Force majeure failed. The meeting never happened. The clock still rewound.

Spenta Builders v. Ashlesh Gosain: The Day MahaREAT Rewound the Interest Clock

Ashlesh Gosain bought a flat in Spenta Builders' 'Palazzio' project in Mumbai. The agreement, signed in July 2014, promised possession by December 2015. The builder delivered the flat in July 2020—four and a half years late. The MahaRERA Authority awarded interest, but only from July 2017, not from the contractual due date. Both sides appealed. The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, had to answer one question: when does the interest clock actually start ticking?

What the agreement actually said

On 15 July 2014, Gosain signed a registered agreement for sale with Spenta Builders for flat no.202 in Wing A of 'Palazzio' (MahaRERA Reg. No. P51800002414). The total consideration was Rs.97,22,000. The agreement was clear: possession by 31 December 2015. No ifs. No buts.

The builder obtained the Occupation Certificate on 14 July 2020. Possession was offered the next day—15 July 2020. That is a delay of over four and a half years from the contractual date. The allottee had paid the entire consideration during this period, waiting for a home that never came on time.

The MahaRERA order that started the fight

Gosain approached the MahaRERA Authority (Member I) on 13 November 2019. The Authority passed an order awarding interest on delayed possession from 1 July 2017. Why July 2017? Not because of anything in Gosain's agreement. The Authority simply followed orders it had passed in similar complaints by other allottees in the same project. The Authority also erroneously mentioned the OC date as 28 February 2019.

Spenta Builders filed a Rectification Application on 3 September 2020. The Authority corrected the OC date error but refused to change the interest start date from 1 July 2017. The builder wanted no interest at all. The allottee wanted interest from the contractual due date of 31 December 2015. Both were unhappy.

Two appeals landed before the MahaREAT Mumbai: Spenta Builders' appeal (No. AT006000000052402/20) challenging the entire interest award, and Gosain's cross-appeal (No. AT006000000052942/21) seeking interest from the original due date.

The builder's defence: blame the government

Spenta Builders argued that the delay was not their fault. They pointed to a litany of external factors: delays in environmental clearances, NOCs from the Airport Authority of India, and a ban on sand mining. The builder claimed that in a meeting with flat purchasers in 2017, all buyers agreed to extend the possession date to July 2017. This, they argued, should be treated as a mutual amendment to the agreement.

The builder also invoked force majeure. They argued that regulatory delays and permission bottlenecks were events beyond their control, and therefore no interest should be payable for the period before the Occupation Certificate was obtained.

The allottee's case: the agreement is the agreement

Gosain's position was straightforward. The registered agreement for sale dated 15 July 2014 stipulated possession by 31 December 2015. That date could only be amended by mutual consent of both parties. There was no evidence that Gosain individually agreed to any extension. The builder's claim about a 2017 meeting was unsupported by any document signed by the allottee.

Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the allottee argued, gives an unqualified right to interest for delayed possession. The Supreme Court had already settled this in M/s. Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni & Ors. and M/s. Newtech Promoter and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh. The interest must run from the day after the contractual possession date, not from some arbitrary date chosen by the Authority.

The Tribunal's first move: who has jurisdiction?

Before reaching the merits, the Tribunal addressed a preliminary issue. The builder argued that the MahaRERA Authority had no jurisdiction to award interest under Section 18, and that such claims must be referred to the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of RERA.

The Tribunal rejected this argument. It held that where an allottee claims only interest for delayed possession under Section 18 (as distinct from compensation requiring deeper inquiry under Section 72), the MahaRERA Authority has full jurisdiction to adjudicate. Referral to the Adjudicating Officer is required only when the claim involves compensation requiring adjudication of factors under Section 72—such as loss of rental income, mental agony, or other heads of damage. Interest for delayed possession is a straightforward calculation: apply the prescribed rate to the amount paid for the period of delay. No deeper inquiry is needed.

