Best Defending Builders in RERA Complaints Lawyer

Most of what is written about RERA is written for buyers, and for good reason: the Act was passed to protect them, and in the NCR many of them have waited far too long for their homes. But developers have rights under the Act too, and they are entitled to a fair hearing. Not every complaint is justified. Some buyers stopped paying long before the project ran late. Some refused a valid offer of possession. Some claim interest calculated on the wrong amounts, from the wrong dates, at the wrong rate. And some complaints are filed in the wrong forum, against the wrong party, or for the wrong relief.

A good defence doesn't mean denying everything. Authorities have little patience for developers who contest obvious delays with boilerplate excuses. It means identifying what is genuinely disputed, conceding what isn't, and presenting the developer's case clearly, with documents. This page explains how RERA complaints against developers usually unfold and how to approach the defence.

How complaints come in

Under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, any aggrieved person can file a complaint with the authority or the adjudicating officer for any violation of the Act, rules or regulations by a promoter, allottee or agent. In practice, most complaints against developers seek one or more of:

• a refund of the amount paid, with interest, under Section 18(1), because possession hasn't been given by the agreed date;
• interest for delay for every month until possession, where the buyer wants to stay in the project;
• compensation for loss, mental agony or other harm, usually under Sections 12, 14, 18 or 19;
• directions to hand over possession, execute a conveyance deed or provide amenities;
• relief against extra charges, such as increases in super area, preferential location charges or maintenance; and
• action for defects under Section 14(3).

The authority will issue a notice to the developer, usually with a date for filing a reply and a date for the first hearing. Many authorities now run hearings online or in hybrid form, which helps developers dealing with complaints in several states.

Who decides what: authority or adjudicating officer

The first question in any defence is whether the complaint is before the right body. The Supreme Court settled the basic division in Newtech Promoters and Developers v. State of UP (2021):

• the authority decides complaints for refund of the amount paid, interest on a refund, interest for delayed possession, and penalties and interest generally; and
• the adjudicating officer decides claims for compensation, and interest on compensation, under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19, considering the factors in Section 72.

A complaint that asks the authority for compensation, or the adjudicating officer for a refund, can be objected to on that ground. In practice, authorities often deal with the refund or interest part and leave the buyer to pursue compensation separately before the adjudicating officer. Pointing this out early narrows the dispute.

The reply

A good reply is usually short on rhetoric and long on documents. It has three parts.

Preliminary objections

These go to whether the authority should hear the complaint at all, or hear all of it. Raise only those that are genuinely available. A list of every possible objection, most of them weak, makes the strong ones look weak too.

Reply on merits

A paragraph-by-paragraph response to the complaint, admitting what is true, denying what isn't, and explaining the developer's version, with references to documents.

Documents

Typically the application form, allotment letter, agreement for sale, payment ledger, demand letters and reminders, cancellation or final notices if any, correspondence with the buyer, the offer of possession and occupancy certificate, approvals relevant to the delay, orders or notifications relied on for force majeure, and any settlement or waiver signed by the buyer.

The payment ledger deserves particular care. In many complaints, the dispute ends up being about numbers: how much the buyer paid, when, how much was due, and how much interest is payable. A clear, reconciled ledger with receipts and bank entries saves a great deal of time.

Preliminary objections that sometimes succeed

The project was complete before RERA

The Act applies to projects that were ongoing on the date it came into force and hadn't received a completion certificate. In Newtech (2021), the Supreme Court held that the Act applies to such ongoing projects, including to agreements signed before it came into force. A project that had its completion or occupancy certificate before 1 May 2017 is generally outside the Act's registration requirement, and complaints about it may not be maintainable before the authority. The facts matter: a partial occupancy certificate for some towers doesn't make the whole project complete.

The complainant isn't an allottee

Section 2(d) defines an allottee as the person to whom a unit has been allotted, sold or otherwise transferred by the promoter, and includes the person who later acquires it through sale or transfer, but not a tenant. Someone who bought from an original buyer with the developer's endorsement is usually an allottee. Someone who has only an unregistered arrangement with an original buyer, which the developer never endorsed, may not be. And a person whose allotment was validly cancelled before the complaint may have lost the status of allottee, depending on the facts.

