TL;DR: If your builder has missed the possession date in the agreement, Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 gives you a choice: withdraw and get a full refund with interest and compensation, or stay and claim interest for every month of delay until you actually get possession. You can file before the state RERA Authority, the consumer commission under the Consumer Protection Act 2019, or invoke arbitration if your agreement has a valid clause. Which forum fits depends on the amount at stake, how fast you need relief, and what the builder is likely to argue back.

On this page

What you are entitled to, in one paragraph

Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 is the operative provision. If the promoter fails to complete the project or is unable to give you possession by the date specified in the agreement for sale, you have two options and the choice is yours, not the builder’s. You can withdraw and demand a full refund of everything paid, with interest and compensation, or keep the allotment and demand interest for every month of the delay, payable from the due date until actual handover. The interest rate itself is not fixed in the Act; it is prescribed by the rules of the state where your project is registered, so a rate quoted in one state’s orders will not necessarily match another’s.

You take this claim to the state RERA Authority in the first instance, the regulator covered in the broader guide on RERA for homebuyers, or, where claiming compensation specifically, to the adjudicating officer under Section 71. A parallel route exists before the consumer commission under the Consumer Protection Act 2019, and the Supreme Court has confirmed this route is not barred just because RERA also gives you a remedy. Arbitration may also be open if your agreement has a valid clause, though courts have not treated that clause as an automatic bar to RERA or consumer forum rights.

Section 18: the provision that governs your claim

Section 18 is titled “Return of amount and compensation” and is worth reading in full before you decide what to claim.

Sub-section (1) provides: if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein, or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable, on demand, to the allottee who wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received in respect of that apartment, plot or building, with interest at the prescribed rate, including compensation in the manner provided under the Act. The proviso to sub-section (1) then says: where the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of possession, at the prescribed rate.

That sub-section is the whole architecture of your remedy: two failure conditions trigger it (missed completion or possession date, or the promoter’s business shutting down), and two outcomes follow (refund with interest and compensation, or continued possession with monthly interest).

Withdraw and refund, or stay and claim interest

If you withdraw. Give the promoter demand notice that you are exercising your right under Section 18(1) to withdraw. The promoter must then return every rupee you paid, with interest running from the date each payment was made, plus compensation assessed separately. Choose this when the project has stalled to a point where you no longer believe it will complete in a reasonable time, the configuration no longer suits you, or you have found alternative accommodation.

If you stay. You do not have to give up the apartment to get a remedy. The proviso to Section 18(1) entitles you to interest for every month of delay, calculated from the date possession was contractually due until the promoter actually hands it over. Choose this when the project is genuinely close to completion, or the location is not replaceable at the price you paid.

Nothing in the Act requires you to elect one remedy irrevocably at filing. Allottees frequently claim interest while possession is pending and reserve the right to seek a refund later if the delay continues. State clearly which of the two reliefs under Section 18(1) you are claiming, since the Authority frames its order around the specific relief sought.

Section 18(2) and 18(3): compensation beyond delay

Section 18 does not stop at possession delay. Sub-section (2) addresses a different failure: the promoter must compensate the allottee for loss caused by defective title of the project land, and this claim is not barred by the limitation period under any other law. If a title defect surfaces years after you bought your apartment, the ordinary limitation clock under the Limitation Act does not shut the door on a Section 18(2) claim.

Sub-section (3) is the residual clause: if the promoter fails to discharge any other obligation under the Act, its rules, or the agreement for sale, he is liable to pay compensation. This covers obligations that fit neither possession delay nor title defects, such as failure to provide agreed amenities, failure to obtain the occupation certificate before claiming possession is ready, or failure to hand over the association of allottees’ documents.

Section 12: false statements in the advertisement

Section 12, titled “Obligations of promoter regarding veracity of the advertisement or prospectus”, is the provision to invoke if you booked based on something the builder said in marketing material that turned out to be false. It provides that where any person makes an advance or deposit on the basis of the notice, advertisement, prospectus, or a model apartment, plot, or building, and sustains loss or damage by reason of any incorrect or false statement included in it, he is entitled to be compensated by the promoter. The proviso gives a stronger right where the buyer wants out entirely: if the affected person intends to withdraw from the project, the promoter must return the entire investment with interest at the prescribed rate and compensation.

