Bombay High Court

MAHESH SHRIKRISHNA MORE AND ANRversusOM SAATH REALTIES LLP

Decided: 2 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Tribunal correctly held that the allottee must fulfill payment of the balance consideration, statutory charges and taxes before the promoter can be compelled to deliver possession.

Summary

The appellants, Mahesh Shrikrishna More and another, appealed a decision of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal which refused to order the promoter to hand over possession of a flat despite the appellants’ offer to deposit the pending balance in the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that under the agreement for sale and Section 19(6) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the allottee must first pay the full balance consideration, statutory charges and taxes before possession can be compelled. The court found that the matter was purely factual with no question of law to consider. It clarified that the appellants may, after paying the due amounts, apply to the Tribunal for possession directions. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed. The order was pronounced by Justice N.J. Jamadar on 2 September 2026.

Issues considered

Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that an allottee must pay the balance consideration, statutory charges and taxes before the promoter can be directed to deliver possession of the flat.
Whether the appellants could be compelled to hand over possession upon merely depositing the pending amount in the Tribunal.

Legislation cited

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 — s. 19(6)

Subjects

Real Estate
possession
balance consideration
statutory charges
RERA
appellate tribunal
agreement for sale

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:36130

                                                                            11 sa 394 of 2026.doc

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                  SECOND APPEAL NO.394 OF 2026

            Mahesh Shrikrishna More and Anr.                     ...   Appellants
                versus
            Om Saath Realties LLP                                …     Respondent

            Mr. Amin Shukla i/by Mr. Anil D’Souza, for Appellants.
            Ms. Rupali Ahire i/by Mr. G.D.Talreja, for Respondent.

                                CORAM:      N.J.JAMADAR, J.
                                DATE :      2 SEPTEMBER 2026

            ORAL ORDER :

            1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

            2.      The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 13 March 2026

            passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in Misc.

            Application No.819 of 2025. By the said application, the Appellants – allottees

            sought a direction to deposit the pending balance amount as per the

            Agreement for Sale in the Tribunal and, thereupon, direct the Promoter to

            handover immediate possession of the flat in question.

            3.      The Tribunal was not persuaded to accede to the submission on behalf

            fo the Appellants – allottees, as the Tribunal was of the view that the allottees

            were under obligation to pay the balance consideration and statutory charges

            and taxes before the Promoter could be compelled to deliver possession of

            the apartment.

            4.      Learned Counsel for the Appellants invited attention of the Court to a


            SSP                                                                  1/2
                                                                                        11 sa 394 of 2026.doc

                      stipulation in the offer letter that the complainant had filed proceedings before

                      the Authority and the complainant would be entitled to the delivery of

                      possession after the said complaint was disposed. It was, thus, submitted that

                      the offer of delivery of possession was conditional.

                      5.       It is a matter of fact that the Appellants have not paid the balance

                      consideration, statutory charges and taxes to the Promoter. In view of the

                      provisions contained in Section 19(6) of the Real Estate (Regulation and

                      Development) Act, 2016, the allottee is also under obligation to make the

                      payment/s in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Offer to deposit

                      the amount before the Tribunal was rightly considered by the Tribunal as not a

                      complete discharge of the statutory obligation of the allottee.

                      6.       In these circumstances, no question of law arises for consideration.

                      7.       So far as the submission on behalf of the Appellants that the Appellants

                      still willing to make payment to the Promoter, as the Appeal is still pending

                      before the Appellate Tribunal, upon making payment of the due amount in

                      accordance with the terms of the agreement between the parties, the

                      Appellants can file an appropriate application before the Appellate Tribunal

                      seeking directions for the delivery of possession of the subject apartment.

                      8.       Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the Second Appeal stands

                      dismissed.

                                                                          ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

                      SSP                                                                    2/2



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/09/2026 11:51:44

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…