Case at a Glance
A buyer booked a flat in Antriksh Golf View, Sector-78, Noida in 2010; possession was due by November 2012, but was offered only in May 2017 — before the occupancy certificate came in 2018. The UP RERA Appellate Tribunal granted him delay interest at MCLR + 1% from December 2012 to 22 May 2017. Dismissing the builder’s appeal, the Allahabad High Court held that Section 18(1) prescribes no limitation for claiming delay interest, and that the builder could not claim the Supreme Court’s ‘zero period’ for the NGT stay because it had already defaulted before the stay began.
The promoter launched ‘Antriksh Golf View’ in Sector-78, Noida, in 2010. The respondent booked on 30 April 2010 and was allotted Unit 1903 (19th floor, Block L, about 2,025 sq. ft.) on 21 September 2010 at a basic price of Rs 43,53,750. The allotment letter promised possession by December 2012 (with a six-month grace), while Annexure-B fixed November 2012 — which the courts treated as prevailing. He paid a further demand of Rs 13,12,866 on 26 April 2016; possession was offered on 22 May 2017, and the occupancy certificate was obtained only on 6 June 2018.
He complained to UP RERA on 4 October 2019. After RERA’s order of 22 September 2020, the builder raised a fresh demand of Rs 24,13,940. The Appellate Tribunal partly allowed his appeal, granting delay interest at MCLR + 1% from December 2012 to 22 May 2017, setting aside the demand of 3 October 2020 and directing a fresh one. The builder appealed under Section 58, arguing that the Tribunal was improperly constituted, and that delay was caused by NGT stay orders linked to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary and by authorities’ delay in issuing the OC. At the hearing it confined its prayer to the ‘zero period’ of 14 August 2013 to 19 August 2015.
The Key Question Before the Court
Is a homebuyer’s claim for delay interest under Section 18(1) of RERA barred by time, and can a builder that had already defaulted claim the NGT ‘zero period’ to cut that interest?
No Limitation, and No Zero Period for a Prior Default
Justice Prashant Kumar first rejected the coram objection: it was never raised before the Tribunal, the Tribunal had recorded its constitution, and Section 55 provides that “No act or proceeding of the Appellate Tribunal shall be invalid merely by reason of” a defect in its constitution. On the buyer’s claim, the Court read Section 18(1) as a beneficial provision and held that “no limitation or prescribed time frame has been provided by the legislature for raising a claim for delay interest”.
On the NGT plea, the Court found the builder’s stand self-contradictory — it claimed the project was completed in 2014 while also saying the stay prevented completion. “These inconsistent pleas are mutually destructive and cannot be accepted,” the Court said, invoking the rule that a party cannot blow hot and cold. In Griha Pravesh Build Teck Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Chander Sharma (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2024, order dated 3 December 2024), the Supreme Court had held that allottees “will not be entitled to claim interest on compensation for the period commencing from 14.08.2013” to 19 August 2015. But the High Court held that this benefit was meant for projects fully stopped by the stay, whereas here possession was already due in November 2012, before the stay. The builder had also applied late for the OC and offered possession in 2017 without one.
What the Court Actually Held
- The objection to the Appellate Tribunal’s constitution failed; it was not raised below and Section 55 of RERA saves the Tribunal’s proceedings.
- Section 18(1) of RERA prescribes no limitation for an allottee’s claim for delay interest, and the provision is to be construed liberally.
- The builder could not invoke the NGT/Okhla Bird Sanctuary ‘zero period’ recognised in Griha Pravesh, because its default predated the stay and its pleas were inconsistent; delay in the OC was also attributable to its late application.
- The appeal was dismissed as ‘sans merit’, leaving the Tribunal’s award of delay interest at MCLR + 1% from December 2012 to 22 May 2017 intact.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many Noida homebuyers face builders citing the 2013–2015 NGT stay; this ruling limits that defence where the default came first.
- It holds that delay-interest claims under Section 18(1) are not defeated merely because the buyer approached RERA years later.
- It reminds builders that offering possession without an occupancy certificate does not stop the delay clock in their favour.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Homebuyers
- Check whether your promised possession date fell before 14 August 2013; if so, the ‘zero period’ argument may not apply to you.
- A delayed approach to RERA does not by itself bar a Section 18(1) delay-interest claim, as per this ruling.
- Keep the allotment letter and annexures — the specific date in Annexure-B governed here.
For Counsel
- Raise any objection to a tribunal’s coram before that tribunal; it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
- Expose inconsistencies in a builder’s defence (completed in 2014 vs. stopped by stay) to invoke the approbate-reprobate rule.
- Distinguish Griha Pravesh where the possession date had already passed before the NGT stay.
Key Takeaways
- No limitation applies to claiming delay interest under Section 18(1) of RERA, per the Allahabad High Court.
- The NGT ‘zero period’ (14 Aug 2013–19 Aug 2015) does not help a builder already in default before the stay.
- A coram objection not raised before the Appellate Tribunal cannot succeed later.
- The buyer keeps delay interest at MCLR + 1% from December 2012 to 22 May 2017.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the ‘zero period’ for Noida projects?
In Griha Pravesh Build Teck v. Suresh Chander Sharma, the Supreme Court held that allottees would not get interest on compensation for 14 August 2013 to 19 August 2015, the period linked to the NGT stay concerning the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. The High Court held that this benefit does not extend to a builder whose possession date had already passed before the stay.
Is there a time limit to claim delay interest under RERA?
The High Court held that Section 18(1) provides no limitation or prescribed time frame for raising a claim for delay interest.
What interest did the buyer get?
The Appellate Tribunal awarded interest at MCLR + 1% from December 2012 to 22 May 2017, and the High Court dismissed the builder’s appeal against it.
Conclusion
For a buyer who waited almost five years beyond the promised date, the High Court refused to let the builder use a later environmental stay to reduce its liability for a default that had already occurred.
Practical takeaway: When a builder pleads the NGT ‘zero period’, compare the promised possession date with 14 August 2013 — if the default came first, this ruling is a strong answer.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com