Table of Content
Buying a home is a milestone for most of us, and when we sign an agreement with a developer, we expect every promised detail to be honoured from the size of the flat to the smallest amenity. But what happens if a developer hands over possession without delivering on something as essential as a car parking space?
A recent ruling by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has addressed this very question, offering a clear precedent on homebuyers’ rights under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA).
Background of the Dispute
The case revolved around two luxury apartments in a Bandra West project in Mumbai, purchased back in 2015. According to the sale agreement:
-
Possession Date: June 2016
-
Amenities Promised: Two automated car parking spaces, a swimming pool, a gym, and other facilities.
-
Delay Clause: If possession was delayed, the developer would pay interest at 18% per annum until completion.
However, when the developer offered possession in August 2017, the automated parking system was incomplete, and construction was still ongoing in the building.
Also Read: Mumbai Port Authority to Lease 28 Key Plots in Mumbai and Alibaug, Raise ₹800 Crore
Why the Buyers Refused Possession
The homebuyers refused to take possession for two main reasons:
-
The promised two automated parking spaces were not operational.
-
The developer had not paid the agreed delay compensation.
The developer argued that open parking had been allotted as a temporary measure and that buyers were being unreasonable by refusing possession.
MahaRERA’s Initial Ruling
In September 2018, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) ruled in favour of the buyers:
-
The developer was ordered to pay interest at 10.5% from July 2016 until proper possession was given with all amenities.
-
A refund was ordered for overcharging on the lift lobby area.
-
Legal costs were to be reimbursed to the buyers.
The Appeal to MREAT
The developer challenged the decision before the appellate tribunal, claiming:
-
They had obtained a part-occupation certificate.
-
Open parking was an adequate temporary substitute until the automated system became operational.
-
The buyers’ refusal to take possession was to delay payments and create pressure.
MREAT’s Final Observations
MREAT upheld the essence of RERA: possession must mean complete possession — the flat and all essential amenities promised in the sale agreement.
The tribunal noted:
-
The sale agreement clearly mentioned two automated car parking spaces.
-
Evidence showed that the automated system was non-functional at the time of the possession offer.
-
Providing open parking as an interim arrangement was not acceptable.
Verdict: The possession offer was invalid, and the buyers’ refusal was justified.
Also Read: Delhi NCR, Bengaluru Lead Housing Price Surge; 1BHK Demand Rises Amid Affordability
Expert Opinions on the Decision
Legal experts believe this ruling strengthens homebuyer protection:
-
Developers cannot force possession without fulfilling all contractual promises.
-
The principle applies beyond parking spaces to any essential amenity like water connections, lifts, or security systems.
-
Buyers should thoroughly review their agreements and document any missing amenities before accepting possession.
Implications for Homebuyers
This case sends a clear message:
-
If a developer fails to provide key amenities mentioned in your agreement, you can legally refuse possession.
-
RERA offers a robust framework for enforcing these rights.
-
Always keep written records and correspondence in case legal action becomes necessary.
Conclusion
The MREAT ruling is a win for consumer rights in real estate. It reaffirms that possession under RERA isn’t just about handing over keys it’s about delivering a complete, ready-to-use property with all the promised features.
For homebuyers, this means greater protection against incomplete handovers. For developers, it’s a reminder that trust in the real estate market is built on delivering what was promised nothing less.
Follow AquireAcers Whatsapp Channel to Stay Updated With The Latest Real Estate News
Ans 1. Yes. Under RERA, you are entitled to refuse possession if essential amenities mentioned in your sale agreement such as a car parking space are not provided at the time of possession.
Ans 2. No. The same principle applies to any essential amenity mentioned in the agreement, such as lifts, water supply, power backup, or security systems.
Ans 3. Document the missing amenities, maintain all written communication, and file a complaint with your state RERA authority.
Ans 4. Not if your agreement specifies a particular facility temporary substitutes are generally not considered valid under RERA.
Ans 5. You may be entitled to interest for the delay, refund of excess charges, and legal costs, as seen in this MREAT case.