RERA delay interest runs until possession is handed over unless the allottee unjustifiably refuses a valid offer.

Orbit Enterprises, the promoter, agreed to deliver nine units to Vazirani Realty by 31 May 2015 or 30 June 2017, depending on the units.

The promoter obtained the Occupation Certificate on 12 February 2021, but the units were delivered only on 24 September 2021, following an order in the allottee’s writ petition.

The MahaRERA Authority awarded delayed-possession interest only until the date of the Occupation Certificate and allowed a COVID-19 moratorium.

On the allottee’s appeals, the Appellate Tribunal directed interest from the agreed possession dates until actual delivery and disallowed the moratorium.

The promoter challenged that decision in these second appeals.

1. Whether the promoter’s communication dated 25 February 2021 established an offer of possession sufficient to limit its liability to pay interest before actual delivery of the units

2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal could disallow the COVID-19 moratorium when the allottee had not separately challenged that benefit

Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) entitles an allottee who continues with the project to interest for each month of delay until possession is handed over;

Sections 18(1) and 19(4) also provide an allottee who withdraws from the project with a right to refund and interest.

Section 19(10) requires the allottee to take physical possession within two months of the Occupation Certificate.

Under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an appellate court may make an order necessary to do complete justice, subject to the limits identified in Banarsi v. Ram Phal and K. Muthuswami Gounder v. N. Palaniappa Gounder.

Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni were cited for the allottee’s statutory rights under RERA.

Under State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, a party disputing a court’s record of what occurred must seek correction from that court; the recorded account cannot be contradicted later by evidence or submissions.

The Tribunal found that the promoter had not established that it offered possession, and the High Court declined to revisit that recorded finding in the second appeals.

The 25 February 2021 letter did not alter the result: it concerned only five units, sought further payment and execution of agreements already made, and did not establish an offer of possession for all units.

The allottee’s writ petition seeking delivery also contradicted the promoter’s account.

Accordingly, interest continued until actual delivery.

The agreed possession dates preceded the COVID-19 restrictions by years, so the moratorium did not apply.

Further, because the allottee’s appeals sought interest through the date of actual possession, the challenge to the moratorium was implicit; the Tribunal could address it under Order XLI Rule 33.

It dismissed all three second appeals with costs and disposed of the interim applications.