Pune: MahaRERA Rejects Kumar Properties Review Plea In Delayed Flat Possession CaseÂ
Pune: MahaRERA Rejects Kumar Properties Review Plea In Delayed Flat Possession CaseÂ
Pune, July 13, 2026: The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed a review application filed by Kumar Properties and Developers LLP, refusing to reconsider its earlier order directing the developer to pay interest to a homebuyer for delayed possession of a flat in a registered housing project.
In an order issued on July 9, 2026, MahaRERA Chairperson Manoj Saunik held that the developer’s application did not meet the legal requirements for a review under Rule 36 of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2017. The Authority observed that the plea largely repeated arguments that had already been considered and decided in the original proceedings.
The developer contended that the Authority had not taken into account a six-month grace period provided in the agreement for sale. It also argued that the homebuyer had accepted soft possession of the flat in June 2025 and that a Part Occupancy Certificate showed the project was ready for handover. On these grounds, the company sought to have the earlier order dated April 30, 2026 set aside and the buyer’s complaint dismissed.
The homebuyer opposed the review application, maintaining that the agreement promised possession by March 28, 2025. The buyer argued that only limited access for interior work had been granted and that actual possession of the flat had not been handed over. The complainant further submitted that the review petition was intended to delay compliance with the original order directing payment of interest for the possession delay.
MahaRERA clarified that a review proceeding cannot be used as an alternative to an appeal. The Authority noted that a review is permissible only to correct an apparent error on record or to consider new evidence that could not have been produced earlier. Since no such circumstances were established, the review application was dismissed.
The Authority also stated that if the developer wished to challenge the original decision, the appropriate course would be to file an appeal before a competent higher forum. No costs were imposed while dismissing the application.
