LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: August 2 - August 8, 2026
Shivani PS
10 Aug 2026 5:00 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Aims Max Gardenia Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory v. Mrs. Pratibha Gupta, 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 62
Vishnu Associates Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack v. State of Odisha & Others, 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 22
Shailesh B. Charati and Another v. M/s Arya Gruha Private Limited and Others, 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 135
Jerry Fuller V. v. M/s. Casa Grande Grace Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 52
Kanakia Spaces Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Subhash Mahadappa Panchgalle, 2026 LLBiz REAT(MH) 51
Tomy Abraham v. Sobha Limited & Others, 2026 LLBiz RERA (KL) 126
J. Ravi Kishore v. Rakshit Agrawal & Ors., 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 127
HIGH COURTS
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
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
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 Tribunal
Tamil Nadu REAT
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
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
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"
Telangana RERA
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.”