RERA interest for delayed possession runs until handover absent a proved possession offer.

Orbit Enterprises, the promoter, had agreed to sell nine units in its project to Vazirani Realty Private Limited. Agreements or allotment letters specified possession dates of 30 June 2017 for four units and 31 May 2015 for the remaining five, as stated in the judgment’s factual account.

The judgment later refers to 31 May 2025 for those five units, an apparent internal inconsistency.

After the allottee complained to MahaRERA, agreements were executed for seven units in July 2020. The promoter obtained the Occupation Certificate on 12 February 2021, but the allottee received the keys only on 24 September 2021, pursuant to an order in its writ petition.

MahaRERA awarded interest for delayed possession up to the date of the Occupation Certificate and allowed a COVID-19 moratorium period. On the allottee’s appeals, the Appellate Tribunal ordered interest from the contractual possession dates until actual delivery and set aside the moratorium benefit.

The promoter challenged that decision in these second appeals, arguing that it had offered possession after the Occupation Certificate and that the Tribunal could not remove the moratorium benefit on a ground not raised by the allottee.

Whether the promoter’s communication dated 25 February 2021 established that it had offered possession, such that interest should not run until actual delivery of the units.

Whether the Appellate Tribunal could set aside the COVID-19 moratorium benefit when the allottee had not specifically challenged that benefit or argued the point before it.

Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 gives an allottee who continues with the project the right to interest for every month of delay until possession is handed over; Sections 18(1) and 19(4) also provide remedies where possession is delayed.

Section 19(10) requires an allottee to take physical possession within two months of issue of the Occupancy Certificate, relevant where possession has in fact been offered.

Under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appellate court may make an order necessary to do complete justice, including in favour of a party that has not appealed, subject to the limitations described in Banarsi v. Ram Phal and K. Muthuswami Gounder v. N. Palaniappa Gounder.

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 ordinarily be contradicted by later statements or evidence.

The Court also relied on Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni concerning the allottee’s statutory rights under RERA.

The Tribunal had recorded that the promoter produced no proof of an offer of possession and, despite a specific query, could not show that such a communication had been addressed to the allottee.

The promoter could not overcome that recorded finding in second appeal without first seeking correction from the Tribunal, as required by Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak.

In any event, the 25 February 2021 letter concerned only five units, did not specify outstanding sums, and called for agreements that had already been executed; the allottee’s writ petition seeking possession also contradicted the promoter’s account.

The Court therefore upheld the finding that no possession had been offered and that interest continued until actual delivery.

no reported final order is provided in the supplied text.