Issue clear norms, Karnataka-Rera chief tells govt as OC–CC confusion continues | Bengaluru News
Bengaluru: Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-Rera) chairman Rakesh Singh has urged the state govt to issue clear guidelines on the interpretation of occupancy certificates (OC) and completion certificates (CC) as regulatory ambiguity has caused concern among homebuyers.In a detailed five-page letter, Singh warned that conflicting interpretations of OC and CC across multiple laws are creating confusion and harming homebuyers in Bengaluru.
Singh pointed out discrepancies in how OC and CC are defined under the RERA Act, the Karnataka Municipal Corporations (KMC) Act, the BBMP Act, and the recently enacted Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) Act. The K-Rera chief wrote to chief secretary Shalini Rajneesh, additional chief secretary (urban development) Tushar Girinath, and additional chief secretary to the chief minister Anjum Parvez that urban local bodies are interpreting OC and CC provisions differently, leading to delays, uncertainty, and, in some cases, enabling developers to exploit grey areas in the law. “Under the Rera Act, the definitions of completion certificate and occupancy certificate are distinct, precise, and comprehensive. However, local laws — including the KMC, BBMP, and GBA Acts — either define these certificates differently or use the terms interchangeably, adding to the confusion,” the K-Rera chief told TOI. The objective of both the certificates is broadly similar — to certify that a project is completed and fit for occupation — K-Rera pointed out that urban local bodies tend to expand or restrict their scope based on administrative convenience. “For instance, the GBA Act-2024, defines an occupancy certificate as proof that construction is complete, and the building is fit for occupation, and makes OC mandatory for obtaining water and electricity connections. In contrast, older municipal laws refer to completion certificates in a similar context,” said a senior GBA official. Authorities cautioned that the OCs and CCs currently being issued by local bodies have serious implications for housing projects registered under Rera. As per the Rera framework, the responsibility of obtaining both CC and OC lies squarely with the promoter. However, many local authorities treat the two as one and the same, undermining Rera’s regulatory intent and affecting its effective implementation across the state. K-Rera has urged the govt to issue clear clarification on which definition should prevail. Alternatively, it has recommended that all urban local bodies and planning authorities be directed to uniformly follow the Rera Act’s definitions of OC and CC. However, Karnataka Home Buyers Forum convener Dhananjaya Padmanabhachar said: “The Rera Act distinguishes between an occupancy certificate and a completion certificate. Even the government of India issued a notification in 2016 — immediately after the Act and rules came into force — stating unambiguously that an occupancy certificate is not the same as a completion certificate. The notification clarified that before a promoter hands over common area maintenance to an apartment association, a completion certificate must be obtained. This was circulated to all state govts, yet Karnataka has sat on it for 9-10 years, which is baffling.” He added, “The problem is not the law but the state’s failure to implement central circulars and notifications. Homebuyer protection has clearly not been a priority. The govts repeatedly side with promoters but ignore buyers, even when the Centre’s intent is explicit.” Citing an example, he said: “In our own community, promoters handed over maintenance based on partial certificates for one block, while construction continued in other blocks using the same commercial electricity connection. Residents ended up paying for power consumed for construction across multiple blocks, draining common funds. In another case, after a fire incident in 2024, we were told Rera had no jurisdiction since ‘handover’ had already happened. That is absurd.” According to him, without a completion certificate, defect liability cannot be calculated from an arbitrary handover date. “Buyers are losing their statutory five-year protection because authorities are wrongly treating OC as final completion. This interpretation is completely flawed and deeply unfair to homebuyers,” Padmanabhachar added.
