MUMBAI, 27th April 2026 – In a significant ruling reinforcing homebuyers’ rights, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT), Mumbai, today dismissed all appeals filed by the promoter, CCI Projects Private Limited, against over 40 allottees of the “Wintergreen” project in Borivali, Mumbai. The Tribunal upheld the absolute right of homebuyers to claim interest for delayed possession under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016, even if payments were made after the contractual deadline.
The landmark Judgment was delivered in Appeal Nos. AT006-53079 to 53179 of 2021. The matter was argued at length on behalf of the Respondents/Allottees, Mr. Rajesh Joshi and Ms. Surali Joshi, by Advocate Aditya Pratap, Founder of M/s Aditya Pratap Law Offices. Advocate Aditya Pratap argued the case for the Respondents, marking the fourth instance where his submissions were critical to the outcome.
Background of the 8-Year Dispute:
The legal battle began after the promoter failed to deliver possession of six flats (Nos. 26A to 26F) in the “Wintergreen” project, part of the larger “Rivali Park” layout on the Western Express Highway, Borivali (East), Mumbai. The allottees had booked the flats in October 2011, executed registered sale agreements on 9th August 2012, and made substantial payments totalling over Rs. 8.84 crores.
The contractual date of possession as per the sale agreement was February 2016. However, the promoter repeatedly and unilaterally shifted the possession date — first to March 2018, then to December 2019 and finally to December 2020 — without the written consent of the buyers.
Chronology of Legal Proceedings:
First Complaint (2019): Aggrieved by the inordinate delay, the allottees filed their first complaint before the Hon’ble MahaRERA in April 2018 (Complaint No. CC00600000044118). On 17th October 2018, Hon’ble MahaRERA directed the promoter to hand over possession by 30th June 2019, while expressly granting liberty to the allottees to claim interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act at an appropriate stage.
Second Complaint (Post – June 2019): When the promoter failed to meet the extended deadline of 30th June 2019, the allottees filed a second complaint (Complaint No. CC00600000010485) seeking interest for the delayed possession.
Hon’ble MahaRERA’s Order (2nd December 2020): The Ld. Adjudicating Officer, MahaRERA, ruled in favour of the allottees, directing the promoter to pay simple interest at 9% per annum from 1st September 2016 (six months after the contractual date of February 2016) until the actual date of possession, along with costs and penalty.
Promoter’s Appeal before MahaREAT (31st July 2021):
Aggrieved, the promoter filed the present appeals. Possession was finally taken by the allottees only on 14th May 2021, over five years after the contractual deadline.
Final Judgment (27th April 2026): After an 8-year long legal battle from the original agreement in 2012 and nearly 5 years of litigation before Hon’ble MahaRERA and Hon’ble MahaREAT, the Hon’ble MahaREAT dismissed all promoter appeals, upholding the homebuyers’ right to claim interest for delayed Possession.
Key Issues Decided by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal addressed four key issues raised by the promoter and answered all in the negative, against the builder:
1. Whether claims were barred by Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act (Waiver/Acquiescence): No, the Appellate Tribunal held that continuing payments after the promoter’s unilateral revision of dates does not amount to waiver.
2. Whether MahaRERA lacked jurisdiction due to arbitration clauses: No, The Hon’ble MahaRERA’s jurisdiction prevails over any arbitration clause.
3. Whether signing possession letters/undertakings relinquished claims: No, the Standard-form documents prepared by the promoter do not bind allottees or extinguish their statutory rights.
4. Whether the impugned order warranted interference: No.
Key Holdings of the Tribunal:
1. No Waiver by Allottees: The right to claim interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act is indefeasible and cannot be defeated without the allottee’s express written consent. Advocate Aditya Pratap successfully argued that his clients, the Joshi’s, had expressly rejected the revised dates as early as 08th May 2015. The relevant Extract from the Judgment dated 27th April 2026 is mentioned herein below:
“27. In our opinion, the allottees are neither required nor expected to record that they accepted revised dates of possession without prejudice to their rights to claim interest as the same is expressly and statutorily provided under Section 18 itself.
34. The allottees can be held responsible only if they failed to discharge their obligations as- per agreements for sale. If the allottees are not responsible for delay, they are entitled to get reliefs under Section 18 of RERA Act, 2016 and cannot be saddled with the consequences for delay in completing the project.”
