Homebuyer Cannot Seek Mental Agony Rent Claims After Declining Possession: Tamil Nadu REAT

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 22 July held that a homebuyer who failed to proceed with registration and take possession after the developer offered the apartment could not claim compensation for mental agony, rent and misleading advertisements.

A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy and Judicial Member K. Babut partly allowed an appeal filed by Jerry Fuller against Casa Grande Grace Private Limited, while awarding him Rs. 3 lakh for delayed possession and Rs. 50,000 towards litigation expenses. It observed:

“The appellant/complainant finding fault with the respondent/promoter, avoided the registration. In such circumstances, the claim made by the appellant/complainant that he is entitled for the compensation under various heads is not sustainable and the respondent/promoter carried out the construction as per the brochure, the approved plan and the Construction Agreement. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant is not sustainable.”

Fuller had booked Flat No. A303 in Casa Grande's “Casagrand Supremus” project at Thalambur Village, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, after visiting the project on 18 February 2017 and paying Rs. 1 lakh as booking advance for a three-bedroom apartment priced at Rs. 44.87 lakh.

The construction and sale agreements were executed on 13 June 2018, with the apartment scheduled for completion by April 2020. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) subsequently granted a six-month extension through circulars dated 6 April and 22 May 2020, extending the effective completion deadline to October 2020.

Casa Grande informed Fuller through an email dated 22 September 2021 that the apartment was ready and asked him to complete the formalities required for taking possession. Fuller thereafter alleged that the common washbasin and its accessories had not been restored, the washbasin was cracked and damaged, other snag points remained unresolved, and the modification works for which he had paid Rs. 92,750 were incomplete.

He also claimed that promised amenities, including a gym, swimming pool, sports area and ATM, were not completed. He sought Rs. 12.68 lakh as penal interest for delayed possession, Rs. 12 lakh for mental agony, Rs. 10 lakh for misleading advertisements and Rs. 11 lakh towards reimbursement of rent.

The TNRERA Adjudicating Officer dismissed his complaint on 7 October 2025. Fuller challenged the order under Section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (which provides for an appeal against orders of the Authority or Adjudicating Officer), read with Rule 29(2) of the Tamil Nadu RERA Rules, 2017.

Before the Tribunal, Fuller argued that the reasons cited by Casa Grande, including the Covid-19 pandemic and shortage of water, sand, labour and construction materials, did not justify the delay. He also relied on compensation awarded to other buyers in the same project.

Casa Grande contended that it had completed the apartment, informed Fuller on 22 September 2021 and later confirmed on 14 May 2022 that the modification works had been completed. It argued that Fuller continued raising objections, declined registration and sought details regarding cancellation of the allotment.

The Tribunal found that Casa Grande had not completed or offered possession of the apartment within the extended October 2020 deadline. It rejected the Adjudicating Officer's view that practical difficulties in restarting construction justified the delay, holding that the developer remained responsible for completing the apartment within the contractual and extended timelines. It therefore held Casa Grande liable to pay Rs. 3 lakh for delayed possession, in line with compensation awarded to other allottees in the project.

However, the Bench held that Fuller's subsequent conduct disentitled him from claiming compensation under other heads. It noted that emails showed that Fuller raised snag issues on 26 September 2021, was informed on 14 May 2022 that the modification works were complete, and stated on 22 June 2022 that he was not interested in registering the apartment at that stage. On the same day, he also sought details regarding cancellation of the unit.

Accordingly, the REAT partly allowed the appeal, awarded Fuller Rs. 3 lakh for delayed possession and Rs. 50,000 as litigation expenses, while rejecting his claims for mental agony, rent reimbursement and compensation for misleading advertisements. It also dismissed his application seeking to introduce additional documents at the appellate stage.

Appearances for appellant (Jerry Fuller V.): Advocate Akshayaa Benjamin.

Appearances for respondent (M/s Casa Grande Grace Private Limited): Advocate O.L.V. Ganesan.