LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Monthly Digest: August 2026

Kerala High Court

RERA Cannot Decide Complaint On Merits Before Numbering, Hearing: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Renney Geo Varghese v. The Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) & Ors.; Sindhu M. Poduval v. The Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) & Ors

Case Number : WP(C) No. 24034 of 2026 & WP(C) No. 24977 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 163

The Kerala High Court has ruled that the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority cannot examine the merits of a complaint while considering it for numbering and reject it as not maintainable without giving the complainant an opportunity of hearing.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. quashed two Kerala RERA orders rejecting complaints filed by Renney Geo Varghese and Sindhu M. Poduval.

The court found that the authority had discussed the merits of the complaints even though they had not been numbered and the complainants had not been heard.

The court observed, “To be precise, the reference of principles of natural justice in section 38, itself indicates the necessity of providing such an opportunity to the complainants or the opposite party, before taking a decision on the same and giving such opportunity, cannot be at the discretion of the 1st respondent, but on the other hand, it is mandatory.”

Bombay High Court

Delay Condonation Application Cannot Be Separated From Appeal For RERA Pre-Deposit: Bombay High Court

Case Title : M/s Neumec Developers And Builders v. Chirag Jain and Anr.

Case Number : Second Appeal No. 315 of 2026 with Second Appeal No. 332 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 482

The Bombay High Court on 5 August held that a promoter cannot have a delay condonation application considered without first making the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), holding that a delay application forms part of the appeal and cannot be treated independently.

Justice N. J. Jamadar delivered the judgment while dismissing two second appeals filed by Neumec Developers and Builders against homebuyers, upholding the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's direction requiring the promoter to make the pre-deposit before its delay condonation application could be considered. The Bench observed:

“The key words in the proviso are 'entertain' and 'before the said appeal is heard'. The word 'entertain' does not imply the filing or institution of the proceeding. The word 'entertain' has reference to the judicial/quasi-judicial act of application of mind by the Court/Tribunal, in contradistinction to the filing or institution, which is a ministerial act.”

Homebuyers' Right To Interest Under RERA For Delayed Possession Is Independent, Indefeasible: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Kiyana Estate LLP v. Tina Dharamshey and Anr.

Case Number : Second Appeal No. 117 of 2026 with Interim Application No. 2765 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 456

The Bombay High Court has held that a homebuyer's right to receive interest for delayed possession under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) is an independent and indefeasible statutory right.

The court held that this right cannot be defeated by relying on the principle under the Indian Contract Act that may restrict a claim for compensation where delayed performance is accepted without reserving such a claim.

A Single Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar delivered the ruling while dismissing a second appeal filed by Kiyana Estate LLP against flat buyers Tina Dharamshey and another allottee.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Bail In ₹5.44 Crore Roselyn Square Case, Says Allegations Go Beyond Delay

Case Title : Bhupinder Singla v. State of Punjab

Case Number : CRM-M-33438-2026 (O&M)

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 42

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 16 July held that allegations of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy in connection with a real estate project go beyond a simple dispute over delayed possession or non-payment of assured returns.

Justice Virinder Aggarwal dismissed the regular bail plea of Bhupinder Singla, Director of Robus Landcorp Pvt. Ltd., who was accused in the “Roselyn Square” commercial project case, noting that the investigating agency had collected prima facie material, including electronic chat communications allegedly acknowledging cash payments, whose evidentiary value would be examined during trial. He held:

“This is not a simpliciter case of delayed delivery of possession or non-payment of assured returns by a developer, for which the complainant could have availed the statutory remedy under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Rather, the allegations prima facie disclose commission of serious offences involving fabrication and alteration of documents, cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy.”

Allahabad High Court

Builder Must Pay Delayed Possession Interest At Rate It Could Charge Allottee For Default: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Aims Max Gardenia Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory v. Mrs. Pratibha Gupta

Case Number : RERA Appeal No. - 1 of 2023

Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 62

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that the interest a builder must pay an allottee for delay in handing over possession under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, is the same rate that the builder could have charged the allottee had the allottee defaulted.

Rejecting a builder's plea that its liability was confined to MCLR+1%, the Court upheld an award of interest at 24% per annum because the builder-buyer agreement itself provided for interest at that rate against a defaulting buyer.

