Consumer Connect: 'Interest For Flat Delays Can Be Claimed Even After Possession,' Says Expert

Q: My friend filed a complaint in MahaRERA for claiming interest for the delayed possession of the flat. However, MahaRERA has dismissed this complaint on the ground that it was filed after receiving the occupancy certificate. The complainant had booked the flat on November 2, 2020, and the promised date of possession was December 31, 2022. The complainant received possession on May 11, 2024, and soon filed a complaint with MahaRERA, claiming interest and compensation. The dismissal order reads: “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. Any grievance raised later on account of delayed possession would clearly be stopped under section 18 of RERA.” Is the dismissal by MahaRERA correct? Is it true that interest for delay has to be claimed by the homebuyers before getting possession? Are the homebuyers prevented from claiming interest for the delay after taking possession of the flat? Can this order be challenged on appeal? — Neha Joshi, Goregaon

Q: This order is patently wrong and is based on a totally incorrect understanding and misinterpretation of section 18 of RERA. The RERA Act nowhere states that interest must be claimed by homebuyers before possession is granted. RERA does not prevent allottees from claiming interest after taking possession. The case can be challenged before the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal (MREAT). Section 18 can be broadly classified into two parts.

First, where the allottee wishes to exit the project because of delay: “The promoter shall be liable, on demand, to the allottees to return the amount received with interest at the prescribed rate, including compensation.” Second, where the allottee prefers to continue despite the delay: “The allottee shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession at such rate as may be prescribed.” In the first case, the allottee must demand interest and compensation. In the second case, the promoter is statutorily obliged to pay interest for every month of delay without any demand from the allottee. The model ‘agreement for sale’ also contains such a clause.

The Supreme Court in “Newtech Promoters & Developers v/s State of UP & others” has categorically observed that the right of the allottees to get interest in case of delay is a statutory right and is unconditional, absolute and unqualified. Hence, MahaRERA cannot put any additional conditions on section 18. Significantly, the RERA Act does not provide any time limit for filing a complaint. It is well settled that when an Act does not prescribe a limitation, the Limitation Act applies, which here gives three years from the date when the cause of action arises.

In “Ashley Neil Serrao v/s Propel Developer”, MREAT overturned MahaRERA’s similar rejection and ordered the developer to pay interest for the delay, even though the complaint was filed after taking possession. MREAT clarified that statutory rights under RERA cannot be waived implicitly. Even the Bombay High Court has, in another case (Pune’s Balewadi project), upheld MREAT’s decision that homebuyers are entitled to interest under section 18 of RERA after taking possession. Since this MahaRERA judgment in your friend’s case is contrary to the settled position of law, it should be seriously challenged before the MREAT.

(Advocate Shirish V Deshpande is chairman, Mumbai Grahak Panchayat. Queries can be sent to him on email: shirish50@yahoo.com)

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/

Published on: Monday, September 22, 2025, 10:20 AM IST