Punjab RERA: villa buyer who stopped paying loses claim to possession, but gets ₹40 lakh back with interest
Punjab RERA held that a buyer who missed instalments for an IREO Waterfront villa could not insist on possession, but ordered the promoters to refund the ₹40 lakh he had paid at 10.80% interest.

- Order dated 30 September 2026 by Member Binod Kumar Singh, Complaint GC No. 0570 of 2022
- Villa No. 566 at IREO Waterfront; total price about ₹1.30 crore; buyer paid ₹40 lakh
- Buyer had not cleared ₹7.53 lakh of the second instalment despite reminders
- Refund of ₹40 lakh at 10.80% a year from each payment date until repayment
- IREO Waterfront and AIPL Housing held jointly and severally liable
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has held that a buyer who did not pay his instalments for a villa cannot claim possession, but is still entitled to get back what he paid, with interest. LiveLaw Business reported the order on 6 October 2026.
The order, dated 30 September 2026, was passed by Member Binod Kumar Singh in Vikas Gupta v. IREO Waterfront Private Limited and AIPL Housing & Urban Infrastructure Limited (Complaint GC No. 0570 of 2022).
The facts
According to the report:
- Gupta was allotted Villa No. 566 (Type L, 1,600 sq ft built-up) at IREO Waterfront on 16 May 2014, for a total price of ₹1,30,48,522.
- The builder-buyer agreement of 30 June 2014 promised possession by 30 June 2016.
- He paid ₹40 lakh in total, his last payment being on 29 May 2015. ₹7,53,269 of the second instalment was left unpaid despite reminders.
- On 18 February 2016 the developers sent a "final opportunity" letter warning that the allotment could be cancelled.
- A partial completion certificate for the relevant pocket came on 29 November 2017. Gupta filed his complaint on 1 December 2022, seeking possession or another unit at the original price, plus delay interest.
What RERA decided
The Authority found that the buyer had "failed its obligation to make the payment as per Builder Buyer agreement" and so had "failed to establish any enforceable entitlement to possession under Section 18" of the RERA Act.
It did not, however, let the developers keep his money. It held that "the only amount refundable to complainant is Rs.40,00,000/- along with interest as per Section 18(1)". It directed a refund of ₹40 lakh with interest at 10.80% a year from the date of each payment until the date of refund, with both companies jointly and severally liable. The complaint was partly allowed.
What it means for buyers
Two lessons come out of this order. Missing instalments can cost a buyer the right to insist on the unit, even when the project itself is late. But a developer who has not formally cancelled and forfeited under the agreement may not be able to keep the money already paid.
Keep records of every payment, demand letter and reminder. If you cannot pay, raise it with the developer in writing. To check a project's registration and progress before you buy, see how to check a project on Punjab RERA. This is general information, not legal advice. The order can be appealed.
Sources
- LiveLaw Business — "Homebuyer's Payment Default Defeats Claim To Possession But Not Refund: Punjab RERA" · 6 Oct 2026
- Punjab RERA official website
This report links to the documents and publications it relies on. It is general information, not legal advice; check the official source before acting. Corrections policy · Report an error