The court read Section 2(za) of the Act, 2016, as placing the rate payable by the builder at parity with the rate chargeable from the allottee on default. Since interest under Section 18 is compensatory in character, it held, levying it from a promised date of possession falling before the Act came into force was neither illegal nor arbitrary.

While imposing a cost of ₹2.5 lakh on builder for making the homebuyer go through various rounds of frivolous litigation, Justice Prashant Kumar held

“The provisions of the Act, 2016 specially Section 2(za) makes it clear that the interest means the rate of interest paid by the builder to the allottee, which would be equal to the interest charged from the allottee in case of default. In this case, Clause-19 of the agreement, clearly stipulates that in case of default by the allottee, he would be charged 24% interest.”

Orissa High Court

ORERA's Failure To Decide Within 30 Days Won't Deem Incomplete RERA Application Registered: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Vishnu Associates Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack v. State of Odisha & Others

Case Number : W.P.(C) No. 33005 of 2022

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (ORI) 22

The Orissa High Court has ruled that an incomplete or deficient application cannot be treated as "deemed registered" under Section 5(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, merely because the regulatory authority failed to decide it within 30 days.

Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed that Section 5(2) applies only to a valid application that complies with the Act, Rules and Regulations.

Since Vishnu Associates' application remained incomplete, including for want of the final building-plan approval from the District Urban Development Agency (DUDA) in Form-II as required under Section 4(2)(c) and (d) of the Act, the developer could not claim deemed registration.

"This Court fully concurs with the contention raised that 'application' within the meaning of Section 5 has to be a valid application complete in all respects and free from deficiencies and incomplete or deficient application cannot be treated as a valid application. As per clause (b) of sub-section (1), the application must conform to the provisions of the Act, Rules or Regulations. ," the court observed.

Karnataka High Court

Flat Owners Can't Restrict Common Facility Access When Sale Deed Allows Sharing: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : Shailesh B. Charati and Another v. M/s Arya Gruha Private Limited and Others

Case Number : RERA Appeal No.74 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 135

The Karnataka High Court on 9 July held that flat owners cannot claim exclusive rights over common amenities where the registered sale deed permits residents of different phases of a housing project to share such facilities.

A Division Bench of Justices Jayant Banerji and Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed the appeal filed by the owners of a flat in the “Arya Hamsa” project and upheld the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Appellate Tribunal orders allowing residents of the neighbouring “Arya Hamsa Grande” project to use shared roads, the clubhouse and entertainment facilities. The judges observed:

“The only sharing that is envisaged is with respect to facilities available in the common areas such as roads, club house and entertainment facility in any phase by any of the owners of units in the Project. The interest that is being referred to by the Allottees is not created on the flat that has been allotted to them, but on the common facilities such as the club house and other easementary facilities as provided to the Allottees by the Respondents. Since such an interest is not an absolute interest and would not attract the provisions of Section 11 of the T.P Act.”

Real Estate Appellate Tribunals

Karnataka REAT

Karnataka REAT Directs BCV To Pay For Delayed Possession, Says Consumer Law Principles Apply To RERA Claims

Case Title : Harathi Prakash Nalla & Anr. v. Secretary, Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr.

Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT) 167 of 2025

Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 57

On 24 August, the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) set aside an order dismissing a complaint against BCV Developers Pvt. Ltd. and directed the developer to pay interest as compensation for delayed possession and non-completion of promised amenities at the “Juniper at Brigade Orchards” project in Devanahalli.

A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. observed that principles laid down in consumer law concerning the rights of allottees and consequences of a promoter's failure to fulfil contractual and statutory obligations can also be applied in RERA proceedings, where they are consistent with the scheme of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It held:

“It is not in dispute that, prior to the enactment of the RERA Act, aggrieved Allottees were required to seek redressal of their grievances primarily through the Consumer Forum. Even after the enactment of the RERA Act, an aggrieved allottee is not precluded from approaching the Consumer Forum for appropriate relief, subject to the law governing the exercise of such remedies.”

Emails Can Constitute Valid Written Consent For Project Alterations Under RERA: Karnataka REAT

Case Title : Sobha Ltd. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors. c/w Abhishek Senapati & Anr. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr.

Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT) 84/2025 c/w Appeal No. (K-REAT) 103/2025

Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 53

The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (K-REAT) has recently held that authenticated email communications can constitute valid written consent for changes to a real estate project.

The consent must be from at least two-thirds of the allottees, as required under Section 14(2)(ii) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

A coram comprising Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. held that the RERA Act and Rules do not prescribe a particular mode, such as a physical signature, for recording such consent.

The tribunal ruled, “Section 14(2)(ii) of the Act mandates only the previous consent in writing of not less than two-thirds of the Allottees and does not prescribe any particular mode for recording such consent. By virtue of sections 4 & 5 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, electronic records and electronic communications receive statutory recognition.”

Telangana REAT

Telangana REAT Upholds Order To Refund ₹36.58 Lakh To Homebuyers For Same Plot Sold To Third Party

Case Title : Sandeep Kumar & Anr. v. M/s Amacon Developers & Ors.

Case Number : T.A. No. 99 of 2025

Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 55

The Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has upheld an order directing Amacon Developers to refund ₹36.58 lakh with 10.75% annual interest to two homebuyers after it sold the same plot to a third party despite an earlier agreement with them.

A bench comprising Chairperson Justice A. Santhosh Reddy, Judicial Member P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy and Administrative Member Vemula Sreekar dismissed the buyers' appeal against the October 16, 2025 order of the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The Authority had directed Amacon to refund the amount with interest from April 9, 2021.

The tribunal held that Amacon could not claim to have acted merely as an agent. It had entered into the agreement as vendor while claiming ownership of the plot, making its conduct that of a promoter under Section 2(zk) of RERA.

“From a perusal of the entire material available on record, it is established that the conduct of respondent No.1 cannot be considered that of a mere agent. On the contrary, his actions are indicative of those of a promoter within the meaning of Section 2(zk) of the Act.”, the tribunal noted.

Haryana REAT

No Formal Builder-Buyer Agreement Needed To Establish Promoter-Allottee Relationship: Haryana REAT

Case Title : Dr. Seema Jain & Anr. v. M/s Omaxe Ltd. & Anr. (and connected appeal)

Case Number : Appeal No. 512 of 2022 and Appeal No. 574 of 2022

Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 54

The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has recently held that a promoter-allottee relationship can exist even without a formal builder-buyer agreement or a specific unit number.

According to the tribunal, acceptance and retention of payment, along with records linking the transaction to a defined plot size and consideration, can be enough to establish such a relationship.

The tribunal dismissed cross-appeals filed by Omaxe Ltd., Robust Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and the two homebuyers. It upheld the direction to allot the buyers a similar unit in Phase III or IV of “Omaxe City Centre, Faridabad” at the original allotment price, along with delay-possession charges.

“Even though no formal agreement or specific unit number was assigned, the conduct of the promoters in retaining the amount and reflecting the transaction against a defined plot size and consideration establishes a valid promoter-allottee relationship,” the tribunal observed.

The order was passed by Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and Judicial Member Dr. Virender Parshad on August 7, 2026.

Tamil Nadu REAT

TN REAT Sets Aside RERA Direction For Housing Board To Provide Water Treatment Equipment To 133 HIG Flats

Case Title : The Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. P. Malathi

Case Number : Appeal No. 70 of 2026 & M.A. No. 194 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 58

On 24 August, the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) set aside a direction of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) requiring the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to provide water treatment equipment to all 133 flats in its Higher Income Group (HIG) housing project.

A Coram comprising Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy and Judicial Member K. Babu held that relief sought by an individual allottee cannot be extended to other flat owners who had not filed the complaint and partly allowed the Housing Board's appeal. The Bench observed:

“With regard to the provision of Water Treatment Equipment for each Flat, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, out of 133 Flats, only the respondent had filed the complaint seeking for the Water Treatment Equipment. In such case, giving a direction to the appellant Board to provide the Water Treatment Equipment for all the Flats, cannot stand. Accordingly, the same is set aside.”

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

Case Title : Jerry Fuller V. v. M/s. Casa Grande Grace Private Limited

Case Number : Appeal No. 10 of 2026 & M.A. No. 30 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 52

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.”

