Mrs. Shashi Rastogi etc. vs. S. S. Group Pvt. Ltd - In this way, having been filed within 3 years from the date of order of the Authority, I do not think that present complaint is unreasonably delayed, particularly, seeing the circumstances of complaints, as noted above. No reason to dismiss the complaint on this ground.

 RERA Haryana (2026.09.11) in Mrs. Shashi Rastogi etc. vs. S. S. Group Pvt. Ltd [Complaint No. 2934 of 2025] held that; 

• Again, no time   limit has been prescribed by Act of 2016, to file a complaint seeking  compensation.

• As  mentioned above, complainants approached the Authority seeking refund  of their amount and said complaint was decided by the Authority on  04.10.2022 and present was filed on 12.06.2025. The complainants had  sought compensation from the Authority in said complaint but the  Authority observed that complainants can approach the Adjudicating Officer,  if they want relief of compensation.

• In this way, having been filed within 3 years  from the date of order of the Authority, I do not think that present  complaint is unreasonably delayed, particularly, seeing the circumstances  of complaints, as noted above. No reason to dismiss the complaint on this  ground. 

• Section 72 of The Act of 2016 provides following factors to be  taken into account by the Adjudicating Officer, in adjudging quantum of  compensation: - 

(a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage,  wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; 

(b) the amount of loss caused as a result of the default; 

(c) the repetitive nature of the default; 

(d) such other factors which the adjudicating officer considers necessary to the case in furtherance of justice.

Excerpts of the Order; 

This is a complaint filed by Mrs. Shashi Rastogi and Colonel  Rajendra Kumar Rastogi, (allottees) under section 31 read with section 71  of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in brief The  Act of 2016), against M/s SS Group Pvt. Limited (promoter/developer).  

# 2. Briefly stated, according to the complainants, they  (complainants) entered into a contractual agreement with respondent for  the booking of a flat (Unit no. 12B, 12th Floor, Tower-1) in the project "The  Leaf," situated at Sector 84-85, Gurugram. Despite their compliance with  all obligations, including timely payments, the project faced significant delays beyond reasonable timelines. Due to the prolonged delay and the failure of the builder to complete the project within the stipulated timeframe, they were compelled to request for cancellation of their booking and sought a refund of the payments made, along with interest.  Despite their repeated requests, personal visits and telephonic  communication, the builder adamantly refused to comply with their  legitimate demands. 

# 3. That they (complainants) lodged a complaint (No. RERA-GRG- 1619-2019) before the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurgaon. The Authority passed an order dated 04.10.2022, mandating the builder to refund the entire amount of Rs.39,38,001/- along with prescribe rate of interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the actual date of refund of the deposited amount as per provisions of section 18 (1) of the Act read with rule 15 of the Rules 2017. However, despite the legally binding order, the builder has obstinately disregarded their obligation to refund the amount due. 

# 4. That after waiting for about two years from the date of the  order dated 04.10.2022 they filed a petition (RERA-GRG-685-2024) in  2024 seeking execution of the aforementioned order. However, the builder  continued to exhibit non-compliance, further aggravating their mental  anguish and financial distress. In the interim period, respondent filed appeals in H-REAT, Chandigarh, without informing them. It has now been over ten years since they requested the builders to refund their hard- earned money, yet justice remains elusive and they remained derived of their rightful dues. 

# 5. That unfortunately, during the ongoing protracted legal proceedings, he (complainant no. 2) was diagnosed with cancer of the urinary bladder in the year 2021. The treatment is still in progress due to which he feels severely weak. It becomes difficult for him to pursue the legal proceedings in Gurugram and Chandigarh. The flat allotted to them (complainants) has already been sold to another customer by the builder with still higher margin of profit. The builder/respondent got his ill-gotten money invested along with huge profit margin. But he is still illegally holding back his hard-earned money. 

# 6. Citing facts as mentioned above, the complainants prayed for following compensations: 

• (a) Losses due to rental income @ 50000/- per month from the year 2016 to 2025 (Possession of the flat was due in the year 2015) for 15 years- 50000 x 10 x 12 = Rs.60,000,00/-; 

• (b) Additional accumulated difference between compounded interest @ 10% per annum and simple interest @ 10% from the year 2016 to 2025 for 10 years on the principal amount due to non-compliance of the order of Hon'ble HRERA Court dated 04.10.2022 Rs.1,03,74,969.84/- Rounded to Rs.1,03,75,000/-; - 

• (c) To award compensation amounting to Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rs. Two Crores) for the mental agony and harassment, caused for the last 10 years due to the builder's persistent non- compliance with the HRERA order; 

• (d) Appreciation of flat @ 10% per annum in real estate in Gurgaon - 10 Lacs per annum x 10 = Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rs. One Crores); 

• (e) Compensation for the cost of litigation for the last 7 years  Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs); 

• (f) To pass such other order as it may deem fit. 

