RERA Compensation for Delay: UP-RERA Adjudicating Officer Awards Relief to Homebuyer Despite Possession Taken

Devesh Saxena
Oct 16
3 min read

Updated: Oct 16

Modern flat-vector illustration showing a judge in a courtroom granting a compensation verdict to a homebuyer. The judge holds a gavel with scales of justice nearby, rendered in bold outlines and muted earthy tones. The image features the title "RERA Compensation for Delay: UP-RERA Adjudicating Officer Awards Relief to Homebuyer Despite Possession Taken," combining legal realism with minimalistic caricature style, suitable for a law firm blog.

Introduction

In a major boost for homebuyers, the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP-RERA), through its Adjudicating Officer’s order dated 13 October 2025, has once again underscored its buyer-first approach under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

In a complaint filed in Form-N before the Adjudicating Officer, the Authority held ATS Realty Pvt. Ltd., the promoter of ATS Allure, liable for delay in handing over possession and directed payment of compensation for mental and financial hardship—even though the buyer had already taken possession of the flat.

This order reaffirms that possession does not extinguish the buyer’s right to seek compensation for delayed delivery.

Case Background

The complainant booked a flat in ATS Allure and paid the entire sale consideration. As per Clause 7.2 of the Allotment Letter, possession was due within 42 months plus a 3-month grace period. However, the promoter offered possession only on 30 March 2022, and physical handover took place on 17 September 2022—more than four years late.

Frustrated by the prolonged delay, the buyer approached UP-RERA seeking compensation for mental agony, financial loss, and breach of the promoter’s obligations under the RERA Act.

The promoter defended the delay citing Supreme Court-imposed construction bans and the COVID-19 pandemic as force majeure circumstances.

Issues Before the Adjudicating Officer

The learned Adjudicating Officer framed three principal questions of law:

Whether the delay in completion and possession was due to the construction ban or due to the fault of the promoter?
Whether the homebuyer was entitled to compensation for delay in possession?
Whether the homebuyer was entitled to further compensation for breach of statutory and contractual obligations?

Key Observations & Findings

1. Construction Ban and COVID-19: Limited Relief to the Builder

After a detailed analysis of official restrictions and timelines, the Adjudicating Officer allowed the promoter 476 days (around 16 months) of justified delay. However, even after this extension, the builder had failed to offer possession by 22 February 2020, the revised deadline.

Since possession was eventually offered only on 30 March 2022, the Authority held the two-year delay squarely attributable to the promoter’s default.

Thus, while acknowledging limited external delays, the Authority decisively rejected the promoter’s attempt to attribute the entire delay to construction bans or the pandemic.

2. Buyer’s Entitlement to "RERA Compensation for Delay" Despite “Full and Final Settlement”

The promoter argued that the buyer had waived all claims by signing a “Full and Final Settlement” at possession. But UP-RERA found the document legally invalid—it was undated, one-sided, and not backed by an affidavit.

The Authority observed that such undertakings are often signed under duress, with possession being made conditional on signing them. Consequently, it refused to treat this as a waiver of rights.

The Adjudicating Officer awarded interest-based compensation to the buyer, in line with Section 18 of RERA, holding that RERA Compensation for Delay remains payable even if possession is taken, provided delay is proven.

3. Breach of Contractual and Statutory Obligations

The Authority found that the promoter violated both Clause 7.2 of the Allotment Letter and Section 18(1) of the RERA Act, which require timely possession and make the promoter liable for interest and compensation in case of delay.

Recognizing the mental distress and financial hardship suffered by the buyer, the Authority awarded additional lump-sum compensation for the promoter’s failure to meet contractual and statutory obligations.

Reliefs Granted

UP-RERA’s Adjudicating Officer directed the following:

Interest on Amount Paid – to compensate for the delay in possession.
Lump-sum Compensation – for breach of statutory and contractual duties.
Payment within 45 Days – failing which, the promoter shall pay additional interest until realization.

Why This Order Matters?

This ruling carries far-reaching implications for both homebuyers and developers:

✅ Possession ≠ End of Rights: Buyers can claim compensation even after taking possession if the delay caused loss or distress.
⚖️ Limited Force Majeure Relief: Builders can’t exploit COVID-19 or pollution bans beyond reasonable timelines.
📜 Invalidity of Coerced Settlements: Any “full and final” undertakings extracted under pressure hold no legal value under RERA.
🏗️ Accountability Reinforced: Promoters must deliver projects within agreed timelines or face monetary consequences.
🧭 Strengthening Buyer Protection: The decision strengthens RERA’s core principles—transparency, accountability, and justice for homebuyers.

Conclusion

The UP-RERA Adjudicating Officer’s order in ATS Allure (Complaint in Form N) is a landmark affirmation of buyer rights under RERA. By granting compensation despite possession and invalidating coerced settlements, the Authority has reinforced that justice under RERA extends beyond mere delivery of possession—it upholds fairness, accountability, and the buyer’s legitimate expectations.

This precedent sends a clear message to developers across India: timely delivery is not optional, and buyer protection lies at the heart of RERA’s mandate.