This provision is distinct from Section 18 and often runs alongside it. A common combination in delayed-possession complaints is that the promoter’s advertisement stated a possession timeline never realistic given the stage of approvals at the time, supporting both a Section 18 claim for the delay and a Section 12 claim for the misrepresentation that induced the booking.

Section 19: what the Act says you can demand

Section 19, “Rights and duties of allottees”, is a longer provision and several of its sub-sections are directly useful in a delay dispute.

Sub-section (1) entitles you to information on the sanctioned and layout plans, with specifications, approved by the competent authority. Sub-section (2) entitles you to know the stage-wise completion schedule, including provisions for water, sanitation, electricity, and other agreed amenities. Sub-section (3) entitles you to claim possession of your apartment, plot, or building, and entitles the association of allottees to claim possession of common areas. Sub-section (4) mirrors Section 18(1): a refund with interest and compensation if the promoter fails to give possession as agreed or discontinues business following suspension or revocation of registration.

The Act also imposes duties on you. Sub-section (6) requires payments in the manner and time specified in the agreement, including your share of registration charges, municipal taxes, and maintenance. Sub-section (7) makes you liable to pay interest, at the prescribed rate, for delay in your own payments, though sub-section (8) allows this to be reduced by mutual agreement. Sub-section (10) requires you to take physical possession within two months of the occupancy certificate being issued. These duties matter because builders frequently raise buyer default under sub-section (6) or (7) as a defence, so be ready to show your payment record was current before you file.

The prescribed rate of interest: set by your state, not the Act

Every reference to “interest at the prescribed rate” in Sections 12, 18, and 19 points outward, to the rules framed by the state government where your project is located, not to a number written into the central Act itself. RERA is a central law, but its rules are notified separately by each state, and each state’s rules fix its own rate of interest for delayed possession, refund, and buyer default.

This is not a theoretical distinction. In M/s Imperia Structures Ltd v Anil Patni and Another (Civil Appeal Nos. 3581-3590 of 2020, decided 2 November 2020, AIR 2021 SC 70), the project registration terms reproduced in the judgment specified the rate of interest, payable by promoter to allottee or allottee to promoter, as the State Bank of India’s highest marginal cost of lending rate plus two percent, under the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules 2017 for the Gurgaon project in question. That is one state’s formula, tied to one project’s registration conditions as examined by the court. It is not a statement of the rate applicable across India, and should not be assumed to apply elsewhere without checking that state’s own rules.

Before you calculate what you are owed, find the interest-rate rule for the state where your project is registered. Most state RERA authorities publish their rules on their own portal, and your project’s registration certificate, downloadable from the same portal, will confirm which rules govern it. Do not rely on a rate quoted in an order from a different state. Searching case law with a filter for state and forum, rather than skimming reported orders one at a time, is the faster way to confirm which rate actually applies to your project before you file; Niyam supports that kind of jurisdiction-specific lookup.

Filing the complaint: Section 31 and the adjudicating officer under Section 71

Section 31, “Filing of complaints with the Authority or the adjudicating officer”, is the gateway provision. Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating officer for any violation of the Act or its rules and regulations, against a promoter, allottee, or real estate agent. The explanation clarifies that “person” includes an association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law in force, which is why a residents’ welfare association can file on behalf of a whole project. The form, manner, and fee vary by state.

Whether you file before the Authority or the adjudicating officer depends on what you are seeking. Section 71, “Power to adjudicate”, specifies that for adjudging compensation under Sections 12, 14, 18, and 19, the Authority appoints, in consultation with the appropriate government, one or more judicial officers who are or have been a District Judge, as adjudicating officer. The officer holds an inquiry, giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and disposes of the application within sixty days of receipt, with reasons recorded in writing if that period is not met. Section 71(1) also carries a proviso for buyers who had already gone to a consumer forum before RERA existed: such a complainant could, with that forum’s permission, withdraw and file before the adjudicating officer instead. The proviso as written refers to the earlier Consumer Protection Act, 1986, since replaced by the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

In practice, the Authority handles regulatory compliance and enforcement, including directing a promoter to hand over possession or comply with escrow rules, while the adjudicating officer quantifies compensation once a violation under Sections 12, 14, 18, or 19 is established. Many state authorities route both functions through the same proceeding, though they remain formally distinct offices.

Appeals: Section 43(5) and Section 44

If the Authority or the adjudicating officer rules against you, or if it rules against the promoter and the promoter wants to challenge the order, the next stop is the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, established under Section 43 for each state or union territory.

