LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: May 11 - May 16, 2026

Nominal Index

M/s DLF Limited v. Gautam Rana, 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 31

Mehta & Modi Realty Kowkur LLP v. Mrs. Deepa Suraj Premi & Anr., 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 32

Anuradha Konapala & Anr. v. M/s Aditya Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 79

Bhupesh Rana & Anr. v. Ambika Realcon Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 80

Vikrant Vatsa v. M/s Pari Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA(BR) 81

UP RERA Office Order - Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2019

Real Estate Appellate Tribunals

Haryana REAT

Haryana REAT Rejects DLF Challenge To Refund Order, Holds Pre-Deposit Mandatory For Promoter Appeals

Case Title : M/s DLF Limited v. Gautam Rana

Case Number: CM No. 943 of 2026 in/and Appeal No. 130 of 2026

Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 31

On 1 May, the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) held that an appeal filed by promoters challenging a refund order under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 must necessarily be accompanied by the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5).

The Bench comprising Justice Rajan Gupta and Technical Member Dinesh Singh Chauhan refused to entertain the appeal filed by DLF Limited against a refund order passed in favour of homebuyer Gautam Rana, holding that compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement is a threshold condition for maintainability. It held:

“An appeal, which is not accompanied with the pre-deposit, deserves outright dismissal. Challenge on the ground that the order is unsustainable, can only be considered if the appeal is found to be maintainable.”

Telangana REAT

Telangana REAT Upholds ₹11 Lakh Penalty On Builder For Using Sale Agreement Different From RERA-Uploaded Draft

Case Title: Mehta & Modi Realty Kowkur LLP v. Mrs. Deepa Suraj Premi & Anr.

Case Number: T.A. No.45 of 2025

Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 32

The Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has upheld a nearly ₹11.00 lakh penalty against developer Mehta & Modi Realty Kowkur LLP for executing a sale agreement with homebuyers that was materially different from the standard agreement it had uploaded before the Telangana RERA at the time of project registration.

“The act of the appellant/promoter in changing the format and executing a completely different agreement of sale, even though some terms may be similar, is impermissible. Therefore, we are of the view that the conduct of the appellant not only contravenes Rule 38 of the Rules but also amounts to furnishing false information and deliberate suppression of material facts and as such the learned Regulatory Authority has rightly held that the appellant has violated Rule 38 of the Rules by not adhering to the format of the agreement for sale as stipulated in the annexure to the said Rule and imposed penalty on the appellant under Section 60 of the Act.”, the tribunal held.

Real Estate Regulatory Authorities

Bihar RERA

Completion Certificate Does Not Absolve Developer Of Providing Functional Promised Amenities: Bihar RERA

Case Title: Vikrant Vatsa v. M/s Pari Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: RERA/CC/76/2024

Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(BR) 81

The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that a Completion Certificate does not free a developer from its obligation to ensure that promised amenities and essential services are actually functional for homebuyers.

Inquiry Commissioner Sanjaya Kumar Singh said:

"Mere issuance of a Completion Certificate does not absolve the promoter of its statutory obligations to ensure actual and functional provision of promised amenities and services to the allottees. The obligations of the promoter extend beyond structural completion and include ensuring operational readiness of essential services such as drainage, sewage, and common facilities, etc."

Telangana RERA

Aditya Capitol Heights Builder Cannot Retroactively Deny Pre-EMI Benefit: Telangana RERA

Case Title : Anuradha Konapala & Anr. v. M/s Aditya Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number : Complaint No. 73 of 2025

Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 79

The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that Aditya Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. cannot deny homebuyers in its Aditya Capitol Heights project the benefit of a Pre-EMI scheme after incorporating it into the sale agreement and acting on it by making payments.

“Having accepted the Complainants under the scheme, executed the Agreement of Sale incorporating its terms, and made actual Pre-EMI payments thereunder, the Respondent is estopped from now asserting that the Complainants were never eligible for the scheme. The plea of retrospective disqualification raised by the Respondent is accordingly rejected as contrary to law and inconsistent with the Respondent's own conduct.”, the authority held.

Punjab RERA

Homebuyers' Right To Interest For Delayed Possession Cannot Be Defeated By Contract Terms: Punjab RERA

Case Title Bhupesh Rana & Anr. v. Ambika Realcon Private Limited

Case Number Complaint No. 0018 of 2024

Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 80

The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority has recently held that a homebuyer's statutory right to interest for delayed possession cannot be defeated by contractual terms, while rejecting a developer's objections based on arbitration and alleged payment defaults.

A coram of Member Binod Kumar Singh held, "At the outset it is held that the Act provides for payment of interest in case of delay in handing over of possession, and this legal right of an allottee cannot be defeated by the lack of such a provision in any document issued by a promoter.”

The ruling came while allowing a complaint filed by Bhupesh Rana and Ambika Rana against Ambika Realcon Private Limited and directing the developer to pay ₹19,02,904 as delayed possession interest for delayed delivery of a flat in its Florence Park project in New Chandigarh.

Uttar Pradesh RERA

UP RERA Says Complaints Against Unregistered Projects To Be Heard After Deciding If Registration Was Required

The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) has clarified that complaints by homebuyers in unregistered housing projects will be taken up on merits only after the authority first determines whether the project was required to be registered under the RERA framework.

In an office order dated April 10, issued under Regulation 38 of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2019, the authority operationalised amendments introduced last month to its adjudication framework for complaints involving unregistered projects.

The clarification follows UP RERA's 10th amendment to the 2019 regulations, which inserted clauses 24(e), 24(f), and 24(g) dealing with adjudication of complaints concerning unregistered projects.

Under the revised framework, if a homebuyer files a complaint against an unregistered project, the hearing Bench must first decide whether registration of that project was legally required under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.