Delhi 2-bed condo at ₹92,680,000 — how would you adjust the comparables?

[mapTheYard]

I’m considering a 2-bed condo in Delhi: approximately 190 m², average condition, asking ₹92,680,000. Light and location are its strongest points, while the finishes look dated and energy costs may be a concern. Demand appears genuine, but the insurance and maintenance bills could materially affect the overall value.

I have three asking-price comparables but only one completed sale. Would you adjust primarily for condition or floor area, and how would you avoid treating every extra square metre as equally valuable? Which missing fact—micro-location, lease length, service charges, parking or outdoor space—would most change your estimate?

I’m looking for a local reality check rather than a broad Delhi forecast, and I’ll obtain a formal local appraisal before relying on any figure.

 

[kit_reese]

The exact micro-location and building would change my view most. At this price, even nearby condos may not be comparable if access, outlook, noise or building upkeep differ.

I would anchor on the completed sale, then use the three listings only to test the likely upper limit. For 190 m², don’t apply the average price per square metre mechanically: the additional area may deserve a lower marginal rate unless it creates genuinely better rooms or layout.

 

[writesAndLedger]

What do the service charges include, and are there any planned major works? A condo that looks competitive on purchase price can become much less attractive once recurring charges and near-term building expenditure are included. I’d also want confirmation of parking and the tenure or remaining lease term, if applicable, before attempting a condition adjustment.

 

[runsAndEmber]

If all four properties are genuinely within the same immediate area, micro-location may not be the adjustment that drives this comparison. I would first check the completed sale’s date, floor, natural light, usable layout and condition; those differences could outweigh a small change of street.

The hardest features to alter are the floor, outlook and absence of useful outdoor space. Dated finishes are different because they can be priced from a defined scope of work. I would not apply a standard condition grade or percentage: obtain refurbishment estimates, then allow separately for disruption and uncertainty rather than assuming buyers deduct the exact cost.

How closely do the remaining lease term, parking and outdoor space match? A major mismatch in any one of those would change which sale I treated as the anchor.

 

[ada.heath]

A practical way to organise it:

1. Start with the completed sale and note its sale date, usable area, floor, condition, parking and outdoor space. 2. Reconcile whether the advertised 190 m² is measured on the same basis as the comparable. 3. Adjust separately for layout and usable rooms rather than area alone. 4. Add the known service charges, insurance and likely energy costs to a five-year ownership comparison. 5. Treat asking prices as evidence of seller expectations, not achieved value.

The area definition could be the sleeper issue here. A small measurement mismatch multiplied across 190 m² can distort the apparent comparison.

 

[EarlyBrick]

Also ask how long the three listings have been available and whether any have had price reductions. That won’t turn them into completed evidence, but it may show whether ₹92,680,000 is being tested or is close to where buyers are engaging. Without the comparable details, I’d avoid naming an adjustment range.