Can Homebuyers Refuse Possession Without Promised Amenities?
Can Homebuyers Refuse Property Possession if Promised Amenities Are Missing?
Nowadays, it has become common for real estate projects in India to get delayed. While developers push hard to complete projects on time, sometimes things go wrong, and homebuyers suffer.
Despite paying huge amounts for their dream homes, buyers sometimes face unethical practices when developers force possession without fulfilling all promises. In such cases, buyers often turn to RERA — a safeguard for homebuyers since 2016.
One such case in Maharashtra involved a developer who tried to force possession on homebuyers even though the project only had a part completion certificate.
What is the case about?
Two homebuyers booked flats (2460 sq ft) in Bandra West for 13 crore each in 2015. The developer promised possession in 2016 with all amenities, including automated parking.
The project was delayed, and in 2017, the developer offered possession. However, not all promised facilities were ready, and the building only had a part occupation certificate. The automated parking was missing, and several works were pending.
Buyers refused to take possession, but the developer insisted they accept it, citing the part occupation certificate.
What steps did homebuyers take?
Referring to Section 19(10) of RERA, which states that allottees must take possession within two months of the occupancy certificate, the buyers argued that the certificate in this case was only partial and the project was incomplete.
They filed a complaint with MahaRERA against the developer’s unethical practice.
MahaRERA’s decision
In September 2018, MahaRERA ordered the developer to pay each homebuyer 10.5% simple interest per year on 5,14,00,000 from July 1, 2016, until possession with all promised facilities was given.
The developer was also told to refund over 61 lakh charged for 118 sq ft of lift lobby space, adjust it against the balance due, and pay 20,000 to each buyer as complaint costs.
Unhappy with the decision, the developer appealed to Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT).
Developer’s arguments
The developer claimed the project had a part-occupation certificate since August 2017, with open parking for flats up to the 12th floor. While admitting automated parking was not operational, he argued enough open parking was available. He called the buyers’ refusal unreasonable and accused them of trying to delay payment.
MREAT’s decision
MREAT upheld MahaRERA’s order, stating that Section 18(1) of RERA requires developers to hand over possession as per the sale agreement, which included automated parking. Records showed the automated parking was missing at the time of the offer, making the offer invalid. The buyers were justified in refusing possession.
Conclusion
This case sets a strong example for homebuyers across India — you have the right to refuse possession if your home is incomplete or missing promised amenities, even if a part occupation certificate has been issued. RERA stands firmly on the side of buyers, ensuring that developers cannot force possession until every agreed facility is delivered. Owning a home is more than just getting keys; it’s about getting what was promised.
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
