Delayed Possession: What Homebuyers Should Know If A Builder Seeks Review Of A MahaRERA Order In Their Favour

State RERA bodies function to provide support and grievance redressal to homebuyers and investors; the same rights are quite stringent when it comes to the developers. This raises concerns as to whether a developer can revisit a case, challenging a ruling that has already been in favour of the homebuyer.

A recent case in Maharashtra clarifies it; even after a homebuyer had secured a favourable order from the state RERA body, the concerned developer filed for a review, challenging the decision.

The review applications are overseen by Section 39 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and Regulation 36 of the MahaRERA General Regulations, 2017, which provide only limited grounds for reviews. A review cannot be treated as a second opportunity to argue over the same case or seek rehearing chances.

Background of the Case

In the case mentioned, the original complaint has sought a refund, interest and compensation for a delayed possession situation. MahaRERA allowed the complaint to be in favour of the buyer, dated August 11, 2025.

Aggrieved by the decision, the developer had filed a review application. The application stated that the authority failed to consider multiple factors, such as payment defaults made by the allottee, as well as the extension granted to the project by RERA.

The developer stated that before the RERA Act was imposed, the agreement for sale had been processed; therefore, the dispute should be looked at under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act.

What Grounds Are Allowed for a Review?

As per Regulation 36, a review is permitted only under specific circumstances, which include the following,

• New and important evidence that could not have been produced earlier despite diligence.

• A mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

Furthermore, the application for the same must be filed within 45 days of the original order. Additionally, a review proceeding is not to be considered as an appeal. A review cannot be used to reassess evidence or change the decision of the housing body.

MahaRERA Rejected the Builder’s Arguments

The authority had observed that all the issues raised by the developer had already been considered during the original proceedings. Be it payment defaults by the buyer, extension of project registration, or applicability of Section 18. The MahaRERA body had noted that possession had been promised in December 2015 and had still not been delivered. Following this, the allottee’s right to seek withdrawal and refund had already been adjudicated under Section 18(1)(a). It was also noted that the registration of the project was under ongoing projects under RERA, which establishes it under MahaRERA’s jurisdiction.

Secondly, the MahaRERA found out that the developer had not identified any clerical, mathematical, or legal error to bring this review up. Nor had the developer produced any evidence that could change the rulings of the original proceedings. The authority highlighted that review jurisdiction cannot be used to substitute rulings. If a party is unhappy with the ruling, the right way forward is to file an appeal rather than just to seek a review.

Key Takeaway

Homebuyers should understand that a builder’s review application does not reopen the case for a change in decision, unless the developer highlights a clear error or produces new evidence, the authority is unlikely to reopen the case against what is already decided.

The June 11, 2026, order reinforces that review proceedings have a narrow scope and cannot be used as an appeal. For homebuyers, this translates into an extra layer of certainty and protection under RERA.