Rental deal in Delhi: ₹17,540,000 purchase, ₹58,510/month — sanity check after 116 days

[sol.east]

A 4.0% gross yield leaves very little room for mistakes. The property is described as a 4-bed coastal home in Delhi, priced at ₹17,540,000, with projected rent of ₹58,510 a month. Before vacancy, tenant turnover, management, maintenance, insurance, property tax and major repairs, that income already looks tight.

It has also remained available for 116 days. That may offer negotiating leverage, but it could equally point to an issue with the price or description. I still need to clarify what “coastal” means here and test the rent against real demand. For this deal, would you focus first on verifying rent and turnover, or on obtaining exact management and property-tax figures? Financing terms may be the hardest part to change once I proceed.

 

[writesAndLedger]

At only 4.0% gross, tenant turnover may hurt more than any single recurring bill. One vacant month removes ₹58,510 before reletting or repair costs, so I would model turnover separately from ordinary vacancy. Is the rent based on an actual tenant offer or just the asking estimate? Also, are you buying with cash or debt? Financing could turn a marginal positive return into negative cash flow.

 

[yogaAndStory]

I wouldn’t treat the 116 days as purely negative; it may create room to negotiate the purchase price. But “coastal home in Delhi” needs clarification because the description could affect what maintenance and insurance assumptions are sensible. I’d also verify the exact property-tax position rather than inserting a generic percentage. At this gross yield, small errors in either rent or ownership costs matter.

 

[emery_leases]

Annual gross rent is ₹702,120. Build the decision from that cash amount, not the 4.0% headline: subtract a realistic vacancy allowance, management, property tax, insurance, recurring work and the larger-repair reserve, then add financing payments separately. Run a second case with lower rent, one turnover and an unexpected repair in the same year. If that case requires optimistic resale growth to look acceptable, the rental return alone probably is not compensating you.