WhatsApp Chats, EMI Records Insufficient To Prove Full Flat Payment; Assam RERA Refuses Relief To Homebuyer

The Assam Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) recently declined to immediately direct execution of a sale deed in a homebuyer dispute, holding that WhatsApp chats, loan approval documents, and EMI records were not enough to establish full and final payment for a flat without proper receipts or authenticated bank statements.

Chairman Paban Kr. Borthakur observed, "However, upon careful consideration, it is observed that the material produced by the complainant does not present a clear and cogent account of the payments allegedly made. The WhatsApp communications, though voluminous, do not conclusively establish the amounts paid on specific dates and, instead, create ambiguity in the absence of a structured and verifiable statement of payments."

The dispute stems from an Agreement for Sale dated November 4, 2015, under which Mani Pranjal Saikia agreed to purchase a 1332 sq. ft. flat along with one car parking space in the “Aradhya Apartment” project for ₹25 lakh.

According to Saikia, he later paid another ₹2.5 lakh, taking the total amount paid to ₹27.5 lakh. Despite this, he alleged that the developer neither executed the sale deed nor handed over possession, even though construction had been completed.

The project was developed by late builder Tridib Datta, proprietor of Aradhya Builders and Developers, who died in January 2021. Following his death, his legal heir Mampi Gogoi took over the project.

Aradhya Builders and Developers contested the claim that full payment had been made. Its case was that Saikia had sought to exchange the originally booked flat for another unit, though the documents relating to that exchange could no longer be traced.

Saikia moved the Real Estate Regulatory Authority under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Authority also noted that a notice had separately been issued to the promoter on February 6, 2025 for non-registration of the project.

To support his case, Saikia relied on HDFC Bank loan approval documents for ₹20 lakh, EMI and interest payment records, and WhatsApp conversations with the developer, claiming these showed payments had been made through bank transfers.

The developer, however, denied having received full and final payment. At the same time, it did not place on record a clear statement showing exactly how much had been received and what, if anything, remained outstanding from Saikia.

The Authority noted that no authenticated bank certificate or statement had been produced to show the total amount disbursed and paid to the developer. In its view, the WhatsApp chats and accompanying material only added ambiguity instead of conclusively proving the complainant's claim.

It also found fault with the developer for failing to clearly account for payments received and the alleged balance dues.

Another issue flagged by the Authority was the absence of any material showing that an Occupancy Certificate had been issued for the project.

"It is also observed that there is no material on record indicating that an Occupancy Certificate has been issued by the competent authority, notwithstanding the claim that construction of the unit stands completed", it said.

Even so, the Authority gave the complainant a month to produce complete documentary proof of payments, backed by a Chartered Accountant's certificate specifying the dates, amounts and mode of payment.

Having found that Saikia failed to substantiate full payment, the Authority imposed ₹25 thousand as litigation costs on him, subject to adjustment against the earlier adjournment costs of the same amount imposed on the developer.

The developer was then directed to issue its own Chartered Accountant-certified statement of account, following which the complainant would have to clear any outstanding dues.

Pending compliance with these directions, the Authority restrained the developer from transferring the disputed flat to any third party.

Both sides were also given liberty to approach the Authority again under Section 31 if issues arose during the payment reconciliation process.

For Complainant (Mani Pranjal Saikia): Advocates Debashis Nandi, Burhan Uddin Laskar.

For Respondent (Aradhya Builders and Developers): Advocates P.K. Sharma, A. Borpuzari, N.D. Sarma.