Pune: MahaRERA Rejects Kumar Properties’ Review Plea in 47 East Project, Upholds Homebuyer’s Delay Interest
Pune, 11th July 2026: The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed a review application filed by developer Kumar Properties and Developers LLP, reinforcing that a review petition cannot be used to re-argue a case on its merits or serve as an appeal in disguise.
The order, passed on July 9, 2026, by MahaRERA Chairperson Manoj Saunik, rejected the developer’s bid to overturn a previous ruling dated April 30, 2026. That original ruling had directed the developer to pay interest for delayed possession to homebuyer Payal Haldar under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
The dispute concerns a flat in the “Kumar Properties” project registered under MahaRERA No. P52100024598.
Developer Argues ‘Soft Possession’ and Grace Period
Kumar Properties and Developers LLP (the Review Applicant) sought to set aside the April 2026 order on several grounds:
Contractual Grace Period: The developer argued that while the Agreement for Sale stipulated a possession date of March 28, 2025, it also allowed a six-month grace period, which the authority allegedly failed to consider in its final order.
Interior Work Access: The developer claimed the buyer took “soft possession” of the flat on June 30, 2025, for interior work, and therefore should not be entitled to interest beyond that date.
Part Occupancy Certificate: They highlighted that a Part Occupancy Certificate was secured on March 27, 2026, proving statutory readiness.
Absence at Hearing: The builder argued that their absence at the final hearing led to material submissions and documents being overlooked, resulting in an “error apparent” on the face of the record.
Homebuyer Slams Review as a ‘Delay Tactic’
Appearing in person, the homebuyer, Payal Haldar, strongly opposed the review application, calling it a deliberate tactic to delay compliance and avoid paying the interest ordered.
Haldar submitted that:
The agreement committed to possession by March 28, 2025, and she made payments relying on that date.
The developer’s claim of hand over on June 30, 2025, was misleading, as only temporary access for interior work was granted, while full possession was repeatedly delayed and rescheduled to June, September, December 2025, and February 2026.
Obtaining a subsequent Part Occupancy Certificate does not negate or erase the delay period between the contractual possession deadline and the actual lawful handover.
The review application pointed to no genuine “error apparent” on the face of the record and was simply an attempt to re-open decided issues.
MahaRERA’s Ruling: ‘Go to the Appellate Tribunal’
In analyzing the petition, Chairperson Manoj Saunik referenced Rule 36 of the MahaRERA (General) Regulations, 2017, which strictly limits the scope of review jurisdiction. Under this rule, a review is maintainable only upon the discovery of new, critical evidence that could not be produced earlier, or on account of a clear mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
The Authority observed that Kumar Properties was merely attempting to re-open the entire matter and re-argue the case on its merits.
“In review jurisdiction, the matter cannot be re-opened or reheard on merits,” Saunik stated in the order. He emphasized that the proper legal remedy for an aggrieved promoter is to prefer an appeal before the appropriate higher forum (the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal) rather than “wasting valuable judicial time” by pursuing an impermissible review application.
Concluding that the developer failed to satisfy any of the necessary conditions under Rule 36, MahaRERA dismissed the review application. No orders were made as to costs.
