I Took Possession Years Ago and Never Claimed Delay Interest: Is It Too Late to Go to K-RERA?

Probably not, but the answer is no longer simple. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 prescribes no period of limitation for a complaint under Section 31, and taking possession or registering the sale deed does not by itself end a claim for delay interest under the proviso to Section 18(1). In 2026 the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal and the High Courts of Allahabad and Chhattisgarh held that no time limit can be read into a RERA complaint, while the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal held on 14 October 2026 that the Limitation Act applies and that the three years run from the promised possession date, not from the day you got the keys.

Part of the RERA and homebuyer disputes practice at S Jain & Attorneys, Bangalore.

This page is for a flat owner in Bengaluru who took possession two to five years after the date in the agreement, never complained, and has now heard that other buyers in the project are getting delay interest from K-RERA, while the builder's lawyer says any complaint is time-barred. It covers the limitation question only. The amount of interest is worked out in our separate guide on the K-RERA delay interest calculation at SBI MCLR plus two percent.

Here is where the authorities stood at the time of writing:

Key takeaway. No court binding on K-RERA has held that a delay-interest complaint is time-barred. The only Karnataka appellate order found rejected a limitation plea. But the Tamil Nadu ruling gives every builder a ready argument, so a late claim should be filed now and not after another year of waiting.

Four points from the table carry the rest of this guide.

Is there any time limit for a K-RERA complaint at all?

The Act itself sets none. Section 31(1) says that "any aggrieved person may file a complaint" with the Authority or the adjudicating officer for any contravention of the Act, the rules or the regulations, and stops there. Contrast Section 44(2), which gives sixty days to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and lets the Tribunal hear a late appeal for sufficient cause. Parliament wrote a time limit for appeals and none for complaints.

The Karnataka Rules follow the same pattern. Under rule 29 of the Karnataka Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 a complaint to the Authority is filed in Form N, and under rule 30 a claim for compensation to the adjudicating officer is filed in Form O, each with a fee of one thousand rupees. Neither form asks you to state that the complaint is within limitation. Form N asks only that you declare the matter is not pending before any court or other authority.

So the question is not what the Act says. It is whether the Limitation Act, 1963, which governs suits and applications in courts, reaches a RERA complaint anyway. That is where the tribunals split.

Why do some tribunals say a late delay claim is time-barred?

The Tamil Nadu Tribunal's reasoning starts from Section 18(2). That sub-section makes the promoter compensate allottees for loss caused by a defective title to the project land, and adds that such a claim "shall not be barred by limitation provided under any law for the time being in force". In Appeal No. 108 of 2026, decided on 14 October 2026 by a bench headed by Justice M. Duraiswamy, the Tribunal read that exemption as proof that every other claim is subject to limitation: if the Limitation Act never applied, there would have been no need to carve out defective title. It also relied on Section 88, which says the Act is "in addition to, and not in derogation of" other laws, and on the civil-court powers given to the Authority and the Tribunal.

Having held that the Limitation Act applies, the Tribunal chose Article 27 of its Schedule, which gives three years for "compensation for breach of a promise to do anything at a specified time", running "when the time specified arrives". The villa in that case was due, with the grace period, on 4 October 2016. The complaint before the adjudicating officer was filed on 22 February 2022. The Tribunal held that the cause of action arose on 5 October 2016, the period ended on 5 October 2019, and the complaint was barred. It added that a complainant cannot treat RERA rights as available "whenever, as desired", which is the language of laches as well as limitation.

Two features of that case matter to a Bengaluru reader. It was an owners' association's claim for compensation for amenities never built, filed before the adjudicating officer, not a buyer's claim for monthly interest under the proviso to Section 18(1), although the Tribunal said in terms that limitation applies to Section 18(1) claims as well. And it binds only the Tamil Nadu forums, not K-RERA or K-REAT, though a builder's lawyer will cite it.

Why do others say there is no limitation at all?

Three appellate forums reached the opposite result in 2026, each by a different route.

