LiveLawBiz RERA Weekly Digest: October 19- October 24, 2026
Shivani PS
26 Oct 2026 1:59 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Maruthi Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Tridhaatu Maruthi Developers LLP & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 580
East North VVS Realty v. B.K. Nagaraj and Others, 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 80
M/s. Five Mount Villa Owners Welfare Association v. M/s. Bahri Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 79
Maj. Gen. Dr. Shamsher Singh Chauhan (Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives Raj Sandeep Chauhan & Others v. Suksha Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Others, 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 152
Sri Kambalipati Haribabu, Representing Sivom Social Welfare Association Members v. Isukapatla Sambamurthy & Others, 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 153
Bombay High Court
Housing Society Not Liable for Developer's RERA Obligations As Landowner: Bombay High Court
Case Title Maruthi Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Tridhaatu Maruthi Developers LLP & Anr.
Case Number Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 26942 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 580
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a housing society as a landowner cannot be held liable for a developer's obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), merely because the developer entered into agreements for sale with flat purchasers under a redevelopment agreement.
Justice Arun R. Pedneker granted interim relief to Maruthi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, allowing it to appoint a new developer. The court also directed payment of ₹7.35 crore in unpaid transit rent and clearance of ₹1.11 crore in statutory dues.
The court observed, “However, none of the provisions of RERA renders the owner of the freehold or leasehold interest in the land, who enters into a development agreement with a developer, liable for discharging the developer's obligations under RERA merely because the developer subsequently enters into agreements for sale with third-party flat purchasers on the basis of such development agreement.”
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Karnataka REAT
Reconstituted Real Estate Firm Cannot Escape Liability To Refund Homebuyer: Karnataka REAT
Case Title East North VVS Realty v. B.K. Nagaraj and Others
Case Number Appeal No. (K-REAT) 60/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 80
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate tribunal has refused to absolve, a partnership firm, East North VVS Realty of its liability to refund ₹42 lakh to an 82-year-old homebuyer, holding that the firm could not escape its obligations following changes in its constitution.
“Viewed in this factual backdrop, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal is an attempt to avoid the legitimate obligations of the Firm and thereby defeat the lawful rights of the Allottee,” the tribunal observed.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. delivered the ruling while modifying an order passed by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA).
Tamil Nadu REAT
Delayed Possession Does Not Restart Three-Year Limitation For RERA Compensation Claims: TN REAT
Case Title M/s. Five Mount Villa Owners Welfare Association v. M/s. Bahri Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number Appeal No. 108 of 2026 and M.A. No. 278 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 79
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu REAT) on 14 October held that compensation claims for breach of contractual obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, must be filed within three years under Article 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy and Judicial Member K. Babu dismissed an appeal filed by Five Mount Villa Owners Welfare Association against Bahri Estates Private Limited and Bahri Realty Management Services Private Limited, upholding the rejection of its compensation claims as time-barred. It held:
“The act of handing over possession is not a breach. The cause of action to file a complaint remains invariable and static on the date of breach as occurred on the date of completion as specified in the Agreement, irrespective of the subsequent performance of handing over of possession.”
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Punjab RERA
Developer Cannot Rely On Unregistered Offer Letter To Postpone Property Possession: Punjab RERA
Case Title Maj. Gen. Dr. Shamsher Singh Chauhan (Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives Raj Sandeep Chauhan & Others v. Suksha Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Others
Case Number Complaint No. GC No. 0455 of 2024
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 152
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Punjab RERA) on 14 October held that a developer cannot rely on an unregistered offer letter to defer its possession obligations when it has failed to execute the mandatory Agreement for Sale under Section 13 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Member Arunvir Vashista of the Authority allowed a complaint filed by the legal representatives of deceased allottee Major General Dr. Shamsher Singh Chauhan against Suksha Developers Private Limited and others. He held:
“The respondents cannot rely upon an alleged possession date contained in a commercial understanding while simultaneously failing to execute the statutory Agreement for Sale required under Section 13. More importantly, the statutory obligation to execute the Agreement for Sale cannot be defeated by relying upon an unregistered or informal arrangement to postpone the promoter's obligation for an indefinite period.”
Telangana RERA
Case Title Sri Kambalipati Haribabu, Representing Sivom Social Welfare Association Members v. Isukapatla Sambamurthy & Others
Case Number Complaint No. 420/2025/TG RERA
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 153
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Telangana RERA) on 14 October ordered joint penalty proceedings against developer Sivom Projects Private Limited, its Managing Director, and a landowners' GPA holder for selling 40 residential plots in the 'Sivom Sahasra II' layout without prior registration under the RERA Act, 2016.
A Bench comprising Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao held that the project required registration before any marketing or sale activity. The Authority observed:
“Section 3(1) of the Act places the obligation to obtain prior registration squarely upon the "promoter" before any marketing or sale activity is undertaken. Section 4(1) of the Act further mandates that it is the promoter's obligation to make an application for registration. Registration under the Act is a statutory approval it is a sanction of the highest order under the real estate regulatory framework, required before any sale, marketing, or booking in the project can take place.”