Occupancy Certificate Out, Keys Still Withheld: Tribunal Orders Handover Within a Week of Payment

By July 2023, a group of Maharashtra buyers had paid about 91% of the Rs 1,29,90,000 price of their flat, and the builder had acknowledged it by email. They had also paid Rs 6,49,600 in stamp duty and Rs 30,000 in registration charges. The occupancy certificate arrived on 3 February 2026. Months later, they still had no keys. They wrote on 4 April 2026, and again on WhatsApp, offering to pay the balance. The builder still did not offer possession.

On 5 November 2026, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ordered it to. It directed the buyers to deposit the Rs 19,67,905 balance with the tribunal's registry within four weeks and tell the builder in writing, and directed the builder to hand over actual possession within one week of that intimation. For Bengaluru buyers waiting for keys after an occupancy certificate, the order shows a practical route: show your willingness to pay, and ask the forum to make the exchange happen.

The short answer. In Misc. Application No. 879/2026 in Appeal No. AT12500070/2025, the Maharashtra REAT held that once the occupancy certificate is issued, Section 19(10) puts a duty on the buyer to take possession and the promoter "is obligated to hand over actual possession". Given the buyers' undisputed 91% payment and willingness to pay the rest, the promoter was "duty bound to hand over possession". The trade-off: the buyers had to deposit the full balance of Rs 19,67,905 first, without prejudice to their pending appeal on delay interest.

What happened in the Transcon Sheth Creators case?

According to the Maharashtra REAT order on Misc. Application No. 879/2026, the buyers had an appeal pending against a MahaRERA order dated 29 November 2024. That order had directed the promoter, Transcon Sheth Creators Private Limited, to pay interest for delay on the amount actually paid towards consideration, from 1 July 2023 until the actual date of possession along with the occupancy certificate.

The buyers told the tribunal that the builder had acknowledged receipt of 91% of the consideration by email on 1 July 2023 and raised a final demand letter on 11 July 2025. The project received its occupancy certificate on 3 February 2026, but possession was not offered. The buyers said they had paid "diligently as and when demanded", and filed the application asking the tribunal to direct handover.

What did the builder argue?

The builder's counsel opposed the application on procedural grounds, arguing that the buyers were seeking "a substantive direction for handing over possession" during the pendency of their appeal, which was "an independent and substantive relief" sought through the tribunal's interim jurisdiction. The buyers, counsel said, were "attempting to enlarge the scope of the pending appeal by seeking substantive relieves founded upon subsequent events", namely the occupancy certificate of 3 February 2026.

The builder also argued that the application rested on "the erroneous premise that the mere issuance of the Occupation Certificate warrants a direction" for delivery of possession during the appeal, that the MahaRERA order under challenge did not contemplate any such interim direction, and that the application should therefore be dismissed.

The buyers' side, for its part, told the tribunal that they were "presently residing in rented accommodation along with their family" and were "constrained to bear substantial financial burden of rent and other outgoings along with EMIs towards the home loan" taken for the flat. They asked for handover to relieve that hardship.

The tribunal did not accept that the application should fail. It noted that it was "not in dispute" that the promoter had been held liable for delay interest, that the 91% payment had "not been disputed", and that the buyers had expressed willingness to pay the balance and take physical possession.

Why did Section 19(10) decide the application?

Section 19(10) of the RERA Act, as quoted in the order, says: "Every allottee shall take physical possession of the apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, within a period of two months of the occupancy certificate issued for the said apartment, plot or building." The tribunal read this as creating a matching duty on the other side: "upon obtaining the Occupation Certificate, the Promoter is expected to take necessary steps to offer and hand over possession of the flat to the Allottee in accordance with provisions of the Act."

So, it said, "duty is cast upon the Applicants/Allottees to immediately take possession of the flat, and the Non-Applicant/Promoter is obligated to hand over actual possession". Given the buyers' willingness to pay, the promoter "is duty bound to hand over possession". It also took into account "the fact that they have been deprived of possession for so long".

