Bombay High Court Condones 143-Day Delay in Homebuyers’ RERA Appeal; Says Tribunal Adopted Rigid Approach

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 25.09.2026

Bombay High Court Condones 143-Day Delay in Homebuyers’ RERA Appeal; Says Tribunal Adopted Rigid Approach

In an important ruling concerning condonation of delay in appeals under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the Bombay High Court has set aside an order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal which had refused to condone a 143-day delay by two homebuyers in filing their appeal.

Justice N.J. Jamadar held that the Appellate Tribunal had adopted a “slightly rigid approach” and failed to apply the justice-oriented principles governing the expression “sufficient cause”. The Court emphasised that the requirement of explaining each day’s delay cannot be stretched to demand “mathematical precision and exactitude”.

The High Court accordingly condoned the 143-day delay, subject to payment of ₹20,000 as costs, and directed the Appellate Tribunal to decide the homebuyers’ substantive appeal in accordance with law.

Homebuyers Purchased Two Flats in ‘Sodah Sadan’ Project

• The appellants, Atul Hiralal Shah and another, had entered into two registered agreements on 4 October 2016 for purchase of two flats in a project known as “Sodah Sadan”, promoted by the respondents.
• Under the agreements, possession was to be delivered by 31 December 2018. According to the appellants, despite repeated extensions, the promoters failed to perform their obligations.
• The homebuyers consequently approached the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority seeking possession, interest, compensation and other reliefs.

MahaRERA Grants Delayed-Possession Interest but Rejects Possession Claim

• By an order dated 30 June 2025, MahaRERA partly allowed the complaint.
• Although the Authority rejected the claim for possession, it directed the promoters to pay interest for delayed delivery of the flats from 1 January 2019 until the date of offer of possession with Occupancy Certificate (OC).
• The interest was directed to be calculated on the actual amount paid by the homebuyers towards the flat consideration at the rate of SBI’s Marginal Cost Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2%, as prescribed under Section 18 of RERA and the applicable Rules.
• However, the Authority further directed that the interest amount would become payable after the promoters obtained the full Occupancy Certificate. The promoters were also permitted to adjust the interest against outstanding consideration and interest thereon, if any.
• This condition ultimately became important in the High Court’s consideration of why the homebuyers had delayed filing their appeal.

Homebuyers Waited for Promoter to Obtain Occupancy Certificate

• The appellants explained that after the MahaRERA order they genuinely believed that the promoters would obtain the full OC and comply with the direction for payment of delayed-possession interest.
• They therefore continued pursuing the promoters for the Occupancy Certificate.
• According to them, it eventually became apparent that there was no meaningful progress at the project site and no immediate possibility of obtaining the OC. They then decided to challenge the MahaRERA order before the Appellate Tribunal.
• This resulted in a delay of 143 days, for which they sought condonation through Miscellaneous Application No. 117 of 2026.

Appellate Tribunal Refuses to Condon 143-Day Delay

• On 6 April 2026, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal rejected the delay-condonation application.
• The Tribunal acknowledged that a liberal and justice-oriented approach is ordinarily adopted in such matters, but held that this principle could not defeat the substantive law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
• It concluded that the reasons advanced by the homebuyers did not amount to “sufficient cause”. It further held that the appellants had failed to account for each and every day’s delay and appeared negligent in not pursuing their appellate remedy within the prescribed time.
• The homebuyers consequently approached the Bombay High Court in Second Appeal.

Substantial Question of Law Before Bombay High Court

• The High Court formulated the following substantial question of law:
• “Whether the Appellate Tribunal did not apply correct principles in deciding the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal, and, thereby misdirected itself in rejecting the application for condonation of delay?”
• Considering the nature of the controversy, the Court proceeded to finally decide the Second Appeal with the consent of the parties.

Homebuyers: Tribunal Adopted an Unduly Rigid Approach

• Senior Advocate Naushad Engineer, appearing for the appellants, argued that MahaRERA had placed the homebuyers in a peculiar position.
• Although the Authority granted them delayed-possession interest, actual payment of that interest was deferred until the promoter obtained the Occupancy Certificate.
• The homebuyers therefore had a legitimate reason to pursue the promoter for obtaining the OC so that the relief granted by MahaRERA could become enforceable.
• It was further argued that 143 days was not an inordinate delay and that the Tribunal had adopted an excessively rigid standard instead of examining the explanation in the context of the object of RERA and the circumstances faced by the allottees.

Promoter: Non-Compliance With an Order Cannot Justify Delayed Appeal

• The promoters opposed the appeal.
• They argued that non-compliance with the MahaRERA order might possibly explain delay in seeking its enforcement, but could not constitute sufficient cause for delaying an appeal against that very order.
• According to the promoters, unless a satisfactory cause was shown for not approaching the appellate forum within limitation, neither the Tribunal nor the Court could exercise the power of condonation.
• They also objected to documents which the homebuyers sought to rely upon before the High Court on the ground that those documents had not been produced before the Appellate Tribunal.

High Court: Explanation Must Be Assessed in Context of Real-Life Circumstances

• Justice Jamadar acknowledged that, viewed in a very strict sense, non-compliance with the MahaRERA order might not by itself constitute a satisfactory explanation for delay in appealing.
• But the Court held that the explanation could not be assessed in isolation.
• It had to be considered “in the light of the attendant facts of the case and the situation in life of the parties.”
• This contextual approach became central to the High Court’s reasoning.

