Centre Proposes to Submit Model Builder-Buyer Agreement with mandatory RERA clauses before Supreme Court


Status on- 03/01/2023

A model builder-buyer agreement with mandatory clauses that the states or union territories cannot change has been proposed to the Supreme Court by the federal government.

The model agreement will have Part A, which will have core clauses with the mandatory provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 for the protection of homebuyers, and Part B, which will contain additional clauses as per the requirement of the various States/UTs, according to the submissions made before the Court by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati and amicus curiae Devashish Bharuka. These additional clauses won’t, however, conflict with or undermine the Part “A” clauses in any way.

In November, a bench composed of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli posted the matter for further consideration after taking note of these submissions.

The Ashwini Upadhyay PIL, which sought a model builder-buyer agreement, underwent a development. Earlier, the Supreme Court had observed that a model agreement was necessary to protect the interests of home buyers and had asked the Union to frame a model agreement after taking inputs from the States. Later, the Court asked the Union to scrutinize the rules framed by the States under RERA to ascertain if essential norms have been incorporated.

In September, the following States have not submitted their responses:

  • Andhra Pradesh
  • Chhattisgarh
  • Gujarat
  • Jharkhand
  • Madhya Pradesh
  • Maharashtra
  • Manipur
  • Mizoram
  • Odisha
  • Uttar Pradesh
  • West Bengal

On the other hand, thirteen States and two Union Territories have filed their responses. The States which have not filed their responses were directed to do so positively within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the Principal Secretaries of the State Government in the Ministry of Urban Development/Affairs shall personally remain present before the Court on the next date of hearing to explain as to why they should not be proceeded with under the coercive arm law.


The Haryana and Maharashtra wings of the Confederation of Real Estate Developers Associations of India (CREDAI) also told the Court that they will give their response.

Disclaimer: The above article is based on the personal interpretation of the related orders and laws. The readers are expected to take expert opinions before relying upon the article. For more information, please contact us at rera@centrik.in ibc@centrik.in

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *