She paid full price, sold the flat, then sued for delay. HARERA said: you're not the allottee.

She Paid Full Sale Price. She Sold the Flat. Then She Sued for Delay. HARERA Said: You’re Not the Allottee Anymore.

Kalpana Rawat did everything a homebuyer is supposed to do. She booked a flat in an affordable housing project called ‘Our Homes’ in Sector 37C, Gurugram. She paid the full sale price for unit no. 431 on the 4th floor in Tower-Rose. A buyer’s agreement was signed on 09.02.2013. The builder, M/s. Apex Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., promised possession within 36 months, plus a six-month grace period. That deadline came and went. The due date was 02.06.2017. The builder only obtained an occupation certificate on 29.11.2019. Physical possession was taken on 24.08.2020. A conveyance deed was executed on 24.06.2020.

Then, on 27.09.2023, Kalpana Rawat sold the flat to Mrs. Lata Babele.

On 10.11.2023 — just 44 days later — she filed a complaint before the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram, seeking delayed possession charges under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

The Authority, presided over by Shri Ashok Sangwan, dismissed the complaint on merits. The reason was simple and dispositive: after selling the unit, Kalpana Rawat was no longer an ‘allottee’ under the RERA Act. She had no locus standi to claim a penny.

The Question: Who Gets to Claim Delay?

The stakes were straightforward. Kalpana Rawat had paid the full price. The builder had delayed possession by over three years. Under Section 18(1) of the RERA Act, a promoter who fails to complete or hand over possession by the agreed date must either return the amount with interest or, if the allottee does not withdraw, pay interest for every month of delay. The prescribed rate under Rule 15 of the Haryana RERA Rules, 2017, is typically favourable to the allottee.

But here was the catch: by the time Kalpana Rawat approached the Authority, she no longer owned the flat. She had sold it. The question was whether she could still claim compensation for a delay that had ended before she sold the unit.

The builder, naturally, argued that she could not. The Authority agreed.

What the RERA Act Actually Says About ‘Allottee’

The Authority turned to Section 2(d) of the RERA Act, 2016. The definition reads:

“allottee” in relation to a real estate project, means the person to whom a plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, has been allotted, sold (whether as freehold or leasehold) or otherwise transferred by the promoter, and includes the person who subsequently acquires the said allotment through sale, transfer or otherwise but does not include a person to whom such plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, is given on rent.

Two things stand out. First, the definition includes the original allottee — the person to whom the promoter sold the unit. Second, it also includes a person who subsequently acquires the allotment through sale or transfer. The definition is inclusive, not exclusive.

But the Authority read it strictly. Once Kalpana Rawat executed a sale deed on 27.09.2023 transferring the unit to Mrs. Lata Babele, she ceased to hold any right, title or interest in the flat. She was no longer the person to whom the unit had been allotted or sold. The new allottee was Mrs. Lata Babele.

And since the complaint was filed on 10.11.2023 — after the transfer — Kalpana Rawat could not claim to be an allottee at the time of filing. The Authority held that she lacked locus standi to maintain a claim for delayed possession charges under Section 18.

The Procedural Trap: Filing After the Sale

This was not a case where the allottee had filed a complaint and then sold the unit during the pendency of proceedings. That scenario might have raised different questions — about whether the right to claim compensation is a personal right that survives transfer, or whether it passes to the purchaser. But here, the sequence was fatal: sale first, complaint later.

The Authority noted that the complainant had not even alleged that she retained any right to claim delayed possession charges after the sale. The conveyance deed was executed on 24.06.2020. The sale to Mrs. Lata Babele was on 27.09.2023. The complaint was filed on 10.11.2023. The gap between the sale and the complaint was just 44 days.

The Authority did not mince words. It held that the complainant was “not entitled to any relief” and dismissed the complaint on merits.

What the Authority Did Not Decide

The Authority implicitly acknowledged that the builder had delayed possession. The due date was 02.06.2017. The occupation certificate was obtained on 29.11.2019. That is a delay of roughly two and a half years. But the Authority did not adjudicate on the merits of the delay claim because the locus standi issue was dispositive.

This leaves an open question: can Mrs. Lata Babele, the subsequent purchaser, now file a fresh complaint claiming delayed possession charges? The Authority did not answer that. The obiter dicta suggests that the finding on delay was not necessary for the decision, and the question remains open.

For practitioners, this is a critical point. If you are advising a client who has purchased a resale flat in a RERA-registered project, you need to check whether the original allottee has already claimed or waived any rights to delayed possession charges. If the original allottee has not claimed them, the subsequent purchaser may be able to step into their shoes — but only if the complaint is filed before the sale, or if the right is expressly assigned.

The Doctrine That Mattered: Locus Standi Under RERA

The ratio decidendi is narrow but powerful: an original allottee who transfers the subject unit to a third party by way of sale deed prior to filing a complaint ceases to be an ‘allottee’ under Section 2(d) of the RERA Act, 2016. She no longer holds any right, title or interest in the unit. Consequently, she lacks locus standi to claim delayed possession charges under Section 18 of the Act.

This is not a technicality. It is a question of statutory interpretation. The RERA Act defines ‘allottee’ in terms of the relationship between the person and the property. Once that relationship is severed by a sale, the person falls outside the definition. The Act does not create a floating right to compensation that survives the transfer of the property.

The Authority did not cite any precedents — the precedent registry in the judgment is empty. This was a first-impression issue for the Authority, decided purely on the text of the statute.

THE PLAY: If you are an original allottee who has sold your flat, file your complaint under Section 18 before you execute the sale deed. If you are a subsequent purchaser, ensure that the right to claim delayed possession charges is expressly assigned to you in the sale agreement, or file a fresh complaint in your own name as the new allottee.

Why This Matters in Practice

For advocates, this judgment is a reminder that locus standi under RERA is not a formality. It is a jurisdictional question. If your client has sold the unit, they cannot maintain a complaint for delayed possession charges. The complaint will be dismissed on merits, not on a preliminary objection that can be cured.

For CFOs and founders of real estate companies, this judgment is a shield. If you are facing a claim for delayed possession charges from a person who has already sold the flat, you can move to dismiss the complaint at the threshold. The RERA Authority will not entertain it.

For homebuyers, the lesson is brutal but clear: if you sell your flat before you file your complaint, you lose your right to claim compensation for delay. The right does not travel with the property. It belongs to the allottee at the time of filing.

The Authority did not decide whether the subsequent purchaser can claim the same compensation. That is a question for another day. But for now, the rule is simple: file first, sell later.

The Bottom Line

If you are an allottee who has suffered a delay in possession, do not sell your unit before you file your complaint under Section 18 of the RERA Act. Once you sell, you lose your locus standi — and your claim dies with it.