Filing Of Complaint After Offer Of Possession Indicates Unit Was Incomplete; Purely Factual Disputes Don't Raise Substantial Question Of Law: Punjab & Haryana HC

"The dispute is confined to the fact whether flat in all respect was complete on 12.05.2022 or was completed thereafter. It is a pure question of fact. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the determination of whether a residential unit is complete in all respects at the time of an offer of possession is a pure question of fact.

A bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed that the very act of an allottee filing a complaint after receiving an offer of possession serves as a strong indicator that the flat was incomplete. The Court emphasized that under Section 58 of the RERA Act, 2016, an appeal is only maintainable if it involves a substantial question of law.

The dispute arose regarding a flat in the "The Leaf" residential complex in Gurugram, developed by S.S. Group Pvt. Ltd. The respondent, a subsequent purchaser, entered into a Buyer-Builder Agreement where possession was due by September 23, 2016. However, the appellant received the occupation certificate only on May 09, 2022, and offered possession on May 12, 2022. The respondent approached the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) alleging the flat was incomplete and seeking compensation for delayed delivery.

The primary question before the court was whether the dispute regarding the actual date of completion of the flat constituted a "substantial question of law" under Section 58 of the RERA Act read with Section 100 of the CPC. The court was also called upon to determine if the Appellate Tribunal was justified in enhancing the penalty period based on evidence showing the flat remained incomplete after the formal offer of possession.

Tribunal's Power To Enhance Penalty Period

The Court noted that while the RERA Authority had initially granted interest for the delay from 2016 until July 12, 2022, the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal subsequently extended this period to October 23, 2023. The Tribunal had relied on communication, including an email dated July 18, 2022, which indicated that partial work was still pending. The appellant challenged this reliance, arguing that the email was not part of the original complaint.

Filing Complaint Post-Offer Indicates Incompleteness

Justice Bansal observed that the timeline of the litigation itself was telling. The appellant received the occupation certificate years after the promised date and offered possession in May 2022. The Court reasoned that if the flat had truly been ready for inhabitation, the respondent would have had no reason to seek legal recourse immediately after the offer.

"Filing of complaint after offer of possession itself indicates that flat was incomplete."

Failure To Verify Factual Position Before Authority

The Court further criticized the appellant's stance that the remaining work was "very small" and could have been completed in two days. The bench noted that if the work was indeed negligible, the appellant should have requested the Authority to depute a person to verify the factual status of the unit. Instead, the appellant's reply to the complaint focused on justifying the delay as being beyond its control rather than proving the flat's completion.

"Had flat been completed, there was no occasion for the complainant to approach Authority."

No Substantial Question Of Law Under Section 58 RERA

The Court highlighted the jurisdictional limitations imposed by Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which aligns with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The bench clarified that the dispute regarding the exact date of completion and the quality of the unit at the time of offer is a "pure question of fact."

"It is a pure question of fact. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court."

The High Court concluded that since the appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law, the second appeal against the Tribunal's order was not maintainable. The findings of the Tribunal regarding the extended period of interest were treated as final factual determinations based on the record.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Appellate Tribunal's order to enhance the penalty period. The ruling reinforces that developers cannot escape liability for delayed possession by merely issuing a formal offer of possession if the unit is not actually complete in all respects as per the agreement.

Date of Decision: 01 July 2026