The Chhattisgarh High Court, on 16 April 2026, set aside an Appellate Tribunal order that had dismissed a buyer's case on limitation. Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that "there is no prescribed period of limitation for filing a complaint under Section 31", that the Authority is not a court, and that Article 137 of the Limitation Act therefore does not apply to a Section 31 complaint. The Court also faulted the Tribunal for raising limitation itself at the appellate stage when the builder had never pleaded it before the Authority.

The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, on 2 July 2026, dismissed a batch of appeals by Emaar India. In the lead case the promised date was 16 November 2016, possession was offered on 31 May 2019, the conveyance deed was executed on 3 February 2020, and the buyers complained only on 15 September 2022. The Tribunal held that where the legislature provided limitation for appeals but not for complaints, "no limitation period can be imported into Section 31 of the Act by implication", and that the Limitation Act does not reach special tribunals unless the statute says so.

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, on 23 September 2026, dismissed a builder's appeal that asked whether a delay-interest claim could be kept open indefinitely. Justice Prashant Kumar held that "no limitation or prescribed time frame has been provided by the legislature for raising a claim for delay interest where the allottee continues with the project", and that the word "demand" in Section 18(1) cannot be used to defeat the statutory right. The flat there was due in November 2012, possession was taken in 2017, and the complaint was filed in October 2019. The Court also noted that the buyer's continuing correspondence showed he never acquiesced in the delay.

Common mistake. Reading the Allahabad judgment as saying silence never matters. The Court relied partly on the buyer's emails and representations to hold that he had not abandoned the claim. A buyer who has written nothing for years should expect the builder to argue acquiescence or laches even where limitation does not apply.

What has Karnataka decided so far?

Less than a buyer would like. We searched the K-REAT disposed-appeals list and the Karnataka High Court judgments available to us and found no ruling of the High Court deciding whether a Section 31 complaint carries a period of limitation. The one Karnataka appellate order found on a late claim is Appeal No. (K-REAT) 167/2025, decided on 24 August 2026 by a bench of Justice J.M. Khazi and Santhosh Kumar Shetty N.

In that case the flat in a Devanahalli project was due by 31 December 2019, the sale deed was registered on 22 July 2021, and the buyers filed their complaint on 19 January 2024, more than four years after the agreed date. The builder pleaded limitation, arguing that the complaint came more than three years after the allotment and the agreement. The Tribunal rejected the plea, partly because the builder was at the same time arguing that time was not of the essence for the clubhouse, a stand it called inconsistent, and held that there was "no justification to hold that the complaint lodged by the Allottees before the Authority was barred by limitation". It awarded delay interest at SBI MCLR plus two percent from 1 January 2020 to 22 July 2021.

The order is useful but narrow. It did not decide, as a rule of law, that the Limitation Act never applies at K-RERA. And on our arithmetic that complaint was inside three years even on the Tamil Nadu clock once the 2020 to 2022 COVID window, explained below, is left out, so it does not test a claim that is late on every view. The question stays open in Karnataka, with the weight of 2026 High Court authority elsewhere on the buyer's side and one appellate tribunal against.

Does taking possession or signing the sale deed end my claim?

No, not by itself. The Haryana Tribunal said in July 2026 that "the status of allottee does not stand obliterated merely because title has been conveyed", and upheld delay interest for buyers who were in possession with conveyance deeds executed. The Supreme Court reached the same result for consumer complaints in its judgment of 24 August 2020 against DLF Southern Homes, refusing the view that "flat purchasers who obtained possession or executed Deeds of Conveyance have lost their right to make a claim for compensation for the delayed handing over of the flats". Requiring a buyer to give up the claim as the price of the sale deed would, the Court said, be absurd.

Three things can still cut a claim down. A specific settlement deed is one: the Supreme Court excluded the eleven buyers in that case who had signed settlement deeds, and we cover what such a document gives away in our guide to a settlement addendum that waives delay interest. A possession letter reciting full and final satisfaction is another, and our calculation guide explains how K-RERA treats it. The third is an early, valid offer of possession, which stops the interest at that date, as our guide to an offer of possession without an OC explains.

The real effect of possession on a late claim is different. It is not a bar. It fixes the end of your delay period, and on the Tamil Nadu view it does nothing to restart a clock that began years earlier.