The same claim is pending elsewhere

Buyers sometimes file before the consumer commission and RERA for the same relief. The Supreme Court held in Imperia Structures v. Anil Patni (2020) that buyers can choose the consumer forum despite RERA, and the proviso to Section 71(1) allows a buyer with a pending consumer case to withdraw it and file before the adjudicating officer. But a buyer generally shouldn't be allowed to pursue the same relief in two forums at once. Where that is happening, it's a proper objection. See our page on consumer court cases.

Wrong forum for the relief sought

As explained above, compensation belongs before the adjudicating officer, refund and interest before the authority.

Arbitration clauses

Many older agreements contain arbitration clauses. Authorities have generally held that an arbitration clause doesn't bar a buyer's complaint under RERA, given the special nature of the Act, its protective purpose and Section 79, which bars civil courts from matters within the authority's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court took a similar view of arbitration clauses and consumer complaints in Emaar MGF Land v. Aftab Singh (2018). Raising an arbitration objection in a typical buyer's complaint is unlikely to succeed and may irritate the authority. It's rarely worth pressing.

Limitation

Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to complaints before the authority is not straightforward. Authorities have often held that a buyer's right to claim refund or interest on delay is a continuing one while possession is pending. Where possession was given or a settlement was reached many years ago, though, and the buyer comes later to reopen it, delay may be a relevant objection. It's fact-specific and should be raised with care.

Defences on the merits

Force majeure and causes beyond the developer's control

Most agreements have a clause allowing extension of the possession date for force majeure or for causes beyond the developer's control. Authorities read these clauses narrowly. They have been reluctant to accept general claims about market conditions, labour shortages or delays in approvals that the developer could have obtained earlier. They have been more willing to exclude specific periods where construction was stopped by an order, such as:

• construction bans imposed during pollution emergencies in the NCR;
• court orders stopping work on the project or in the area;
• the COVID-19 lockdown periods; and
• other orders of statutory authorities that genuinely prevented construction.

The defence works best when it is precise: the order, its dates, how it affected this project, and a calculation showing the period to be excluded. A developer that claims force majeure for the whole delay will usually lose the argument for all of it. One that claims a carefully calculated period may well win that period.

The buyer's own payment defaults

Section 19(6) obliges allottees to make payments in the manner and within the time specified in the agreement, and Section 19(7) makes them liable to pay interest at the prescribed rate for delay in payment. Many agreements also say that the possession date is extended where the buyer defaults, or that the buyer loses the benefit of delay compensation while in default.

Where a buyer stopped paying instalments well before the possession date, that matters. The developer may have a counter-claim for interest on the overdue amounts, which the authority can set off against interest payable for delay. If the developer validly cancelled the allotment for non-payment, the buyer may only be entitled to a refund after the permitted deductions. See our page on cancellation and forfeiture.

The key is evidence: demand letters sent to the right address, reminders, and notices before cancellation, all in accordance with the agreement.

Possession was validly offered

Section 19(10) requires every allottee to take physical possession within two months of the occupancy certificate being issued. If the developer obtained the occupancy certificate and made a valid offer of possession, and the buyer didn't take it, interest for delay generally stops at the offer (or shortly after), and the buyer may be liable for holding charges and maintenance as the agreement provides.

"Valid" matters. An offer made before the occupancy certificate, or accompanied by demands for charges the buyer didn't owe, may not stop the clock. Authorities look closely at the demands made with the offer.

