Maharashtra REAT Allows Homebuyers To Withdraw Pre-Deposit Over Prolonged Possession Delay, EMI-Rent Burden

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has recently allowed two homebuyers to withdraw amounts deposited by Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. as the mandatory pre-deposit for its appeals, after finding that prolonged possession delays had left them paying both EMIs and rent.

In one case, the project remained incomplete for more than four years. In the other, possession was due by December 31, 2014, while the homebuyer had paid 92.8% of the consideration through an HDFC Bank loan and had been paying EMI and rent for 10 years.

A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Administrative Member Shrikant M. Deshpande observed in the first case:

“The applicant is required to stay in the rented accommodation since there is delay of more than 4 years in completing the said project and handing over possession of the flat. While applicant is paying EMIs the applicant is also required to pay the rental amount for rented accommodation. We are of the view that this has been causing great hardship to the applicant.”

The proceedings arose from a May 8, 2025, order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) on complaints over delayed possession. MahaRERA had directed payment of interest to several homebuyers from their contractual possession dates until possession with an occupancy certificate. It also ordered refunds to two others.

The developer challenged the order before MahaREAT and deposited the amounts required under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The provision requires a promoter appealing against a MahaRERA order to make the prescribed pre-deposit.

Eight homebuyers subsequently sought withdrawal of the amounts deposited in their respective appeals. The developer opposed the applications, arguing that no compelling reasons had been shown for releasing the money before the appeals were finally decided.

MahaREAT rejected six applications and allowed two.

In four rejected applications, the homebuyers relied on the dismissal of their appeals. The tribunal held that they had not shown compelling reasons for release and noted that their interests were protected by the developer's deposit of the entire amount ordered by MahaRERA.

The tribunal described the pre-deposit as “custodia legis”, meaning it remained in the custody of the law, and held that it should not be released during the pending appeal absent exceptional circumstances.

Another application, based on claims of investment of life savings and financial loss, was rejected, as the reasons were considered “generic”.

In the first successful case, MahaREAT found that continued payment of EMI and rent was causing “great hardship”. It rejected the developer's argument that the EMI would have been payable even after possession and allowed withdrawal subject to an undertaking to return the money with interest if the developer succeeded.

In the second, the tribunal similarly found financial hardship arising from the 10-year delay. It allowed withdrawal of ₹12,33,145 and ₹53,99,195, respectively, along with accrued interest, subject to the same undertaking.

For Petitioner (homebuyers): Advocates Ms. Ritika Iyer, Mr. Anil D'Souza, Makarand Raut, Pranav Monani; Suryakant Lavte in person; CA Dilip Agrawal.

For Respondent (Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd.): Advocate Dharam Jumani.