UP RERA Agreement for Sale: 8 Clauses Tested in the Exam

Why the Agreement for Sale is a graded topic, not background reading

The UPRERA Agreement for Sale (ATS 2018) is a prescribed source document in the UP RERA exam bundle, and the questions that come from it are not general knowledge. They test whether you know what the model contract actually guarantees the allottee and what a builder is not allowed to strip out.

The legal spine is Section 13 of the RERA Act, 2016. Section 13(2) lists what any Agreement for Sale must contain: project specifications, the payment schedule, the possession date, and the rates of interest payable by both the promoter and the allottee in case of default. If a clause in a builder's draft conflicts with a RERA provision, it is void. That single principle is where most exam traps live.

Below are the eight clauses that come up most often. Before you sit the paper, open the UPRERA_ATS_2018.pdf and read the exact clause numbering yourself, because the numbering in a builder's version will not always match.

Carpet area, and why super built-up area is off the table

The ATS must state the area sold as carpet area, defined as the net usable floor area of the flat. Under RERA, a property can no longer be marketed or sold on 'super built-up area' terms. The number that governs the price is the carpet area, full stop.

Why it appears in the exam: candidates confuse three figures, carpet, built-up and super built-up, and the paper tests whether you know which one is legally binding. It is the carpet area.

The common trap: a question will quote a brochure that advertised a flat in super built-up terms and ask whether that is compliant. It is not. The brochure figure has no standing once the registered ATS is signed on carpet area. If you want to sanity-check the loading a builder is applying between carpet and saleable area, run the numbers through the loading percentage calculator before you explain it to a buyer.

The 10% advance cap and when the ATS gets executed

A developer cannot accept more than 10% of the property cost as an advance or application fee before a written, registered Agreement for Sale is executed. That is Section 13(1), and it sets the sequence: booking amount within the cap first, registered ATS next, the rest of the money only after.

Why it is examinable: the paper likes to reverse the order. A question will describe a builder collecting 30% at booking with no signed agreement and ask if it is permitted. It is not.

The misconception to watch: the 10% is a ceiling on what can be taken before the ATS, not a target to collect at booking. A broker who tells a client the developer is 'entitled' to 10% upfront has misread it. We have covered the mechanics of the advance cap in detail separately, so treat this clause as the trigger point for everything that follows in the payment schedule.

Construction-linked milestones and the binding possession date

The ATS carries a payment schedule tied to construction stages, so an allottee pays as the building actually rises, not on the promoter's cash-flow convenience. Section 13(2) requires that schedule to be in the agreement.

The possession date in the ATS is legally binding. It is not an estimate, and it is not the 'expected handover' line a sales team quotes. When the promoter misses it, the allottee's right to delay interest is triggered from that date under Section 18.

Why the exam cares: candidates treat the possession date as soft. The paper tests the opposite. A registered ATS date that passes without possession is a default, and the remedy is statutory. To see how the interest builds from a missed date, the RERA delay interest calculator shows the working. The trap: force majeure. A genuine, documented event can extend the timeline, but a vaguely worded builder clause cannot be used to erase the date. Read the specific wording in the model ATS rather than assuming the builder's version matches it.

The SBI MCLR+2% rate that cuts both ways

If the promoter delays possession, interest is payable to the allottee at SBI MCLR plus 2%. If the allottee delays payment, the same rate applies to them. The rate is symmetrical, and that symmetry is the whole point of the clause.

Why it is a favourite in the exam: the paper tests whether you know the rate runs both directions at the same margin. A builder draft that charges the buyer 18% for late payment while paying the buyer a lower rate on delayed possession is diluting a RERA right, and that clause can be struck down.

The trap: candidates remember 'MCLR+2%' but attach it to only one party. Read the question carefully. If it describes an asymmetric rate, the answer is that the agreement is non-compliant. This is one of the cleaner clauses to score on if you hold the two-way principle in your head and don't get distracted by the specific percentage a builder quotes.

Five-year defect liability and the site visit right

The defect liability period under RERA is five years from the date of possession. If a structural defect or workmanship issue shows up in that window, the promoter must fix it at no extra cost, and the model position is that the rectification is done within 30 days of the allottee notifying it.

The trap here: candidates confuse the five-year liability window with the 30-day fix window. They are two different clocks. Five years is how long the right lasts; 30 days is how quickly a notified defect must be addressed.

Separately, the ATS gives the allottee the right to visit the project site to assess development progress. It sounds minor, but a builder clause barring or heavily restricting site visits dilutes a granted right and can be challenged. For brokers, this is practical too: your client is entitled to walk the site, and a developer refusing access is a signal worth flagging. Both these points sit close to the statutory duties tested in the UP RERA compliance material.

Cancellation, refund, and the clause that cannot be diluted

When an allottee withdraws without any fault on the promoter's side, the ATS allows the promoter to forfeit the booking amount, and the balance is refunded under the mechanics set out in the agreement. Read the exact forfeiture and refund language in the UPRERA_ATS_2018.pdf, because builder versions often try to widen what counts as 'forfeitable'.

The trap: candidates assume the promoter can keep whatever the builder's own agreement says. They cannot. If the builder's clause forfeits far more than the booking amount, or ties up the refund indefinitely, it conflicts with the model position and is challengeable.

The rule that ties all eight clauses together: any builder clause that limits or dilutes a right granted under the Model ATS can be struck down. The Model ATS is the floor of allottee protection, not the ceiling. A deviation may add to the allottee's rights; it may never reduce them. Hold that principle and most ATS questions answer themselves. When you are ready to test it under time, work through a timed UP RERA mock test and see which clause trips you up.