Maharashtra REAT: Home Loan EMIs Alone Do Not Justify Early Release of an Appeal Deposit

Two flat buyers in the Godrej Greenview project won a MahaRERA order on 17 February 2026 for delayed possession interest. The developer appealed and deposited Rs 20,02,374 with the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The buyers, paying home loan EMIs, asked to withdraw that deposit while the appeal was pending, offering to return it with interest if they lost. The tribunal said no. Read alongside a ruling we covered earlier today, where the same tribunal released a deposit to a buyer, it shows when a buyer can expect to reach that money, and when not. Appeals in Karnataka also involve deposits under Section 43(5) of the same central Act, so the reasoning is worth knowing there too.

The order, in Godrej Greenview Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. Kamal Kishore Prasad Sinha & Anr., Misc. Application No. 730/2026 and M.A. No. 1765/2026 in Appeal No. AT06/00613/2026, was passed by Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Administrative Member Shrikant M. Deshpande, and reported by LiveLaw on 2 November 2026 with the tribunal's order. It comes from another state's tribunal, so treat it as a guide rather than a rule for Karnataka. This is buyer guidance on a reported order, not legal advice.

The short answer. The tribunal held that because the buyers already had possession, "the hardship on account of EMIs is immaterial and not a valid ground" for releasing the deposit before the appeal is decided. It said a deposit under Section 43(5) puts the money beyond the reach of both parties pending the appeal, that any early release would need an examination of the buyers' means to repay and of security such as a bank guarantee, and that the buyers had produced no loan statements or income details. It also stayed MahaRERA's order pending the appeal. The trade-off: the deposit protects your award, but while the appeal runs you may not get it early, so plan your finances for the appeal period.

What did the Maharashtra REAT decide?

It refused the withdrawal and granted the developer a stay. According to the report, the tribunal rejected the buyers' application to withdraw the deposit with accrued interest, and allowed the developer's stay application, staying the operation, execution and implementation of MahaRERA's order of 17 February 2026 pending final disposal of the appeal. It noted that the Rs 20,02,374 deposited continued to earn interest and would be returned to the buyers if the developer's appeal failed.

The dates in the report also explain why possession weighed so heavily. The occupancy certificate is dated 18 June 2025, MahaRERA's order came on 17 February 2026, and the buyers received possession on 19 March 2026. By the time the tribunal heard the withdrawal application, they were living in, or at least holding, the flats they had paid for, which the tribunal treated as removing the rent-plus-EMI burden that delayed possession often brings. The appeal arises from MahaRERA Complaint No. CC12501553.

Why were home loan EMIs not enough?

Because the buyers already had their flats. The report says the buyers received possession on 19 March 2026, and the tribunal observed that this was not a case where they had to pay both rent and EMIs because of delayed possession. It held that paying EMIs in the ordinary course was the buyers' responsibility and did not show exceptional financial hardship. In its words, "since the allottees are already have been put in possession of the flat, therefore, the hardship on account of EMIs is immaterial and not a valid ground leading to extraordinary or exceptional situation warranting this Tribunal exercise discretionary powers to release the deposited decretal amounts under 43(5) of RERA to allottees."

The developer also pointed out, according to the report, that the buyers had not submitted loan statements, repayment schedules or income details to establish hardship.

What were the buyers offering, and why was it not enough?

An undertaking to repay. The report says the buyers offered to return the amount with interest if the developer succeeded in the appeal. The developer replied that the statutory deposit was meant to secure the disputed amount during the appeal and could not be used to meet the buyers' private financial obligations towards their bank.

The tribunal's answer focused on security rather than goodwill. It said that any discretionary withdrawal would require examining whether the buyers had sufficient financial means to return the amount if the developer won, and that solvent security or an unconditional bank guarantee from a nationalised bank covering the entire amount would have to be considered. An undertaking alone, without proof of means or a guarantee, did not meet that standard on the facts reported. For a buyer considering a similar application, the practical point is that an offer to repay is likely to be weighed against evidence that repayment is actually assured.

