Contractual possession date governs delay interest under RERA, and COVID lockdown did not erase promoter's liability.

A promoter's fresh completion timeline declared while registering an ongoing project did not override the possession date fixed in the agreement for sale, so delay interest under the Real Estate Act continued to run from the contractual default date. The Court also held that the promoter was not entitled to exclude the COVID-19 lockdown period from interest liability because it was already in default before the pandemic and possession remained withheld. The Tribunal's directions on interest were sustained, and the promoter remained liable for the consequences of delayed handover.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the timeline declared by the promoter while registering an ongoing project under Section 4(2)(l)(C) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and Rule 4(2) of the Maharashtra Rules altered the contractual possession date for the purpose of interest under Section 18 of the Act; (ii) Whether the promoter was entitled to exclusion of the COVID-19 lockdown period from interest liability.

Issue (i): Whether the timeline declared by the promoter while registering an ongoing project under Section 4(2)(l)(C) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and Rule 4(2) of the Maharashtra Rules altered the contractual possession date for the purpose of interest under Section 18 of the Act.

Analysis: The declaration of a fresh completion period during registration of an ongoing project is only a regulatory disclosure and does not rewrite the agreement for sale. The contractual obligation to hand over possession continues to be governed by the agreed possession date, and interest for delay under Section 18 runs from the expiry of that contractual period. The promoter's later registration timeline could not displace the earlier contractual timeline, and the earlier proceedings did not extinguish the allottees' entitlement to claim interest once possession was not delivered by the committed date.

Conclusion: The issue is answered against the promoter and in favour of the allottees; interest was rightly made payable from the contractual delay date.

Issue (ii): Whether the promoter was entitled to exclusion of the COVID-19 lockdown period from interest liability.

Analysis: The promoter was already in default long before the pandemic and had itself undertaken to deliver possession by a later committed date. The subsequent lockdown could not relieve the promoter of interest liability where possession was still withheld and the promoter continued to insist on additional deductions and conditions before handing over the flat.

Conclusion: The issue is answered against the promoter and in favour of the allottees; no COVID-19 based exclusion from interest liability was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, the Tribunal's directions on interest were sustained, and the promoter remained liable to complete handover of possession while bearing the continuing consequences of delay.

Ratio Decidendi: A promoter's fresh completion date declared during registration of an ongoing project does not supersede the possession date fixed in the agreement for sale, and delay interest under Section 18 continues to be governed by the contractual timeline.

---