Real Estate May (2026) Real Estate Updates And Judgments

NOTABLE JUDGMENT MAY 2026 RERA

Compensation Framework Clarified: No additional compensation/damages for continuing allottees in case of delay

Case Title: Rajiv Nayyer & Ors. Vs. M/s Sunrays Heights Private Limited {CLICK HERE}

Complaint no: 5891 of 2024

Court: Haryana RERA

Decided: 24.04.2026

Brief overview:

As per the rendition of the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, a complaint was filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The dispute arose between Allottees and a Promoter concerning delay in possession of a residential unit in the real estate project called “Sixty-Three Gold Drive” in Gurugram. The rendition of the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority is particularly relevant for clarifying the extent of compensation available to homebuyers who choose to remain invested in a project despite delays.

Facts:

1. The present dispute emanates from a complaint filed by the allottees, Mr. Rajiv Nayyer and Ms. Chitrakshi Nayyer, against the Promoter, M/s Sunrays Heights Pvt. Ltd. under Section 31 of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act. 2016.
2. The complainants were allotted a residential flat bearing no. F-112 in Tower F, categorized as a 2 BHK unit in the project “Sixty-Three Gold Drive”, Sector 63-A, Gurugram, Haryana, pursuant to a draw of lots conducted by the Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Haryana in 2016.
3. A provisional allotment letter was issued to the Complainants and subsequently a Builder Buyer Agreement (BBA) was executed between the parties on 06.02.2016, setting out, the terms and conditions of the allotment and timelines for completion and delivery of possession.
4. The Complainants availed a housing loan from ICICI Bank that disbursed amounts to the promoter in accordance with demand notices raised. Against a total sale consideration of approximately INR 24.99 lakh, a sum of about INR 22.76 lakh was paid on behalf of the complainants. Thus, the Complainants substantially fulfilled their payment obligations under the agreement.
5. As per the terms of the BBA, the Promoter was obligated to deliver the possession of the unit by 16th September 2020, with an additional grace period of six months i.e. 16.03.2021. However, despite the extension in time, the Promoter failed to deliver the possession of the Unit within the agreed timeline.
6. Accordingly, the Complainants being aggrieved of the delay in handing over of possession approached Haryana RERA Authority seeking delay possession compensation. The Haryana RERA in its Order dated 18.04.202, allowed the complaint and directed the Promoter to pay interest (10.85% p.a. for every month of delay from the promised date of possession) on the amounts paid by the Complainants at the prescribed rate for the period of delay. The Authority also observed that certain interest charges levied by the Promoter in its demand letters raised earlier were illegal and unsustainable in law.
7. Despite the order of the Haryana RERA, the complainants continued to face financial hardships on account of the delayed possession. It was the case of the Complainants that they were compelled to reside in a rented accommodation for which they incurred rental expenses amounting to approximately INR 6,70,000 for the period from 01.04.2021- 31.10. 2024.
8. In light of these circumstances, the complainants instituted the present proceedings before the Adjudicating Officer seeking additional reliefs in the nature of reimbursement of rent paid, recovery of interest paid to the bank, compensation for mental agony and harassment, and reimbursement of incidental expenses such as travel costs incurred in pursuing the matter. The complainants essentially sought compensation over and above the delay possession interest already awarded.

Issues:

1. Whether the respondent delayed handing over possession of the flat in breach of the Builder Buyer Agreement (BBA)?
2. Whether the complainants were entitled to compensation in addition to delayed possession interest already awarded by RERA Authority?
3. Whether delayed possession compensation and separate damages for the same cause of action amount to double compensation?

Analysis of Haryana RERA:

1. The Hon’ble Haryan RERA relied on the import of Section 18 and Section 72 of the RERA 2016 and observed that Section 18 creates a clear distinction between two categories of allottees i.e. (a) those who withdraw from the project and seek refund of complete amount/s and those who choose to continue with a certain project despite delays.  
2. That the proviso to Section 18 (1), RERA 2016, unequivocally states that where an allottee does not intent to withdraw from a project, he shall be paid by the Promoter interest for every month of delay till handing over of possession.
3. The Haryana RERA observed that payment of compensation to an allottee, who, continues with a project despite delays did not form a part of the legislative intent.
4. The Haryana RERA while dealing with the contentions of the Complainants on Section 72 of RERA, 2016 observed that that Section 72 cannot be interpreted in isolation and must be read in harmony with Section 18. It was held that Section 72 merely governs the quantification of compensation where it is otherwise permissible, but does not expand the substantive entitlement to Compensation created by Section 18.
5. Reliance was placed on Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs. Ranjan Misra (Appeal No. 70/2023) whereby the Hon’ble Uttar Pradesh RERA held that compensation in addition to interest, compensation can be awarded to Allottees only in cases where the Allottee seeks to withdraw and exit from a project, under Section 18 (1), RERA. 2016.

Judgement:

It was held that since the Complainants had already been awarded delay compensation, hence, there was no reason to permit separate compensation for the same cause of action. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed by the Haryana RERA.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.