Archive · 2 Sep 2026
Mumbai Builder Faces ₹6 Crore Penalty Over Missing Occupation Certificate
A housing society in Mumbai hired a builder to replace its old building.
The builder gave residents possession of their flats in 2008.
However, the building allegedly did not receive an important government document called an occupation certificate.
This certificate shows that a building can legally be used.
The society said the builder had built parts of the property differently from the approved plans.
The builder said changes made by some residents caused the problem.
The consumer commission did not find enough evidence to support the builder’s explanation.
It ordered the builder to pay ₹6 crore and obtain the certificate.
The NCDRC ordered Raja Construction Company to pay ₹6 crore in compensation.
The dispute concerns Balaji Apartments, redeveloped in Mumbai’s Santacruz area.
The builder allegedly failed to obtain the occupation certificate for nearly two decades.
The builder claimed flat-owner alterations prevented approval, but the commission found insufficient evidence.
Payment is due within three months, while the occupation certificate must be delivered within 12 months.
- Who
- Tirupati Devi Co-operative Housing Society and Raja Construction Company.
- What
- The NCDRC ordered the builder to pay ₹6 crore, obtain the occupation certificate, and cover litigation costs.
- When
- The redevelopment agreement was signed in 2005, and possession began in 2008; the payment must be made within three months of the order.
- Where
- Balaji Apartments in Santacruz, Mumbai.
- Why
- The society alleged that the builder failed to complete required approvals and that construction deviations prevented the occupation certificate from being issued.
Housing Society’s Allegations
Builder’s Defense
Reason for Missing Occupation Certificate
Housing Society’s Allegations
The society said the builder did not complete documentation and had carried out construction inconsistent with sanctioned plans, preventing the certificate from being issued.
Builder’s Defense
The builder denied responsibility and claimed alterations made by some flat owners prevented the occupation certificate from being obtained.
Evidence Before the Commission
Housing Society’s Allegations
The society argued that residents faced prolonged uncertainty, extra expenses, and concerns about the building’s legal status.
Builder’s Defense
The commission reportedly found no convincing evidence supporting the builder’s claim about flat-owner alterations.
- Compensation
- ₹6 crore
- Litigation costs
- ₹10 lakh
- Interest on delay
- Simple interest at 8% annually
- Payment deadline
- Within three months
- Occupation certificate deadline
- Within 12 months
- Redevelopment agreement
- Signed in 2005
- Compensation components
- About ₹3.24 crore for delay from June 2008 to August 2026, ₹26 lakh for water connections and additional expenses, plus amounts for hardship and risks