SC issues notices to states which are yet to establish RERA

The Supreme Court recently issued notices to the chief secretaries of Nagaland, Meghalaya, Sikkim and the Union Territory of Ladakh to give their responses on the lack of establishment of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) in their states.

A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti also asked the chief secretaries of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Sikkim and West Bengal, and the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to file their responses on the current situation as these states have only passed the interim orders to notify the Real Estate Regulatory Authority.

“In view of the aforesaid summary/chart, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respective Chief Secretaries for the States of Nagaland, Meghalaya and Sikkim, and the Union Territory of Ladakh, who have yet to notify the RERA Rules or have notified the RERA Rules but are yet to establish the Real Estate Regulatory Authority,” the court observed.

“Also respective Chief Secretaries for the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Sikkim and West Bengal, and the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir who have passed only interim orders notifying the Real Estate Regulatory Authority or are under process to establish,” the court stated in its August 11 order. The court added that affidavits would be filed by the chief secretaries concerned, indicating the progress made with regard to the enforcement and implementation of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, within a period of 60 days from the date of service of this order. With these observations, the court relisted the matter in January, next year.

Additional Solicitor General has submitted a chart with the heading “Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 RERA – Implementation Progress Report”. According to the chart, all States/UTs have notified rules under RERA
except Nagaland, which is in the process to notify the rules.

32 States/UTs have set up Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Ladakh, Meghalaya and Sikkim have notified the rules but have yet to establish the authority while 28 States/UTs have set up Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. Arunachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Sikkim and West Bengal are in the process of establishing the same, the chart indicated.

The regulatory authorities of 30 States/UTs have operationalised their websites under the provisions of RERA. However, the ones in Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur are in the process of being operationalised. The chart also said that 1,09,308 real estate projects and 77,704 real estate agents have registered under RERA across the country. 1,11,222 complaints have been disposed of by the Real Estate Regulatory Authorities across the country, the chart said.


CREDAI NCR wants state development authorities to be brought under RERA as ‘promoters’

The Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Association of India (CREDAI), NCR, has demanded that various state development authorities be brought under the ambit of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and be treated as “promoters” for their land allotment schemes, so that their accountability can be fixed.

On May 5, CREDAI, NCR, appealed to the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) to register and regulate the various state development authorities, such as the Noida Authority, the Greater Noida Authority, etc, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

The developers’ body said that once the registration of allotment schemes of state development authorities is made mandatory they will have to adhere to the RERA’s timelines, which will result in buyers getting their homes on time.

Gaurav Gupta, Secretary, CREDAI-NCR, said the move was prompted by several instances where land was allotted to the developer but possession could not be given because of encroachment or other issues, causing a delay in the completion of the project.

He said that whenever a project gets delayed either due to faulty land acquisition by the Authority or encroachment of land, the developer is held responsible and homebuyers suffer, while no accountability is fixed on the state development authorities.


Govt Wants Real Estate To Be Fair & Transparent With A Buyer-Builder Agreement Model Across India

Secretary of Consumer Affairs Ministry, Rohit Kumar Singh said that the government has decided to form a committee to work on a model builder-buyer agreement to simplify the home-buying process and protect homebuyers from potential abuses.

Model Builder-Buyer Agreement To Simply the Home-Buying Process

He said this after the first Round Table Conference on How to Effectively Redress the Grievances Pertaining to Real Estate Sector, in Mumbai on Tuesday.

He said that this builder-buyer agreement could help reduce disputes between home-buyers and builders, and ensure that consumers have access to an effective, speedy, hassle-free, and inexpensive grievance redressal mechanism.

He added that by putting these measures like model buyer-builder agreements and effective grievance redressal mechanisms in place, the backlog of cases can be redressed and ensure that home-buyers are treated fairly and protected from potential abuses in future.

With members drawn from the National Consumer Commission, state consumer commissions, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and builders as members to address the grievances of home-buyers and enhance consumer protection.

Speaking about the timeline of the formation of the committee, he said that they would “try and do it in the next three months. Stakeholders have to be collected from different sectors. It will be a landmark thing if it is done as it will at least give uniformity in handling of this sector across the country. It will be a template,” he said.

