18 of the RERA Act and Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The Tribunal held that Section 89 of the RERA Act gives overriding effect to the provisions of the RERA Act over inconsistent provisions contained in other laws. Consequently, the statutory rights conferred upon allottees under Section 18(1)(a) of the RERA Act prevail over Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act.

Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the contention that the allottees’ claims for interest were barred under Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act.

6. Force Majeure Did Not Excuse Delay

The Tribunal examined the force majeure and mitigating circumstances relied upon by the Promoter, including changes in Development Control Regulations, financial difficulties arising from the NBFC crisis, scarcity of sand, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal observed that the COVID-19 pandemic commenced in March 2020, whereas the agreed possession dates had expired much earlier. Therefore, the pandemic could not justify delays that had occurred prior to COVID-19.

The Tribunal further held that irrespective of such mitigating circumstances, where delay in handing over possession is not attributable to the allottees, they possess a clear and enforceable right to claim interest for delayed possession under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

7. A Promoter Cannot Benefit from Its Own Breach

The Tribunal held that the Promoter, being in breach of its contractual obligations, could not take advantage of its own defaults or failures to defeat the claims of the allottees.

The Tribunal observed that a party responsible for delay in handing over possession cannot rely upon its own breach to claim waiver or acquiescence on the part of the allottees.

8. MahaREAT Upholds Allottees’ Right to Interest and Dismisses Promoter’s Appeals

MahaREAT, by its common ruling dated 27 April 2026, dismissed all 40 appeals bearing Appeal Nos. AT006-53079 to AT006-53179 of 2021 filed by CCI Projects Private Limited.

The Tribunal upheld the orders passed by MahaRERA directing payment of interest to the allottees for delayed possession of their flats. The Promoter was also directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- to each allottee, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

Conclusion

The decision of MahaREAT in the appeals filed by CCI Projects Private Limited is an important reaffirmation of the statutory protections available to homebuyers under the RERA Act. The ruling clarifies that possession timelines recorded in agreements for sale are binding and cannot be unilaterally extended by promoters through subsequent communications or undertakings.

The Tribunal reaffirmed that the right of an allottee to claim interest for delayed possession under Section 18 of the RERA Act is a substantive statutory right that cannot be defeated by arbitration clauses, financial difficulties, force majeure grounds unrelated to the allottees, or allegations of waiver based merely on continued payments made by purchasers.

By dismissing all the appeals and upholding the orders passed by MahaRERA, the Tribunal reinforced the principles of accountability, contractual certainty, and consumer protection underlying the RERA framework. The ruling serves as an important precedent in delayed possession disputes involving homebuyers and promoters.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.