Statutory right to interest under Section 18 RERA is absolute and overrides Section 55 Contract Act.

The Appellant (Promoter) and Respondents (Allottees) entered into an agreement on November 18, 2014, for a flat in the "Wintergreen" project. Clause 17 of the agreement stipulated possession by June 30, 2017.

Despite paying over ₹2.05 Crores, the allottees did not receive possession by the agreed date.

The MahaRERA Authority (1st Authority) initially directed possession by December 31, 2019, but deferred the issue of interest, giving allottees liberty to claim it later based on a request for parity with a connected matter.

The Allottees appealed to the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, which quashed the lower order and directed the Promoter to pay interest for the delayed period from July 1, 2017, until possession.

The Promoter challenged this before the High Court, arguing that the allottees accepted delayed performance under Section 55 of the Contract Act and that the appeal was barred due to the "concession" made before the 1st Authority.

1. Whether in view of Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the acceptance of delayed performance disentitles the promisee from claiming compensation?

2. Whether the provisions of Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016 override Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act?

3. Whether force majeure events (specifically Covid-19) listed in the contract could have been ignored?

4. Whether the Appeal was maintainable in view of the "concession" given by the Respondents regarding the timing of interest claims?

Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), which provides an "unqualified absolute right" to interest for delayed possession.

Principle from Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., establishing that RERA is retroactive and Section 18 is not dependent on contingencies.

Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 regarding the effect of accepting delayed performance.

Section 89 of RERA, which gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws.

Principle from M/s. Pragatej Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Anju Sukhadia, holding that lockdowns do not excuse delays occurring prior to the pandemic.

The Court reasoned that Section 18 of RERA confers a statutory right that is "unqualified" and "absolute," meaning it is not subject to the conditional notice requirement found in Section 55 of the Contract Act.

Even if allottees accepted a revised schedule, this conduct does not constitute an "addendum" to the contract that can supersede the written statutory date.

The Court found that Section 89 of RERA ensures that the specific protections of Section 18 prevail over the general provisions of the Contract Act.

On the "concession" issue, the Court determined that the allottees' request for a similar order to a separate case was a "plea of parity," not an express waiver or abandonment of the right to interest.

Since the delay occurred starting in June 2017, the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic could not be used as a force majeure defense for that prior default.

The Court further held that the appeal was maintainable as there was no express waiver of legal rights, noting that an advocate's concession on a question of law does not estop a party.

The Appellate Tribunal was correct in awarding interest from July 1, 2017, and the Second Appeal was dismissed with costs.