She Paid Her EMIs, Rented Out Her Flat — Then Watched It Disappear

Ananya Sen had done everything right. She had taken a home loan from India's largest public sector bank, bought a flat from a registered developer, received formal possession, found a tenant, and paid her EMIs faithfully every month. By any measure, she was the model borrower. Then, without warning, her flat was cancelled.

What followed — as documented in communications, written statements, and bank records reviewed by this publication — is a story about how an ordinary homebuyer can be trapped between a builder and a bank, each pointing at the other, while both move quietly toward a conclusion she never agreed to.

How it began?

Sen purchased a residential apartment in Bengaluru through a home loan sanctioned by the State Bank of India's RACPC Banaswadi branch. The flat was sold by Sowparnika Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., one of Karnataka's active real estate developers. A tripartite loan agreement — standard practice in builder-financed housing — was signed between Sen, Sowparnika, and SBI.

Possession was formally handed over. Bhattacharya moved in a tenant, lawfully and in the open, and began servicing her EMIs. The arrangement was, in every visible way, normal.

At some point, her loan account briefly slipped into NPA — Non-Performing Asset — classification. Home loan NPAs are not uncommon, and RBI guidelines provide a well-established path for regularization. Sen's account followed that path. SBI regularized it. The bank formally classified the account as "Standard" and put that categorization in writing.

Document reviewed by this publication — SBI communication to Sen

"As on today the status of your Home Loan is Standard."

That should have been the end of the trouble. It was, instead, the beginning of it.

Guided in one direction, moved in another

After the account was regularized, Sen says SBI officials repeatedly told her there was "no issue from bank side." She was actively guided — verbally, by those same officials — to proceed toward registering the flat and collecting her original title documents from Sowparnika Builders. She continued paying her EMIs. She did everything she was told to do.

Meanwhile, Sowparnika Builders was still citing the earlier NPA status as grounds for cancellation of the flat — a NPA that the bank had already reversed on record.

"Without the active operational support of the financing bank, a developer cannot realistically reverse a situation already involving possession, financing and tenancy."

— A Bengaluru-based builder, speaking anonymously

Then came what Sen describes as a dramatic and unexplained shift. SBI introduced an entirely new basis for adverse action: a purported "material breach of trust" linked to a disputed payment document that, the bank alleged, bore Sen's signature and was retroactively connected to a transaction dated January 7.

Sen categorically denies the signature is hers. She further alleges that neither SBI nor Sowparnika disclosed the existence of this document to her at any point during the period when she was being guided toward registration and continued EMI servicing.

A key question about the money

The payment records in this case raise questions that neither Respondent has publicly answered. Sen alleges that builder records reflected payments she had made exceeding Rs. 1,00,000. Yet SBI was separately informed, allegedly by the builder, that only Rs. 20,000 had been paid.

If only Rs. 20,000 had truly been paid, how was possession ever granted? How did a tenant come to lawfully occupy the flat? How did SBI disburse a home loan for a unit on which a developer was claiming next to nothing had been received? These questions remain unanswered.

Sen's position is that the Rs. 20,000 figure is a retroactive fabrication — a number introduced only after the original NPA-based rationale for cancellation collapsed when her account was formally regularized.

The timeline of escalation

Stage 1

Flat purchased, home loan sanctioned by SBI RACPC Banaswadi. Tripartite agreement signed. Possession handed over by Sowparnika Builders.

Stage 2

Loan account briefly classified as NPA. Sen regularizes the account. SBI formally categorizes it as "Standard" in writing.

Stage 3

SBI officials tell her there is "no issue from bank side." She is guided toward registration and document collection. EMIs continue.

Stage 4

Sowparnika Builders unilaterally cancels the flat, citing the earlier — already reversed — NPA status. The builder never notifies Sen of a separate disputed document.

Stage 5

SBI introduces "material breach" allegation linked to a disputed document Bhattacharya says is forged. Contradictory payment figures — Rs. 1 lakh vs. Rs. 20,000 — are alleged before the bank.

Stage 6

The lawful tenant is subjected to alleged intimidation, repeated disturbances, and disruption of water and electricity supply. The tenant vacates under duress — without any court order.

Stage 7

Sen escalates to K-RERA, the Banking Ombudsman, homebuyers' associations, and legal authorities. This publication begins reviewing the documents.

The tenant who had to leave

The dispute did not stay between Sen and the two institutions. Written statements reviewed by this publication allege that the tenant lawfully occupying the flat — who had no part in any of these financial arrangements — was subjected to repeated pressure to vacate. There was no court order. There was no legal eviction process.

What there was, the statements allege, was intimidation: repeated disturbances, and the deliberate disruption of water and electricity supply to the occupied flat. The tenant ultimately vacated, in distress, without any legal process having been followed.

The circular trap

Throughout this period, Sen says she was caught in a loop. When she approached SBI, she was redirected to the builder. When she approached the builder, she was redirected back to SBI. Internally — and without transparent disclosure — foreclosure proceedings were allegedly being moved forward.

This is what advocates for homebuyers in Karnataka call the tripartite trap: a structure in which the borrower bears full EMI liability from the moment of loan disbursement, but holds neither complete title nor legal security until registration is complete. The builder controls the documents. The bank controls the money. The borrower controls nothing.

"Can a bank regularize an account, continue EMI servicing and guide a borrower toward registration — while simultaneously moving toward foreclosure on grounds never disclosed?"

— Sen, in her formal complaint

The larger picture

Sen's case arrives at a moment when the Supreme Court of India has repeatedly expressed concern about what it describes as a builder-bank nexus — opaque financing structures that leave homebuyers exposed to the worst of both relationships. The apex court has also permitted widening CBI investigations into alleged collusion between builders and financial institutions in real-estate subvention arrangements across the country.

Consumer advocates say Sen's case exemplifies a structural flaw that RERA was designed to address but has not fully closed: the gap between possession and registered title, during which a borrower pays EMIs on an asset they do not yet legally own — and in which a determined builder and a compliant bank can move to reverse everything.

At the time of publication, neither SBI RACPC Banaswadi nor Sowparnika Builders had issued a public response to the specific allegations raised in this report. This publication contacted both institutions for comment. No response was received.

Ananya Sen has paid her EMIs right up to last month. She only claims, barely a week back, the loan account was mysteriously foreclosed with a 7 days notice, as she alleges the full amount was directly taken by the bank from the builder. If even she had to foreclose, how would she justify paying to SBI for a unit that stands cancelled by the builder by SBI’s instructions. She claims during the whole struggle, the builder protected the bank and the bank protected the builder.

· · ·

Editor's note: Documents referenced in this report — including SBI communications, written statements from the tenant, and complaint filings — have been reviewed by this publication. The allegations in this report have not been independently verified by a court of law. Both SBI RACPC Banaswadi and Sowparnika Builders were contacted for comment prior to publication. Note:Borrower’s name is changed to protect privacy.