Section 43(5) gives any person aggrieved by a direction, decision, or order of the Authority or an adjudicating officer the right to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction. It carries an important proviso protecting allottees: where a promoter appeals, the Tribunal will not entertain it unless the promoter has first deposited at least thirty percent of the penalty, or such higher percentage as the Tribunal determines, or the total amount payable to the allottee including interest and compensation. This exists because promoters have an incentive to appeal every adverse order simply to delay payment.

Section 44 governs the procedure. Any appeal must be preferred within sixty days from the date the aggrieved party received a copy of the order, though the Tribunal may entertain a late appeal on sufficient cause. On receiving the appeal, the Tribunal gives the parties a hearing and may pass such orders, including interim orders, as it thinks fit, sending a copy to the parties and the Authority or adjudicating officer. Section 44(5) directs disposal within sixty days as far as possible, recording reasons where it cannot meet that timeline. Section 44(6) lets the Tribunal call for records on its own motion, to examine the legality, propriety, or correctness of the order under challenge.

Where the limitation clock for filing your own appeal is close to running out, the principles of condonation of delay become relevant, since Section 44(2) permits the Tribunal to excuse a late appeal on sufficient cause shown, the same doctrine courts apply under ordinary civil procedure.

Choosing your forum: RERA, consumer commission, or arbitration

This is where most guidance on delayed possession stops short. Knowing your entitlement under Section 18 is only half the answer. The other half is where to enforce it.

RERA Authority or adjudicating officer. The natural first choice for a claim squarely within Sections 12, 14, 18, or 19, when your project is RERA-registered and you want a specialised forum that already understands escrow accounts, registered completion dates, and construction milestones. Filing fees are typically modest and set by state regulations, and the Act contemplates disposal within sixty days, though actual timelines vary by state.

Consumer commission. The Consumer Protection Act 2019 gives you a parallel route, since a homebuyer purchasing for personal residence is a “consumer” under that Act, and a builder’s failure to deliver possession is a deficiency in service. This route is not barred merely because RERA also offers a remedy. The Supreme Court settled this directly in M/s Imperia Structures Ltd v Anil Patni and Another, examining Section 79 of RERA, which bars a civil court from entertaining a matter the Authority, adjudicating officer, or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine, alongside Section 88, which makes RERA’s provisions additional to, not in derogation of, any other law, and Section 89, giving RERA overriding effect over inconsistent law. Relying on its earlier ruling in Malay Kumar Ganguli v Dr Sukumar Mukherjee that a consumer forum, though it has the trappings of a civil court, is not a “civil court” under the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court held that Section 79 does not bar a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, reading the proviso to Section 71(1) as giving an option to a complainant already before a consumer forum rather than compelling withdrawal.

Arbitration. Many builder-buyer agreements contain an arbitration clause, often naming a sole arbitrator appointed by the promoter. Whether it can force you out of RERA or the consumer forum and into arbitration is fact-specific, depending on the clause’s wording and how the tribunal or court has treated the interaction between the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and RERA’s remedial scheme. See the guide to arbitration in India for how a reference to arbitration works procedurally, and get the specific clause reviewed before assuming it helps or blocks you.

The table below compares the three routes for a typical delayed-possession dispute where the project is RERA-registered and you are a genuine end-use buyer.

FactorRERA AuthorityConsumer commissionCivil suit
Project must be RERA-registered✓ ordinarily✗ not required✗ not required
Buyer must qualify as a “consumer”✗ not a requirement✓ under the 2019 Act✗ not applicable
Direct statutory refund-with-interest remedy under Section 18✓✗ comparable relief only, as deficiency in service✗ not specified in the Act
Compensation for mental agony routinely awarded✗ not specified in the Act✓✓ if pleaded and proved
Filing feeGenerally modest, fixed by state regulationsTied to claim value under the 2019 Act rulesCourt fee tied to claim value, generally higher
Designed disposal timeline60 days (Section 71)Statutory targets under the 2019 Act, often exceeded in practiceNot specified in the Act
Barred by Section 79 of RERA once RERA has jurisdiction✗ not applicable✗ no, per Imperia Structures✓ generally barred
30 percent minimum appeal deposit for promoter✓ under Section 43(5)✗ not specified in the Act✗ not specified in the Act
Parallel filing with RERA permitted✗ not applicable✓ per Imperia Structures, subject to no double compensation✗ generally excluded