2. Promoter’s Defences Rejected: Defences including change in development norms, lender Indiabulls’ default, sand scarcity, and the COVID-19 pandemic were all rejected. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s Newtech Promoter and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v/s State of Uttar Pradesh [2021 SCC Online 1044], holding that the promoter cannot escape liability for delay on such grounds. The Tribunal noted that the contractual possession date of February 2016 was far prior to the pandemic. The relevant Extract from the Judgment dated 27th April 2026 is mentioned herein below:
“28. Therefore, we are of the view that this conduct of the allottees does not amount to their acquiescence. When the statute imposes strict duty for completing the project as per timelines and speaks about the consequences of delay, consent of allottees for condoning delay must be unequivocal, express and it must be in writing……….The acts of allottees in bona fide making payments towards consideration value even after the promised dates of possession cannot be construed to be an abandonment, waiver or acquiescence of their statutory right to seek interest on delayed possession conferred on the allottees under the proviso to Section 18 (1) (a) of RERA Act, 2016.”
3. RERA Jurisdiction Survives Arbitration Clause: Relying on the Bombay High Court’s ruling in M/s. Rashmi Realty Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mr. Rahul Rajendrakumar Pagariya, the Tribunal reaffirmed that RERA Authority’s jurisdiction is not ousted by an arbitration clause. The relevant Extract from the Judgment dated 27th April 2026 is mentioned herein below:
“36. It means the issue of maintainability whether the jurisdiction of the RERA Act, 2016 is ousted if the agreements between the promoters and allottees contain arbitration clause has been set at rest by the Hon’ble High Court. In the light of ratio and dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under Section 20 of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 is not ousted even if the agreements between the promoter and allottees contain arbitration clause.”
4. Letters of Possession/Undertakings Not Binding: Such documents, being standard-form and prepared by the promoter (the stronger party), do not bind the allottees or extinguish their claims. The relevant Extract from the Judgment dated 27th April 2026 is mentioned herein below:
“40. The promoter holds a real or apparent authority over the allottees. Thus, it can be said that those documents (letters of possession and undertakings) are entered into by the weaker parties, i.e. allottees under pressure of circumstances……… Therefore, we are of the view that though the allottees have signed these documents without protest the same are not binding on the allottees. If all the claims of the allottees are settled as alleged by the promoter, certainly the parties to the appeals would have filed consent terms in the matters. On the contrary promoter as well as respective allottees have contested the appeals. Therefore, for the forgoing reasons we have come to the conclusion that the allottees have not relinquished their claims in favour of promoter as alleged by promoter.”
5. Section 89 of RERA Prevails: The Tribunal held that Section 89 of the RERA Act gives overriding effect to RERA provisions over any inconsistent law, including Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The relevant Extract from the Judgment dated 27th April 2026 is mentioned herein below:
“31. The reasons, which entail us to arrive at an unhesitating conclusion that the claim of allottees is not hit by Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, can be summarized as under:
(k) Section 89 of RERA Act, 2016 stipulates that the provisions of RERA Act, 2016 shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, substantive provisions of Section 18 would prevail over to Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, thus there is no waiver and allottees are well within their right to claim interest.”
Final Order:
a) All appeals filed by the promoter (CCI Projects Pvt. Ltd.) were dismissed.
b) The promoter was directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- to each allottee.
c) The Tribunal further directed the promoter to pay the interest to the Allotees for delayed Possession.
The relevant Extract of the Operative Part from the Judgment dated 27th April 2026 is mentioned herein below:
“Order
1. Appeal Nos. AT006-53079/2021………. AT006-53179/2021 stand dismissed.
2. Promoter shall pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- to each of the allottees.
3. Pending Misc. applications, if any, stand disposed of.”
Advocate Aditya Pratap, appearing for the allottees, Mr. Rajesh Joshi and Ms. Surali Joshi, stated:
“This judgment is a resounding affirmation that homebuyers’ rights under RERA are absolute and cannot be whittled down by one-sided clauses, unilateral date revisions, or coerced undertakings. The Tribunal has correctly held that an 8-year wait for possession – from the 2012 agreement to actual possession in 2021 – entitles the allottee to full statutory interest. The promoter’s every defence, from force majeure to alleged waiver, has been rejected. This will serve as a strong precedent for hundreds of homebuyers trapped in delayed projects across Maharashtra.”
The Judgment was pronounced by the Bench of Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Member-J) and Dr. Rajagopal Devara (Member-A) through Video Conference. Advocate Aditya Pratap, Founder of M/s Aditya Pratap Law Offices, appeared and argued on behalf of the Respondents/Allottees, contributing to the successful outcome for the allottees in this protracted 8-year legal battle.