Stayed in a Delayed Project? One RERA Forum Says Delay Interest Is All You Get

Two buyers booked a unit in Emerald Floors Premier at Emerald Estate, Sector 65, Gurugram, on 29 September 2009. The builder buyer's agreement of 14 January 2010 put the price at Rs 87,61,726 and promised possession by 14 January 2013. They paid Rs 88,71,624. Possession came more than seven years late, in 2020. They had already won delay interest from the RERA Authority. Then they went to the Adjudicating Officer for more: compensation for mental agony, legal costs and lost rental income.

On 12 October 2026, Haryana RERA Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar dismissed the claim. Where a buyer does not withdraw from the project, the order said, the proviso to Section 18(1) gives interest for every month of delay, and "the parliament did not intend to provide compensation other than DPC in case allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project". Having already been allowed delay possession charges, there was "no reason to allow separate compensation for same cause of action". For Bengaluru buyers deciding whether to stay or exit a delayed project, the order is a sharp illustration of the trade-off.

The short answer. In Complaint No. 775 of 2026, the Haryana RERA Adjudicating Officer held that buyers who stayed in the project and were allowed delay interest could not claim separate compensation for the same delay, relying on rulings of the UP and Haryana appellate tribunals. The complaint was dismissed. The trade-off: staying in a delayed project can secure the home and monthly delay interest, but in the approach taken here it may close the door to extra compensation that a buyer who exits could seek. Other forums have taken a different view, so check the position in your own state.

What happened in the Emerald Floors Premier case?

According to the Haryana RERA Adjudicating Officer's order in Complaint No. 775 of 2026, the complainants booked Unit EFP-11-0002-E in the respondent's group housing project on 29 September 2009. The respondent is named as M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd, presently Emaar India Ltd. The complainants' account, as recorded in the order, put the delay in handing over possession at "more than 8 years".

As reported by LiveLaw, possession was offered on 17 January 2020 and taken on 9 March 2020. The buyers had earlier secured delay interest at 9.40% per annum for the period from 14 January 2013 to 17 March 2020, and the builder said it had paid them Rs 53.32 lakh in September 2025. In the new complaint, they claimed Rs 15 lakh for mental agony, Rs 3 lakh for legal expenses and Rs 55.90 lakh for loss of rental income.

The order itself fills in the history. The buyers had filed Complaint No. 4491 of 2021 seeking delay possession charges, which the Authority allowed on 31 May 2022, directing interest at the prescribed rate of 9.40% per annum for every month of delay from 14 January 2013 until 17 March 2020, two months after the 17 January 2020 offer of possession. The builder told the Adjudicating Officer that the buyers had received Rs 53,32,083 towards delay compensation on 25 September 2025, argued they had then raised no further claim, and said the new complaint was not maintainable and was barred by limitation. The buyers' counsel argued that despite the Authority's order, it was for the Adjudicating Officer to allow compensation for the delay under Section 72.

Why did the Adjudicating Officer reject the compensation claim?

The order noted that the buyers "did not wish to withdraw from the project but prayed for delayed possession compensation, by filing a complaint with the Authority", and that "the said complaint has already been allowed". It then read the proviso to Section 18(1): where an allottee does not intend to withdraw, "he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month of delay till handing over of possession, at such rate as may be prescribed".

From that, the Adjudicating Officer concluded that Parliament "did not intend to provide compensation other than DPC" for buyers who stay. The order relied on the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's decision in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Ranjan Misra, Appeal No. 70 of 2023, decided on 20 April 2023, which said that "the intention of the legislature was to provide Compensation only to those Allottees who exit the project and not to those who tends to stay in the project". It noted a similar finding by the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in Tata Housing Development Company Limited v. Nitin Singhal and Surendra Kumar Singhal, Appeal No. 737 of 2023, decided on 17 February 2026.

Is this the only view on compensation for buyers who stay?