The disputes that exists between the home buyers as well as the developers could be resolved to some degree if the contract between the builders and buyers is standardised and uniformity is brought about. Singh said that the document should be unique as well as applicable across the country.

If this is done, the problem can be solved to some extent.

It was in association with the Government of Maharashtra that the roundtable was hosted by the DCA. He said that it was also the Supreme Court (SC) which had directed the need of having a model agreement across the country, and added that some states already have such a document in place.

There is an alarming need to put a system in place for the speedy justice and streamlining the process for homebuyers as it was seen that out of over 5.5 lakh cases currently awaiting resolution, over 54,000 cases relate to the housing sector.

These cases are due to various issues, 45% due to delay in possession; 12% to execution of sale deed, refund and withdrawal from project 12%; amenities 12%; and poor construction quality 12%, among others issues.

The Maharashtra Consumer Commission is faced with the maximum number of cases at 15,154 cases filed. Of this, about 8,718 have been disposed of, while 6,436 are still pending. In Delhi, 8,178 cases have been filed, of which 5,266 have been disposed of, and 2,912 are still pending. In Uttar Pradesh, 8,133 cases have been filed, of which 7,024 have been disposed of, and 1,109 cases are pending, show statistics from the ministry.

He also said that the agreement should be in simple language. “It is the common man who is buying. Therefore, the engagement between the buyer and the seller should be as simple as possible.”

Key Issues & Key Suggestions

The key issues identified by the home-buyers are:

• Delay in delivery of possession of property to home-buyers

• No compensation for delay in possession to home-buyers

• Biased, one-sided, and unfair builder-buyer agreements

• Amenities not provided to home-buyers as per the agreement

• Misleading advertisements by developers and influencers for luring home-buyers

• Non-adherence to the model builder-buyer agreement proposed by RERA.

The key suggestions to fix these were

• Sending draft agreement to buyers before execution

• Clearly mentioning permissions and sanctions obtained from competent authorities on the first page of the agreement

• Prohibiting builders from launching projects before obtaining all necessary permissions and sanctions

• Including an exit clause for home-buyers in all agreements that would be valid until the Occupancy Certificate (OC) or Completion Certificate (CC) is obtained and possession is offered by the builder

• Including a schedule of additional charges beyond the cost of the unit/apartment in all agreements.

• Include mandatory declarations regarding no dues from any authority/banks

• Necessary legal sanctions and approvals from competent authorities

• Strong action should be against unfair and misleading advertisements by developers


Centre to host Conference in Mumbai on redressing Property Buyers’ Grievances

With the real estate sector contributing around 10 per cent to the total cases in consumer commissions, the Department of Consumer Affairs will on Tuesday organise a round table conference in Mumbai to discuss ways to redress the grievances of property buyers.

According to an official statement, the Department of Consumer Affairs is organising a round table conference on “How to effectively redress the grievances pertaining to the real estate Sector” in Mumbai on April 18.

The conference will be organised in association with the Maharashtra government.

Rohit Kumar Singh, Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, will chair the conference.

“Pertinently, Real Estate cases comprise around 10 per cent of the total cases in Consumer Commissions. So far, since inception, 2,30,517 cases have been filed by the consumers in various consumer commissions, 1,76,895 cases have been disposed of till now, and 53,622 cases are pending,” the statement said.

Despite separate tribunals, such as RERA and NCLT, to deal with the cases pertaining to the housing sector, the pendency of cases is rising in various consumer commissions, the department said.

“It is for the first time, the Department is conducting such a large-scale conference to redress the consumer grievance in the real estate sector,” the statement said.

The conference will discuss — systemic policy interventions required to reduce litigation in the housing sector. In this regard, the cases filed in the Consumer Commissions would be analysed, and major factors that result in consumer cases will be identified and presented for deliberations.

“In addition, why more number of cases are filed before Consumer Commissions despite there being separate authorities, such as RERA, for specifically dealing (with) the cases pertaining to the housing sector will also be discussed. Meanwhile, deliberation on how to ensure that the housing sector cases are dealt with in an effective and speedy manner will also be done,” the statement said.