# 7. The respondent contested the claim of complainant by filing at  written reply. It (respondent) denied all the averments, submissions and  contentions raised by the complainants. It is averred that the instant  complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of the law and is devoid of  merits. It is fit to be dismissed in limine.. 

# 8.  That the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground.  that the complainants are levying baseless allegations against the Hon'ble  Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal. The complaint is barred by the law  of limitation. No satisfaction of ingredients as mentioned under section 72  of The Act of 2016 for being eligible for grant of compensation. No.  evidence/proof with respect to the payment of litigation cost and alleged  mental agony, harassment caused to the complainants etc. The  complainants are not entitled to claim financial loss, loss of rental value,  damages, appreciation in property etc. under the scheme of the Act of  2016. 

# 9.  Contending all this, the respondent prayed to dismiss the complaint.

# 10. Both parties filed affidavits in support of their claims. I have heard complainant Rajendra Kumar Rastogi (in person) and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent and perused the record on file. 

# 11. Factual matrix i.e. allotment of flat (Unit 7C) in the project developed by the respondent i.e. The Leaf, situated at Sector 84-85, Gurugram and out of total sale consideration they (complainants) paid Rs.39,38,001/-, are not disputed on behalf of respondent. Admittedly,  present complainants filed a complaint before the Authority i.e. Complaint No. 1619 of 2019, which was allowed by the Authority vide order dated  04.10.2022. The respondent/promoter has been directed to refund the  entire amount of Rs.39,38,001/- paid by the complainants along with  interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the actual  date of refund of the deposited amount. 

# 12.  While deciding said complaint, the Authority noted that due  date of possession as per agreement for sale between the parties was  24.09.2016 and there remained delay of 2 years 7 months and 12 days on  the date of filing of complaint. Observing that the complainants sought  refund of their amount prior to due date of completion of project i.e.  24.09.2016, the Authority found fault with the respondent and allowed  refund of amount along with interest as stated above. It was observed by the Authority that the complainants had been making efforts for refund of  the paid-up amount due to medical exigencies and the construction of the  project was not going as per schedule viz-a-vis the payments received by  the respondent. Even as per clause 9.2 of model buyers' agreement, the  complainants were right in stopping further payments against the allotted 

unit. 

# 13. The respondent challenged even maintainability of the present  complaint alleging that same is highly time barred. According to it  (respondent), complaint is barred by law of limitation being delayed by  approximately 10 years from the date of default and over 8 years and 8  months from the possession deadline. All these allegations are refuted by  the complainant (Col. Rajendra Kumar Rastogi). According to the latter, he  as well as his wife (Mrs. Shashi Rastogi), both are senior citizens, aged  about 70 years. He (complainant Col. Rajendra Kumar Rastogi) is suffering  with cancer, for which he has been undergoing treatment. Again, no time   limit has been prescribed by Act of 2016, to file a complaint seeking  compensation. 

# 14.   I find weight in aforesaid submissions of the complainant. No  time period has been prescribed by Act of 2016 within which a complaint  seeking compensation can be filed. Public policy requires that a case,  (complaint or civil) suit should be filed within reasonable time. As  mentioned above, complainants approached the Authority seeking refund  of their amount and said complaint was decided by the Authority on  04.10.2022 and present was filed on 12.06.2025. The complainants had  sought compensation from the Authority in said complaint but the  Authority observed that complainants can approach the Adjudicating Officer,  if they want relief of compensation. In this way, having been filed within 3 years  from the date of order of the Authority, I do not think that present  complaint is unreasonably delayed, particularly, seeing the circumstances  of complaints, as noted above. No reason to dismiss the complaint on this  ground. 

# 15. It is further plea of learned counsel for respondent that when  Authority has already allowed interest on the amount to be refunded to  the complainants, no further compensation can be awarded by the A.O. In  his opinion, payment of interest is nothing but to compensate the  complainants. 

# 16. Perhaps learned counsel has misconstrued the provision of  law. According to Section 18 (1) of The Act of 2016, when promoter fails to  complete the project/unit in agreed time and the allottee intends to  withdraw from the project, the promoter is liable to refund the interest  along with interest as well as compensation. When Authority has allowed  refund of amount along with interest, same does not bar an allottee from  claiming further compensation. Complainants are thus entitled for  compensation, as the Authority has found fault with the respondent for  delay in completion of project/unit of complainants. Said findings have  been upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. 

# 17. Section 72 of The Act of 2016 provides following factors to be  taken into account by the Adjudicating Officer, in adjudging quantum of  compensation: - 

• (a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage,  wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; 

• (b) the amount of loss caused as a result of the default; 

• (c) the repetitive nature of the default; 

• (d) such other factors which the adjudicating officer considers necessary to the case in furtherance of justice. 

