SBI Term Loan: RLLR: 8.15 | 7.25% - 8.45%
Canara Bank: RLLR: 8 | 7.15% - 10%
ICICI Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.5% - 9.65%
Punjab & Sind Bank: RLLR: 7.3 | 7.3% - 10.7%
Bank of Baroda: RLLR: 7.9 | 7.2% - 8.95%
Federal Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.75% - 10%
IndusInd Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.5% - 9.75%
Bank of Maharashtra: RLLR: 8.05 | 7.1% - 9.15%
Yes Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.4% - 10.54%
Karur Vysya Bank: RLLR: 8.8 | 8.5% - 10.65%

Haryana RERA directs Sunrays Heights to pay 11% interest to buyers for five-year delay in Gurugram project

#Law & Policy#India#Haryana
Last Updated : 2nd Apr, 2026
Synopsis

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) has ordered Sunrays Heights Private Limited to hand over flats in its 63 Golf Drive affordable housing project in Sector 63, Gurugram, along with interest of about 10.8%-11% per annum for delays extending up to five years. The directive follows multiple complaints from allottees who had paid significant amounts but did not receive possession within the committed timeline. The project, spread across approximately 5.9 acres, had a possession deadline in 2021, but neither occupation certification nor handover was completed. The authority rejected the developer's justifications, including pandemic-related disruptions, and reaffirmed that buyers who remain invested in delayed projects are entitled to monthly interest compensation under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) has directed Sunrays Heights Private Limited to hand over possession of flats to buyers in its 63 Golf Drive project in Sector 63, Gurugram, along with interest compensation, after delays of nearly five years beyond the committed timeline, reinforcing statutory provisions under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.


The order was issued while adjudicating a batch of complaints filed by allottees, including a lead case, concerning the affordable housing project spread across about 5.9 acres. Buyers informed the authority that despite making substantial payments reported in some cases to exceed INR 13 lakh possession had not been offered within the agreed timeframe. Records indicate that the project's possession deadline was mid-March 2021, but the developer neither secured an occupation certificate nor initiated handover even several years later.

In its ruling, the authority held that buyers who choose not to withdraw from a delayed project are entitled to interest for every month of delay until possession is delivered. The applicable rate of interest has been linked to the State Bank of India's marginal cost of lending rate (MCLR) plus 2%, which translates to approximately 10.8% per annum based on prevailing rates.

The developer attributed the delay to a range of factors, including restrictions on mining activities, shortages of construction materials, environmental regulations, and disruptions arising from the Covid-19 pandemic and related control measures. However, HRERA rejected these submissions, stating that such factors cannot indefinitely defer delivery obligations or deprive allottees of possession. The authority also dismissed claims that delays were attributable to buyer-side payment defaults, noting that statutory responsibilities of the promoter remain unaffected by such arguments.

The order reiterated that promoters are required to adhere strictly to timelines committed under agreements for sale and that failure to do so triggers liability under Section 18 of the Act. It further clarified that delay compensation must continue until possession is offered or handed over, as prescribed under the regulatory framework.

The authority's observations emphasised that financial or operational challenges faced by developers do not override obligations to complete and deliver projects within stipulated timelines. It also noted that buyers who have fulfilled payment commitments cannot be left waiting indefinitely for possession.

The ruling adds to a series of recent enforcement actions by HRERA addressing delayed residential projects in Gurugram, where the regulator has increasingly applied uniform interest-based compensation to uphold delivery timelines. The case reflects continued scrutiny of project execution and reinforces the role of regulatory oversight in addressing delays across the residential segment.

Have something to say? Post your comment