What is the purpose of the Section 43(5) deposit?

To secure the disputed amount during the appeal. The tribunal observed that the deposit is meant to protect the interests of both parties while the appeal is pending, and said: "The real effect of deposit of money in the Tribunal, as is done in the present case, is to put the money beyond the reach of the parties pending the disposal of the Appeal." It added that any discretionary withdrawal would require examining whether the buyers had sufficient means to return the amount if the developer won, and that solvent security or an unconditional bank guarantee from a nationalised bank covering the full amount would have to be considered.

How does this differ from the case where the deposit was released?

The stage of the appeal. In the case we reported earlier today, the same tribunal released a promoter's pre-deposit to the allottee after refusing to condone a 674-day delay, so the appeal did not survive; see our report on the pre-deposit released after a failed appeal. Here, the appeal is pending and the buyers wanted the money before it was decided. The table compares the two.

What had MahaRERA ordered?

Delay interest, but no compensation. According to the report, MahaRERA partly allowed the buyers' complaint on 17 February 2026, rejecting their compensation claim but directing the developer to pay delayed possession interest at SBI MCLR plus 2 percent. Interest was to be calculated on amounts actually paid towards the price, excluding stamp duty, registration charges and government taxes, and was payable until the offer of possession with the occupancy certificate dated 18 June 2025. The developer then appealed and made the deposit.

The report notes that one of the buyers appeared in person for both respondents, while Advocate Jennifer Michael appeared for the developer. LiveLaw's citation for the order reads 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 82; the order itself is from the Maharashtra tribunal.

What does this mean for Bengaluru buyers?

Expect the deposit to stay put while an appeal is live. If a developer appeals a K-RERA order in your favour and deposits the amount, that deposit is protection, not a quick payout. This Maharashtra order shows a tribunal treating early release as exceptional, and looking for proof of hardship and security for repayment. A Karnataka ruling we covered today showed the payment end of the process, where the tribunal directed release of a Section 43(5) deposit after deciding the appeal; see our report on the East North VVS Realty ruling.

If you genuinely face hardship, the order suggests what a tribunal may want to see: loan statements, repayment schedules, income details, and an offer of security such as a bank guarantee. Without those, an application is unlikely to get far on this reasoning.

A seven-point checklist if your builder appeals and deposits

1. Find out the amount deposited and the date it was made.
2. Note that the deposit earns interest while the appeal is pending.
3. Plan your EMIs and other costs on the basis that the money may stay deposited.
4. If you claim hardship, gather loan statements, repayment schedules and income details.
5. Consider whether you can offer security, such as a bank guarantee, for any early release.
6. Oppose any stay application with your own record of the case.
7. Once the appeal is decided in your favour, apply promptly for release of the deposit.

Frequently asked questions

Why did the Maharashtra REAT refuse to release the deposit?

According to the report, the buyers had received possession on 19 March 2026, so the tribunal held that hardship from home loan EMIs was not a valid ground for an exceptional release. It also noted they produced no loan statements, repayment schedules or income details.

What is a Section 43(5) deposit for?

The tribunal said it protects the interests of both parties while the appeal is pending, and its real effect is to put the money beyond the reach of the parties until the appeal is decided. Any early release would require examining the buyer's means to repay and security.

Will the buyers ever get the deposited money?

The report says the Rs 20,02,374 deposited by the developer continues to earn interest and would be returned to the buyers if the developer's appeal fails. Meanwhile, the tribunal stayed MahaRERA's order of 17 February 2026 pending final disposal of the appeal, so payment waits for the outcome.

What should a Bengaluru buyer do if a developer appeals and deposits?

Plan finances on the basis that the deposit may stay put during the appeal. If claiming hardship, gather loan statements, repayment schedules and income details, and consider offering security such as a bank guarantee. This Maharashtra order is a guide, not a rule for Karnataka.

Last updated 2026-11-04. PropNewz Team.