# 18. Complainant (Colonel Rajendra Kumar Rastogi) submits that  he has been suffering with Cancer. Having no other sufficient means, he  required money for his treatment. They (complainants) were fed up with  the respondent for not completing construction of their dream unit within  agreed time but the respondent despite their requests again and again did  not refund their amount. According to him (complainant Colonel Rajendra  Kumar Rastogi), if respondent had delivered possession in time, unit  allotted to them (complainants) would have appreciated at-least 10% p.a.  which could have resulted in lots of profit to them (complainants). The  complainants have prayed for a compensation of Rs. One crore, due to loss  of appreciation in the price. 

# 19. However, complainants did not adduce any conclusive  evidence to prove their claim that the price of their flat would have  appreciated 10% per annum. When complainants are found entitled for  compensation, their case cannot be thrown away, for want of conclusive  evidence. This forum is obliged to adjudge amount of compensation  keeping in mind factors as provided in Section 72 of The Act of 2016 as  well as facts and circumstances of the case. 

# 20. The plea of complainants that after order of refund passed by  the Authority, the respondent sold unit in question to someone else and  that on higher price, is not controverted on behalf of respondent.  Evidently, prices of residential houses have been appreciated substantially.  All this caused gains to the respondent and consequential loss to the  complainants. According to google (AI Overview), residential property  prices in Sector 84 and 85 of Gurgaon experienced a relatively flat to  modest growth phase between May 2015 and 2019, followed by a steady  upward trend leading up to October 2022 as infrastructure like the  Dwarka Expressway progressed. Property values in new Gurgaon sectors  (including 84 and 85) remained largely range-bound, averaging around  Rs.4,500 to Rs.5,500 per square foot, due to an oversupply of residential  inventory and delayed infrastructure. It shows growth of 22.2%.  

# 21. No evidence is adduced in this case to verify as till when, the  complainants had paid Rs.39,38,001/- to the respondent. It has been noted  by the Appellate Tribunal while deciding appeal filed by present  respondent that last payment was made by the allottees way back in the  year 2015 (27.05.2015) and the Authority allowed refund of the amount  vide order dated 04.10.2022. Therefore, period from May, 2015 to October, 2022 is taken into account, to assess the appreciation in prices of  residential houses in the area, where unit in question is situated.  Admittedly complainants had paid a sum of Rs.39,38,001/-. 22.2% of  which comes to Rs.8,74,236/-. The complainants are thus allowed a  compensation of Rs,8,74,000/- (rounded up), to be paid by the  respondent. 

# 22. Apparently, when complainants paid substantial amount of  sale consideration but did not receive possession of their dream unit, it  caused mental agony and harassment to them. Same are allowed a sum of  Rs.2,00,000/- on this count. Compensation in the name of mental agony  and harassment, amounting to Rs.2,00,00,000/- appears highly excessive. 

# 23. Similarly, compensation in the name of litigation expenses.  amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- is excessive. No court fee is required to be paid  to the Authority while filing such a complaint. Although, complainant no. 1  was represented by her husband Colonel Rajendra Kumar, complainant no.  2, during proceedings of the case and he pursued this case personally, even  then according to him, he had consulted some advocates as how to draft  the complaint or to contest it. Considering all this, complainants are  allowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation. 

# 24.  The complaint is thus allowed. The respondent is directed to  pay amounts of compensation detailed above, along with interest at rate of  11% per annum from the date of this order, till realization of amounts.  File be consigned to the record room. 

# 25.  Announced in open court today i.e. on 11.09.2026. 

-------------------------------------

Anuj Kumar Parmar vs Shivaay MNAffordable Homes - Mere execution of a sale deed in favour of the complainant that too without handing over of the possession does not absolve the promoter of their statutory liabilities.

 RERA Rajasthan (2026.09.10) in Anuj Kumar Parmar  vs Shivaay Affordable Homes [Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-N-2025-8483] held that; 

• Mere execution of a sale deed in favour of the complainant that too without handing over of the possession does not absolve the promoter of their statutory liabilities. Since the project remains under ‘LAPSED’ category and in absence of any further extensions since the year 2023, it is established that there has been an inordinate delay in completion of the project. Hence, the complainant is entitled to seek interest for the delay period under Section 18 of the Act from the expected date of handing over possession i.e. 31.03.2023 until physical possession is handed over to him.

Excerpts of the Order; 

# 1. This complaint has been instituted under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) with regard to the project,“Gulmohar Park”, registered with the Authority bearing registration no. RAJ/P/2017/187, with initial completion date 31.03.2021.

