Flat possession delayed: MahaRERA orders interest

MahaRERA has directed a developer to pay interest to a Pune homebuyer for delayed lawful possession of a flat in Wagholi.

maharera-wagholi-delayed-possession-interest-homebuyer

Authority rejects jurisdiction-change defence and backs buyer’s delay claim

Property Pulse

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has directed a developer to pay interest to a homebuyer after failing to provide lawful possession of a flat within the agreed timeline.

The buyer, Prakash of Pune, had purchased a flat in a project at Wagholi under an agreement for sale dated September 12, 2022. The agreed price was ₹41.85 lakh, of which ₹39.15 lakh had been paid. Possession was scheduled for December 31, 2024, but the project was not completed within the stipulated period.

Builder cites jurisdiction change

The developer attributed the delay to changes involving the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) and Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority (PMRDA). It argued that the change required fresh plans and approvals, affecting the construction schedule.

MahaRERA examined the documents submitted in the case. A government notification dated June 30, 2021, showed that Wagholi had already come under PMC jurisdiction.

The authority also noted that the plan for the project’s C-Wing had been approved in January 2022, several months before the buyer entered into the agreement.

MahaRERA therefore did not accept a general reference to jurisdictional changes as sufficient justification for the delay. It held that obtaining the necessary permissions, approvals and Occupancy Certificate (OC) was the developer’s responsibility.

The authority also observed that approval-related requirements known before the agreement should have been considered when the possession commitment was made.

Interior access not treated as possession

The developer further argued that internal work in the flat had been completed and that the buyer had been given access to carry out interior and furniture work.

MahaRERA rejected this argument, holding that such access could not substitute for lawful possession supported by the required Occupancy Certificate.

The distinction is significant for buyers because a completed interior or access to a unit does not necessarily establish that the project has reached the stage of legally valid possession.