Moved In, Still Owed: Allahabad HC Says Possession Does Not Erase Delay Interest

A buyer booked a flat in Antriksh Golf View in Sector 78, Noida, at a pre-launch stage on April 30, 2010. The allotment letter of September 21, 2010 put the basic price at Rs 43,53,750, and the contractual possession date, as the court read it, was November 2012. The offer of possession came on May 22, 2017, without an occupancy certificate, which arrived only on June 6, 2018. The buyer took physical possession first and complained later, in October 2019. The developer, among other arguments, said delay interest could not be granted without a demand and after so long a gap.

On September 23, 2026, the Allahabad High Court rejected that argument. In Antriksh Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Shyam Sundar Agarwal, RERA Appeal No. 37 of 2026, Justice Prashant Kumar at the Lucknow Bench dismissed the developer's appeal. The case is from Uttar Pradesh, but the question is one Bengaluru buyers face all the time: if I move in, do I give up my claim for the years I waited?

The short answer. By dismissing the appeal, the High Court left in place the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's finding that a homebuyer does not lose the right to delay interest merely because possession was taken, and its award of interest from December 2012 to May 22, 2017 at MCLR plus 1 percent on the deposited amount. It held that Section 18(1) of the RERA Act provides no limitation period and that the word "demand" cannot defeat the statutory right, noting the buyer's continuous correspondence showed no acquiescence. The trade-off: the buyer's claim survived, but it took from 2019 to 2026 and three forums, and the judgment does not deal with a buyer who signed a written waiver.

What did the Appellate Tribunal order?

According to the High Court's judgment, the Tribunal held the project was delayed and that the buyer was entitled to delay interest from December 2012 to May 22, 2017, at MCLR plus 1 percent, on the amount deposited. It held that demands for electricity, water, farmers' compensation and delay interest raised against the buyer were not justified, set aside a demand letter dated October 3, 2020 for Rs 24,13,940, directed a fresh demand, and ordered compliance within 45 days.

Before that, UP RERA, by its order of September 22, 2020, had directed the developer to issue a no-dues certificate and to provide calculation sheets and documentary support for its charges. The buyer's complaint of October 4, 2019 had sought, among other things, a refund of Rs 4,06,554 in electricity charges, possession documents, registry costs and delay compensation.

Why did taking possession not end the claim?

Because the right is statutory. The proviso to Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 says that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, the promoter shall pay interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of possession, at the rate prescribed. The High Court held that the section provides no limitation period, and that the word "demand" in it cannot be used to defeat that right.

It also looked at the buyer's conduct. The judgment notes continuous correspondence showing the buyer never acquiesced in the delay. That record mattered: a buyer who keeps writing to the developer about the delay is in a stronger position to say that moving in was not a decision to drop the claim.

The judgment does not discuss a no-claim undertaking or a possession letter that waives further claims. Its reasoning rests on the statutory right and the correspondence. Whether a signed waiver would change the result was not before the court in this case.

PropNewz explained how delay interest runs alongside a home loan in our guide to delayed possession with pre-EMI running, and how interest is computed on each payment in our explainer on RERA interest calculation.

What about the NGT stay and the zero period?

The developer argued that a National Green Tribunal stay in 2013, relating to the 10 kilometre radius of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary, and the delay in getting the occupancy certificate excused it. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Suresh Chander Sharma, which excluded interest for August 14, 2013 to August 19, 2015, the so-called zero period.

But it held that the zero period did not cover the delay that had already accrued before August 2013, since the contractual date was November 2012. It also found the developer's pleas inconsistent, claiming the project was completed in 2014 while also saying the stay prevented completion, and applied the rule that a party cannot "blow hot and cold." The occupancy certificate was applied for only on August 27, 2014, a delay the court attributed to the developer.

What did the court say about the 2017 possession offer?

That it was issued without an occupancy certificate, mainly to comply with clause 30 of the allotment letter, according to the judgment. The Tribunal's interest period ran to the date of that offer, May 22, 2017. The judgment also records that the Tribunal noted physical possession as handed over on March 3, 2017, a date that differs from the offer letter, and it flags a few other inconsistencies in dates within the record.

For a buyer, the point is that an offer of possession and a lawful handover are not always the same event. Here, the occupancy certificate came more than a year after the offer, and the application for it had been made in August 2014, well after the contractual date had already passed.

Why did the developer's other objections fail?

The developer raised four substantial questions of law, and the High Court answered all of them in the buyer's favour. One argued that the Tribunal was not properly constituted. The court rejected it because the point was not raised before the Tribunal, the Tribunal had recorded reasons for its constitution, and Section 55 of the RERA Act protects proceedings from invalidity due to defects in constitution.

Another argued that delay interest could not be granted without a demand and after a reasonable period had passed. The court answered this for the buyer, as explained above, on the strength of Section 18(1) and the buyer's continuous correspondence. The remaining two, on the NGT stay and the zero period, also failed. The appeal was described as "sans merit" and dismissed, with the lower court record sent back.

How long did the buyer actually wait?

Counting from the record, possession was due in November 2012 and offered on May 22, 2017, about four and a half years later. The complaint was filed on October 4, 2019, UP RERA ruled on September 22, 2020, the Tribunal ruled in May 2025 by the judgment's account, and the High Court decided on September 23, 2026. From booking in April 2010 to the High Court's decision, more than 16 years passed. The complaint also sought a refund of charges for an increase in super area, from an original super area of about 2,025 square feet, a point the High Court's summary of the dispute records but does not separately decide.

What should a Bengaluru buyer do when possession finally comes after a delay?

Take the keys if you need the home, but protect the claim in writing. The checklist below draws on what helped the buyer here.

1. Before taking possession, write to the developer stating that you reserve your claim for delay interest.
2. Read the possession letter and any undertaking line by line before you sign.
3. Strike out or refuse to sign any clause waiving delay claims, and keep a copy of your objection.
4. Ask for the occupancy certificate and note its date against the offer date.
5. Keep every letter and email about the delay, since continuous correspondence counted here.
6. Challenge fresh demands in writing and ask for calculation sheets.
7. File your RERA complaint with the full payment history and the contractual possession date.

The Allahabad High Court's reading is that a statutory right to interest does not lapse because a buyer chose to live in the home they paid for. A Bengaluru buyer's position will turn on Karnataka's rules and their own documents, but the habit of recording a reservation of rights costs nothing and, in this case, the paper trail mattered.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Allahabad High Court decide in Antriksh Developers v. Shyam Sundar Agarwal?

On September 23, 2026, Justice Prashant Kumar dismissed the developer's appeal against the UP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's order granting the buyer delay interest from December 2012 to May 22, 2017 at MCLR plus 1 percent, leaving in place the Tribunal's finding that taking possession did not take away the right to delay interest.

Does taking possession end a buyer's claim for delay interest?

Not in this case. The court left in place the Tribunal's finding that a homebuyer does not lose the right merely because possession was taken, held that Section 18(1) has no limitation period, and relied on the buyer's continuous correspondence. It did not consider a signed waiver or no-claim undertaking.

Did the NGT stay excuse the developer's delay?

Not on the developer's argument. The court referred to the Supreme Court's zero period from August 14, 2013 to August 19, 2015, but held it did not cover delay already accrued before August 2013, since possession was due in November 2012. It also found the developer's pleas inconsistent.

What should a buyer do before taking delayed possession?

Write to the developer reserving your claim for delay interest, read the possession letter and any undertaking carefully, refuse to sign waiver clauses, check the occupancy certificate date, and keep all correspondence about the delay, since continuous correspondence helped the buyer in this case.

Last updated 2026-11-06. PropNewz Team.