MahaREAT Upholds Homebuyers' Rights in Borivali Delayed Possession Case
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has delivered a significant victory to homebuyers in the prolonged dispute over delayed possession in the Borivali (East) area. On April 27, the tribunal dismissed a batch of appeals filed by CCI Projects Pvt Ltd, upholding the right of over 40 homebuyers to claim interest for the delay under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
In its judgment, the tribunal rejected appeals (AT006-53079 to 53179 of 2021) linked to the “Wintergreen” project, part of the Rivali Park development along the Western Express Highway. The ruling emphasized that homebuyers have an absolute statutory right under Section 18 of RERA to seek interest, even if their payments were delayed.
The dispute dates back to 2012 when flats were booked with a promised possession deadline of February 2016. The developer, CCI Projects Pvt Ltd, revised the timelines multiple times—to 2018, 2019, and 2020—without obtaining written consent from the buyers. Possession was eventually granted in May 2021, over five years late.
Homebuyers first approached MahaRERA in 2018, which directed the project to be completed by June 2019 while allowing separate interest claims. Despite this, the developer continued to delay the project, leading to a December 2020 order directing the developer to pay 9% annual interest from September 2016 until possession. This order was later challenged by CCI Projects Pvt Ltd.
The tribunal firmly held that continued payments by homebuyers do not amount to a waiver of their rights and that RERA protections override any conflicting contractual clauses. It also ruled that arbitration clauses cannot limit RERA’s jurisdiction. The bench rejected the developer’s reliance on external factors such as regulatory changes, financial constraints, material shortages, and the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that the original deadline predated the pandemic.
Furthermore, the tribunal clarified that possession letters or undertakings signed by buyers do not extinguish their claims, especially under unequal bargaining conditions. The bench reaffirmed that RERA overrides conflicting laws, including the Indian Contract Act, and directed the promoter to pay Rs 5,000 as costs to each allottee and comply with earlier orders on interest.
The judgment was delivered by Shriram R Jagtap (Member-J) and Dr Rajagopal Devara (Member-A). Advocate Aditya Pratap, representing the allottees, commented, “The ruling strengthens homebuyers’ rights and upholds the welfare intent of Section 18 of RERA over technical defences used by developers.”
This decision is seen as a significant win for homebuyers, reinforcing the protections provided by RERA and setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.