# 2. The complainant booked a flat with the respondent’s scheme and made an advance booking payment of Rs. 51,000/- on 30.11.2021. After receiving a total sum of Rs. 2,39,500/- from the complainant, the respondent executed an agreement for sale dated 26.07.2022 for the flat no. A-801 on 8th Floor for a total sale consideration of Rs. 23,95,000/- with promise to hand over possession by 31.03.2023 as per clause 6.1 of the agreement for sale. The complainant availed a home loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- from HDFC Bank wherein the bank was required to disburse the loan amount directly to the respondent as per construction linked payment plan. The complainant further took an Insurance Premium Funding from HDFC Bank of Rs. 1,09,448/- in order to secure the loan sanctioned by HDFC Bank. The complainant made regular payment and till 29.05.2025 had paid Rs. 23,95,000/-. The complainant regularly raised concern about inordinate delay in the handing over of the possession of the flat. The respondent on 12.05.2025 compelled the complainant to deposit entire consideration amount. As the complainant was in dire need of getting timely possession, he paid the entire amount. The complainant was compelled to execute the sale deed and to secure his interest, executed the sale deed on 02.06.2025 for the said unit, whereas respondent had not availed completion/occupancy certificate for the project on that date. The unit is not in a habitable condition, project is under ‘LAPSED’ category and the respondent has taken two extensions. Thus, the complainant failed to take physical possession of the unit till date. Hence, the complainant sought prayer of the respondent to be directed to complete the remaining development works and pay interest on the entire deposited amount from expected date of possession till actual date of handing over possession after obtaining occupancy certificate.

# 3. The respondent filed reply that the present complaint has been filed as an afterthought with the sole purposes of gaining undue advantage by harassing and pressurizing the respondent to succumb to the unreasonable demands and claims. The completion date provided was not absolute/fixed in nature and it was expressly conditional, subject to force majeure events and other unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the respondent. The respondent after being fully satisfied with the project site and thereafter executed an agreement to sell. A registered sale deed in favour of the complainant was executed on 02.06.2025. The delay in the completion of project was on account of force majeure reasons such as non-availability of raw materials, delay in payment by allottees, imposition of new government policies, etc. which were beyond the control of the respondent. All the amenities and facilities as promised in the brochure by the respondent are completed and all internal development work on the site is near completion stages in accordance with the approved building plans. Since, the possession of the unit has already been transferred in favour of the complainant, thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

# 4. During final arguments, learned counsel for complainant argued similar contentions and raised similar submissions as pleaded in the complaint. It was submitted that the said project is in the ‘LAPSED’ category and no completion/occupancy certificate has been obtained by the respondent till date. The respondent has failed to complete the amenities/facilities promised at the time of booking and has miserably failed to complete the project within stipulated timelines. Hence, the complainant is entitled to seek interest on the entire deposited amount from expected date of handing over possession till the obtaining of valid occupancy certificate.

# 5. Learned counsel for respondent averred similar pleadings and contentions as already raised in the reply to the complaint. It was argued that no payment was received from the complainant during the crucial stages of project completion from the year 2023 to 2025 which has led to inordinate delay in the construction work. The issues pertaining to structural defects/compensation are not maintainable before the Authority and the complainant must approach the learned Adjudicating Officer for such grievances. Hence, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

# 6. Heard and perused the record.

# 7. The status of said project on the official website of the Authority is verified by the Law Researcher. The project is currently marked under the “LAPSED” category. Total 3 extensions were sought by the respondent promoter till  24.12.2025. Quarterly Progress Reports (QPRs) were filed by the respondent promoter till January to March, 2023 showing that 84% of the work is completed (as per R-2 Engineer’s Certificate). Annual Progress Reports (APRs) have been filed for said project till 2022-23. The said project status on the official website of the Authority is taken in judicial notice by the Authority.

# 8. Observations & Conclusion:

An agreement for sale dated 26.07.2022 executed between the parties for Unit No. A-801, the total consideration of the unit of Rs. 23,95,000/- and full payment by the complainant is on record and also admitted by the respondent. The complainant has paid 100% of the sale consideration by 29.05.2025. As per Clause 6.1 read with Part-I of Schedule G of the agreement for sale, the respondent-promoter was contractually bound to hand over physical possession of the unit to the complainant along with all promised facilities and amenities till 31.03.2023. Though, the sale deed was executed on 02.06.2025, the issue of handover of possession is under dispute. The project, "Gulmohar Park" is presently falling under the category of "LAPSED" on web portal of the Authority and the respondent has failed to avail any extensions from the Authority since December, 2025. Till date completion  certificate/occupancy certificate is neither available on record nor on web portal of the Authority. Whereas, the respondent/promoter has executed a sale deed in favor of the complainant on 02.06.2025 without obtaining a valid Completion Certificate/Occupancy Certificate (CC/OC) from the competent authority. The complainant has claimed that several structural defects are persisting in the project and several amenities/facilities as promised by the promoter are still incomplete. The clause 1 on page 4 of the sale deed mentioned that the promoter has handed over the vacant physical possession of the demised premises under sale to the allottee. Whereas clause 27 on page 9 of this deed mention that the allottee is agreed for registry and after 45 days of registry, promoter will handover possession. These both are contradictory but, the claim of the complainant that he has not been given possession is not specifically rebutted by the respondent. The project is not yet complete as the respondent in its reply at para 21 & 22 has admitted that project completion work is in progress, internal development work on site is almost near completion in all respect in accordance with the approved building plans. The respondent had admitted delay in completion of the project but, cited reasons that the delay in project completion was due to force majeure events such as raw material shortages, policy changes, alleged default in payments by allottees etc. The respondent has not availed any extension on account of any these reasons. Thus, this argument for delay is not justified. Mere execution of a sale deed in favour of the complainant that too without handing over of the possession does not absolve the promoter of their statutory liabilities. Since the project remains under ‘LAPSED’ category and in absence of any further extensions since the year 2023, it is established that there has been an inordinate delay in completion of the project. Hence, the complainant is entitled to seek interest for the delay period under Section 18 of the Act from the expected date of handing over possession i.e. 31.03.2023 until physical possession is handed over to him.