Maharashtra REAT

Failed Conciliation Report Cannot Be Basis For Deciding RERA Complaints: Maharashtra REAT

Case Title : Supreme Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Clan City Welfare Association & 3 Ors. and connected appeals

Case Number : M.A. No. 580/26 in Appeal No. AT006/00517/2026 and connected matters

Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 56

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 5 August held that once conciliation between a promoter and homebuyers fails, the conciliation panel's report cannot form the basis for deciding their complaints because the panel's role is confined to facilitating an amicable settlement.

A Bench comprising Chairperson S.S. Shinde and Member Dr. Rajagopal Devara partly allowed Supreme Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd.'s stay applications and permitted the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) to decide the complaints afresh on their merits without relying on the Special Conciliation Panel's report. It held:

“Bare perusal of the said provision would make it abundantly clear that, said provision is to facilitate amicable conciliation of dispute between the promoters and the allottees through dispute settlement forums set up by the consumer or promoter associations. If there is no amicable conciliation of the dispute between the promoters and allottees through a dispute settlement forum, in that case, accepting such report and findings would be contrary to the legislative mandate and intent reflected in said provision.”

Accepting Delayed Possession Does Not Waive Homebuyer's Right To Delay Interest: Maharashtra REAT

Case Title : Kanakia Spaces Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Subhash Mahadappa Panchgalle

Case Number : Appeal No. AT006000000093932 of 2022

Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 51

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has recently ruled that a homebuyer's right to claim interest for delayed possession does not disappear merely because the buyer later takes possession or the project's RERA registration is extended.

The tribunal observed that accepting possession does not amount to waiver of the accrued right unless the homebuyer consciously and expressly relinquishes it.

A bench comprising Chairperson Justice S. S. Shinde and Member (A) Dr. Rajagopal Devara made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by Kanakia Spaces Realty Pvt. Ltd. against a Maharashtra RERA order granting interest to a homebuyer for delayed possession of a flat in the “Levels” project at Malad (East), Mumbai.

The tribunal observed, “Acceptance of possession thereafter does not amount to waiver of such accrued statutory right unless there is a conscious express relinquishment thereof, which is absent in the present case.”

Real Estate Regulatory Authorities

Tamil Nadu RERA

Allottee Cannot Claim Corpus Fund Refund After Handover To Residents' Association: Tamil Nadu RERA

Case Title : Saranya Jeyasundaram v. K.G. Foundations (P) Ltd. & Anr

Case Number : C.No.58 of 2025

Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TN) 129

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) on 7 August held that an individual allottee cannot seek a refund of the corpus fund from a promoter after the promoter has handed over the corpus fund and maintenance accounts to the registered residents' association.

A Coram comprising Chairperson K. Phanindra Reddy and Members A. Nazir Ahamed and Reeta Harish Thakkar rejected a homebuyer's claim for an individual refund from K.G. Foundations (P) Ltd. in relation to the KG Chandra Vista project, while imposing a Rs. 10 lakh penalty on the developer for selling apartments without registering the project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). The Authority observed:

“As per the handing over letter dated 05.01.2021 the maintenance and corpus fund account of KG Chandravista Blocks A & B are handed over to the 2nd Respondent along with the enclosure of detailed statement of accounts and common area maintenance expenses. Therefore, the Complainant as the individual allottee cannot claim the refund of corpus fund from the Respondents. If any discrepancies in the statement of accounts relating to the corpus fund produced by the 1st Respondent, it is for the 2nd Respondent to raise the issue."

Kerala RERA

Kerala RERA Awards ₹5 Lakh To Homebuyer After Apartment Lost 'Brand New' Status Due To Prior Use

Case Title : Tomy Abraham v. Sobha Limited & Others

Case Number : CCP No. 06/2026

Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (KL) 126

The Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority has directed Sobha Limited and Puravankara Limited to pay ₹5 lakh in compensation to an NRI homebuyer.

It found that the developers had used his apartment for their official non-residential purposes before handing it over, causing it to lose its promised "brand new" status.

Adjudicating Officer K.S. Sarath Chandran partly allowed the complaint filed by Ernakulam resident, Tomy Abraham. The authority found that photographs placed on record clearly showed the apartment being used by the developers' staff and construction labourers before the occupancy certificate was obtained.

