Sohan Realty Cannot Deny Homebuyer Rights Over Payments to Previous Developer: Karnataka RERA

The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) has directed Sohan Realty, which took over the Bengaluru residential project now known as Sohan Skypark, to recognise homebuyer Vijaya Shanthi Kanuru as the lawful allottee of Flat No. B-302.

It also directed the developer to grant her access and possession of the apartment.

The order was passed by Chairman Rakesh Singh and Member G.R. Reddy.

“Section 19(1) of the Act confers upon every allottee the right to possession and peaceful enjoyment of the apartment, while Section 11(4)(a) mandates the promoter to honour obligations arising from agreements and representations. Once M/s Sohan Realty has stepped in as promoter under Section 8, it cannot refuse access nor shift responsibility onto the outgoing promoter,” the Authority observed.

The dispute concerned Flat No. B-302 in the project presently known as Sohan Skypark. The project was earlier known as Manyam Skypark.

Kanuru approached K-RERA seeking enforcement of her claimed allottee rights and access to the apartment. She contended that she had purchased the flat under an Agreement for Sale and a Construction Agreement dated July 10, 2020. She also stated that she remained liable under an SBI housing loan obtained for the purchase.

According to Kanuru, Sohan Realty denied her access to the flat after taking over the project. She relied on the sale and construction agreements and the lender's recognition of her allotment.

Sohan Realty disputed the claim. It maintained that it had not received any payment from Kanuru and that any claim arising from the transaction had to be pursued against the previous promoter.

In support of her case, Kanuru relied on the Agreement for Sale, Construction Agreement, a No Objection Certificate issued by Capri Global Capital Ltd. and photographs. Sohan Realty, in turn, placed on record various applications, undertakings, affidavits, consent letters, authorisation documents and statements relating to apartment allocations in the project.

While examining the dispute, K-RERA referred to its earlier order of January 12, 2026 concerning the same project. By that order, the Authority had approved the takeover of the project and declared Sohan Realty to be the promoter for all purposes under the Act. It noted that the order had attained finality and was binding on all parties.

K-RERA further noted that its earlier order had already clarified that auction proceedings under the SARFAESI Act do not extinguish allottee rights. It also held that existing agreements, payments and registered documents continue to bind the incoming promoter. Denial of access to eligible allottees was also held to be impermissible.

The Authority held that Sohan Realty's contention that the homebuyer must pursue the erstwhile promoter was legally untenable. It found the stand contrary to the binding takeover order.

“The contention of the Incoming Promoter that the complainants must pursue the erstwhile promoter is legally untenable, contrary to the Act, and directly violative of the binding Section 8 order passed by this Authority,” it observed.

K-RERA found that Kanuru had prima facie established payment of consideration. It also noted recognition of her allotment by the lender, continued financial liability through the SBI loan and a bona fide entitlement to access and possession.

Referring to an earlier K-RERA decision, the Authority reiterated that liabilities towards allottees must be protected when a project is transferred to a new entity. It observed that the incoming promoter steps into the shoes of the earlier promoter with all corresponding obligations.

The Authority concluded that Kanuru was the lawful allottee of Flat No. B-302. It held that her rights survived the change of promoter. K-RERA further found that Sohan Realty was bound to recognise her ownership and permit access to the apartment.

Accordingly, K-RERA directed Sohan Realty to recognise Kanuru as the lawful allottee of the flat and grant her access and possession. It also directed the developer not to raise any demand or dispute regarding payments already made to the outgoing promoter except in accordance with the original agreement.

The Authority warned that non-compliance would attract penal action under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It further held that any failure to comply would amount to wilful disobedience of its January 12, 2026 takeover order.

For Respondents (Sohan Realty and Abhishek C.): Advocate Srinivas P. Rao.