# 9. In view of the foregoing observations and findings, present complaint is allowed with following directions:-

• i) The respondent is directed to hand over possession and also pay interest @ 10.80% i.e. Highest SBI MCLR 8.80%+2.00% on the deposited amount of Rs. 23,95,000/- from 01.04.2023 till date of this order i.e. 10.09.2026 and thereafter from 11.09.2026 till obtaining of occupancy certificate. The accrued interest is payable as under:-

• ii) The interest of Rs. 8,91,491/- is worked out from 01.04.2023 to date of this order i.e. 10.09.2026, which is payable to the complainant within 45 days of this order. 

• iii) Remaining interest amount as accrued from 11.09.2026 till handing over the physical possession shall also be paid to the complainant.

# 10. Compliance of the order shall be made within 45 days of the uploading of this order on the official webpage of the Authority.

# 11. There shall be no order as to costs.

# 12. The order will be uploaded on the webpage of the Authority. Copy of order will be sent to concerned parties and place in the file.

# 13. This complaint stands disposed of with the abovementioned directions and now removed from the cause list of the Authority. The case file be consigned to records, after due compliance.

-------------------------------------

M/s Brahma City Pvt. Ltd. vs Smt. Seema Mittal - The issue with regard to maintainability of a complaint after execution of the Conveyance Deed is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 946 of 2024—Emaar India Limited v. Poonam Goel and another, decided on 02.07.2026.

 REAT Haryana  (2026.08.17) in M/s Brahma City Pvt. Ltd. vs Smt. Seema Mittal  [Appeal No. 555 of 2026] held that; 

• The issue with regard to maintainability of a complaint after execution of the Conveyance Deed is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 946 of 2024—Emaar India Limited v. Poonam Goel and another, decided on 02.07.2026.

--------------------------------------------------------

REAT Haryana  (2026.07.02) in Emaar India Limited  vs  Poonam Goel & Anr. [Appeal No.946 of 2024 ] held that; 

• Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan & Aleya Sultana and Others v. DLF Southern Homes Private Limited (now known as Begur OMR Homes Private Limited) and Others, (2020) 16 SCC 512, held that an allottee is not precluded from claiming compensation for delay in handing over the possession after execution of registered sale deed in his favour.

• A perusal of the scheme of the Act reveals that while the legislature has specifically prescribed period of limitation for filing appeals under Section 44 and for other specified proceedings, no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing a complaint before the Authority under Section 31 of the Act.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts of the Order; 

Present appeal is directed against order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the Authority. Operative part thereof reads as under: 

• “G. Directions issued by the authority: 

• 24. Hence, the Authority hereby passes this order and issues the following directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the promoter as per the functions entrusted to the Authority under section 34(f) of the Act of 2016:

• i. The respondent is directed to pay delay possession charges at the prescribed rate of interest @10.80% per annum from the due date of possession i.e. 31.09.2022 till valid offer of possession i.e. 08.11.2023 plus two months i.e. 08.01.2024, as per Section 18(1) of the Act of 2016 read with Rule 15 of the Rules, ibid.

• ii. The respondent is directed to pay arrears of interest accrued within 90 days from the date of order of this order as per Rule 16(2) of the Rules, ibid.

• 25. Complaint stands disposed of.

• 26. File be consigned to the Registry.” 

# 2. It appears that a project in the name and style of ‘Miracle Mile’ was floated by the appellant-promoter in Sector 60, Gurugram. The respondent-allottee booked a unit therein.Total sale consideration of the unit was Rs.58,05,072/-. The respondent-allottee remitted an amount of Rs.67,95,210/-. Due date of possession was 31.09.2022. Occupation Certificate was granted to the project on 16.08.2023. Offer of possession was made to the respondent-allottee on 08.11.2023. The unit was handed over to the allottee on 08.07.2024. Conveyance Deed was also executed in favour of the allottee on 06.06.2024. As there was delay in handing over the possession, the allottee preferred a complaint before the Authority seeking Delay Possession Charges. 

# 3. After hearing rival contentions of the parties, the Authority issued the directions, as reproduced in the opening paragraph of this order. 