How much had the buyers paid, and what was left?

The tribunal recorded that the buyers had paid Rs 1,17,03,345 towards consideration, excluding service tax of Rs 3,39,039, VAT of Rs 1,29,901, GST of Rs 3,91,648, TDS of Rs 1,19,203, stamp duty of Rs 6,49,600 and registration charges of Rs 30,000. In an affidavit of calculations filed on 10 September 2026, the buyers themselves disclosed the balance payable towards consideration and other charges as Rs 19,67,905. The tribunal adopted that same figure as the amount the buyers must deposit, so the buyers' own careful arithmetic set the price of getting their keys. Buyers in a similar position should prepare a reconciliation of this kind before approaching any forum.

What does the pending appeal still decide?

The possession order sits inside a larger dispute. The buyers' appeal challenges MahaRERA's order of 29 November 2024, which awarded interest for delay on the amount actually paid towards consideration, from 1 July 2023 until the actual date of possession along with the occupancy certificate. According to the builder's own submissions recorded in the order, the buyers appealed on the ground that the reliefs granted were inadequate. That question remains open.

The tribunal kept the two issues separate. Its directions on possession are "without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the Appeal", so the handover does not settle how much interest is due or from when. For a buyer, this is a useful model: getting the keys and pursuing a money claim are not alternatives, and a forum can deal with the first while the second is still being argued.

What should a Bengaluru buyer do if possession is not offered after the OC?

Our explainer on the occupancy certificate, completion certificate and the two-month possession rule covers the statutory background. Our report on a Haryana RERA order on late OC intimation shows another angle on the same section. If your builder has an OC but no offer, this order suggests the following steps.

1. Confirm the occupancy certificate date from the builder or the project's RERA record.
2. Write to the builder asking for possession and stating that you are ready to pay the balance.
3. Ask for a final statement showing the balance, separating consideration from taxes and charges.
4. Keep your own reconciliation of payments, tax amounts and stamp duty paid.
5. Keep the funds for the balance ready, since a forum may set a short deadline to deposit them.
6. If the builder does not respond, consider applying to the RERA forum for a direction to hand over possession.
7. Do not give up any pending claim for delay interest; this order was without prejudice to the appeal.

Does this order help buyers in Karnataka?

It is a Maharashtra order on a Maharashtra project, so Bengaluru buyers should read it as guidance rather than a Karnataka ruling. But Section 19(10) is part of the central RERA Act and reads the same for K-RERA. The order's practical structure, a deposit by the buyer followed by handover within a week, is one a buyer can propose to any authority. It also preserved the buyers' separate appeal: the directions were "without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the Appeal".

The order was reserved on 29 September 2026 and pronounced on 5 November 2026 by Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member Dr. Rajagopal Devara, through video conferencing. For advice on your own position, speak to a lawyer who handles RERA matters.

Frequently asked questions

Can a RERA forum order a builder to hand over possession after the OC?

Yes, in this case. On 5 November 2026 the Maharashtra REAT directed Transcon Sheth Creators to hand over actual possession within one week of the buyers' written intimation that they had deposited the balance of Rs 19,67,905 with the tribunal's registry, citing Section 19(10) of the RERA Act.

What does Section 19(10) of the RERA Act say?

As quoted in the order, Section 19(10) says every allottee shall take physical possession of the apartment, plot or building within two months of the occupancy certificate. The tribunal read it as placing a matching duty on the promoter to offer and hand over possession once the certificate is issued.

Did the buyers have to pay the balance before getting possession?

Yes. The tribunal directed them to deposit Rs 19,67,905, the balance they had themselves calculated in an affidavit, with the tribunal's registry within four weeks and to inform the builder in writing. The builder then had one week from that intimation to hand over actual possession.

Does taking possession end a claim for delay interest?

Not under this order. The tribunal said its directions were without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending appeal, which concerns MahaRERA's award of delay interest from 1 July 2023 until possession with the occupancy certificate.

Last updated 2026-11-15. PropNewz Team.