Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Jaipur: In a complaint filed under Section 31, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, for delayed possession of a residential unit in the project Surya Residency developed by Ravi Surya Affordable Homes Pvt. Ltd., the Single Bench of Veenu Gupta, Chairperson, held that although the complainant-allottee had defaulted in clearing certain outstanding dues under the agreement for sale, the respondent cannot escape liability for the delay in handing over possession after the expiry of the committed possession date.
The Court observed that,
“While the complainant cannot avoid compliance of his contractual payment obligations, he equally cannot be deprived of compensation for the period during which lawful possession of the subject unit remained unavailable.”
Background
The complainant along with co-allottee Ms Nilam Rani, had booked Flat No. C-510 (property) in the project and executed an agreement for sale (agreement) on 24 March 2018, for a total sale consideration of ₹ 13,82,000. As per the agreement, possession was to be handed over by 30 November 2021. Meanwhile, after dissolution of marriage between the complainant and co-allottee in 2025, no-objection certificate (NOC) was executed by the co-allottee relinquishing her rights from the property in favour of the complainant.
The complainant alleged that despite substantial delay in completion of the project, the promoter failed to hand over possession and further refused to issue the developer’s NOC required by financer and threatened to cancel allotment in case of non-payment of outstanding dues. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant approached this authority seeking possession along with delay interest and consequential reliefs.
Analysis and decision
The authority observed that although the respondent admitted delay in completion of the project, the same was sought to be justified on the grounds of force majeure circumstances and payment defaults on the part of the complainant. It was further observed against the total sale consideration of ₹ 13,82,000, complainant had made part payment of only ₹ 7,56,602. Referring to Clause 9.3(i) of the agreement, the authority observed that the allottee was obligated to make timely payments as per the agreed payment plan and that any default, despite notice, attracted consequences including liability to pay interest on the outstanding dues.
The authority noted the proviso to Clause 9.2 of the agreement which contemplates where the allottee does not seek withdrawal from the project or termination of agreement, he is entitled to interest for the delayed period till handing over of possession. The authority noted that the complainant has throughout sought possession of the property and that no cancellation has been effected by the respondent till date, consequently,
“While the complainant cannot avoid compliance of his contractual payment obligations, he equally cannot be deprived of compensation for the period during which lawful possession of the subject unit remained unavailable.”
The authority opined that the ends of justice would be met by directing the complainant to clear outstanding dues according to the agreement and directing the respondent to hand over the possession of the property along with delayed possession interest at the prescribed rate.
Accordingly, the authority directed the complainant to deposit the outstanding balance amount payable under the agreement. The respondent was directed to hand over physical possession of the property upon clearance of dues and further directed to issue the necessary developer’s NOC and cooperate in registration and related formalities. The authority additionally awarded delayed possession interest at the rate of 10.80 per cent per annum from committed date of possession, i.e. 30 November 2021, till the date of issuance of occupancy certificate, i.e. 9 April 2025, by the respondent.
The authority further directed that the amount of delayed possession interest payable to the complainant shall be adjusted against the outstanding dues payable to the promoter, and any remaining excess or deficit amount shall thereafter be paid by the respective party.
[Ramswaroop Swami v. Ravi Surya Affordable Homes (P) Ltd., RAJ-RERA-C-N-2025-8982, decided on 18-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Ashish Guwalani, Adv
For the respondent: Hardik Mishra, Adv