It awarded ₹3 lakh for the unauthorized use of the apartment, ₹2 lakh for mental agony, and ₹25,000 towards litigation costs. The authority also directed that the compensation would carry interest at 16.65% per annum from July 6, 2024 until recovery.

The authority observed, "From the photographs of Ext. A5 series it is clearly evident that the apartment allotted to the Complainant was used by the Respondents for the use of their staff or construction labourers. The torned carpets, Almirahs, tables, racks etc can be seen from the photographs. Electricity is also provided in that apartment and AiC and fan are aiso seen installed in that apartment before obtaining Occupancy Ceftificate, dated 3L.L2.2024 and it shows that the Respondents had used the apartment of the Complainant for their official unresidential use. Therefore, it is evident from Ext. A5 series and evidence of CW1 that the Respondents had utilized the apartment of the Complainant, allotted to the Complainant after Ext. A1 and A2 by their staff/labours and it lost his brand new status which amounts violation of A1 and A2 agreements"

Bihar RERA

Using Fake Registration Number To Market Unregistered Project Is 'Serious Fraud': Bihar RERA

Case Title : Authorised Representative of RERA v. M/s Matrichhaya Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number : RERA/SM/582/2023

Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (BR) 128

The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Bihar RERA) on 5 August held that using a fabricated RERA registration number to advertise, develop and sell plots in an unregistered project constitutes a grave and wilful violation of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act), and imposed a Rs. 90 lakh penalty on Matrichhaya Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Chairman Vivek Kumar Singh passed the order, holding that the promoter deliberately used a fake registration number to create the false impression that its project was duly registered and to deceive prospective buyers. He held:

“The Authority observes that the respondent has deliberately mentioned a fabricated RERA Registration Number without obtaining registration of the project under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Such an act is a grave and wilful violation of the Act and amounts to a deliberate attempt to mislead and deceive prospective allottees by creating a false impression that the project is duly registered with the Authority. The conduct of the respondent clearly reflects mala fide intent, demonstrates a conscious disregard for the statutory provisions, and constitutes a serious fraud upon innocent homebuyers as well as the Authority. Such misconduct cannot be condoned.”

Telangana RERA

Builder Cannot Deny Flat Possession To Subsequent Purchaser Holding Registered Sale Deed: Telengana RERA

Case Title : Shridevi Valluri v. Aparna Constructions & Estates Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number : Complaint No. 111 of 2025

Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 125

The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG RERA) has held that a subsequent purchaser holding a registered sale deed qualifies as an allottee for the limited purposes of proceedings under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

It held that a promoter cannot avoid its statutory obligation to hand over possession merely because the apartment was acquired through a subsequent transfer.

Partly allowing a complaint against Aparna Constructions & Estates Pvt. Ltd., the Authority directed the promoter to hand over possession of an apartment in its Aparna Sarovar Zicon project within 30 days.

It clarified that the direction would remain subject to the outcome of pending civil and insolvency proceedings concerning the validity of the transfer documents.

The Authority, comprising Members K. Srinivasa Rao and Laxmi Narayana Jannu, observed: "Section 2(d) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 defines an “allottee” to expressly include a person who subsequently acquires an allotment through sale, transfer or otherwise. On the strength of the registered Sale Deed dated 21.09.2024, and for the limited purpose of determining the Respondent-promoter's statutory obligation to hand over possession in the present complaint, the Complainant satisfies the definition of “allottee” under Section 2(d) of the Act. Once a person falls within the definition of an allottee under Section 2(d) for the limited purposes of the Act, the promoter cannot avoid its statutory obligations merely on the ground that the allottee acquired the apartment by way of a subsequent registered transfer. The obligations imposed upon a promoter under the Act are statutory in nature and are not defeated merely because the original allottee has transferred his interest."

Direct Contract With Homebuyers Not A Precondition For Promoter Liability: Telangana RERA

Case Title : Salandra Mohan Babu & Ors. v. M/s Bharati Builders (Formerly Known as Sirisampada Estates & Builders) & Ors.

Case Number : Complaint Nos. 878/2025 - 885/2025

Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 131

The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 25 August held that a promoter cannot avoid liability under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 merely because the promoter has no direct contract with homebuyers.