# 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Authority, the promoter has filed the present appeal.

# 5. The promoter has assailed the impugned order on the ground that no claim for interest on account of delay in delivery of possession could be maintained after the execution of the Conveyance Deed, as all contractual obligations stood discharged upon execution thereof. The claim for interest on account of delay could not be raised once the possession of the unit was handed over on 08.07.2024 and conveyance deed executed on 06.06.2024. The appellant stood discharged of all obligations under various provisions of the Act. No cause of action would survive after execution of the conveyance deed. 

# 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and given careful thought to the facts of the case. 

# 7. The issue with regard to maintainability of a complaint after execution of the Conveyance Deed is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 946 of 2024—Emaar India Limited v. Poonam Goel and another, decided on 02.07.2026. 

# 8. In view of above, the appeal is dismissed. 

# 9. The amount of pre-deposit made by the appellant-promoter, along with interest accrued thereon, be remitted to the Authority for disbursement to the respondent-allottee, subject to tax liability, if any. 

# 10. Copy of this order be sent to the parties/their counsel and the Authority. 

# 11. File be consigned to records.

----------------------------------------------------------

Emaar India Limited vs Poonam Goel & Anr. - Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan & Aleya Sultana and Others v. DLF Southern Homes Private Limited (now known as Begur OMR Homes Private Limited) and Others, (2020) 16 SCC 512, held that an allottee is not precluded from claiming compensation for delay in handing over the possession after execution of registered sale deed in his favour.

 REAT Haryana  (2026.07.02) in Emaar India Limited  vs  Poonam Goel & Anr. [Appeal No.946 of 2024 ] held that; 

• This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the allottees are entitled to delay possession charges under Section 18 of the Act on account of delayed delivery of possession by the promoter. The obligation of the promoter to hand over possession within the agreed timeline is a fundamental contractual as well as statutory obligation. Failure thereof attracts the consequences contemplated under Section 18 of the Act.

• Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan & Aleya Sultana and Others v. DLF Southern Homes Private Limited (now known as Begur OMR Homes Private Limited) and Others, (2020) 16 SCC 512, held that an allottee is not precluded from claiming compensation for delay in handing over the possession after execution of registered sale deed in his favour.

• But the submission of the developer is that the purchaser forsakes the remedy before the consumer forum by seeking a Deed of Conveyance. To accept such a construction would lead to an absurd consequence of requiring the purchaser either to abandon a just claim as a condition for obtaining the conveyance or to indefinitely delay the execution of the Deed of Conveyance pending protracted consumer litigation.

• A perusal of the scheme of the Act reveals that while the legislature has specifically prescribed period of limitation for filing appeals under Section 44 and for other specified proceedings, no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing a complaint before the Authority under Section 31 of the Act.

• It is settled principle of statutory interpretation that where the legislature has consciously provided limitation in certain provisions and omitted the same in others, such omission cannot be supplied by judicial interpretation. Consequently, no limitation period can be imported into Section 31 of the Act by implication.

• The Act neither incorporates nor makes applicable the provisions of the Limitation Act to complaints instituted before the Authority. In the absence of any express legislative mandate, the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to defeat a remedy created under a legislation enacted for protection of allottees and regulation of the real estate sector.

• The provisions of the Limitation Act, which the legislature did not incorporate in the Act, 2016, cannot be imported into it by analogy. An enactment being the will of the legislature, the paramount rule of interpretation, which overrides all others, is that a statute is to be expounded ‘according to the intent of them that made it’.

• The will of the Legislature is the supreme law of the land, and demands perfect obedience. If the Legislature willfully omits to incorporate something of an analogous law in a subsequent statute, or even if there is a casus omissus in a statute, the language of which is otherwise plain and unambiguous, the Court is not competent to supply the omission by engrafting on it or introducing in it, under the guise of interpretation, by analogy of implication, something what is thinks to be a general principle of justice and equity.

Excerpts of the Order;

This order shall dispose of the above-mentioned appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts have been extracted from Appeal No. 946 of 2024.

# 2. Challenge in the present appeal is to order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the Authority1. Operative part thereof reads as under:

• “H. Directions of the Authority:

• 40. Hence, the authority hereby passes this order and issue the following directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the promoter as per the functions entrusted to the Authority under Section 34(f) of the Act of 2016:

• i. The respondent shall pay interest at the prescribed rate i.e. 11% per annum for every month of delay on the amount paid by the complainant from due date of possession i.e. 16.11.2016 till the date of offer of possession i.e. 31.05.2019 (inadvertently mentioned in the proceeding of the day as 11.12.2019) after obtaining occupation certificate plus two months or actual handing over of possession whichever is earlier as per proviso to Section 18(1) of the Act read with rule 15 of the rules. Also an amount which has already been given by the respondent as credit compensation shall be deduced/adjusted towards the delay possession charges to be paid by the respondent.

• ii. The rate of interest chargeable from the allottees by the promoter in case of default shall be charged at the prescribed rate i.e. 11% by the respondent/ promoter which is the same rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottees, in case of default i.e., the delayed possession charges as per section 2(za) of the Act.

