If you bought a flat to live in and later rented it out, you are still a consumer and can still fight the builder in consumer court. Renting the flat afterwards does not, by itself, turn the purchase into a commercial deal. The Supreme Court confirmed this on 4 February 2026 and put the burden of proof on the builder, not on you.
| Myth | Fact |
|---|---|
| If I rent out my flat, I lose consumer-court protection. | You keep consumer status. The flat being leased later does not, by itself, prove a commercial purpose. |
| I have to prove I did not buy the flat to make money. | The builder has to prove you bought it for a commercial purpose. The onus is on them. |
| Earning rent automatically means commercial use. | Buying a home and later letting it out is not the same as buying to trade in property. |
Direct answer: A flat buyer does not lose “consumer” status merely because the flat was later leased out. The builder must prove the buyer purchased for a commercial purpose, and a single lease does not discharge that burden.
In Vinit Bahri v. MGF Developers Ltd, neutral citation 2026 INSC 114, decided 4 February 2026, the Supreme Court dealt with flat buyers whose complaint had been thrown out on the ground that they were not “consumers” because the flat was rented out.
The Court rejected that reasoning. It held that the dominant purpose at the time of purchase decides consumer status, not what the buyer did with the unit later. As the Court put it, the mere fact of leasing out the flat does not by itself show that the buyers purchased the property with the dominant purpose of engaging in commercial activity.
The case was decided under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section 2(1)(d), because the consumer complaint was filed in 2017, before the newer Act took over. The same “consumer” definition and the commercial-purpose carve-out continue today under the Consumer Protection Act 2019, Section 2(7), which governs flats bought now. So the principle applies to current buyers as well.
Important: This was a remand. The Supreme Court set aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order of 11 May 2023 and sent the complaint back to the NCDRC to be decided on merits. The Court did not award any money. The figures the buyers had claimed are still only claims to be argued before the NCDRC, not amounts awarded.
The single most useful part of this ruling is the burden of proof. The Court was clear: the onus of proving that a buyer falls within the commercial-purpose exception rests on the service provider, the builder, and not on the complainant.
What “commercial purpose” means. The law keeps out of consumer protection only those who buy goods or services to resell them or to run a profit-making trade on a large scale. Buying a flat to live in is not a commercial purpose. Even buying it as a personal investment or a future home is not automatically commercial.
The livelihood and self-employment exception. The law carves out a further protection. If a person buys something and uses it exclusively to earn a living by self-employment, that use is still treated as non-commercial. So a small owner is not pushed out of consumer court simply because the asset also earns income.
What this means for renting. One flat, leased out, is the ordinary conduct of a homeowner, not a property trade. To strip you of consumer status, the builder must produce evidence of a commercial pattern, such as buying multiple units to trade in. A bald assertion that “you rented it, so you are commercial” is not enough.
If you need facts the builder is hiding, such as completion or occupancy data held by a public authority, you can use a Right to Information request. Our AI RTI Drafter helps you write one in minutes.
Kashvi Pathak bought a flat in Gurugram in 2016 as a home, but a posting moved her city, so she rented it out while waiting for possession that never came on time. When she filed in consumer court, the builder argued she was an investor, not a consumer, because the flat was leased. Relying on the 2026 ruling, she replied that one rented flat does not make a commercial purpose and that the builder, not she, must prove otherwise. The builder produced no evidence of any property trade. Her complaint was allowed to proceed on merits. The lesson is simple: a lease is not a confession, and the proof burden sits with the builder.
No. Leasing the flat after you bought it does not, by itself, take away consumer status. The Supreme Court confirmed this in Vinit Bahri v. MGF Developers Ltd, 2026 INSC 114.
The builder. The Court held the onus of proving the commercial-purpose exception rests on the service provider, not on the buyer who is complaining.
Buying to resell or to run a profit-making property trade on a meaningful scale. Buying a flat to live in, or as a personal investment, is not commercial just because it later earns rent.
No. The Court sent the complaint back to the NCDRC to be decided on merits. The amounts the buyers mentioned are claims they must still prove, not money awarded.
This case was decided under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section 2(1)(d), because the complaint was filed in 2017. The same consumer definition and commercial-purpose carve-out continue under the Consumer Protection Act 2019, Section 2(7), for flats bought now.
Likely yes. A personal investment in a home is not the same as trading in property. The builder must show a genuine commercial pattern to push you out of consumer court.
Yes, if you use the asset exclusively to earn a living by self-employment. The law treats that use as non-commercial, so you keep consumer protection.
State in writing that the burden is on the builder under 2026 INSC 114, attach proof of your purpose at booking, and ask the forum to decide on merits.