A Bench comprising Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao held that promoter liability can arise from participation in a project's development, control over it, receipt or use of allottee funds, or commercial benefit from the project, and does not depend on the traditional doctrine of privity of contract. They observed:

“At the outset, this Authority observes that the RE(R&D) Act is not founded upon the narrow doctrine of privity of contract as understood under traditional civil jurisprudence. The RE(R&D) Act creates statutory obligations which operate independent of private contractual arrangements. The liability of a 'promoter' under RE(R&D) flows not merely from contractual execution but from participation in development, control over the project, share of saleable area, receipt or utilisation of allottee funds, and benefit derived from the project scheme.”

Telangana RERA Holds Two Real Estate Agents Liable For Facilitating Sale Of Plot In Unregistered Project

Case Title : J. Ravi Kishore v. Rakshit Agrawal & Ors.

Case Number : Complaint No. 273/2025/TGRERA

Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 127

The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG RERA) has held two registered real estate agents liable for facilitating the sale of a plot in the unregistered “Amber Homes” project at Mucherla village in Ranga Reddy district.

It also found that one of the agents, Madhirala Rosi Reddy, misrepresented himself as a "vendor/developer" without establishing any authority to do so.

A coram of Member Laxmi Narayana Jannu and Member K. Srinivasa Rao observed: “Respondent No. 2, being a registered real estate agent under Registration Nos. A02500001226 and A02500003146, nevertheless executed the Agreement of Sale dated 23.10.2024 in respect of the subject plot and thereby facilitated the sale of a plot in an unregistered real estate project.”

Punjab RERA

RWA-Member Maintenance Disputes Governed By Bye-Laws, Not RERA Act: Punjab RERA

Case Title : Leafstone Residents Welfare Association v. Daizy Dass & Another

Case Number : Complaint No. 0367 of 2024

Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 130

The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) held on 14 August that disputes concerning recovery of maintenance charges between a Residents Welfare Association (RWA) and its members do not fall within the scope of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Such disputes concern the relationship between an association and its members and are governed by the association's registered bye-laws and applicable laws.

Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal dismissed a complaint filed by Leafstone Residents Welfare Association seeking recovery of unpaid maintenance dues from two residents, holding that the Authority could adjudicate disputes under the RERA Act only where they concerned promoters, allottees or real estate agents. The Authority observed:

“Maintenance charges paid in accordance with maintenance and service agreement are contractual in nature and paid in lieu of services provided by service provider. Therefore, the case of the complainant is not covered under any provision of RERD Act, 2016 or rules made thereunder. In this case, it is not within power of this authority to adjudicate the issues between a Residents Welfare Association and its members who are not promoter. The RERD Act, 2016 is applicable only inter-se issues relating to promoters, allottees and real estate agents.”

Assam RERA

Flat Owners' Association Can File RERA Complaint But Cannot Be Sued Under It: Assam RERA

Case Title : Shri Amar Gupta v. M/s Shakti Developers & Anr.

Case Number : Case No. RERA/ASSAM/COM/2025/40

Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (AS) 132

The Assam Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 21 August held that an association of allottees can file a complaint under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, but cannot be made a respondent in a complaint under the Act as it does not fall within the categories of 'promoter', 'allottee' or 'real estate agent'.

Chairperson P.K. Borthakur dismissed a complaint filed by commercial unit owner Amar Gupta against Shakti Square Housing Society over maintenance charges, water supply and access to common amenities at the Shakti Square project. The Bench observed:

“The Explanation appended to Section 31(1) provides that, 'for the purpose of this sub-section, 'person' shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force.' This Explanation operates only to enlarge the class of persons who may be treated as an 'aggrieved person' competent to file a complaint (i.e., on the complainant's side). It does not, and by its terms cannot, enlarge the three categories of respondent against whom a complaint may be directed. Had the Legislature intended an association of allottees to also be answerable to a complaint under Section 31, it would have said so expressly, as it did in respect of locus standi to complain. The deliberate inclusion of the association of allottees for one purpose, and its omission for the other, in the same sub-section, is a strong indicator that a housing society/association of allottees is not a person against whom a complaint under Section 31 lies.”