Aegis Value Homes: Haryana RERA Orders Refund of ₹25.71 Lakh with Interest for Delayed Possession. Homebuyer Gets Exit Remedy After Nearly Four Years of Delay
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA), Panchkula, has passed an important order concerning delayed possession in an affordable housing project, holding that an allottee cannot be compelled to remain indefinitely bound to a project where the promoter has failed to deliver possession within the legally enforceable timeline.
The Authority directed the promoter to refund ₹25,70,893/-, together with interest at 10.80% per annum, calculated from the respective dates of payment until realisation in Aegis Value Homes RERA Complaint.
Aegis Value Homes RERA Complaint-Background
The dispute concerned a residential unit in the project “Smart Homes Karnal”, developed by the promoter.
The Apartment Buyer Agreement was executed on 7 July 2017. The agreement provided for possession within four years from the date of approval of building plans or grant of environmental clearance, whichever was later.
The complainants had made several payments towards the unit. The Authority ultimately considered the payments relating to the unit and recorded the total amount as ₹25,70,893/-.
Promoter Failed to Deliver Possession Within the Committed Period
The Authority interpreted the possession clause in the context of the RERA legislation rather than allowing the promoter to rely upon ambiguous wording to indefinitely postpone delivery.
The clause stated that the developer would “endeavour” to offer possession within four years, with the period linked to approval of building plans or environmental clearance.
The Authority applied the mischief rule of statutory interpretation, observing that pre-RERA agreements frequently contained expressions such as “best endeavour,” “subject to approvals,” or “tentatively,” which could potentially enable promoters to postpone delivery without meaningful consequences.
The Authority therefore interpreted the provision in a manner consistent with RERA’s objective of ensuring certainty and accountability in possession timelines.
RERA Does Not Permit Indefinite Postponement
A significant observation in the order is that the promoter cannot interpret a four-year possession clause as merely an obligation to make an effort.
The Authority held that such an interpretation would defeat the very purpose of RERA, which seeks to eliminate the uncertainty that characterised the pre-RERA regime.
It referred to Supreme Court principles concerning unfair and one-sided builder-drafted clauses and observed that contractual language must be understood in light of the legislative objective of protecting homebuyers.
Accordingly, the Authority treated 7 July 2021 as the relevant date for possession.
Possession Offers Without Occupation Certificate
The promoter argued that valid offers of possession had been made on 17 November 2023 and 5 November 2024, after obtaining the Occupation Certificate on 20 September 2024.
The Authority examined these offers separately.
It held that the first possession offer dated 17 November 2023, having been issued before the Occupation Certificate, could not be treated as a lawful or valid offer of possession.
This is an important principle for homebuyers: a promoter cannot necessarily stop its statutory delay liability merely by issuing a possession letter where the statutory requirements for lawful possession have not yet been fulfilled.
Allottee’s Right to Withdraw
The Authority found that the promoter had failed to fulfil its obligation to hand over possession by the deemed committed date.
The complainants consequently decided to withdraw from the project.
The Authority relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, particularly the principle that an allottee facing delay has an enforceable right to seek refund of the amount paid, together with interest in accordance with Section 18 of RERA.
The Authority therefore found the matter to be an appropriate case for allowing the refund.
Refund of ₹25.70 Lakh with 10.80% Interest
The Authority calculated interest on the amounts paid from their respective dates of payment.
The payment-wise calculation reflected total principal of:
₹25,70,893/-
and interest accrued up to 10 September 2026 of approximately:
₹9,69,666/-
The Authority directed the promoter to refund the entire principal amount of ₹25,70,893/-, along with further interest at 10.80% per annum from 11 September 2026 until actual realisation.
Why 10.80% Interest?
The Authority applied Rule 15 of the Haryana RERA Rules, 2017, under which the prescribed rate is linked to the State Bank of India’s highest marginal cost of lending rate plus 2%.
Based on the applicable SBI rate recorded in the order, the Authority calculated the prescribed rate as:
8.80% + 2% = 10.80% per annum.
Compensation Was Not Adjudicated in This Proceeding
The complainants had also sought compensation for mental harassment and financial hardship, along with litigation expenses.
The Authority clarified that compensation claims under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 fall within the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of RERA, with the quantum to be determined in accordance with Section 72.
Accordingly, the complainants were left free to approach the Adjudicating Officer for compensation.
Key Legal Takeaways
1. “Endeavour” cannot mean indefinite delay
A promoter cannot automatically convert a definite possession framework into an open-ended obligation merely because the agreement uses words such as “endeavour.”
2. Occupation Certificate is critical
A possession offer issued before the requisite Occupation Certificate may not constitute a legally valid offer of possession.
3. Delayed possession can give rise to a refund remedy
Where the promoter fails to deliver possession within the enforceable timeline, Section 18 may permit the allottee to withdraw and seek refund with applicable interest.
4. Interest is governed by the statutory RERA framework
The Authority applied the prescribed Haryana RERA rate of 10.80% per annum rather than permitting an arbitrary contractual approach to determine the allottee’s entitlement.
5. Refund and compensation are distinct remedies
The refund with interest was granted by the Authority, while compensation was left to the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71.
Conclusion
The Aegis Value Homes order is significant for homebuyers in delayed affordable housing projects.
It reinforces that RERA’s consumer-protection framework cannot be defeated through ambiguous possession clauses or premature possession offers. Where the promoter fails to fulfil its possession obligation, an allottee who chooses to exit may be entitled to recover the amounts paid along with statutory interest.
In this case, HRERA ultimately directed refund of ₹25.70 lakh with interest at 10.80% per annum, while preserving the complainants’ right to pursue compensation before the appropriate forum.
Legal Disclaimer: This article is intended solely for general educational and informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. The outcome of every RERA matter depends upon its facts, contractual terms, statutory approvals and applicable law.
By Satish Mishra, Advocate