Members of the National Commission, Presidents of State Commissions of Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana, Chandigarh and Gujarat; President of the RERA Appellate Tribunal Maharashtra; RERA Chairmen from Delhi and Maharashtra; Presidents of District Commissions of Delhi, Bengaluru, Thane, Pune, Raigad and Chandigarh are likely to participate in the conference.

Representatives from MOHUA (Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs), RERA, IBBI, Government of Maharashtra, ASCI, and all the VCOs (voluntary consumer organisations) and builders fraternity will also be present.

Homebuyers’ body Forum For People’s Collective Efforts (FPCE) President Abhay Upadhyay, who is also an invitee to the conference, has welcomed the move to organise such an event.

He hoped that the department will frame a legal framework to ensure that homebuyers get speedy resolution of their disputes.

“We are all aware that despite the regulator in place for the sector after the enactment of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016, (RERA) malpractices prevalent in the sector have not completely come to an end.

“We are also witnessing that homebuyers are running pillar to post for justice even after having favourable orders from RERA as builders are refusing to obey the orders of RERA, and sadly even after six years of full implementation of RERA, we have failed to find a solution for this burning issue,” Upadhyay had said earlier this month.


CREDAI advises home buyers to purchase only in RERA-registered projects

The CREDAI (Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India) has asked the Telangana Government to keep tabs on the extremely unhealthy and illegal practices by some real-estate players that are luring gullible customers into buying spaces in unviable projects.

Asking the Government to strengthen the RERA (Real Estate Regulatory Authority) to curb these practices by initiating stringent punishment against the players that are cheating the people.

“Some real-estate operators and some others without having any experience in the business are coming out with attractive schemes and offering to sell undivided share of land even before securing approvals,” P Rama Krishna Rao, President of CREDAI Hyderabad, has said.

The leaders of CREDAI have gathered here on Friday to caution the public about the unhealthy marketing strategies of some realestate players.

“They are selling such products at a nominal and discounted price to lure innocent home-buyers and investors. The cost at which they are selling the properties is not sufficient to cover the cost of construction,” he said.

He alleged that the proceeds were not being on the projects. “Sometimes the projects do not get launched or get delayed indefinitely due to many legal and statutory issues, putting the purchaser at a huge risk,” he said.

Ch Ramchandra Reddy, Chairman of CREDAI Telangana, said that the realestate market in the State continued to be resilient and robust post the Covid-19 waves unlike other cities in the country.

“The developers should not sell plots or flats to prospective purchasers without getting RERA registration. Purchases made in projects without RERA registration are risky for the buyer,” he said.


Majority of Delhi realtors are avoiding RERA registrations of the projects

Since Delhi is primarily a low-rise building market, local builders renovate the property and sell the floors independently for as much as Rs 30 crore each.

Earlier, Section 3(2) (a) of RERA provided for an exemption from registration if the land proposed to be developed was less than 500 square meters or the number of apartments proposed to be developed did not exceed eight. Many developers in posh colonies in Delhi have been avoiding registrations using this loophole.

BS Vohra, a right-to-information activist, said that the situation remains the same after the order as there is no one to look over the construction activity. Even when the plot size exceeds 500 square meters, some under-construction buildings in West-end, Vasant Vihar, Anand Lok, and Panchsheel Park are being developed without RERA registration.

Vohra said that the RERA should ensure that the rule is being followed after making it mandatory. The RERA chief could not be reached for comment.

The entire city of Delhi has registered only 81 projects, which is the lowest number in the country. Several builders in South Delhi with plots ranging from 800-1,000 square meters have not registered their projects with the RERA.

The convenor of the CII-Delhi sub-committee on real estate, urban development, and infrastructure, Harsh V Bansal said, “We need to push for organized development in Delhi. There are no major projects in Delhi while Noida and Gurgaon are benefiting from organized development”.

The Delhi RERA had threatened to impose a fine that could be up to 10% of the estimated cost of the real estate project if it was not compliant with RERA guidelines.

The registration procedure should be transparent with regard to the funds received from the purchasers, the completion and conveyance of the property in favor of the allottees, and the assurance that the project has received the required approvals and sanctions.

Many properties in Delhi’s posh colonies are worth Rs 20-100 crore. Older people and NRIs make up the majority of the previous owners who either sold or worked with developers.

