MahaRERA Gives Homebuyer Final Chance to Retain Flat, Allows Builder to Cancel Deal if Dues Remain Unpaid

May 25, 2026 : The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has granted a senior citizen homebuyer one final opportunity to clear outstanding dues for a residential flat in a Mumbai housing project, while simultaneously protecting the builder’s right to terminate the sale agreement if payment obligations are not fulfilled within the stipulated period.

In an order passed on May 25, 2026, MahaRERA Member II Ravindra Deshpande partially allowed a complaint filed by Heet Builders Private Limited against homebuyer Mrs. Bhharati Kondaji Kanade concerning Flat No. 107 in the registered real estate project “Hubtown Harmony A Wing.” The dispute arose after the developer sought a declaration that the agreement for sale had been validly terminated due to non-payment of the balance sale consideration and requested permission to proceed with cancellation-related formalities.

The case concerned an Agreement for Sale executed on June 24, 2022, under which the respondent agreed to purchase the flat for ₹1.34 crore. According to the builder, the buyer paid ₹71.30 lakh but subsequently failed to pay the remaining amount despite repeated demand notices and reminders. The developer argued that timely payment was expressly made the essence of the contract and that continued default entitled it to terminate the agreement and deduct liquidated damages as provided under the contractual terms.

The developer informed MahaRERA that after issuing multiple demand letters and a pre-termination notice, it eventually terminated the agreement and proposed to refund the buyer after adjusting liquidated damages amounting to ₹20.88 lakh. The complaint sought declarations validating the termination and forfeiture, along with directions for execution and registration of a cancellation deed.

Opposing the complaint, the homebuyer contended that she was a widow, senior citizen, and retired municipal employee who had invested her life savings in the property. She argued that the cancellation was unilateral and contrary to the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. She further alleged that the flat’s layout differed from her expectations, particularly regarding the placement of a lavatory in the north-east section of the unit, which she claimed violated Vastu Shastra principles. According to her submissions, she had objected to the arrangement and later discovered that the flat had allegedly been occupied and used by the developer’s personnel.

The respondent also maintained that deteriorating health conditions had affected her ability to monitor the project and make payments on time. Despite these difficulties, she expressed willingness to pay the remaining amount and sought directions compelling the builder to accept the balance consideration, alter the flat’s layout, and hand over possession.

After examining the agreement, payment records, correspondence between the parties, and written submissions, MahaRERA observed that the buyer had admittedly paid only a portion of the agreed consideration and had not disputed the existence of outstanding dues. The Authority noted that the agreement clearly made timely payment a fundamental contractual obligation and that the respondent remained bound by its terms.

Referring to Section 19(6) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, MahaRERA emphasized that every allottee who enters into an agreement for sale is legally required to make payments in the manner and within the time specified under the agreement. The Authority observed that personal circumstances such as age or health issues could not automatically exempt a purchaser from fulfilling contractual and statutory obligations.

In a significant observation, MahaRERA clarified the limits of its jurisdiction and rejected the respondent’s attempt to pursue wider contractual claims through a counterclaim. The Authority stated that it was created primarily to ensure transparency and provide speedy dispute resolution in real estate transactions and was not vested with the powers of a civil court to adjudicate extensive contractual disputes between parties. It observed that issues involving contractual modifications, alterations in layout, and ancillary facilities could not be examined in the present proceedings through a counterclaim. However, the Authority clarified that the buyer remained free to initiate separate proceedings under RERA if she wished to challenge the layout or workmanship-related issues.

MahaRERA nevertheless took note of the respondent’s letter expressing readiness to pay the balance amount and considered her age and health condition. The Authority concluded that she should receive one final opportunity to comply with her payment obligations before the drastic consequence of termination became effective. In doing so, it sought to balance contractual enforcement with equitable considerations.

The Authority observed that “the respondent deserves to be afforded one opportunity to discharge the balance payment, particularly taking into account her advanced age and the health issues faced by her.” At the same time, it made clear that such relief would not dilute the builder’s contractual rights. It further clarified that “the complainant shall continue to retain the right to terminate the agreement in accordance with its terms and conditions, and to claim or deduct liquidated damages in the event of any further defaults committed by the respondent.”

Consequently, MahaRERA granted the respondent 60 days from the date of the order to pay the outstanding consideration. Upon full payment of all dues, the builder has been directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the flat. However, if the respondent fails to make payment within the prescribed period, the developer will be entitled to terminate the agreement, deduct liquidated damages in accordance with the contract, execute a cancellation deed, and seek enforcement through appropriate proceedings before MahaRERA if necessary.

The ruling highlights the growing importance of strict compliance with payment schedules in real estate transactions under RERA while also demonstrating the regulator’s willingness to consider genuine hardship faced by homebuyers. The decision serves as a reminder that while consumer protection remains a central objective of RERA, allottees are equally bound by statutory duties and contractual commitments. For developers and homebuyers alike, the order underscores that delays in payment can have serious legal consequences, though regulators may still exercise limited discretion to provide a final opportunity for compliance in deserving cases.

Case Title: Heet Builders Private Limited v. Mrs. Bhharati Kondaji Kanade