Rajasthan REAT Refuses Delay Compensation, Finds No Proof Bangalore Flat Rent Was Loss Caused By Jaipur Project Delay

The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has rejected a homebuyer's claim for ₹37.13 lakh in rental expenses allegedly incurred due to delayed possession of a Jaipur flat.

It held that he had failed to establish that he would have moved into the Jaipur property but for the delay, or that rent paid for a house in Bangalore was a loss caused by the delay.

A Bench of Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma observed that compensation "must be based on proof and not on guesswork."

It also held that awarding rent for a period for which the homebuyer had already received interest would amount to double compensation.

The homebuyer booked a unit under the Air Force Naval Housing Board's Jaipur housing scheme in January 2012. While the original possession deadline was the end of 2014, a revised allotment letter issued in November 2014 stipulated possession by the end of 2017. Despite paying ₹54.94 lakh, he received possession only on March 22, 2022. The Completion Certificate and Occupancy Certificate were issued on October 28, 2021 and June 20, 2022, respectively.

He had earlier received ₹11.16 lakh as interest at 10.75% per annum for the delay, calculated from January 1, 2018 until possession. The Adjudicating Officer subsequently awarded him ₹1.5 lakh towards additional financial loss, ₹30,000 for physical and mental agony and ₹20,000 towards litigation costs.

In appeal, he sought ₹37.13 lakh towards rent, ₹10 lakh for alleged non-provision of amenities, ₹2 lakh for mental agony and higher litigation costs.

The tribunal held that the earlier interest proceedings did not bar a separate compensation claim. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., it observed that compensation falls within the Adjudicating Officer's jurisdiction. However, the same loss cannot be compensated twice.

Rejecting the rental claim, the tribunal noted that the homebuyer lived in Bangalore and had not shown that he would have moved to Jaipur but for the delay. His claim also extended until May 2024, despite taking possession in March 2022. He produced no evidence of defects that prevented him from occupying the flat.

The tribunal also rejected the amenities claim because he failed to establish which facilities were promised and which remained unavailable. He had also not identified any specific false representation that induced him to invest.

Finding no reason to enhance the compensation for mental agony or litigation costs, the tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Adjudicating Officer's order.