Prior Payments Alone Cannot Prove Developer's Continued Obligation To Pay Assured Returns: Punjab RERA

The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority has ruled that although a developer had made payments described as assured returns to a homebuyer, those payments alone could not establish that it was contractually bound to pay a 12% annual return until possession.

Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal observed that the buyer had to establish the contractual basis for the claimed return, including its rate, period, and conditions. Earlier payments could not, by themselves, add such terms to or enlarge the Agreement for Sale.

The Authority observed, “However, the fact that payments were made does not, by itself, establish the precise contractual rate of 12%, the period for which such return was payable, the conditions attached thereto, or that the obligation continued until the date of possession. A payment made pursuant to a commercial understanding is not, by itself, sufficient to rewrite or enlarge the terms of the Agreement for Sale"

The ruling came on a complaint filed by Chinu Goyal against Barnala Builders over a commercial unit in the Maya Garden Magnesia project at Zirakpur.

Goyal booked Unit No. 711 on the seventh floor in May 2017 and paid about ₹24 lakh towards it. The Agreement for Sale was executed on May 11, 2019. The project received a Partial Completion-cum-Occupancy Certificate in June 2021 and a Completion Certificate in March 2022.

Goyal took physical possession on July 20, 2022, before the contractual possession date of September 2022. A Maintenance Agreement was also executed on July 20, 2022.

She claimed that the developer had assured her a 12% annual return on the money deposited towards the unit until possession and had later discontinued the payments.

Goyal also alleged that she was made to sign possession documents before receiving complete possession, that kitchen installation and air-conditioning wiring were missing, and that maintenance charges were sought for a period before possession.

Barnala Builders denied executing any subsequent addendum or supplementary agreement concerning assured returns. It nevertheless relied on cheques issued towards periodic payments described as assured returns. The developer maintained that Goyal had voluntarily taken possession before the contractual due date.

The Authority noted that Goyal had been specifically asked during the proceedings to clarify whether the alleged assured-return arrangement formed part of the Agreement for Sale and explain its legal and contractual basis. It found that no satisfactory documentary clarification had been provided.

While noting the inconsistency in the developer's stand, the Authority held that the payments alone could not establish the precise terms or continuing nature of the alleged arrangement.

It also found no delayed possession. There was insufficient evidence to establish coercion, any contractual entitlement to kitchen installation and air-conditioning wiring, or actual recovery of maintenance charges before possession.

The complaint was disposed of without granting the claimed assured returns or interest, altering the possession date, refunding maintenance charges, or awarding compensation and litigation expenses. The Authority clarified that it had not decided whether any separate assured-return document or collateral arrangement could be enforced before another competent forum

For Complainant (Chinu Goyal): Advocate Sudhir Kumar Pandey.

For Respondent (Barnala Builders): Advocates Jatin Bansal, Yatin Puri.