By Arosh John, Founder, John Real Estate (MahaRERA Reg. No. A51700001835) | Editor-in-Chief, Thane Real Estate News (TREN)
Thane–MMR | 29 January 2026
MahaRERA has issued a split order in two complaints linked to Arihant Aarohi Phase II (Kalher, Thane district). It granted delay-interest to one homebuyer. However, it rejected another allottee’s delay claim in the same project.
The order makes one point clear: delay-interest does not come automatically. Instead, MahaRERA checks the paperwork. It looks at the registered Agreement for Sale, the Occupancy Certificate (OC), the possession offer record, and the buyer’s payment compliance.
TREN does not publish unit identifiers of private homebuyers.
What MahaRERA Checked
MahaRERA focused on four document-first questions:
- What possession date does the registered Agreement for Sale commit to?
- Did the promoter obtain the OC, and on what date?
- Did the promoter prove a valid offer of possession to the allottee?
- Did the allottee follow the payment schedule and related obligations?
Because the answers differed, the outcomes also differed.
Why One Buyer Won Interest
In the first complaint, the buyers signed the registered agreement in September 2022. The agreement set 30 June 2024 as the committed possession date. The buyers also paid the full consideration of over ₹91 lakh.
The authority noted that the promoter did not deliver possession by the agreed date. Later, the promoter obtained the OC on 27 November 2024. Even so, the promoter did not show convincing proof of a valid possession offer to the allottee.
So, MahaRERA held that OC alone does not close the issue. The promoter must also make a valid offer of possession.
What MahaRERA Ordered
MahaRERA directed the promoter to pay delay-interest from 1 July 2024. It will run until the promoter makes a valid possession offer along with the OC. The authority applied the prescribed benchmark rate commonly used as SBI MCLR + 2%.
MahaRERA also directed the promoter to hand over possession within 15 days (if pending). It allowed this only after the buyer pays legitimate dues strictly as per the agreement.
Additionally, MahaRERA rejected a separate claim for extra compensation. It kept the remedy to interest for delay since the allottee continued in the project.
Why The Other Delay Claim Failed
In the second complaint, the record showed the promoter obtained the OC on 27 November 2024. It also issued a possession demand letter on the same date. The allottee then took possession in August 2025 while the matter continued.
Here, MahaRERA treated the case differently. It noted that once the promoter obtains the OC and makes a due possession offer, the delay-interest claim weakens.
Moreover, the authority linked the later timeline to the allottee’s payment non-compliance. Because of that record, MahaRERA dismissed the delay claim as not maintainable.
The Practical Lesson For Thane Buyers
This order reinforces a simple rule: your documentation decides your leverage.
If the promoter cannot prove a valid possession offer, your delay-interest claim strengthens. On the other hand, if your payment record shows lapses, your claim can weaken fast. That risk rises further after OC and possession steps appear on record.
Also READ: Kolshet–Kalher Bridge Moves Ahead: MMRDA’s Next Cross-Creek Connector for Thane–Bhiwandi Mobility
About The Author
Arosh John is the Founder of John Real Estate (MahaRERA Reg. No. A51700001835) and the Editor-in-Chief of Thane Real Estate News (TREN). With over a decade of on-ground experience in the Thane property market, Arosh advises end-users, investors, and NRIs on high-stakes residential decisions across key micro-markets—villas, premium resale, and developer inventory—anchored in transaction discipline and regulatory clarity. He is known for translating MahaRERA orders, approvals, and possession timelines into practical guidance that helps buyers and stakeholders assess risk, strengthen documentation, and execute compliant transactions in Thane and the wider MMR.
Disclaimer
This report is for information and public awareness. It does not constitute legal advice. Please verify case-specific facts from the official order and consult a qualified legal professional for advice tailored to your situation.
