New Chandigarh Flat Delay Interest Set Off Against Dues न्यू चंडीगढ़ फ़्लैट का देरी ब्याज बकाये के सामने समायोजित ਨਿਊ ਚੰਡੀਗੜ੍ਹ ਫਲੈਟ ਦਾ ਦੇਰੀ ਵਿਆਜ ਬਕਾਏ ਨਾਲ ਕੱਟਿਆ ਗਿਆ

A flat buyer in a delayed New Chandigarh tower is often told the same thing at the end. Pay the balance first, and then the keys will follow. A Punjab RERA order passed on the twenty ninth of October twenty twenty six turns that around for one buyer in The Lake, a group housing project at Mullanpur. Because the delay interest owed to the buyer was larger than the balance the developer was asking for, the authority ordered the flat handed over without any payment as a condition.

The order was passed by Rakesh Kumar Goyal, Chairman of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab, on a complaint filed in August twenty twenty five. The respondent was Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers, the promoter of the project. This piece sets out how the authority fixed the delay and why it refused the developer more time. It then explains how the final demand was treated. The chart with this piece shows the three amounts the order worked with.

The flat and the promised date

The buyers, a married couple, booked a four bedroom unit in a tower of The Lake in April twenty nineteen. The agreement for sale was signed in July twenty nineteen. Clause seven of that agreement promised possession on the thirty first of July twenty twenty one, subject to force majeure.

They had paid most of the price. The occupancy certificate for the tower was granted by GMADA on the twenty fifth of May twenty twenty six. The developer then offered possession on the fifteenth of July twenty twenty six and asked for the balance within fifteen days. The buyers did not take possession and made no further payment.

How much extra time the developer got

The developer argued for a much later due date. It relied on Covid as force majeure and asked for nine extra months. It also claimed one hundred and thirteen days more under clause seven point three, on the ground that the buyers had paid some instalments late.

The authority allowed six months for Covid. Its own circular of the twenty eighth of October twenty twenty had extended completion dates by six months, and this project was named in it. The claim for nine months failed because no material specific to the project showed work stopping for longer. That moved the due date to the thirty first of January twenty twenty two.

The claim for one hundred and thirteen days failed for want of proof. Clause seven point three required the developer to show when each instalment fell due and when it was actually paid. The reply gave no such details. It relied on a delay ledger the developer had prepared itself in February twenty twenty six, after the complaint was filed. The reminder letters it pointed to were dated either before the agreement or after the promised date.

The price concession the developer wanted back

The buyers had chosen a payment plan that carried a price concession for paying on time. The developer asked the authority to let it withdraw that concession because of the late payments it alleged.

The authority looked at clause nine point three of the agreement, which deals with an allottee's default. Under it, a buyer is in default only after failing to pay two demands in a row despite notice. Even then the remedy is interest on the unpaid amount. Cancellation comes only after a further notice. The developer had not pleaded any such notice and had never cancelled the allotment. It had kept accepting payments. With late payment not established, the condition for withdrawing the concession was not met. The prayer was declined.

Why the offer of possession did not end the delay

The order treats an offer made after the occupancy certificate as the first lawful offer. It then read the offer letter itself. The letter said the final finishing touches would be taken up after the balance was paid. In the order's view, that showed the unit was not complete on the day it was offered.

The buyers had themselves asked for interest only up to an offer made after the certificate. The authority awarded interest under section eighteen of the Act from the first of February twenty twenty two to the thirtieth of June twenty twenty six. The rate is the one prescribed in rule sixteen of the Punjab rules, which is the State Bank of India's highest marginal cost of lending rate plus two per cent.

Interest and dues settled against each other

The central direction concerns the final payment. The developer was directed to hand over the unit, complete in all respects, within sixty days. It was told not to ask for any payment as a condition of possession, because the amount being directed in the buyers' favour was larger than the balance due.

The order explains why the two amounts go together. Interest for delayed possession and the balance payable at possession "are part of the same agreement and are enforceable together." It adds: "The promoter cannot take the benefit of Agreement for Sale for its dues while at the same time rejecting it or acting inconsistently with it when required to pay interest on delayed possession."

The developer was told to serve a statement of the interest within fifteen days. Within thirty days it has to issue a revised statement of account. That statement gives credit for the interest and leaves out both the withdrawn concession and any interest on late payments. No maintenance charges can be claimed for the period before actual possession. The conveyance deed is to be executed under section seventeen of the Act. The buyers bear the stamp duty and registration charges.

What happens to the interest left over

After the balance is adjusted, a large part of the interest remains due to the buyers. The order treats that remainder as recoverable as arrears of land revenue under section forty of the Act. The authority's Secretary is to issue a recovery certificate after ninety days and send it to the Deputy Commissioner.

The developer remains primarily responsible for paying. The order describes the recovery certificate as an additional and parallel route.

What the order leaves open

This is a single order on one flat, passed by the Chairman on the papers in that case. It does not decide the position of any other buyer in The Lake or in any other project, and the Act allows an appeal to the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

The buyers had also challenged the price being charged on super area in place of carpet area. They withdrew that part of the complaint during the hearing, so the authority did not decide it. Their claim for litigation costs was declined. The order expresses no view on any claim for compensation before the Adjudicating Officer.

Why it matters for delayed towers

Buyers in delayed projects across New Chandigarh and the wider Mohali belt often face a final demand at the very moment possession is offered. On the reasoning in this order, interest the developer owes for delay counts against what the buyer owes at handover. Where the interest is the larger sum, the authority did not let the developer hold back the keys.

The order also shows how closely the authority read the offer letter. A line saying finishing work would follow payment was enough to show the flat was not ready. Each case still turns on its own agreement and its own papers.

Related reading

- Offer of possession without occupancy and completion certificates: what counts
- Builder delayed possession in Mohali: what RERA Punjab actually awards
- A Zirakpur flat allotment cancelled after the possession date passed: what Punjab RERA held
- Eco City Two plot delay interest runs from the allotment letter

Sources: The sources we use are listed on our Editorial Sources page.

This piece describes a published order of the authority. Nothing here is legal or property advice. The position of any other buyer turns on that buyer's own agreement and papers.