The interest calculation is wrong

Even where liability for delay is clear, the amount often isn't. Common issues include:

• The rate. Interest under Section 18 is at the rate prescribed by the state rules. In UP and Haryana, that is the State Bank of India's highest marginal cost of lending rate plus 2%. Buyers sometimes claim higher rates, such as 18% or 24%, which aren't available under the Act for this purpose.
• The principal. Interest is usually calculated on the amount actually paid by the buyer, on each payment from its date or from the due date of possession, depending on the order. Amounts paid by a bank under a subvention scheme, or taxes paid to the government, may need separate treatment.
• The start date. The due date of possession under the agreement, including any grace period the agreement provides and the authority accepts.
• The end date. For delay interest, usually the date of a valid offer of possession after the occupancy certificate, plus a short period, or actual possession. For refunds, the date of payment of the refund.
• Amounts already paid or credited. Delay compensation already paid under the agreement, or credited against dues, should be adjusted.

Providing the authority with a clean calculation, even one that accepts some liability, often leads to a more accurate order and avoids an appeal later.

Settlement or waiver

If the buyer signed a settlement, accepted compensation in full and final settlement, or signed an undertaking at possession, the developer can rely on it. Authorities scrutinise such documents. Undertakings signed as a condition of getting possession, especially standard-form ones waiving all claims, are often given little weight. A genuine, negotiated settlement with clear terms and consideration stands a much better chance.

Claims about defects and amenities

For defect claims under Section 14(3), the developer's defence usually turns on whether the defect is structural or a workmanship or quality issue within the developer's responsibility, whether it was reported within five years of possession, whether it was caused by the owner's own alterations or lack of maintenance, and whether the developer has offered to fix it. An offer to rectify, made promptly and in writing, is often the best defence. For amenities, the question is what was actually promised in the agreement and the sanctioned plans, as distinct from brochures. See our pages on defects and amenities.

Hearings

RERA hearings are usually brief. The authority will often have many matters listed for the day and will want to identify the real issues quickly. What helps:

• a short note setting out the developer's position in a page or two, with the key dates and figures;
• a representative who knows the file and, where needed, someone from the developer who can answer factual questions about the project's status;
• a realistic proposal, where liability is clear, for paying what is owed or completing the work, with dates; and
• readiness to provide documents the authority asks for, quickly.

Under Section 35, the authority can call for information and conduct investigations. Under Section 36, it can pass interim orders restraining a party from continuing an activity. Authorities sometimes ask developers to file affidavits on project status or funding. Answers given in such affidavits will be held against the developer later, so they need to be accurate.

Handling many complaints in one project

Large delayed projects attract dozens or hundreds of complaints. Handling each one separately, with different lawyers and inconsistent positions, is expensive and risky. A better approach:

• prepare a master note on the project: approvals, timeline, causes of delay, force majeure periods, current status, revised schedule, funding;
• maintain a single reconciled ledger for every buyer, so payment figures are consistent;
• take consistent positions on the rate, grace periods, excluded periods and offers of possession across all complaints;
• keep a register of orders and payment deadlines, so that nothing slips into execution or Section 63 proceedings; and
• consider group settlements where many buyers' claims are similar.

Authorities sometimes hear similar complaints together. A developer that presents the same, coherent case in all of them is more credible than one whose positions shift from matter to matter.

An illustration

Here's a made-up example. A buyer in a Gurugram project files a complaint seeking a refund of Rs 92 lakh with interest at 18%, plus Rs 25 lakh as compensation. The agreement promised possession within 48 months of signing, with a six-month grace period, so possession was due in March 2021. The occupancy certificate came in August 2023, and possession was offered in September 2023. The buyer didn't take it, and filed the complaint in January 2024.

A careful defence would look something like this:

• Compensation: the claim for Rs 25 lakh belongs before the adjudicating officer, not the authority.
• Refund after a valid offer: the occupancy certificate had been issued and possession offered before the complaint. The developer argues that the buyer, having waited until the flat was ready, shouldn't now be allowed to withdraw, and that at most delay interest is payable up to the offer. Authorities have sometimes accepted this, and sometimes allowed refund anyway, depending on the facts, so the developer's reply should cover both possibilities.
• Payments: the ledger shows the buyer actually paid Rs 86 lakh, not Rs 92 lakh; the difference was GST and stamp duty, paid to the government.
• Rate: interest is at the prescribed rate, not 18%.
• Excluded periods: the developer identifies the specific NCR construction ban periods and the COVID lockdown and argues for their exclusion, with copies of the orders.
• Buyer's default: two instalments were paid about five months late, and the developer claims interest on those at the prescribed rate, to be set off.