• iii. The respondent is directed to pay arrears of interest accrued, if any, after adjustment in statement of account within 90 days from the date of this order as per rule 16(2) of the rules.

• 41. Complaint stands disposed of.

• 42. File be consigned to the registry.”

# 3. It appears that a project in the name and style of “Gurgaon Greens” was floated by the appellant-promoter in Sector 102, Gurugram. The respondents were allotted a unit measuring 1650 square feet therein vide allotment letter dated 28.01.2013. Buyer’s agreement was executed between the parties on 22.04.2013. Total sale consideration of the unit was Rs.96,40,123/-. The allottees remitted an amount of Rs.98,39,686/-. According to agreement, due date of possession was 16.11.2016. Occupation Certificate was granted to the project on 30.05.2019. Immediately thereafter, offer of possession was made on 31.05.2019. Unit handover letter was issued on 11.12.2019. Conveyance deed was executed on 03.02.2020. As there was delay in handing over possession of the unit, the allotees preferred a complaint on 15.09.2022 before the Authority at Gurugram seeking delay possession charges along with ancillary reliefs.

# 4. After hearing rival contentions of the parties, the Authority disposed of the complaint and issued directions, as reproduced in paragraph 1 of this order.

# 5. The promoter has assailed the impugned order on several grounds, primarily on the ground that no claim for interest on account of delay in delivery of possession could be maintained after the execution of the Conveyance Deed, as all contractual obligations stood discharged upon execution thereof, except those relating to structural defects or other defects covered under Section 14(3) of the Act. It has been submitted that in terms of Section 2(10) of Indian Stamp Act, 1989, the concluded contracts cannot be re-opened by reference to the relevant terms of the conveyance deed reproduced in the grounds of appeal. The claim for interest on account of delay could not be raised once the possession of the unit was handed over on 11.12.2019 and conveyance deed executed on 03.02.2020. The appellant stood discharged of all obligations under various provisions of the Act. No cause of action would survive after execution of the conveyance deed. It has also been emphasied that because delay compensation of Rs.1,88,575/- was accepted, the allottees were estopped from raising any claim in that regard. It is alleged that there was concealment of payment on account of delay compensation already received.

# 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the allottees argued that even after execution of the conveyance deed and handing over of the possession, the allottee continues to retain the status of an ‘allottee’ under the Act and does not cease to be so merely because he/she has become a purchaser by virtue of the conveyance deed. Finally, it has been contended that if at all the allottees are held entitled for payment of interest, the same has to be calculated from due dates of receipt of payment. Attention of this Tribunal is invited to certain clauses of Flat buyer agreement wherein, the construction was agreed to be completed within a period of 36 months with grace period of 5 months from the date of start of construction. The said obligation was not fulfilled by the builder despite the fact that periodic payments were made and rather certain increased payments were realized from the allottees. The agreed date for delivery of possession was 16.11.2016, however, offer of possession was made on 31.05.2019; even that was not valid offer of possession because stringent conditions to pay certain amount which were not part of the agreement were imposed. Even by that date, the period was delayed by approximately three years. The promoter charged penalty @ 24% p.a. in the event of delay in payment by the allottees which was also unfair and illegal. Finally, exact measurement of the unit was not disclosed. On these premises, counsel for the allottees submitted that the relief granted by the Authority was legal and justified.

# 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

# 8. Admittedly, the allottees in all the appeals are in possession of their respective units and conveyance deeds have also been executed in their favour.

# 9. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the allottees are entitled to delay possession charges under Section 18 of the Act on account of delayed delivery of possession by the promoter. The obligation of the promoter to hand over possession within the agreed timeline is a fundamental contractual as well as statutory obligation. Failure thereof attracts the consequences contemplated under Section 18 of the Act. 

# 10. The contention that execution of conveyance deed or delivery of possession extinguishes the rights of the allottees under the Act cannot be accepted. The Scheme of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the status of allottee does not stand obliterated merely because title has been conveyed. Any other interpretation would defeat the beneficial object of the legislation and permit promoter to evade liability despite admitted deficiencies or delays.

# 11. Karnataka High Court in RERA Appeal No. 7 of 2021- M/s Total Environment Building Systems (P) Ltd. v. Mr. Verghese Stephen, decided on 11.03.2022, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan & Aleya Sultana and Others v. DLF Southern Homes Private Limited (now known as Begur OMR Homes Private Limited) and Others, (2020) 16 SCC 512, held that an allottee is not precluded from claiming compensation for delay in handing over the possession after execution of registered sale deed in his favour.

# 12. The relevant observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan’s case (supra) are reproduced below:

• "35. The flat purchasers invested hard-earned money. It is only reasonable to presume that the next logical step is for the purchaser to perfect the title to the premises which have been allotted under the terms of the ABA. But the submission of the developer is that the purchaser forsakes the remedy before the consumer forum by seeking a Deed of Conveyance. To accept such a construction would lead to an absurd consequence of requiring the purchaser either to abandon a just claim as a condition for obtaining the conveyance or to indefinitely delay the execution of the Deed of Conveyance pending protracted consumer litigation. 