No. Our report on a Rajasthan REAT ruling on a Bengaluru buyer's rent claim shows a different approach. There, the tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's Newtech judgment to hold that a compensation complaint is "a separate remedy" not barred by an earlier interest order, while insisting that the same loss cannot be paid twice and that compensation must be proved. It upheld a modest award for the gap between the buyer's loan cost and the delay interest.

The two orders agree on one thing: delay interest is the main remedy for the delay itself, and a buyer cannot be compensated twice for the same loss. They differ on whether a buyer who stays can claim anything beyond interest at all. A Bengaluru buyer should not assume either view will apply before K-RERA, and should take advice on how Karnataka forums have dealt with the question.

What does this mean for the stay-or-exit decision?

Under Section 18(1), a buyer facing delay can either withdraw and seek a refund, or stay and receive interest for every month of delay. Our guide to withdrawing for a refund or staying for interest explains the basic choice. This order adds a consideration on the compensation side: in the Haryana approach, the buyer who stays is limited to delay interest, while compensation was described as meant for those who exit.

That does not make exiting the better choice. A buyer who withdraws gives up the home, and must then claim and prove any compensation separately. A buyer who stays keeps the home and receives interest that runs automatically for each month of delay. The right choice depends on your finances, the project's progress and the forum's approach, which is why it helps to know the rule before deciding.

What should a Bengaluru buyer in a delayed project do?

Use this list before choosing between staying in the project and exiting it, and before filing any compensation claim.

1. Note the possession date in your agreement and how many months of delay have run.
2. Estimate the delay interest you would receive by staying, at the rate prescribed for Karnataka projects.
3. List any separate losses you believe the delay has caused, with documents for each.
4. Check whether those losses overlap with the period covered by delay interest.
5. Ask a lawyer how K-RERA and the Karnataka appellate tribunal have treated compensation for buyers who stay.
6. If you stay, file for delay interest promptly and keep records of all payments received.
7. If you consider a separate compensation claim, prepare proof of actual loss rather than estimates.

How far does this Haryana order apply in Bengaluru?

It is an order of a Haryana Adjudicating Officer, applying Haryana and UP appellate rulings, so Bengaluru buyers should read it as guidance rather than a Karnataka ruling. The underlying provision, Section 18(1) of the RERA Act, is the same in Karnataka, which is why the reasoning travels. But forums in different states have read the interplay between Sections 18, 71 and 72 differently, as the Rajasthan comparison shows.

The order was announced in open court on 12 October 2026. The complainants were represented by advocate Kuldeep Kumar Kohli and the respondent by advocate Dhruv Rohatgi. For advice on your own claim, speak to a lawyer who handles RERA matters.

Frequently asked questions

Can a buyer who stays in a delayed project claim compensation beyond delay interest?

Not according to the Haryana RERA Adjudicating Officer's 12 October 2026 order. Relying on UP and Haryana appellate rulings, it held that buyers who stay are entitled to delay interest for every month until possession, and that there is no reason to allow separate compensation for the same delay.

Why was the Rs 55.90 lakh rent claim dismissed?

The complaint, which also sought Rs 15 lakh for mental agony and Rs 3 lakh for legal costs, was dismissed because the buyers had stayed in the project and had already been allowed delay possession charges. The Adjudicating Officer said separate compensation for the same cause of action was not warranted.

Do all RERA forums take this view?

No. The Rajasthan REAT, relying on the Supreme Court's Newtech judgment, treated compensation as a separate remedy even after delay interest, while refusing double compensation and requiring proof of loss. Bengaluru buyers should check how Karnataka forums approach the question before relying on either view.

Should I exit a delayed project to keep my compensation claim?

Not necessarily. Exiting means giving up the home and proving any compensation separately, while staying brings monthly delay interest. In the approach of this Haryana order, staying limits you to interest. Weigh your finances, the project's progress and your forum's approach, and take legal advice before deciding.

Last updated 2026-11-15. PropNewz Team.