The following decision path summarises how to think about the choice once you know the delay has occurred.

flowchart TD
    A[Possession date has passed] --> B{Is the project RERA registered}
    B -- Yes --> C{Do you want to stay in the project}
    B -- No --> D[Consumer commission or civil suit]
    C -- Yes --> E[File under Section 18 proviso for monthly interest]
    C -- No --> F{Are you a consumer under the 2019 Act}
    F -- Yes --> G{Speed and RERA expertise matter more}
    F -- No --> D
    G -- Yes --> H[File before RERA Authority for refund]
    G -- No --> I[File before consumer commission]
    E --> J{Agreement has an arbitration clause}
    H --> J
    I --> J
    J -- Yes, and enforceable --> K[Evaluate arbitration alongside statutory forum]
    J -- No or disputed --> L[Proceed in chosen statutory forum]

A practical illustration comes from the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s decision in Sukhbir Singh Gouchwal v Imperia Structures Ltd (Complaint Case No. 97/2023, decided 20 November 2025). The complainant had paid Rs 25,17,687 towards an apartment in the builder’s Greater Noida project and alleged possession had not been delivered years after the contractual date, while the builder raised a force majeure defence. The Commission did not decide the delay claim on merits; it returned the complaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction because, under the Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules 2021, the amount paid fell below the fifty-lakh threshold for the State Commission, and directed the complainant to file before the District Commission instead. The lesson: get your forum and its pecuniary jurisdiction right before you file, or you lose time refiling.

Consumer Protection Act 2019: pecuniary jurisdiction slabs

If you choose the consumer commission route, which commission you file in depends on the value of goods or services paid as consideration, meaning what you have actually paid the builder, not the total agreement value or what you were promised.

Sections 34, 47, and 58 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, as originally enacted, fixed the District Commission’s jurisdiction up to Rs 1 crore, the State Commission’s above Rs 1 crore up to Rs 10 crore, and the National Commission’s above Rs 10 crore. Those figures were revised by the Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules 2021, notified 30 December 2021. As quoted in the National Commission’s order in Prasouk Jain v Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company (decided 8 December 2025), Section 58(1)(a)(i) now gives the National Commission jurisdiction where the value paid exceeds Rs 2 crore. The Delhi State Commission’s order in Sukhbir Singh Gouchwal v Imperia Structures Ltd, discussed above, quotes the State Commission rule directly: jurisdiction where value paid exceeds fifty lakh but does not exceed two crore. By the same notification, the District Commission’s jurisdiction now runs up to Rs 50 lakh.

CommissionPecuniary jurisdiction (amount paid as consideration)
District CommissionUp to Rs 50 lakh
State CommissionAbove Rs 50 lakh, up to Rs 2 crore
National CommissionAbove Rs 2 crore

A separate, higher threshold applies to complaints against unfair contract terms specifically: the State Commission and National Commission split jurisdiction at Rs 10 crore, regardless of the ordinary slab. If your grievance centres on an unfair or one-sided term in the builder-buyer agreement rather than delayed possession, this threshold may govern instead.

Get this number right before you file. As the Sukhbir Singh Gouchwal order shows, a State Commission that finds your claim falls below its threshold will not decide the case on the merits; it will simply return the complaint, and you start over in the District Commission having lost the time already spent.

Evidence to assemble before you file

Whichever forum you choose, the documentary record you need is largely the same.

The builder-buyer agreement, showing the agreed possession date, payment schedule, and any interest-for-delay clause. A complete payment record, ideally bank statements alongside the builder’s receipts, since the amount paid determines your commission’s pecuniary jurisdiction and the base for calculating interest. All correspondence with the builder, including any written acknowledgment of delay or revised timeline. The RERA registration certificate, downloadable from the state portal, recording the officially registered possession date, since builders sometimes market an earlier one. Any demand or legal notice you sent before filing; see the guide on drafting a legal notice if you have not sent one, or on replying to one if the builder sent you one instead. Photographs or a site visit report showing actual construction progress. And, where title is in question, the encumbrance and mutation records covered in the property title verification checklist, including khata transfer status where the project falls under a municipal khata system.

How the interest calculation actually works

Once you know your state’s prescribed rate, the calculation itself is mechanical, but it is worth working month by month rather than as a single lump sum, because payments are usually staggered under a construction-linked plan.