If a time limit is applied, from which date does the clock start?

On the Tamil Nadu view, from the day after the promised date, including any grace period. The Tribunal held that "the act of handing over possession is not a breach", that possession "does not create any fresh cause of action or reset the cause of action", and that the three years under Article 27 of the Limitation Act ran from 5 October 2016, the day after the villa was due. A buyer's argument that the clock runs from possession was rejected in terms.

A builder may also reach for Article 137, three years "when the right to apply accrues", which is the article the Chhattisgarh Tribunal used before the High Court set its order aside, or for Article 113, the residuary three years for suits, which runs "when the right to sue accrues". Every one of these articles gives three years. The fight is about the start date.

Before you accept the builder's arithmetic, find the date your agreement actually promised. Many Karnataka agreements tie possession to a period after a sanction, a registration or the start of construction, plus a grace period, and the promised date is often later than the builder's letter suggests. Then work out how long it is from that date to today. If it is under three years even on the builder's clock, the limitation argument fails on its own terms.

Is interest under Section 18(1) treated differently from compensation before the adjudicating officer?

They go to different forums, and the difference may matter on limitation. As our calculation guide explains from paragraph 86 of the Supreme Court's 2021 judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers v State of Uttar Pradesh, monthly interest for delayed possession is for the Authority in Form N, and compensation for a proved loss, such as rent paid while waiting, is for the adjudicating officer in Form O.

K-REAT noticed the confusion in Appeal 167/2025: the buyers' claim fell within the proviso to Section 18(1), but because it was captioned "compensation" the Authority sent it to the adjudicating officer.

The limitation cases divide only partly along that line. The Tamil Nadu ruling concerned a compensation claim before the adjudicating officer, and Article 27 speaks of "compensation for breach of a promise", but the Tribunal's reasoning expressly reached claims under Section 18(1) too. The Allahabad ruling concerned interest under the proviso to Section 18(1) for an allottee who continued in the project, and found no time frame for it. On our reading the claim for statutory interest is still the better one to bring late, because the proviso says the promoter "shall" pay interest "for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession", and that right does not depend on proving a loss. Expect the builder to answer with the Tamil Nadu order.

Does the COVID limitation extension help me?

Only if a limitation period applies at all, and only if your period had not already ended by 15 March 2020. The Supreme Court's order of 10 January 2022 in its suo motu case on extension of limitation, as reproduced in a 2024 judgment of the Court, directed that "the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation" under "any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings". Where limitation would have expired inside that window, every person has at least ninety days from 1 March 2022, or the longer balance if more remained.

The Tamil Nadu Tribunal refused the benefit in Five Mount Villa because the three years there had run out on 5 October 2019, before the window opened. That is the dividing line. On our arithmetic, if your flat was promised for 30 June 2019, about 258 days of a three-year period had run by 14 March 2020, the remaining 838 days started again on 1 March 2022, and even the builder's own clock would have closed only around the middle of June 2024. If your promised date fell before about mid-March 2017, the extension does not help on the Tamil Nadu reading, and you must rely on the view that no limitation applies.

Deadline warning. Do not treat the COVID exclusion as fresh time today. It only stretches a period that was still running in March 2020. If a limitation period applies and you are already outside it after the exclusion, every further month makes the limitation argument stronger and yours weaker.

What if I go to the consumer commission instead?

The consumer route has a written time limit, which RERA does not. Under Section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a District, State or National Commission "shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen". Section 69(2) lets the Commission hear a late complaint if you show sufficient cause, but only after recording its reasons for condoning the delay.

Both remedies exist side by side. Section 88 of the RERA Act and Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act each say the Act is in addition to other laws, and the Supreme Court's 2020 decision against DLF Southern Homes was itself a consumer case. But the forms require you to declare that the same matter is not pending elsewhere, so you choose one forum for the same claim. For a buyer years past the promised date, a forum whose statute fixes two years is the harder one to enter, and K-RERA, whose Act fixes none, is usually the better place to start. We compare the forums more broadly in our guide to builder delay and homebuyer rights.

How much can I still claim, and on what amount?

Interest for every month from the promised date to the date of valid possession, at the rate fixed by rule 16 of the Karnataka Rules, which is the State Bank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate plus two percent. Claim it only on the money you actually paid, from the date of each payment where it was made after the promised date, with the bank statements or receipts that prove it. Leave out amounts the builder credited, adjusted or demanded and you never paid.

The end date is your possession date, and if the builder offered possession before the occupancy certificate, that offer may not count. If you bought the flat from the first buyer and not from the builder, the start date can differ, as our guide on a resale buyer's delay interest explains. A late claim does not change the rate or the method. It changes only the risk that a limitation argument is raised.

A defective-title claim is the exception that needs no argument at all. Section 18(2) says it is not barred by any limitation law, and our guide to a title defect in the project land covers that route.

Before filing, line up the four dates and two figures that decide a late claim.

Step by step: filing a late delay-interest claim at K-RERA

1. Collect the agreement for sale, any construction agreement, every demand letter, your payment receipts and bank statements, the possession letter, the occupancy certificate and the sale deed.
2. Fix the promised date from the agreement, including any grace period, and the date of valid possession. Note whether you signed anything reciting full and final settlement.
3. Prepare a payment table showing each amount actually paid and its date, and the interest from the later of the payment date and the promised date to the possession date.
4. Send the builder a written demand for the interest, with the table, and keep proof of delivery. The builder in the Allahabad case argued that no demand had been made within a reasonable time, and a dated demand answers that argument and any suggestion that you acquiesced.
5. File the complaint on the K-RERA portal in Form N for interest under the proviso to Section 18(1). Add a separate Form O application to the adjudicating officer only if you also claim compensation for a proved loss.
6. In the complaint, plead the dates plainly and say in one paragraph that the Act prescribes no limitation for a Section 31 complaint, citing the Haryana, Chhattisgarh and Allahabad rulings and K-REAT Appeal 167/2025, and, in the alternative, that the claim is within time after the COVID exclusion if that is true on your dates.
7. When the builder files objections pleading limitation, answer with the same authorities and point out that the Tamil Nadu ruling concerned a compensation claim before the adjudicating officer and binds only Tamil Nadu forums.
8. If the order goes against you, appeal to K-REAT within sixty days of receiving it under Section 44(2). If you win and the builder does not pay, our guide on executing a K-RERA order covers recovery.

What we see go wrong with late claims

In our practice the late buyer's problem is rarely the law. It is the file. Buyers who took the keys years ago often cannot find the agreement's grace-period clause, the early demand letters or proof of when each instalment was paid, and the builder's reply then fills the gaps with its own dates. Others sign a possession letter or a no-dues declaration with a full and final recital and forget about it until the builder produces it at the hearing. A third group waits for the outcome of a neighbour's case before filing, and loses another year while the limitation argument hardens. The common thread is that a late claim is decided on documents, so the first task is to rebuild the paper trail before anything is filed.

What it costs and how long it takes

The Karnataka Rules fix the filing fee for a complaint in Form N, and for an application in Form O, at one thousand rupees each. Professional fees vary with the number of buyers joining and how hard the builder contests the dates, so treat any figure as indicative. A contested K-RERA complaint commonly takes several months to over a year to decide, though Section 71(2) asks the adjudicating officer to dispose of a compensation application within sixty days. If either side appeals to K-REAT, add many months more, and a builder appealing must first deposit at least thirty percent of the penalty, or the amount payable to you, or both, under the proviso to Section 43(5).

Frequently Asked Questions

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice on your specific situation.

Related Guides

See the RERA and homebuyer disputes practice for late delay-interest claims at K-RERA, and the consumer protection practice for complaints before the consumer commissions.

• How Much Delay Interest Does the Builder Owe Me? The K-RERA Calculation at SBI MCLR Plus Two Percent
• The Builder Offered Possession of an Unfinished Flat Without an OC to Stop the Delay Interest: Is That Offer Valid?
• My Builder's Settlement Addendum Moves the Completion Date and Waives Delay Interest, With Nothing Paid Yet: What Am I Giving Up?