UP RERA’s transfer charge reforms

India’s real estate landscape has evolved since the introduction of the regulatory framework established under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. State-level regulatory interventions have further strengthened this framework by addressing consumer concerns. In a significant move to curb irregularities in administrative charges imposed by promoters and developers, the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) amended regulation 47 of the Uttar Pradesh RERA (General) Regulations, 2019, through a notification dated 24 March 2026.

Prior to this reform, allottees encountered financial and practical challenges during succession and transfer processes, including arbitrary and excessive transfer fees, insistence on execution of unnecessary documents, unclear transfer procedures, delays in updating ownership records, and impositions of charges lacking a clear legal basis. Even in ordinary transfers by way of sale or conveyance, promoters frequently imposed arbitrary and substantial charges.

Regulation 47(c) streamlines transfers, succession

The abovementioned amendment aims to achieve continuity in contractual responsibilities, streamline administrative requirements and cap transfer charges arbitrarily imposed on homebuyers. Please see below the key highlights of this amendment:

1. UP RERA has paved the way for an assignment of an existing allotment, dispensing with the need to execute a fresh agreement. The original agreement for sale or lease executed between the promoter and the erstwhile allottee shall be assigned to the transferee and would remain valid and binding on them. An endorsement on the existing agreement, coupled with an update to the promoter’s records reflecting the transferee/successor-in-interest or assignee of the allottee, is sufficient for this purpose.
2. In case of the allottee’s death, the promoter may charge only a nominal processing fee not exceeding INR1,000 (USD10.50) for effecting a transfer to the successor-in-interest. To facilitate this transfer, the following documents are required: (i) death certificate of the original allottee; (ii) succession certificate; and (iii) no-objection certificates from each surviving legal heir.
3. In cases involving transfers to non-family members or third-party assignees, the promoter may levy a processing fee not exceeding INR25,000. The prescribed cap marks a significant departure from the practices adopted by certain promoters, who historically imposed transfer charges per square foot, or as a percentage of the value of the unit or the consideration payable.

Tribunal curbs arbitrary transfer charges

Courts and regulatory authorities have on several occasions examined the imbalance in bargaining power between promoters and homebuyers, particularly where standard-form agreements permit promoters to impose onerous and unilateral obligations.

In Sharad Avasthi v Pivotal Infrastructure Private Limited, the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (HREAT) adopted a firm stance against arbitrary transfer charges. In that case, the developer charged INR150 per square foot despite the agreement stipulating a charge of INR50 per square foot.

The HREAT held the enhanced charge to be “highly exorbitant, unjustified and illegal”, and directed a refund of the excess amount. The HREAT further rejected the developer’s contention that the buyers had voluntarily accepted the impugned charge, recognising that such undertakings are often obtained under circumstances where homebuyers possess limited leverage.

UP RERA reforms boost transparency

UP RERA’s recent amendments represent a significant step towards strengthening consumer protection and improving transparency in the real estate sector. By capping transfer charges, simplifying succession procedures and eliminating the need for fresh agreements on transfers, the regulation addresses concerns that have historically burdened homebuyers.

From a regulatory perspective, the amendments establish a framework that curtails arbitrary practices while balancing the legitimate administrative interests of promoters. Going forward, additional guidelines regarding the documentation and procedural requirements applicable to succession and third-party transfers may further minimise ambiguity.

Rohit Bajaj is a partner, Shridha Malhotra is a principal associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. Abhimanyu Chattree and Arpita Mohapatra, associates, also contributed to the article