‘Sufficient Cause’ Is Elastic and Cannot Be Put in a Straitjacket

• The Court examined the principles underlying limitation law and noted that limitation statutes are sometimes described as “statutes of peace” because public policy requires finality in litigation.
• At the same time, the expression “sufficient cause” governing condonation of delay has traditionally received a liberal construction where doing so advances substantial justice and the party is not guilty of negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides.
• The High Court observed that “sufficient cause” cannot be confined in a straitjacket and that no universal formula can determine whether a particular explanation is sufficient.

Supreme Court Principles on Condonation of Delay Considered

• The High Court relied upon Pundlik Jalan Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448, concerning the public-policy rationale underlying limitation statutes.
• It also extensively referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, which in turn considered Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513.
• The principles extracted by the Court recognise that while Section 3 of the Limitation Act must be applied strictly, Section 5 requires a more liberal construction. At the same time, a justice-oriented approach cannot be used to condone inordinate delay accompanied by negligence, lack of diligence or want of bona fides.
• The Court emphasised that the inquiry must ultimately consider whether the explanation is real, bona fide and free from negligence, viewed contextually and having regard to the totality of circumstances.

Appellate Tribunal Adopted a ‘Slightly Rigid Approach’

• Applying those principles, the High Court found that the Appellate Tribunal had been too rigid.

The sufficiency of the explanation ought to have been examined on the touchstones of:

reasonableness, bona fides and diligence, coupled with the necessary degree of justice-oriented flexibility.

The High Court clarified that delay should not be condoned where there is gross negligence, deliberate inaction or blatant indifference to statutory timelines. But it expressly found:

“That is not the case at hand.”

Waiting for Occupancy Certificate Was Not Wholly Unreasonable

• A particularly important aspect of the judgment concerns the practical predicament faced by the allottees.
• Possession had originally been promised by 31 December 2018, yet even when the matter reached the High Court, the promoters had neither offered possession nor obtained the full Occupancy Certificate.
• The Court held that the allottees’ expectation that the promoter would comply with its statutory and contractual obligations and the MahaRERA order could not be described as wholly unreasonable.

MahaRERA Order Made Interest Dependent on an Event Beyond Allottees’ Control

• The High Court found the structure of the MahaRERA order itself significant.
• Although delayed-possession interest had been granted, payment was deferred until the promoter obtained the Occupancy Certificate.
• Thus, enforcement of the monetary relief granted to the allottees had effectively been made contingent upon an event which was outside their control and dependent upon the acts of the promoter.
• In these circumstances, the allottees’ decision to pursue the promoter in the bona fide expectation that the OC would shortly be obtained could not properly be treated as negligence.

‘Every Day’s Delay’ Rule Cannot Be Applied With Mathematical Precision

The Bombay High Court then made an important observation concerning the frequently invoked requirement that a litigant explain “each and every day’s delay”.

The Court held that:

• The principle that a party seeking condonation must account for each and every day’s delay cannot be stretched to the point of mathematical precision and exactitude.
• It also found that a delay of 143 days was neither huge nor inordinate in the circumstances of the case.
• This observation is likely to be particularly relevant in future delay-condonation disputes where tribunals adopt an overly mechanical day-by-day approach despite a coherent overall explanation.

Occupancy Certificate Still Not Obtained

• During the hearing, counsel for the promoters fairly informed the High Court that, according to his instructions, the Occupancy Certificate had still not been obtained.
• The Court observed that if the allottees attempted to enforce the MahaRERA order in that situation, such proceedings could be termed premature because the liability to pay interest had itself been deferred until the uncertain future event of obtaining the OC.
• Whether such a condition in the MahaRERA order was legally justified would therefore need to be examined by the Appellate Tribunal once the appeal was restored.

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal and Condones Delay

The High Court answered the substantial question of law in favour of the appellants and allowed the Second Appeal.

It consequently:

• quashed and set aside the Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 6 April 2026;
• allowed the application seeking condonation of delay;
• condoned the 143-day delay in filing the RERA appeal;
• imposed ₹20,000 costs, payable by the appellants to the respondents within four weeks from uploading of the order; and
• requested the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal to decide the substantive appeal in accordance with law.

Important: High Court Did Not Finally Decide the Homebuyers’ RERA Claims

• The judgment must be understood within its procedural limits.
• The Bombay High Court did not finally decide whether the homebuyers are entitled to possession, whether the manner in which MahaRERA deferred payment of interest until receipt of the OC is legally valid, or what substantive relief should ultimately be granted.
• The Court’s ruling concerns the rejection of the delay-condonation application. Those substantive RERA issues will now be examined by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal after restoration of the appeal.

Why the Judgment Is Significant

• The ruling reinforces that limitation law must strike a balance between finality of proceedings and substantial justice. Courts and tribunals cannot disregard statutory limitation periods, but neither should the concept of “sufficient cause” be applied through an excessively mechanical formula.
• In RERA disputes particularly, the surrounding circumstances faced by homebuyers—including dependence upon the promoter for completion, possession and Occupancy Certificates—may be relevant while assessing whether their conduct reflects negligence or a bona fide attempt to secure compliance.
• The judgment also sends a clear message that the requirement to explain delay does not necessarily mean that a litigant must produce a mathematically precise explanation for every individual day where the overall conduct demonstrates reasonable diligence and bona fides.

Key Takeaway

A 143-day delay in filing a RERA appeal cannot be rejected through an excessively rigid application of limitation principles where the allottees acted bona fide and their explanation is consistent with the surrounding circumstances.

The requirement to explain “each and every day’s delay” cannot be stretched to mathematical precision.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com