No Formal Builder-Buyer Agreement Needed To Establish Promoter-Allottee Relationship: Haryana REAT

The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has recently held that a promoter-allottee relationship can exist even without a formal builder-buyer agreement or a specific unit number.

According to the tribunal, acceptance and retention of payment, along with records linking the transaction to a defined plot size and consideration, can be enough to establish such a relationship.

The tribunal dismissed cross-appeals filed by Omaxe Ltd., Robust Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and the two homebuyers. It upheld the direction to allot the buyers a similar unit in Phase III or IV of “Omaxe City Centre, Faridabad” at the original allotment price, along with delay-possession charges.

“Even though no formal agreement or specific unit number was assigned, the conduct of the promoters in retaining the amount and reflecting the transaction against a defined plot size and consideration establishes a valid promoter-allottee relationship,” the tribunal observed.

The order was passed by Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and Judicial Member Dr. Virender Parshad on August 7, 2026.

The dispute goes back to a commercial property booking made by Raj Rani Mittal on February 3, 2011, in “Omaxe City Centre, Faridabad”. She paid ₹10 lakh towards the booking.

The booking rights then changed hands several times — first to Shikhar Reality Services Ltd., then to Paras Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., and finally to Dr. Seema Jain and Vivek Sheel Jain in 2013. The promoters acknowledged the final transfer in June that year.

The buyers later paid another ₹10 lakh in installments, taking their total payment to ₹20 lakh. The promoters' records showed a 200 sq. yard plot with a total consideration of ₹64.22 lakh. But no formal builder-buyer agreement was executed, and no specific unit number was allotted.

The promoters retained the money but did not allot a specific unit. They also did not deliver possession within the reasonable period, which was determined as August 3, 2014. The buyers then approached the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula, seeking possession rather than a refund.

On January 12, 2022, the Authority directed the promoters to allot and hand over possession of a similar unit in Phase III or IV at the original allotment price. It also directed payment of delay-possession charges from August 3, 2014 until an offer of possession was made. The buyers were required to clear outstanding dues once the possession offer was made.

The promoters challenged the order before the tribunal. They argued that there was neither an allotment nor an agreement for sale and, therefore, no promoter-allottee relationship had been created. Their case was that the buyers were only applicants holding a client code and could, at most, seek a refund.

The buyers also appealed. They argued that they should have been allotted a unit in Phase I or II. If they were instead given a unit in Phase III or IV, they sought ₹2 crore towards the difference in market price.

The tribunal did not accept the promoters' contention. It noted that they had accepted ₹20 lakh and acknowledged the payment in their records for the project. Those records also linked the transaction to a defined plot size and consideration.

The tribunal further observed that the promoters could not avoid their responsibility simply because no formal allotment had been made. This was especially so because the omission was attributable to their own actions. It therefore found the direction to allot a similar unit and pay delay-possession charges justified.

The buyers' demand for allotment in the earlier phases was also not accepted. The tribunal noted that no specific unit had ever been identified in Phase I or II and that the available record indicated that such inventory was no longer available.

It held that allotting a comparable unit in Phase III or IV was reasonable and fair. The buyers would get the unit at the original price along with delay compensation.

The tribunal also rejected the demand for additional compensation based on the increase in market price.

The tribunal ultimately found no ground to interfere with the Authority's order. It dismissed both appeals filed by the promoters and the allottees.

For Petitioner (Allottees): Advocate Brahma Prakash.

For Respondent (Promoters): Advocates Munish Gupta, Ankit Kumar.