This distinction matters. It means allottees can get interest from the Authority without being shunted to a separate adjudicatory process. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Imperia Structures to reinforce that the right to interest under Section 18 is unqualified and does not depend on any adjudication of fault.

Force majeure: the defence that failed

The Tribunal then turned to the builder's force majeure argument. The explanation to Section 6 of RERA defines force majeure narrowly: war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake, or other natural calamities. Delays in obtaining environmental clearances, NOCs from the Airport Authority, and sand mining bans do not fall within this definition.

The Tribunal cited Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., where the Bombay High Court held that promoters are expected to be conscious of the time required for completing a project given their experience in the market. When a promoter submits a proposal for registration under RERA, they must have a fair assessment of the time needed. They cannot later claim ignorance of factors that cause delay.

The Tribunal observed that administrative and regulatory delays are foreseeable for any real estate project in India. An experienced promoter like Spenta Builders knew or ought to have known that environmental clearances and airport NOCs take time. If they promised possession by December 2015, they must bear the consequences of that promise.

The force majeure defence was rejected.

The meeting that never happened (for this allottee)

The builder's claim about a 2017 meeting where flat purchasers agreed to extend possession to July 2017 was also rejected. The Tribunal held that the possession date stipulated in a registered agreement for sale can only be amended by mutual consent of both parties. There was no evidence that Gosain individually consented to any extension. A general meeting with some flat purchasers cannot bind an allottee who did not agree.

The Tribunal noted that allottees have very limited liability under RERA—primarily to make timely payments so the project is not starved of funds. If the allottee is not responsible for the delay, they cannot be saddled with the consequences of the promoter's failure.

The critical error: mechanical application of other orders

The Tribunal then addressed the MahaRERA Authority's decision to award interest from 1 July 2017 instead of the contractual due date. The Authority had simply followed orders it passed in other complaints by different allottees in the same project. The Tribunal held this was a fundamental error.

Each allottee has a separate agreement for sale with its own possession date. The Authority must determine the interest start date based on the specific date of possession stipulated in that allottee's own agreement. It cannot mechanically apply dates from orders in other complaints, even if they are in the same project. The allottee's agreement said 31 December 2015. That is the date that governs.

The Tribunal modified the interest start date from 1 July 2017 to 1 January 2016—the day after the contractual possession date. Interest was directed to run until 15 July 2020, when possession was actually offered. The rate was set at SBI MCLR + 2%, as prescribed under RERA.

THE PLAY: When claiming interest for delayed possession under Section 18 RERA, always anchor your claim to the specific possession date in your registered agreement for sale. The Authority cannot use another allottee's case to fix your interest start date.

What this means for homebuyers

This judgment clarifies three things for allottees pursuing delayed possession claims.

First, the interest clock starts from the contractual possession date, not from some later date the Authority picks. If your agreement says December 2015, interest runs from January 2016. The Authority cannot push the start date to July 2017 just because it did so for another allottee.

Second, force majeure is a very narrow defence. Regulatory delays, permission bottlenecks, and sand mining bans are not force majeure under RERA. Promoters who promise unrealistic timelines must pay for the delay.

Third, the Authority has jurisdiction to award interest under Section 18. You do not need to go to the Adjudicating Officer for a simple interest claim. Only compensation claims under Section 72 require referral to the Adjudicating Officer.

For promoters, the message is equally clear. You cannot escape liability by blaming the government or claiming that a general meeting with some buyers extended the possession date. The registered agreement is the only document that matters. If you promise possession by a certain date, you must deliver by that date or pay interest from the next day.

The bottom line

The MahaREAT Mumbai dismissed Spenta Builders' appeal and allowed Ashlesh Gosain's cross-appeal, directing the builder to pay interest at SBI MCLR + 2% from 1 January 2016 to 15 July 2020 within 30 days—because under Section 18 of RERA, the interest clock starts ticking the day after the contractual possession date, not when the Authority decides it should.