"Force majeure" is the first excuse many builders offer for a missed possession date. It is a real legal concept, but under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) it has a narrow, written definition, and it does not work as a blanket shield against Section 18.
Short answer: The Act defines force majeure as war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature that affects the regular development of the project. A builder must prove such an event and show that it actually delayed the project. Money problems, labour shortages and slow approvals are not on that list.
Three places force majeure can appear
- Section 6 of the Act (extension of registration). The Authority may extend a project's registration on the promoter's application "due to force majeure". The Explanation to Section 6 gives the definition quoted above.
- Your Agreement for Sale. Most agreements have their own force majeure clause. In Uttar Pradesh, the model agreement attached to the UP Agreement for Sale/Lease Rules, 2018 (as reproduced on CaseMine) lists war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity, and gives the promoter extra time only if the event is covered. It also says that if the event makes completion impossible, the allotment ends and the promoter refunds the money within 120 days after notice. Your signed agreement may differ, so read it.
- General contract law. Outside RERA, courts look at whether performance was truly impossible, not just harder or costlier. This route is rarely helpful to a promoter who simply ran short of funds.
Section 6 and Section 18 do different jobs
This is the point most people miss. Section 6 is between the promoter and the regulator. It can move the project's registration date. Section 18(1) looks at the date specified in your Agreement for Sale.
In Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (11 November 2021), the Supreme Court described the allottee's right to a refund as an unconditional, absolute right if the promoter fails to give possession within the agreed time, regardless of unforeseen events or stay orders of a court or tribunal that are not attributable to the allottee. An extension of registration therefore does not, on its own, answer a Section 18 claim. See our articles on Can a Builder Unilaterally Extend the Possession Date? and Did COVID-19 Extension Orders Change Possession Deadlines?.
What usually counts and what usually does not
| Builder's reason | Within the Section 6 definition? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Flood, cyclone, earthquake, fire, drought | Yes, if proved | Must have affected your project and caused the delay |
| COVID-19 | Treated as force majeure for registration extensions | Effect on the allottee's agreement date is disputed; see our COVID-19 article |
| Shortage of funds, cash-flow problems | No | Not a "calamity caused by nature" |
| Labour or material shortage, price rise | Not on the wording | Tribunals look for proof of a natural calamity |
| Delay in government approvals or the completion certificate | Not on the wording | Rejected by the Allahabad High Court in the argument noted below |
| Court or tribunal stay orders | Not named in the definition | Newtech says the refund right survives them |
What the courts and tribunals have said
- Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench), Ratan Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Anil Kumar, 4 September 2025. A Noida promoter argued that the words "as the case may be" in Section 18 let it rely on delays beyond its control, including the authority's delay in granting the completion certificate. The High Court rejected the argument. It read Section 18 as providing for interest where the promoter fails to complete or give possession by the agreed date, and upheld delay interest at MCLR plus 1% from the agreement date until the offer of possession.
- Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Signature Global (India) Ltd. v. Meena Godhvani, Appeal No. 133 of 2025, 26 August 2025. The Tribunal read force majeure narrowly, tying it to the natural calamities listed in Section 6, and warned that a wider reading "would unduly benefit the promoter and be detrimental to the allottee". It also called the entitlement to a six-month COVID-19 grace period "doubtful", though it left the Authority's order alone because the allottees had not appealed.
- Haryana REAT, Cosmos Infra Engineering v. Abhinav Kohli, Appeal No. 418 of 2021 (reported February 2024). The promoter's COVID-19 plea failed because the possession date had passed before the pandemic and the promoter gave no details of how it had affected construction. Haryana decisions are persuasive, not binding, in Uttar Pradesh.
The Delhi High Court has taken a similar approach in a commercial case, Halliburton Offshore Services v. Vedanta (29 May 2020): COVID-19 can be a force majeure event, but it does not excuse a party that was already in breach before the lockdown.
What this means for you
If you are a homebuyer:
- Ask for the builder's claim in writing, with the event, dates and documents.
- Compare the event date with your possession date. A calamity that comes after the deadline cannot explain a deadline already missed.
- Check whether the event is in your agreement's clause and in Section 6.
- Remember that you can still choose a refund or interest under Section 18, whatever the registration extension says.
If you are a lawyer:
- Plead the Section 6 Explanation as a closed description of natural calamities, and put the promoter to proof of cause and effect.
- Separate the promoter's Section 6 extension from the Section 18 date in the agreement.
- Note that the first proviso to Section 6 allows extensions "in reasonable circumstances, without default on the part of the promoter", capped at one year in aggregate. The West Bengal Appellate Tribunal (reported November 2025) read that cap as applying to the proviso and not to force majeure extensions. That reading is not settled everywhere.
Frequently asked questions
Can the builder claim force majeure after the deadline has already passed? The tribunals above suggest the answer is usually no, unless the builder can show the event delayed work in a period still within the agreed time.
Does force majeure cancel my right to a refund? Newtech says the refund right under Section 18(1)(a) and Section 19(4) is not dependent on contingencies. Your agreement's own force majeure clause may still be argued, so take advice if the builder relies on it.
Is a notice of force majeure from the builder binding on me? No. A promoter's letter is a claim, not a ruling. Reply in writing and keep your rights.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice. Laws, rules and rates change and differ by state. Verify current provisions before acting.