Affordable Housing: CREDAI Seeks End to ₹45 Lakh Cap

CREDAI has asked India to remove the ₹45 lakh price ceiling from the affordable housing definition while retaining limits on home size. At its Kolkata NATCON event on 2 October 2026, president Shekhar Patel said he hoped policy changes would arrive within six months. That is an industry expectation, not a government deadline or an enacted rule.

Key takeaways

• CREDAI wants qualifying homes judged by floor area rather than a uniform price cap.
• Patel proposed keeping 60 square metres in metro cities and 90 square metres outside metros, according to reporters at the event.
• A government paper and parliamentary reply confirm that affordable housing reform is under consideration, but neither announces an October 2026 decision or six-month timetable.
• Removing a price cap could widen developer participation, but it raises a targeting question: would higher-priced small homes also receive benefits intended for lower-income buyers?

The critical distinction is between a proposal, a prediction and a rule. Patel’s account is news because developers are pressing for a change to a definition that shapes project economics. It does not mean a buyer, builder or lender can already apply a new threshold. Any revised eligibility test will have to be read in the eventual official text, alongside the particular tax or subsidy scheme to which it applies.

Affordable housing: what CREDAI actually asked for

The Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India, or CREDAI, is a builders’ association. It represents an interested industry constituency, rather than the government body empowered to set housing policy. At its NATCON conference in Kolkata, Patel argued that the ₹45 lakh price ceiling had become too restrictive where land and construction costs have climbed. Moneycontrol’s report from the event records his proposed alternative: remove the price ceiling, retain an area limit of 60 square metres in metropolitan cities and 90 square metres elsewhere.

Free Press Journal’s separately bylined account reported the same dimensions and the same request to discard the ₹45 lakh ceiling. The Times of India’s Kolkata reporting independently described affordable housing reform as a theme of the conference. These reports establish the industry’s public position. They do not establish that the government has accepted it.

That distinction corrects the earlier version of this article, which portrayed a revision as confirmed and gave a firm completion date. Patel said he was in contact with housing and finance authorities and NITI Aayog, and expressed hope for changes within six months. Hope is not a gazette notification. We found no October government notice committing to that timetable.

Why the price ceiling matters to builders

A national price threshold treats very different land markets as if they had the same costs. In a high-priced urban location, even a compact flat can exceed ₹45 lakh before the developer has made a profit. In a cheaper location, the same threshold may be less constraining. CREDAI’s proposed size-only test is meant to let smaller dwellings qualify despite local price differences. That is the association’s economic argument, not evidence that every flat above ₹45 lakh is affordable to its intended buyer.

Patel also cited land, taxes and approvals as constraints on supply. Those claims need attribution because the association benefits from a wider eligibility category. The Economic Times’ PTI-carried account reported Patel’s statement that developers face heavy taxes; that copy is useful context but is not counted as an additional independent newsroom report here. No national cost calculation in the material reviewed proves that a particular ₹45 lakh project is unviable, so the claim remains an industry position.

The source also matters for another figure. Moneycontrol attributed to CREDAI an estimate that affordable homes account for roughly 14% of residential sales. It is not presented here as an independently audited national measure. Different research groups classify affordability by different price bands, cities and time periods. A reader should not compare such percentages without checking the underlying definitions.

What the government has actually put on record

A 9 February 2026 parliamentary reply published by the Press Information Bureau says NITI Aayog released a comprehensive affordable housing framework in December 2025 and shared it with stakeholders. It says PMAY-Urban 2.0 supports states and union territories that formulate affordable housing policies to draw in private participation. It also explains the scheme’s beneficiary-led construction, housing partnership, rental housing and interest subsidy routes. This is evidence of continuing policy work, not proof that an October national revision is approved.

The same official reply sets out a separate interest subsidy test: for its specified beneficiaries, household income may be up to ₹9 lakh, the loan up to ₹25 lakh and the property value up to ₹35 lakh, with subsidy calculated on the first ₹8 lakh of the loan. These numbers are scheme-specific. They should not be mixed with the ₹45 lakh price ceiling cited in the CREDAI discussion as though a single threshold governed every housing incentive. Eligibility for a buyer depends on the exact programme, state rules and lender assessment.

A December 2025 CREDAI newsletter records the association’s proposal to revise area norms and remove value-based caps during a NITI Aayog consultation. It also says NITI Aayog and the housing ministry launched a framework that month. This first-party association record shows the October demand did not appear from nowhere. It still does not turn Patel’s hoped-for six months into a government promise.

For an official decision, watch for a ministry release, published scheme amendment, tax notification or government circular identifying both the threshold and the programme it changes. Until then, a seller’s claim that a property will receive future affordable-housing benefits is speculative. Buyers should ask which current rule applies at the point of purchase, not rely on the expectation described at a trade conference.

The real policy trade-off: supply versus targeting

A size-only definition might help a developer offer compact homes in expensive districts without being excluded solely because the land makes them cost more than ₹45 lakh. Yet a compact home at a high price can still be out of reach for a household the policy intends to support. The design question is whether a size test alone identifies the target group well enough, or whether a revised scheme needs regional prices, buyer income criteria or other safeguards.

This is an analytical implication of CREDAI’s proposal, not a claim that officials have decided on a particular compromise. The original article described supposed city-specific caps and a committee timetable without a verifiable government document. Those details have been removed. An eventual policy could differ from the developers’ request, leave some existing ceilings intact, or apply changes to only one tax or subsidy pathway. Neither industry optimism nor a news headline resolves that uncertainty.

The distinction also matters for public finances. If a fiscal concession becomes available to more homes, its cost and distribution may change. Conversely, an overly narrow test could leave developers with little incentive to build units that households can actually buy. Government would need to weigh supply, fiscal exposure and household eligibility using evidence. The public documents reviewed here describe housing-support mechanisms, but do not publish an October 2026 assessment of CREDAI’s exact size-only proposal.

For developers, the practical question is not merely whether a flat can be labelled affordable. It is whether the project’s financing, approvals and eventual buyers qualify under the particular rules in force. For lenders, underwriting still depends on borrower income and repayment capacity. For buyers, a larger supply category will not automatically lower the purchase price or the monthly loan payment. These are separate links in the chain, and each can fail independently.

For context on the industry’s broader construction claims, see Lapaas Voice’s separate report on India’s housing construction pipeline. Our article on Delhi-NCR housing prices covers a different market measure. Both should be read with their source and date, rather than treated as proof of a national affordable-housing policy change.

What to watch next

The next meaningful milestone is an official text, not another expectation at a conference. It should specify which housing definition changes, whether the ₹45 lakh ceiling is replaced, who qualifies, the effective date and whether transitional projects retain prior treatment. If a tax rule is involved, its legal notification matters. If a PMAY-U 2.0 pathway changes, its scheme instructions matter. Until such documents appear, the currently published rules remain the basis for decisions.

Reporters should also ask CREDAI to publish the cost evidence behind its proposal, including differences across cities, and ask the government how it will prevent benefits from flowing to buyers outside the intended income groups. Those questions can be answered without presuming the outcome. CREDAI’s request raises a real business-policy issue, but the date and design of any reform remain open.

Frequently asked questions

Has India removed the ₹45 lakh affordable-housing cap?

No. CREDAI has requested its removal, but no official October 2026 notification removing it was found in the records reviewed for this article. Confirm the threshold applicable to your specific scheme and transaction.

Did the government promise a new policy within six months?

No such promise is established by the cited official records. CREDAI president Shekhar Patel said he hoped for policy changes in that period. It is a forecast from an industry association.

What size limits did CREDAI propose?

At the Kolkata event, Patel called for an area-only test of 60 square metres in metro cities and 90 square metres elsewhere, according to Moneycontrol and Free Press Journal. Those figures are the association’s request, not newly enacted eligibility rules.

Why do some government housing schemes use a ₹35 lakh limit?

The February 2026 parliamentary reply describes a ₹35 lakh property-value condition for a particular PMAY-U 2.0 interest-subsidy route. Different programmes have different thresholds. One scheme’s number should not be substituted for another’s.

Sources and method: We checked the dated government reply, CREDAI’s first-party newsletter and NATCON event record. The October remarks were cross-checked against original reports from Moneycontrol, Free Press Journal and The Times of India. No official six-month commitment was identified.