The RERA had said in its order that the authority also suggests the general public to avoid investing in any residential or commercial real estate project.


Soon, West Bengal Real Estate Projects Will Be Registered with RERA

West Bengal’s newly established property regulator anticipates that all existing projects in the state would be registered under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 within three months, relieving buyer worries about completion timelines and quality.

Not-yet-completed projects promoted, advertised, and sold without Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Rera) licences are among those required registration with the West Bengal Rera.

The state regulatory chapter commenced operations around 18 months after the Supreme Court invalidated the state’s own law, the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act of 2017. (WBHIRA). In February of 2014, the Supreme Court ordered the state to immediately adopt Rera.

“According to the guidelines set out by the WBRera authorities, within three months after the creation of the Rera authority in the state, all projects in the state that were previously promoted without licence and have yet to be finished must be registered.

2022 homeowners grouped under the name of the Forum for People’s Collective Efforts (FPCE) wrote to the chief minister in August, requesting that he intervene and deliver the required directives to make Rera and the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal operative under the central Act.

It had highlighted concerns around unregistered launches, extra money collecting, and “diversion.”

It is a positive beginning and will inspire trust in homebuyers. However, the web site is not yet operational, and a method for filing complaints online will assist homebuyers in the future, according to a worried individual.


Jharkhand sees highest 3-year jump in RERA project registrations, UP just 22%

After more than five years since its implementation, RERA has made remarkable progress in addressing consumer complaints across different states and UTs.

Data available with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs indicates that so far, 1,00,949 cases filed under the various State iterations of RERA have been disposed of by these authorities as of 8 October 2022. Of these, approx. 72% cases (72,979 complaints) were resolved in the last three years, which include the Covid-19 pandemic.

Taking the lead over previous torchbearer MahaRERA, Uttar Pradesh’s UP RERA saw as many as 40,559 cases disposed of so far – against a mere 11,596 cases in October 2019. Haryana comes a distant second with approx. 20,539 cases disposed of, against just 2,480 cases in the corresponding period of 2019. Still going strong but no longer in the pole position, MahaRERA has so far disposed of approx. 12,507 cases.

Commenting on the same, Anuj Puri, Chairman, ANAROCK Group, said, “Still nowhere close to saturation effect but showing ‘real‘ progress, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act has been visibly fulfilling one of its key functions – resolving homebuyer grievances. As per official data from MoHUA, the respective RERA authorities of various state and UTs have addressed more than a lakh consumer complaints.”

“While this is impressive, it is also true that there remains a big question mark with regards to 100% resolution,” said Puri. “At the end of the day, RERA still lacks sufficient execution powers – a fact which the Supreme Court has also expressed apprehensions over. Meanwhile, the pandemic did not break the pace of project and real estate agent registrations over the last three years.”

Project & Agent Registrations

Amounting for an impressive 109% growth in last three years, approx. 94,513 projects have so far been registered under RERA to date, from approx. 45,307 on 8th of October 2019. The states with maximum project registrations are Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Telangana and Tamil Nadu. Together, these states account for a significant 83% share with approx. 78,258 registered projects. Maharashtra still tops the list with approx. 38,229 project registrations.

While it leads in terms of disposal of cases, UP has seen the lowest growth of 22% in project registrations in the past three years. In October 2019, the state had approx. 2,710 registered projects while the currently number stands at approx. 3304 projects, indicating that the primary focus in UP has been on project completions rather than new launches.

Among the top 7 states, Jharkhand has seen the highest three-year growth of 855% in project registrations – from 103 in October 2019 to approx. 984 projects today. Tamil Nadu recorded a 828% jump in the period – in October 2019, the state had 1,154 projects registered under RERA; this has increased to 10,711 projects today.

Meanwhile, registration of real estate agents under RERA has risen by 95% in the last three years – from 35,699 on 8 October 2019 to approx. 69,766 on 8 October 2022. Maharashtra retains its lead with the maximum number of projects and agent registrations:

* As on 8th October 2022, Maharashtra saw 38,229 projects and 38,969 agents registered under MahaRERA

* In Tamil Nadu, 10,771 projects and 2,596 agents have been registered as of October 2022

* Gujarat has seen 10,030 projects and 1,953 agents registered to date

* In Karnataka, 6,313 projects and 3,590 agents are currently registered under RERA

* Telangana currently has 5,148 projects and 2,448 agents registered

* Madhya Pradesh has seen 4,523 projects and 1,287 agents registered.

