Haryana RERA Directs Neo Developers To Pay Assured Returns And Execute Conveyance Deed In Favour Of Homebuyer

Monthly assured returns projects are schemes where builders promise to pay a fixed amount to homebuyers at regular intervals (usually monthly) for a specified period.

Background Facts

Homebuyer (Complainant) brought a flat in the builder's (Respondent) project named “Neo Square” located at Sector 109, Dwarka Expressway, Gurugram. The basic sale consideration of the project was Rs. 32.43 Lakhs out of which homebuyer paid Rs. 31.53 Lakhs to builder.

Homebuyer and builder entered into builder buyer agreement on 1^st October 2016. On the same date, a MOU was also executed between the parties regarding the same flat.

As per Clause 4 of the MOU, the builder was required to pay an assured return of Rs. 26,000 per month from September 3, 2016 until the first lease commenced. However, the builder stopped making these payments from July 2019 and has not executed any lease deed for the unit till date.

Under the MOU, possession was to be handed over within 36 months from the date of the agreement, making October 1, 2019 the due date for delivery. Despite this, no lawful offer of possession has been made to the homebuyer.

Aggrieved homebuyer filed complaint before the authority seeking monthly assured returns, delay possession charge, possession of flat, execution of conveyance deed and setting aside of unlawful demand notice.

Observation and Direction by Authority

Authority observed that under the MoU dated October 1, 2016, it was the builder's responsibility to pay the assured return to the homebuyers. However, the builder failed to fulfil this obligation and did not submit any document showing the lease of the unit.

Authority held that the builder's liability to pay the assured return was still continuing. It directed the builder to pay the assured return to the homebuyers at the agreed rate of Rs. 26,000 per month from September 3, 2016, until the commencement of the first lease of the unit.

Authority noted that the central issue was whether a homebuyer receiving assured returns even after the expiry of the due date of possession is entitled to both assured returns and delayed possession charges.

Authority observed that the assured return, as agreed in the MoU was payable at Rs.26,000 per month and served as a protection for the homebuyer's investment from September 3, 2016 until the start of the first lease. When compared with delayed possession charges under Section 18(1) of the RERA Act, the assured return offered greater benefit to the homebuyer.

Authority further noted that the objective behind delayed possession charges is to safeguard the homebuyer's interest when the builder continues to use their money beyond the agreed possession date. However, when the builder is already paying an assured return beyond that date, the same purpose stands fulfilled.

Authority therefore held that where the assured return is reasonable and comparable with the delayed possession charges, the homebuyer shall be entitled to either the assured return or the delayed possession charges, whichever is higher without affecting their right to claim other remedies including compensation.

Authority also directed the builder to execute the conveyance deed of the apartment in favour of the homebuyer upon payment of stamp duty and registration charges. Lastly, the Authority directed the builder not to charge any amount from the homebuyer that is not part of the builder-buyer agreement.

Case – Mahalingam Valleesan Versus M/S Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Citation – Complaint no 168 of 2025