The developer may still be ordered to pay delay interest for well over two years. But the order is likely to be based on accurate numbers, and the developer's exposure is much smaller than the complaint suggested.

After the order: appeals and compliance

Either party can appeal to the appellate tribunal within 60 days under Section 44. For a developer, the important point is Section 43(5): an appeal by a promoter can't be entertained unless the promoter first deposits with the tribunal at least 30% of the penalty, or the total amount to be paid to the allottee including interest and compensation, or both, as the case may be. The Supreme Court upheld this requirement in Newtech (2021). In practice, this means a developer that loses before the authority must usually pay the full amount ordered into the tribunal before its appeal is heard. See our pages on appeals and the pre-deposit rule.

That makes the first hearing before the authority far more important than developers sometimes assume. Arguments not made, documents not filed, and calculations not challenged before the authority are harder to raise later, and the developer will have had to find the money to appeal in the meantime.

Where the developer doesn't appeal, or loses, it must comply. Ignoring an order leads to recovery as arrears of land revenue under Section 40 and penalties under Section 63, which can be imposed for every day of default. See our pages on recovery certificates and non-compliance with orders. If the developer can't pay in full immediately, it's usually better to propose a payment plan to the buyer and the authority than to wait for recovery action.

Settling instead of fighting

Many complaints are better settled than fought. Where the developer can deliver a flat in a reasonable time, a settlement that combines a firm possession date, a realistic amount of delay compensation and perhaps some adjustment of remaining dues can serve both sides better than an order neither is happy with. Where the buyer wants out, a refund plan the developer can actually meet may be better for the buyer than an order the developer can't pay.

Settlements should be in writing, with clear terms, and recorded before the authority where the complaint is pending, so that the complaint is disposed of in terms of the settlement. See our page on settlement and mediation.

How we help developers

1. Review complaints as they come in, identify the real issues and estimate exposure.
2. Prepare replies with focused preliminary objections and a clear case on the merits.
3. Reconcile payment ledgers and prepare interest calculations.
4. Build force majeure cases with orders, dates and calculations.
5. Represent developers at hearings before UP RERA, Haryana RERA (Gurugram and Panchkula) and Delhi RERA, and before adjudicating officers.
6. Coordinate the defence of multiple complaints in one project.
7. Negotiate and document settlements.
8. Handle appeals, including the pre-deposit, and compliance with orders.

We act for buyers too, on other matters. Where we have acted for buyers in a particular project, we won't act for the developer against them, and vice versa.

Frequently asked questions

How long does a builder get to reply to a RERA complaint?

The authority sets the time in its notice, often a few weeks. Extensions are possible but not guaranteed, and some authorities proceed without a reply if none is filed.

Can a builder challenge a complaint on the ground of an arbitration clause?

It can be raised, but authorities have generally held that an arbitration clause doesn't bar a buyer's complaint under RERA. It rarely succeeds.

Is force majeure a valid defence?

It can be, for specific periods when construction was genuinely stopped by an order or event outside the developer's control. General claims about market conditions rarely succeed.

What if the buyer stopped paying instalments?

The developer can rely on Section 19(6) and (7), claim interest on overdue amounts, and in some cases may have validly cancelled the allotment. Evidence of proper demands and notices is essential.

Does interest stop when possession is offered?

Generally yes, if the offer was valid, made after the occupancy certificate and without improper demands. Section 19(10) requires buyers to take possession within two months of the certificate.

Can the builder appeal without paying the amount ordered?

No. Under Section 43(5), the promoter must deposit at least 30% of any penalty, or the full amount payable to the buyer, before the appeal is heard.

Can compensation be claimed before the authority?

Compensation claims belong before the adjudicating officer, following Newtech (2021). Refund and interest claims go to the authority.

General information for promoters responding to complaints under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Every complaint turns on its own agreement, facts and the practice of the authority hearing it. Not legal advice.