* In Uttar Pradesh, 3,304 projects and 5,583 agents have been registered.

* Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Bihar are witnessing increasing momentum with 2,096, 1,562 and 1,470 projects registered respectively.


Pre-Rera era Supertech towers demolished, but have things changed under the new regime?

If media reports are to be believed, after the Real Estate Regulation Act (RERA) came into being, all the government officials have become careful in sanctioning building plans, builders are now fearful of the law and the judiciary is trusted as more proactive than reactive.

A fellow panelist at a TV debate emphasised that Supertech twin towers violations are pre-Rera realities. The market has changed a lot in the post-Rera world. Really? I wonder where. Are we talking about some other part of the world?

To be sure, Supertech demolition is not the first such landmark judgment that has been shaping the industry narrative. In 2014, the Competition Commission of India had slapped a Rs 630 crore fine on DLF. However, it is not about one or two defaulters but the ecosystem that supports perpetrators and definitely not the victim – the homebuyers. The C-SAT score of Indian real estate (as per Track2Realty survey) slipped from 20 (out of 100) in 2011, to 18.

All the reforms like RERA, GST, Benami Transactions and demonetisation, etc are reforms only on paper. Nothing has changed on the ground for the hapless homebuyers.

Policy interventions have only made the builders smarter in dodging the bullet. For example, one of the builders in Greater Noida West is forcing buyers to sign an advance consent that the builder is free to make any future changes in the FAR and layout. Any resistance by the homebuyers is silenced with the builder’s wrath and the two-third (needed to vet it) succumb before the mighty builder. One aggrieved homebuyer who approached the consumer commission against the unfair contract is running from pillar to post for speedy justice.

Another builder I know threatens the buyers that if they dare approach Rera against any delay or default, he will make life miserable by delaying the possession of dream homes for years with multiple counter litigations. Salaried homebuyers burdened with both rent and the EMIs can’t challenge the builder in lengthy and costly litigation. This has been a question that even the Supreme Court pointed out in its judgment against Supertech Twin Towers.

I met a harassed homebuyer who wanted to sell his under-construction apartment due to a health emergency at home. The builder refused transfer and said that he could buy back only at the same rate at which he had sold the unit four years back. So all the appreciation benefits go to the builder but the interest burden is the liability of the buyer. The exploitation doesn’t end here. Once the apartment was bought back, the buyer with a critical health emergency at home was asked to wait for the refund till the builder sells off the same unit to someone else. You are trapped in the builder’s net!

You buy a toothpaste for Rs 50 and can criticise the brand on social media if you did not like it. But you can’t criticise the builder who sold the house worth at least Rs 50 lakh with your lifetime earnings. If you do, the builder sends a statement “our legal team is looking into your issue; it is a case of defamation”. One builder has it in his Builder Buyer Agreement that anything not liked by the buyers has to be settled through an arbitrator and the buyer ceases to have any right to amplify the issue on social media. Who will be the arbitrator if the project is delayed or falls short of the buyers’ expectations? It will be appointed by the company (builder) only.

So, is the industry narrative that the landmark judgment would help reform the murky world of Indian real estate correct?

I continue to wonder when and where the wave of reforms swept the business of real estate in this part of the world. A homebuyer is trapped in the builder’s net the moment he pays the token amount. Thereon, he has no choice but to succumb to the builder’s wishes.


No Action To Recover EMI For Stuck Realty Projects

The surge in realty projects assuring umpteen homebuyer of the dream of having their own homes have failed to become reality. The aftermath of Real Estate Developer’s inability to deliver projects on time, have left many homebuyers with the additional burdens of paying EMI without having anything in hands.

The Delhi High Court recently in Ashish Tiwari v. Union Bank of India dated January 31, 2022, hearing a number of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India of Homebuyers against Banks/ Housing Finance Companies (HFC) disbursing the loan amount through subvention schemes to the developers without even examining the fact as to whether the developers are in a position to complete the construction gave interim relief directing that banks/HFC shall not take any coercive action against the homebuyers to recover EMIs for pending projects where the builders were supposed to pay the EMIs till possession.

