Two Documents, Two Dates: Tribunal Says Your Sale Agreement, Not the Loan Paper, Sets Possession

When two buyers from Jaipur booked a 1,275 sq ft flat in a Gurugram project in 2015, they signed two documents that mentioned possession. The flat buyer's agreement of 8 April 2015 allowed the builder 36 months plus a six-month grace period from the start of construction. A tripartite agreement signed with their lending bank on 22 March 2016 named December 2018. The builder received its occupation certificate on 19 June 2019 and offered possession on 19 August 2019. Was that late?

On 3 November 2026, the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal said no. It held that the flat buyer's agreement is the principal contract, that the tripartite loan agreement is "an ancillary financing document", and that a different date in the loan papers does not by itself change the possession date. The case is from Haryana, but the documents are the same ones Bengaluru buyers sign when they take a home loan for an under-construction flat.

The short answer. In Appeal No. 94 of 2024, decided on 3 November 2026, the Haryana REAT rejected a claim for delayed possession charges based on a December 2018 date in a tripartite agreement, because the flat buyer's agreement fixed the due date at 1 September 2019 and the builder offered possession on 19 August 2019. The appeal was dismissed. The trade-off for buyers: a loan document may carry a date that looks better than your sale agreement, but unless the sale agreement is actually amended, it is the sale agreement's date that is likely to count.

What were the facts in the Ashiana Anmol appeal?

According to the Haryana REAT order in Appeal No. 94 of 2024, the buyers booked Unit No. M-209 in the group housing project Ashiana Anmol, Sector 33, Sohna, Gurugram, for a total consideration of Rs 68,09,325. Clause 6.1 of the flat buyer's agreement required completion within 36 months plus a six-month grace period, counted from commencement of construction. Environmental clearance came on 28 December 2015 and construction began on 1 March 2016, so the due date worked out to 1 September 2019.

The buyers sought cancellation and refund by letter on 9 August 2019, and approached a district consumer commission in South Delhi. The order records a balance of Rs 9,57,039 that remained unpaid. The promoters then filed a complaint before the Haryana RERA Authority in Gurugram, which on 17 October 2023 directed the buyers to take possession after paying dues with interest at 10.75% per annum within 60 days, failing which the promoter could proceed with cancellation under the agreement, subject to the regulations.

Why did the buyers say possession was due in December 2018?

The buyers relied on the tripartite agreement dated 22 March 2016, signed between the promoter, the buyers and the lending bank. Their counsel argued that this agreement "modified and superseded" the possession date in the flat buyer's agreement, so delayed possession charges should run from December 2018. They also said they had paid Rs 68,60,515 as shown in the promoter's own ledger, and that the possession offer of 19 August 2019 was invalid because the occupation certificate was not enclosed with it.

The promoters argued that the flat buyer's agreement was the principal agreement, that the tripartite agreement was ancillary and could not alter it, and that they had completed construction, received the occupation certificate and offered possession within time.

Why did the tribunal prefer the flat buyer's agreement?

The tribunal said the flat buyer's agreement "is the principal agreement executed between the promoter and the allottees" and governs "the agreed date for completion of construction and delivery of possession". The tripartite agreement, it said, "was executed primarily to facilitate the housing loan and regulate the financial arrangements" with the bank.

Its key sentence was: "Merely because a different date is mentioned in such an ancillary financing document, it cannot, by itself, be construed as modifying or superseding the possession schedule contained in the FBA." It added that there was "nothing on record to establish that the parties intended to novate or amend the relevant possession clause". Since the occupation certificate came on 19 June 2019 and the offer on 19 August 2019, both before 1 September 2019, the tribunal found no delay by the promoter. During the appeal, physical possession was handed over and a conveyance deed executed, so delayed possession charges were the only remaining question, and that claim was rejected.

What did the RERA Authority order the buyers to pay?