Say you paid Rs 10 lakh on booking, Rs 15 lakh on foundation completion eight months later, and Rs 15 lakh on slab completion ten months after, for a total of Rs 40 lakh, against a possession date now passed by eighteen months, and you elect to stay and claim interest under the proviso to Section 18(1) rather than withdraw. Interest accrues on the full Rs 40 lakh from the date possession fell due, not from each instalment’s payment date, because the proviso ties interest to the delay in possession, not to how long each payment sat with the builder.

If, instead, you withdraw under the substantive part of Section 18(1), the calculation changes: interest runs separately on each instalment from the date it was paid, because you are being made whole for the entire period your money sat with the promoter, not only the delay past possession. This is one of the more commonly misunderstood parts of Section 18, worth confirming before submitting a figure to the Authority.

Compensation, where separately claimed under Section 18(2) or 18(3), or under Section 12 for a false advertisement, is assessed by the adjudicating officer on the facts and is not reducible to a fixed formula the way interest is.

What builders typically argue back

Delayed-possession disputes tend to follow a small number of recurring defences, and knowing them in advance helps you anticipate what the builder’s written reply will say.

Force majeure. Builders commonly point to a force majeure clause, arguing events like adverse weather, approval delays, material shortages, or the Covid-19 pandemic excused the delay. Whether a specific event actually qualifies under the clause, and whether it covers the whole delay or only part, is a factual question examined against the clause’s language and the actual disruption timeline. In Sukhbir Singh Gouchwal v Imperia Structures Ltd, the builder raised exactly this defence, though the Commission did not reach the merits for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

Buyer default. Builders often argue that the buyer’s own delayed payments under a construction-linked plan caused the delay, invoking obligations under Section 19(6) and (7). If your payment record shows you paid on schedule, or any delay was minor and unrelated to the construction timeline, this defence weakens considerably.

Altered completion date in a supplementary agreement. Some builders present buyers with a supplementary agreement or extension letter during construction, then argue delay should be measured from the revised date. Whether such a document binds you depends on whether you actually signed it, whether it was presented as a condition of continued payment, and whether the revised date was reflected in the RERA registration. If you signed under circumstances suggesting it was not a genuine negotiated extension, raise that explicitly; the Authority treats the registered possession date as the anchor when parties dispute what was agreed.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between Section 18’s substantive refund remedy and its proviso for continued possession?

The substantive part of Section 18(1) applies when you withdraw: you get a full refund of every payment, with interest from each payment date, plus compensation. The proviso applies when you do not withdraw: you keep the allotment and get monthly interest from the possession due date until handover, without a refund. You choose based on whether you still want the apartment.

Can I claim both interest for delay and a refund under Section 18?

No, not simultaneously for the same period. Section 18(1) structures the remedy as a choice between refund with interest or continued possession with monthly interest. You can start by claiming interest while staying in the project and later switch to a refund claim if you decide to withdraw, provided you have not already accepted a settlement closing the matter.

What rate of interest will the RERA Authority actually award me?

This depends entirely on the rules notified by the state where your project is registered. There is no single national rate under the Act itself. Check your state RERA authority’s rules, or your project’s registration certificate, before estimating what you are owed. Rates in orders from other states should not be assumed to apply to yours.

Do I need to prove the builder acted deliberately or with bad intent to succeed under Section 18?

No. Section 18 is a strict, no-fault provision on its face: it is triggered by the promoter’s failure to complete the project or give possession by the agreed date, or by discontinuance of the promoter’s business. You need not prove intent or negligence, only that the date has passed and possession has not been given, subject to whatever defence the promoter raises.

If my project is not RERA-registered, do I lose the Section 18 remedy entirely?

You lose the direct statutory remedy under Section 18 specifically, since it operates against a “promoter” registered under the Act. You are not without recourse: you may still claim under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 as deficiency in service, or file a civil suit for breach of contract, though neither carries RERA’s specialised, fast-track machinery.

Can I file before both the RERA Authority and the consumer commission at the same time?

The Supreme Court in Imperia Structures v Anil Patni confirmed that RERA does not bar a parallel consumer complaint. You should be careful, however, not to seek the same head of relief, such as identical interest on the same amount, from both forums simultaneously, since neither forum is meant to allow double compensation for the same loss.

What happens if the builder ignores the RERA Authority’s order?

