LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: 27th April to 2nd May, 2026
Shivani PS
4 May 2026 4:30 PM IST
Nominal Index
Janak Laxmichand Bhavsar & Ors. v. M/s. Aditya Developers & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 28
CCI Projects Private Limited v. Ramesh Shivsaran Singh & Ors. (and connected appeals), 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 27
Tarun Chatterjee v. M/s Sai UVR Properties Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA(TN) 74
Mohammed Iqbal Khan v. Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 75
Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Maharashtra REAT
Case Title : Janak Laxmichand Bhavsar & Ors. v. M/s. Aditya Developers & Ors.
Case Number: Appeal Nos. AT006000000345507 & connected appeals of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 28
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has held that homebuyers who executed agreements for sale with an erstwhile developer cannot enforce their claims for possession, interest, or other entitlements arising from those agreements against the society or a new developer due to the absence of privity of contract.
Dismissing the appeals, the tribunal upheld the order dated August 26, 2024 passed by MahaRERA, rejecting the homebuyers' claims for possession, interest, and cancellation of the new project registration.
A Coram of Chairperson S. S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande observed that "In the above circumstances, the issue of whether the allottees who have executed and registered the agreements for sale with the erstwhile promoter can enforce their agreements for sale or any entitlements against the society or its property or the new promoter appointed by the society as well as whether the society can be termed as promoter within section 2 (zk) of the RERA Act, 20L6 have been answered by the series of judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court."
It further observed that “the only remedy available to the third-party purchasers/allottees is against the erstwhile developer who have executed the agreements for sale with the allottees.”
Case Title: CCI Projects Private Limited v. Ramesh Shivsaran Singh & Ors. (and connected appeals)
Case Number : Appeal Nos. AT006-53079 to 53179 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 27
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has recently held that homebuyers can claim interest for delayed possession under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 even if they continued making payments after the promised possession date.
A bench of Judicial Member Shriram R. Jagtap and Administrative Member Rajgopal Devara rejected the developer's reliance on Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to argue waiver of claims.
The tribunal said, “The substantive provisions of Section 18 (1) (a) of RERA Act, 2016 would prevail to provide interest and/or compensation on account of delay, rendering Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act ineffective. Right conferred under Section 18 of RERA Act, 2016 to allottees is indefeasible. Section 18 of RERA Act itself is a notice to the promoter about the claim of allottees and therefore, merely because allottees have made payments to promoter towards consideration value even after unilateral change of dates of possession by the promoter that does not mean that allottees have waived their right to claim interest. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no waiver and allottees are well within their right to claim interest for delay in possession in terms of Section 18 (1) (a) of RERA Act, 2016.”
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Tamil Nadu RERA
Developer Liable To Fix Non-Structural Defects Reported Within Five Years: TN RERA
Case Title : Tarun Chatterjee v. M/s Sai UVR Properties Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. 003 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TN) 74
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has held that a developer remains liable to rectify defects arising from poor workmanship, including non-structural cracks and seepage, where such defects are brought to its notice within five years from the date of handing over possession.
“As per Section 11(4)(a) of the RERA Act, the Respondent Promoter is responsible for all obligations and functions under the provision of the Act. Further, as per Section 14(3) of the RERA Act, any structural or any other defects in workmanship, quality or provision of services is brought to the notice of the Respondent within period of five years from the date of handing over possession, it shall be the duty of the Respondent Promoter to rectify such defects without further charges within thirty days.", the authority observed.
A coram comprising Chairperson Shiv Das Meena and Members Dr. L. Subramanian and Sukumar Chittibabu passed the order on April 10, 2026.
Karnataka RERA
Case Title: Mohammed Iqbal Khan v. Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Complaint No. 01440/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 75
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) has held that a developer cannot raise construction-linked payment demands without substantiating the stage-wise progress with architect or engineer certificates, faulting Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt Ltd for issuing premature demand letters without any such proof.
Adjudicating Officer Maheshwari S. Hiremath found that the developer had failed to produce “a single iota of evidence” to show that the payment demands were backed by certified construction progress, making it “difficult to know the exact stage wise progress of the project.”
The Authority further underscored the impact on homebuyers, noting, “To have a cosy house is everyone's dream. To fulfil that dream, one could take the risk of investing all lifetime savings and raising loans in terms of lakhs or crores, which could take the rest of life to repay. That being so, if the developer resorts to using the hard-earned money of investors in a reckless manner, it would not only shatter the dreams of investors, but also make them run from pillar to post by incurring heavy investment as well as legal expenses.”