MahaRERA Orders Possession With Interest Or Refund In Wadala Redevelopment Project After Promoter Misses Stipulated Timeline

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has allowed seven complaints filed by homebuyers in the “Brand One Wadala - A Wing” redevelopment project, holding that the promoter failed to hand over possession within the stipulated time and was consequently liable either to deliver possession with interest or refund the amounts received along with interest, depending on the relief sought by individual complainants.

The complaints were decided by MahaRERA Chairperson Manoj Saunik by a common order dated 18.12.2025.

The Authority directed that two complainants who chose to remain with the project would be entitled to possession along with interest for delayed handover, while the remaining complainants who sought to withdraw were entitled to refund of the entire consideration paid, together with interest under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

The proceedings arose out of delays in completion of a redevelopment project undertaken by AM Constructions, registered with MahaRERA under Project Registration No. P51900010447. As per the MahaRERA project webpage, the original date of completion was 31.08.2021, which was later revised to 28.08.2023 and subsequently extended to 18.08.2026. However, the project was kept in abeyance in March, 2025 due to non-compliance with quarterly progress report requirements, accompanied by a penalty and directions restraining the promoter from marketing or selling units and freezing the project bank account.

The complainants, who had booked flats in the sale component of the redevelopment project between 2016 and 2019, approached MahaRERA seeking either possession with interest or refund with interest and compensation.

While two complainants continued to seek possession, the remaining complainants amended their reliefs during the proceedings and opted to withdraw from the project, citing prolonged delay, lack of construction progress, and uncertainty surrounding the project’s future.

During the hearing, the promoter contended that there was no delay attributable to it, relying on extensions granted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The promoter also pointed to parallel proceedings before the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, where its appointment as developer had been terminated in August, 2024 and later stayed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee subject to conditions.

According to the promoter, these developments justified additional time for completion and disentitled the complainants to relief under Section 18.

Rejecting these submissions, MahaRERA framed the central issue as whether the complainants were entitled to relief under Section 18 of the Act after the expiry of the promised date of possession. The Authority reiterated that Section 18 becomes operational only once the stipulated date of possession or completion has lapsed, and that thereafter the allottee has a statutory choice either to withdraw from the project and seek refund with interest or to stay invested and claim interest for delayed possession.

On facts, MahaRERA found that in complaints where registered agreements for sale or allotment letters existed, the possession date had unequivocally expired. Even in cases where no agreement for sale had been executed or where the possession clause was ambiguous, the Authority held that the promoter’s own declared proposed completion date of 31.08.2021 on the MahaRERA portal would govern the obligation to hand over possession.

The Authority observed that permitting the promoter to avoid liability merely due to absence of formal documentation would defeat the consumer-protection object of the Act.

Importantly, the Authority clarified that once the proposed completion date had expired without possession being offered, the promoter’s failure stood established for the purposes of Section 18.

It further noted that several complainants had waited for years beyond the promised timelines and were justified in exercising their right to exit the project.

Accordingly, MahaRERA directed that the complainants who opted to continue with the project would be entitled to interest for delay from 01.09.2021 until handing over of possession along with an occupancy certificate. The remaining complainants were granted refund of the amounts paid, excluding statutory charges such as stamp duty and registration, together with interest calculated from 01.09.2021 until realization.

The Authority fixed a period of 60 days for compliance with the refund directions.

While granting relief, MahaRERA also dealt with certain procedural lapses, including the filing of single complaints for multiple flats. Instead of dismissing such complaints, the Authority adopted what it described as a “balanced approach” by imposing a nominal cost of Rs. 5,000 per flat, emphasising that procedural technicalities should not override substantive allottee rights.

The Authority further clarified that in the event of termination of the existing developer and appointment of a new one, the rights of existing allottees would remain protected.

At the same time, it allowed the promoter to avail the benefit of the COVID-19 moratorium period notified by MahaRERA, insofar as applicable, while computing delay-related interest.

Concluding the matter, MahaRERA allowed all seven complaints and reaffirmed that promoters cannot indefinitely delay delivery of possession under the guise of extensions or redevelopment-related complications once the stipulated or declared completion timeline has expired.

Counsel Appearing: Adv. Monil Mandavia & parties present-in-person present for complainant at sr. no. 1 and 2, Adv. Mukund R. Jalgaonkar for complainant at sr.no 3, 4 and 7, Adv. Moksh Jain for complainant at sr.no 5, Complainant at sr.no 6 is present in person, Adv. present for respondents at sr. nos. 1 to 7.

Case Details: Chandrashekhar Subhash Chalwade & Ors. v. AM Constructions & Ors.

Bench: Manoj Saunik, Chairperson

Date of Order: 18.12.2025