This case is unusual in one respect: it was the promoters, not the buyers, who first went to the Haryana RERA Authority, in Complaint No. 2792 of 2020, seeking directions to make the buyers clear their dues and take possession. The Authority's order of 17 October 2023, upheld by the tribunal, said the buyers may take possession after paying the outstanding amount with interest at the prescribed rate of 10.75% per annum, and that the promoters should issue an updated statement of account.

The Authority noted that this rate "is the same as is being granted" to promoters in cases of delayed possession. It directed the buyers to pay under Section 19(6) and 19(7) within 60 days, failing which the promoter could proceed with cancellation in terms of the buyer's agreement, subject to Regulation 11(5) of 2018. For buyers, the lesson is that delaying payment while disputing a date carries its own interest cost.

The buyers had also argued that the possession offer was invalid because the occupation certificate was not enclosed, and that they had already paid Rs 68,60,515 according to the promoter's ledger. The tribunal's order records these arguments but decides the appeal on the due-date question: since the agreement's due date had not passed when possession was offered, it found no basis for delayed possession charges.

How do the two documents compare?

What should a Bengaluru buyer check before signing a tripartite agreement?

A tripartite agreement brings the lender into the deal alongside the builder and buyer, as it did here. Our explainer on builder-paid EMI and subvention schemes covers the money side. The Ashiana case also shows how a "commencement of construction" formula can move a due date a long way: an agreement signed in April 2015 produced a due date of 1 September 2019, because construction began only on 1 March 2016, after environmental clearance on 28 December 2015. On dates, this checklist follows from the Haryana ruling.

1. Write down the possession date or formula in your agreement for sale before you read the loan papers.
2. Compare it with any possession date in the tripartite agreement and in the bank's sanction letter.
3. If the dates differ, ask the builder in writing which date applies, and keep the reply.
4. If a different date has been agreed, ask for it to be recorded by amending the agreement for sale itself.
5. If the possession clause runs from "commencement of construction", ask for the actual start date and supporting record.
6. Track the occupancy certificate date and the possession offer date against the due date in your agreement.
7. Keep the ledger statement from the builder, since in this case the amount paid was itself disputed at possession.

How far does this Haryana ruling reach in Bengaluru?

It is a Haryana decision, passed by Haryana's appellate tribunal in an appeal from the Haryana RERA Authority at Gurugram, so Bengaluru buyers should read it as a guide rather than a Karnataka ruling. The reasoning turns on ordinary contract principles that apply anywhere: which document governs the obligation, and whether the parties intended to change it. A buyer in Bengaluru who plans to rely on a date in a loan document should expect the builder to make the same argument the Haryana promoters made.

The safer course is to make sure the agreement for sale reflects the date you are relying on. Our checklist of what an agreement for sale must contain under RERA shows where the possession date should appear. For advice on your own documents, speak to a lawyer who handles RERA matters.

Frequently asked questions

Does the possession date in a home loan tripartite agreement override the builder agreement?

Not according to the Haryana REAT's 3 November 2026 order. The tribunal held that the flat buyer's agreement is the principal agreement, and that a different date in an ancillary financing document like a tripartite agreement does not by itself modify the possession schedule, absent evidence of intent to amend it.

Why were delayed possession charges refused in the Ashiana Anmol case?

The flat buyer's agreement set the due date at 1 September 2019, counting 36 months plus six months of grace from the 1 March 2016 construction start. The builder received its occupation certificate on 19 June 2019 and offered possession on 19 August 2019, so the tribunal found no delay.

How should Bengaluru buyers read the Haryana REAT ruling?

As a guide. It is an order of Haryana's appellate tribunal on a Gurugram project, not a Karnataka ruling. Its reasoning rests on general contract principles about which document governs possession, so Bengaluru buyers can use it when comparing dates in their sale agreement and their loan documents.

What should I do if my loan papers show an earlier possession date?

Ask the builder in writing which date applies and, if a different date has been agreed, have it recorded by amending your agreement for sale. In the Haryana case, the tribunal found nothing on record showing the parties intended to amend the possession clause, and the earlier date was not applied.

Last updated 2026-11-15. PropNewz Team.