The order is enforceable through the state’s recovery machinery, generally as arrears of land revenue, allowing attachment and sale of the promoter’s property to recover the amount due. You can apply to the Authority for enforcement if the promoter does not comply within the time the order specifies.

How long do I have to file a complaint under Section 18?

The Act itself does not prescribe a specific limitation period for filing before the RERA Authority. That said, unreasonable delay can weaken your case and complicate the evidentiary record, so it is best to file promptly once the possession date has passed and it is clear the builder will not deliver on time.

Is the thirty percent appeal deposit under Section 43(5) refundable if the promoter loses the appeal?

The Act specifies the deposit as a precondition for the Appellate Tribunal to entertain a promoter’s appeal; it does not describe the deposit as forfeited outright. What happens to it depends on the appeal’s outcome and the Tribunal’s specific directions, so check the order in your own proceeding rather than assume a default treatment.

Can I use Section 12 if the builder never gave me a written prospectus, only verbal assurances at the sales office?

Section 12 applies to loss caused by an incorrect or false statement in a notice, advertisement, prospectus, or model apartment, plot, or building. Purely verbal, undocumented assurances are harder to prove than written advertising material or a misrepresented model flat, so gather brochures, website screenshots, or written correspondence capturing what was represented before you booked.

Does the adjudicating officer under Section 71 handle possession orders, or only compensation?

Section 71 is specifically about adjudging compensation under Sections 12, 14, 18, and 19. Directions on possession itself, project completion, or regulatory compliance generally sit within the RERA Authority’s own jurisdiction rather than the adjudicating officer’s, though many states route both aspects through the same proceeding.

What if the builder offers me a partial refund and asks me to sign a full and final settlement?

Read any settlement document carefully before signing. A full and final settlement, once signed, generally closes your right to pursue further compensation for the same claim, even if the amount offered is well below what you might have recovered through the RERA Authority or consumer commission. If unsure whether an offered amount reflects what you would likely be awarded, estimate your Section 18 entitlement independently before accepting.

Can I switch from a civil suit already filed to a RERA complaint?

Section 79 bars a civil court from entertaining matters the Authority or adjudicating officer is empowered to determine, which is a strong reason not to keep an ordinary civil suit running in parallel once RERA applies. If you already have a pending civil suit for the same delay, discuss the procedural steps, including possible withdrawal, with a lawyer rather than filing a fresh RERA complaint without addressing the existing suit.

How does mediation fit into a builder delay dispute?

RERA Authorities and consumer commissions in several states encourage or offer mediation before or alongside formal adjudication, and a builder facing a strong Section 18 claim sometimes prefers to settle rather than litigate through appeal. The Mediation Act 2023 sets out the framework for mediated settlements and how such an agreement can be enforced, useful context if your builder proposes mediation.

If the RERA Authority’s order goes against me, is the Appellate Tribunal my only option, or can I go straight to the High Court?

Section 43(5) directs an aggrieved party to the Appellate Tribunal as the appellate forum for orders of the Authority or adjudicating officer. Bypassing the Tribunal to approach the High Court directly is generally not the ordinary route while the statutory appeal under Section 44 is available, though the Tribunal’s own order can subsequently be challenged through a writ petition in the High Court on jurisdictional grounds or a substantial question of law.

Research the orders before you file

Section 18 sets out your entitlement clearly on paper. What is harder to gauge without research is how RERA authorities, adjudicating officers, and consumer commissions have actually applied it: what interest rate a specific state’s rules fix, how an Authority has treated a force majeure defence, or what evidence has persuaded a bench that a supplementary agreement extending possession was not freely signed.

Niyam’s research module is built to answer exactly those questions, grounded in the actual text of orders and judgments. You can look up how your state’s Authority has ruled on delayed-possession interest claims, verify the current status of a cited judgment through good-law checking, and confirm citation format using the conventions in how to cite Indian judgments. If your matter has escalated to the Supreme Court on a point of law, the guide on filing a special leave petition explains that route.

For a broader introduction to RERA covering project verification, the carpet area rule, and the escrow mechanism, see the companion guide on RERA for homebuyers. If your claim proceeds under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 rather than RERA, that guide covers the e-daakhil filing process, including the step-by-step mechanics in the guide on filing a consumer complaint on e-daakhil.

When you are ready to try it: start for Rs 100, 200 credits to begin, cancel anytime. Questions: [email protected].