Assignee promoter liability in real estate projects extends to pending obligations and interest for delayed possession under RERA.

An assignee of a real estate project who steps into the shoes of the erstwhile promoter is treated as a promoter under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and must independently discharge pending project and allotment obligations. The assignment deed, including the purchasers named in its annexure, bound the assignee to the earlier liabilities, and the absence of a commencement certificate for unfinished work did not defeat that responsibility. A later unilateral termination of the assignment could not extinguish accrued rights, and the finding that interest was payable for delay in handing over possession was supported by the record.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, as an assignee of the real estate project, was bound to comply with the pending obligations of the erstwhile promoter and liable to pay interest for delay in handing over possession to the flat purchasers under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Analysis: The project had already been assigned to the appellant along with the liabilities and encumbrances arising from the earlier development and sale agreements. The purchasers' names were included in the annexure to the assignment deed, and the appellant had stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile promoter. On this basis, the appellant was held to be a promoter within the meaning of the Act and was required to independently discharge the pending obligations attached to the project and the allotments. The contention that the assignment deed could not bind the purchasers, or that the appellant could avoid liability because no commencement certificate had been obtained for the unfinished work, was rejected. The appellant had not sought extension of registration under the Act and could not defeat accrued rights by a later unilateral termination of the assignment arrangement. The finding of the appellate tribunal that interest was payable for delay was found to be supported by the record and no perversity or substantial question of law was shown.

Conclusion: The appellant remained liable as an assignee promoter for the delayed completion obligations and for payment of interest to the respondents, and the challenge to the tribunal's order failed.

---