News Citation : 2026 LN (CGRERA) 23
March 23, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority has adjudicated a dispute between a homebuyer and a developer over alleged delay in possession, payment defaults, and imposition of penalty charges in a Raipur housing project, ultimately examining both contractual obligations and statutory protections under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
In a detailed order dated March 23, 2026, the Authority dealt with a complaint filed by a homebuyer who had booked a flat in a residential project in Raipur and later sought relief against what she termed as незакон penalties, delay in possession, and incomplete construction.
According to the complaint, the allottee had initially booked a flat in one tower but requested a change due to size concerns. The developer subsequently allotted a unit in another tower and executed a sale agreement in September 2022 for a consideration of ₹53.02 lakh. The buyer secured a home loan and made payments amounting to over ₹52.52 lakh, largely through bank disbursements tied to demand letters issued by the developer.
The dispute arose when the developer demanded an additional ₹2.33 lakh as penalty, alleging delayed payments. The buyer contested this, arguing that all payments were made strictly against formal demand letters and promptly released by the bank. She further claimed that despite substantial payment, possession was not handed over by the promised deadline of December 31, 2024, and that the project remained incomplete, citing unfinished common areas, fittings, and essential infrastructure.
The complainant also sought interest for the delay under Section 18 of the RERA Act, stating that she had been servicing loan EMIs without receiving possession, causing financial and mental distress.
On the other hand, the developer strongly opposed the allegations, contending that the buyer had repeatedly defaulted on scheduled payments under the agreement. It argued that the payment plan was time-bound and independent of bank disbursement timelines, and delays of several months sometimes exceeding a year were attributable solely to the buyer.
The developer further submitted that penalty charges were contractual in nature and validly imposed under the agreement for delayed payments. It also pointed out that statutory extensions granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic had pushed the project completion timeline to September 30, 2025, thereby negating claims of delay from January 2025 onward.
Additionally, the developer maintained that the unit was ready for possession, subject to clearance of outstanding dues and completion of registration formalities, and denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
The Authority examined payment records, contractual clauses, and the timeline of construction and possession obligations. A key issue before it was whether the buyer’s payment delays justified the penalty and whether the developer had, in fact, delayed possession in violation of RERA provisions.
The case highlights the recurring tension in real estate disputes between strict contractual enforcement by developers and consumer protection safeguards under RERA, particularly around possession timelines, interest liability, and penalty clauses.
Case Reference : APARNA THAKUR vs PANKAJ LAHOTI (WALLFORT HEIGHTS PHASE II – G, H, I, J, K, L), Case No. M-PRO-2025-03305
