By a circular dated June 17, 2026 (‘BMC Circular/Circular’), the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) introduced temporary water conservation measures across Mumbai, citing the depletion of reservoir reserves to 10.35 per cent following the delayed monsoon, reportedly affected by El Niño conditions. The restrictions include disconnecting existing construction-related water connections, suspending new construction-related water connections, temporarily cutting water supply to swimming pools, and reducing supply to industrial, commercial and sports establishments by 20 per cent. While these measures seek to conserve a scarce civic resource, construction is among the first of affected sectors. The Circular does not impose a blanket prohibition on construction but restricts access to municipal water, which is essential to site operations. This raises issues concerning project delays, contractual obligations, force majeure and the relief available under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) and private contracts.Standard force majeure clauses in construction and real-estate contracts commonly cover government notifications, orders, circulars or other actions resulting in construction delay. Similarly, the standard agreement for sale commonly allows the promoter to seek a reasonable extension of time for handing over possession where the delay arises from government or a public authority action. Based on the wording of such clauses, the suspension or disconnection of water under the BMC Circular may be characterised as force majeure, subject to the language of the relevant contract and evidence of its actual impact on construction timelines and possession obligations.The statutory concept of force majeure under Section 6 of RERA is narrower. It permits extension of project registration only for force majeure generally defined with reference to events caused by nature affecting regular development. An event that qualifies as force majeure under a private contract may not automatically qualify under RERA. Whether water shortages and consequent BMC restrictions meet this statutory threshold remains uncertain and may be assessed cautiously by MahaRERA on an individual basis, against contemporaneous construction records. A developer may, nevertheless, rely on the resulting disruption to show that the construction schedule has been materially impacted and seek appropriate extension from MahaRERA. Any such extension would be at the discretion of MahaRERA depending upon the facts and circumstances of each project, the applicable regulations and any directions issued from time to time.The Circular is not the first instance of construction being affected by environmental or civic considerations. Restrictions under Graded Response Action Plan in Delhi-NCR offer a comparable precedent indicating that delays caused by binding statutory or regulatory directions may, in appropriate circumstances, differ from ordinary commercial risks. They may, in principle, form the basis for invocation of a force majeure and/or a claim for extension of time, provided the developer can show that construction was in fact affected by the specific restriction and that the restriction had a material impact on the project’s critical schedule. The Circular will not automatically justify an extension of project timelines. Any claim may be scrutinised against existing delays, the stage of construction and the developer’s mitigation effort. For instance, certain works may have continued despite the water cut, or the project may have already been delayed before the circular was issued. Regulators and courts may therefore consider the stage of construction when the restrictions came into effect, the wording of the relevant contractual force majeure and extension of time provisions, the statutory definition of force majeure under RERA where Section 6 is invoked, the duration and extent of actual disruption and the steps taken by the developer to mitigate the resulting delay.Developers should consider taking the following steps: (a) review the relevant contracts, particularly the force majeure and extension of time provisions; (b) issue timely notices to allottees, contractors, vendors and lenders, referring to the BMC Circular, any disconnection notices and the specific site works affected; and (c) where the impact is material, consider applying to MahaRERA for an extension under Section 6 with appropriate supporting documentation. There is no clear basis to assume an automatic city-wide extension unless supported by specific regulatory action or a project-specific order.The BMC Circular constitutes a genuine external disruption to construction activities in Mumbai. In appropriate cases, it may support applications for extension of time and assist developers in resisting delay-related charges or penalties for the period during which the disruption affected the project. However, it will not provide a blanket defence for all project delays. Ultimately, the availability and extent of any relief will depend on the contractual framework, the factual record, the extent of disruption, mitigation efforts and the approach adopted by MahaRERA and the courts.About the authors: Heena Chheda, Partner, Economic Laws Practice (ELP)Heena advises developers, investors, lenders and corporates on complex real estate transactions at ELP.Yash Modi, Principal AssociateYash advises clients on complex real estate and property transactions across a broad spectrum of asset classes at ELP.Dhriti Agarwal, AdvocateDhriti specialises in real estate and advises on regulatory and contractual matters affecting construction and project timelines.