Maharashtra REAT Refuses Homebuyers' Plea To Withdraw Developer's Appeal Pre-Deposit For Home Loan EMIs

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has refused to allow homebuyers who have already taken possession of their flats to withdraw a developer's statutory deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

It held that payment of home loan EMIs does not, by itself, constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting release of the money.

A bench comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Administrative Member Shrikant M. Deshpande observed that the homebuyers had already received possession and had not demonstrated any exceptional financial hardship.

"We are of the view that since the allottees are already have been put in possession of the flat, therefore, the hardship on account of EMIs is immaterial and not a valid ground leading to extraordinary or exceptional situation warranting this Tribunal exercise discretionary powers to release the deposited decretal amounts under 43(5) of RERA to allottees," the tribunal held.

The dispute arose from a complaint filed by homebuyers of the Godrej Greenview project seeking compensation and interest for delayed possession.

On February 17, 2026, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) partly allowed their complaint. It rejected their compensation claim but directed Godrej Greenview Housing Pvt. Ltd. to pay delayed possession interest at the State Bank of India's Marginal Cost of Funds Based Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2%.

The interest was to be calculated on the actual amounts paid towards the consideration of the flats, excluding stamp duty, registration charges and government taxes. It was payable until the offer of possession accompanied by the Occupancy Certificate dated June 18, 2025.

Godrej Greenview challenged the order and deposited ₹20,02,374 with the tribunal under Section 43(5) of RERA. It also sought a stay on the execution of MahaRERA's order pending the appeal.

The homebuyers, meanwhile, sought permission to withdraw the deposit along with accrued interest. They cited the financial burden of continuing to pay home loan EMIs and offered to return the amount with interest if the developer succeeded in the appeal.

Opposing the request, Godrej Greenview argued that the statutory deposit was meant to secure the disputed amount during the appeal. It could not be used to meet the homebuyers' private financial obligations towards their bank.

The developer also pointed out that the homebuyers had not submitted documents such as loan statements, repayment schedules or income details to establish their alleged financial hardship.

The tribunal observed that a deposit under Section 43(5) is meant to protect the interests of both parties while the appeal is pending.

"The real effect of deposit of money in the Tribunal, as is done in the present case, is to put the money beyond the reach of the parties pending the disposal of the Appeal," it held.

The tribunal further observed that any discretionary withdrawal would require examining whether the homebuyers had sufficient financial means to return the amount if the developer succeeded in the appeal.

It also said that the availability of solvent security or an unconditional bank guarantee from a nationalised bank covering the entire amount would have to be considered.

The homebuyers received possession of their flats on March 19, 2026. The tribunal observed that this was not a case where they had to pay both rent and EMIs because of delayed possession.

It held that payment of EMIs in the ordinary course was the homebuyers' responsibility. This did not establish exceptional financial hardship warranting release of the deposit.

The tribunal also noted that the ₹20,02,374 deposited by the developer continued to earn interest. The amount would be returned to the homebuyers if the developer's appeal failed.

Finding no compelling reason to release the money before the appeal was decided, the tribunal rejected the homebuyers' withdrawal application.

It allowed Godrej Greenview's stay application and stayed the operation, execution and implementation of MahaRERA's February 17, 2026 order pending final disposal of the appeal.

For Appellant (Godrej Greenview Housing Pvt. Ltd.): Advocate Ms. Jennifer Michael.

For Respondents (Kamal Kishore Prasad Sinha & Anr.): Kamal Kishore Prasad Sinha appeared in person for all respondents.