Ashish Tiwari v. Union Bank of India- Brief Facts

The Petitioners booked flats with the builders and took home loans under the subvention scheme by entering into a Tripartite Agreement with the builders and the banks. The subvention scheme provided for the banks to disburse the sanctioned amount directly to the accounts of the builders, who were then to pay EMIs on the sanctioned loan amount, until possession of the flats is handed over to the homebuyers. However, builders started defaulting in paying the EMIs to the banks as per the Tripartite Agreement, and subsequently the banks initiated action against the homebuyers to recover the EMIs instead.

Contention by Petitioners

The Petitioners raised the contention that the Banks/ HFCs have given funds to the builder in flagrant violation of the directions issued by the RBI and the NHB wherein the banks have been directed to exercise due caution while disbursing of housing loans sanctioned to individuals under subvention scheme. The Petitioners further submitted that the Respondent/ Banks/HFCs cannot claim payment towards the loan amount, which they in this present matter pre-maturely disbursed to the builders. The Petitioners also submitted that the banks, have in fact, acted in collusion with the builders, in releasing the loan amount even without examining whether the builder was in a position to complete the project or not. The Petitioners in their support placed reliance on the orders passed in Hridesh Kumar Pathak v. Bank of Maharashtra2 and Jayanta Kumar Mishra and Another v. Union of India3, wherein the Division Bench, by way of interim orders, restrained the banks from taking any coercive steps against the Petitioners or the homebuyers.

Contention by Respondents/ Banks/HFC

The Respondents submitted that once the Petitioners had knowingly signed a Tripartite Agreement, they cannot now shift the blame solely on the banks for any default on the part of the builders, and evade their liability to re-pay EMIs in respect of the loans issued in the favour of the Petitioners.

Contention On Behalf Of RBI

Further, the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. V. Giri appearing for the RBI, submitted that the banks are required to comply with the directions and guidelines issued by the RBI whereby the banks were directed to ensure that the disbursal of the loan amount shall be strictly linked with the stages of construction, and no upfront disbursement shall be made in case of under-construction projects.


The Hon’ble Justice Rekha Palli noted relevant extracts of the RBI circular dated 01.07.2015, pertaining to the issue of subvention schemes or “innovative housing loan schemes” wherein it was observed that such housing loan products are likely to expose the banks as well as their home loan borrowers to additional risks e.g. in case of dispute between the individual borrowers and builders, default or delayed payment of EMIs by the builder during the agreed period on behalf of the borrower, non-completion of the project on time, etc. The Hon’ble Justice further noted circular dated 09.07.2019 issued by the NHB, wherein it was observed that the housing finance companies (HFC’s) shall desist from offering loan products involving servicing of the loan dues by builders on behalf of the borrowers and the disbursal of housing loans sanctioned to the individuals shall be closely linked to the stages of construction of the housing projects and disbursal shall not be made in case of incomplete or under-construction projects.

The Hon’ble Justice vide this interim order observed that despite the banks having disbursed the loan amounts when the construction was admittedly incomplete, the Petitioners were being asked to pay the amount that was initially required to be paid by the builders.

The Court further observed that the Petitioners who are individual homebuyers are also facing grave financial hardship on account of the devastating impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the Petitioners have made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience also lies with the Petitioner and grave and irreparable loss would be caused to the homebuyers if they are forced to pay the EMIs in this challenging times due to the default of the builders. Thus, the Court vide this order granted an interim stay in favour of the homebuyers against the recovery of EMIs for pending projects where the builders were supposed to pay the EMIs till the possession.


This interim order in favour of the homebuyers, highlights the sorry state of affairs of the construction industry, where without any possession, innocent homebuyers are being forced by the banks/HFC’s to pay EMIs due to the default of the builders. Thus, the approach of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in interim order restraining the Banks/HFC’s from taking any coercive steps against the homebuyers is a big positive steps, and especially in such cases where the builders in collusions with the banks/ HFC’s have flagrantly violated the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and the National Housing Bank.