• 36. It has been urged by the learned counsel of the developer that a consequence of the execution of the Deed of Conveyance in the present case is that the same ceases to be a transaction in the nature of "supply of services" covered under the CP Act 1986 and becomes a mere sale of immovable property which is not amenable to the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora. In Narne Construction (P) Ltd. v. Union of India ((2012) 5 SCC 359), this Court distinguished between transfer of a piece of immovable property and housing construction or building activity a simple carried out by a private or statutory body falling in the category of "service" within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (o) of the CP Act 1986. This Court held that:

• "8. Having regard to the nature of transaction between the appellant Company and its customers involved much more than a simple transfer of a piece of immovable property it is clear the same constitutes "service" within the meaning of the Act. It was not the case that the appellant Company was selling the given property with all its advantages and/or disadvantages on "as is where is" basis, as was the position in State [UT of Chandigarh) v. Amarjeet Singh ((2009) 4 SCC 660]. It is a case where a clear-cut assurance was made to the purchasers as to the nature and extent of development that would be carried out by the appellant Company as a part of package under which a sale of fully developed plots with assured facilities was made in favour of the purchasers for valuable consideration. To the extent the transfer of site with developments in the manner and to the extent indicated earlier was a part of the transaction, the appellant Company has indeed undertaken to provide a service. Any deficiency or defect in such service would make it accountable before the competent Consumer Forum at the instance of respondents." consumers like the developer in the present case has undertaken to provide a service in the nature of developing residential flats with certain amenities and remains amenable to the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora. Consequently, we are unable to subscribe to the view of the NCDRC that flat purchasers who obtained possession or executed Deeds of Conveyance have lost their right to make a claim for compensation for the delayed handing over of the flats."

# 13. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contention raised by the promoter that the complaint instituted by the allottees was not maintainable after execution of the Conveyance Deed, is liable to be rejected.

# 14. We find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. Consequently, present appeals stand dismissed being devoid of merit.

# 15. Before parting with the matter, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to make certain observations on the issue of limitation in proceedings arising under Section 18 of the Act.

# 16. The preliminary objection regarding limitation raised by the promoter deserves to be rejected. The proceedings in the present matter have been instituted under the Act. A perusal of the scheme of the Act reveals that while the legislature has specifically prescribed period of limitation for filing appeals under Section 44 and for other specified proceedings, no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing a complaint before the Authority under Section 31 of the Act. It is settled principle of statutory interpretation that where the legislature has consciously provided limitation in certain provisions and omitted the same in others, such omission cannot be supplied by judicial interpretation. Consequently, no limitation period can be imported into Section 31 of the Act by implication.

# 17. It is also well-settled that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to proceedings before special Tribunals or authorities unless such applicability is expressly provided by the statute creating the forum. The Act neither incorporates nor makes applicable the provisions of the Limitation Act to complaints instituted before the Authority. In the absence of any express legislative mandate, the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to defeat a remedy created under a legislation enacted for protection of allottees and regulation of the real estate sector.

# 18. Similar view has been expressed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in MA No. 173 of 2023—Smt. Nidhi Sao v. Greenearth Infraventures Private Limited, decided on 16.04.2026. Relevant paragraph thereof is reproduced hereunder:

• “19. It is pertinent to mention here that from the language of the Act 2016, the intention of the legislature to exclude the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act is manifestly clear. The provisions of the Limitation Act, which the legislature did not incorporate in the Act, 2016, cannot be imported into it by analogy. An enactment being the will of the legislature, the paramount rule of interpretation, which overrides all others, is that a statute is to be expounded ‘according to the intent of them that made it’. The will of the Legislature is the supreme law of the land, and demands perfect obedience. If the Legislature willfully omits to incorporate something of an analogous law in a subsequent statute, or even if there is a casus omissus in a statute, the language of which is otherwise plain and unambiguous, the Court is not competent to supply the omission by engrafting on it or introducing in it, under the guise of interpretation, by analogy of implication, something what is thinks to be a general principle of justice and equity. To do so ‘would be entrenching upon the preserves of Legislature’, the primary function of a Court of law being jus dicere and not jus dare.” 

 

# 19. Accordingly, the objection regarding limitation is devoid of merit and is hereby rejected. The complaint before the Authority is held to be maintainable and liable to be adjudicated on merits.

# 20. The amount of pre-deposit made by the promoter in the aforesaid appeals, along with interest accrued thereon, be remitted to the Authority for disbursement to the parties as per their entitlement, subject to tax liability, if any.

# 21. Copy of this order be sent to parties/their counsel and the Authority.

# 22. Files be consigned to the records.

--------------------------------------------