Promise of Delivery Within 30 Months - The builder/promoter assured delivery of flats within 30 months, which formed the basis of the sale agreement and payment schedule. The agreement was for construction and delivery, not merely sale of an existing flat. Failure to fulfill this promise leads to disputes over non-performance and breach Anubhav Singhal VS Raheja Developers Ltd. - Consumer.
Sale Agreement vs. Construction Promise - Several cases highlight that agreements labeled as ‘sale’ still include promises of construction and timely possession. When builders fail to deliver within the promised timeframe, it constitutes breach, regardless of whether the agreement explicitly states ‘sale’ or ‘construction’ Anubhav Singhal VS Raheja Developers Ltd. - Consumer.
Delay and Non-Performance - Courts have held that delays beyond control (e.g., land issues, government clearance) might not make the builder liable, but persistent non-performance or failure to deliver as promised can lead to claims of breach. Delay in possession or construction, especially when promised within a specific period, is a valid ground for complaint KRISHNA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS THROUGH SANKAR MANCHANI vs DEEPAK KHAMPARIYA - Consumer State, Anubhav Singhal VS Raheja Developers Ltd. - Consumer.
Promise Not Fulfilled & Later Sale of Flat - Several cases involve builders promising certain area sizes (e.g., 1145 sq.ft.) but delivering smaller sizes (e.g., 580 sq.ft.), and later selling the flat to third parties. Such discrepancies indicate breach of promise and misrepresentation. The sale of flats with promised features not delivered, especially during ongoing complaints, can be challenged GIRISH KULKARNI vs HEMLATA A. CHHEDA & 3 ORS. - Consumer National, MIRANDA vs HEMLATA A. CHHEDA & 3 ORS. - Consumer National.
Sale Deed Discrepancies & Misrepresentation - In some instances, the actual area of flats was less than promised, and buyers later discovered this through sale deeds. Builders or promoters misrepresented the size or features, breaching contractual promises GIRISH KULKARNI vs HEMLATA A. CHHEDA & 3 ORS. - Consumer National, MIRANDA vs HEMLATA A. CHHEDA & 3 ORS. - Consumer National.
Non-Execution of Sale Agreement & Advance Payments - When the agreement for sale is not executed or registered, payments made by buyers are often treated as advances. Builders failing to register the sale or complete construction after receiving payments can be liable for breach, but not necessarily for cheating unless deceit or fraudulent intent is proven Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-2021-4515 Chinu Sarkar VS KRG Builders - Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
Sale of Flat Already Sold & Fraudulent Sale - Cases reveal instances where flats were already sold under earlier agreements, and subsequent sales to third parties occurred. Such actions breach contractual obligations and can be grounds for legal action, especially if misrepresentation or fraud is involved Sushila Suresh Malge vs State of Maharashtra - Bombay, Sushila Suresh Malge vs State of Maharashtra - Bombay.
Builder’s Promises & Actual Performance - Courts emphasize that builders’ promises regarding possession, amenities, or area size are contractual obligations. Failure to deliver as promised, especially within stipulated timelines, constitutes breach and entitles aggrieved parties to remedies DR.ANJU W/O.DR.RAJESH MUNDHADA vs M/S.WAGHMARE DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI PANKAJ CHADRAKANT WAGHMARE - Consumer State.
Analysis and Conclusion:Builders often promise timely delivery, specified flat sizes, and amenities in their brochures or agreements. When these promises are not fulfilled—such as delayed possession, reduced flat sizes, or non-provision of promised facilities—it constitutes breach of contract. Cases also highlight issues like sale of flats already sold, misrepresentation of size, and failure to execute sale deeds, which further complicate disputes. Courts generally do not consider mere delay as cheating unless fraudulent intent or deceit is proven. Buyers’ remedies include claims for breach, damages, or specific performance, especially where promises are contractual obligations. Overall, builders’ promises made during brochure sales or agreements should be fulfilled, and failure to do so can lead to legal liabilities.References:- Anubhav Singhal VS Raheja Developers Ltd. - Consumer- KRISHNA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS THROUGH SANKAR MANCHANI vs DEEPAK KHAMPARIYA - Consumer State- GIRISH KULKARNI vs HEMLATA A. CHHEDA & 3 ORS. - Consumer National_NCDRC_FA_97_2016- GIRISH KULKARNI vs HEMLATA A. CHHEDA & 3 ORS. - Consumer National_NCDRC_FA_98_2016- GIRISH KULKARNI vs HEMLATA A. CHHEDA & 3 ORS. - Consumer National_NCDRC_NATIONAL_FA_98_2016- GIRISH KULKARNI vs HEMLATA A. CHHEDA & 3 ORS. - Consumer National_RERA_3779- Sushila Suresh Malge vs State of Maharashtra - Bombay- Sushila Suresh Malge vs State of Maharashtra - Bombay- DR.ANJU W/O.DR.RAJESH MUNDHADA vs M/S.WAGHMARE DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI PANKAJ CHADRAKANT WAGHMARE - Consumer State
