Tribunal slams parallel proceedings as ‘forum shopping’, sets aside MahaRERA order
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has delivered a landmark ruling clarifying that homebuyers who first approach a **civil court for property remedies cannot later pursue identical reliefs under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
In a detailed judgment delivered on 22 December 2025, the tribunal held that pursuing multiple forums for the same relief — a practice known as forum shopping — is legally unsustainable and amounts to an abuse of process.
The case involved a redevelopment project in Andheri (East), Mumbai, where buyers had simultaneously filed civil suits in the City Civil Court, Dindoshi and later lodged RERA complaints with MahaRERA — only to be rebuffed by MahaREAT on procedural grounds.
Background: Dispute Over Eco Heights Redevelopment
The dispute centres on a redevelopment project known as “Eco Heights” on land at Nityanand Nagar, Andheri (East). The property was owned by Shree Nityanand Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., which entered into a Development Agreement dated 18 August 2009 with Zenal Construction Pvt. Ltd.
A joint venture (JV) — Etco Zenal Developers — comprising Zenal Construction and **Etco Builders’ director Ramesh D. Shah — was formed to carry out the redevelopment. Flats and commercial premises were offered for sale, and several buyers — including Bhavna Ashvin Jhaveri, Ashvin Hirendra Jhaveri, Saumil A. Jhaveri, Mugdha S. Jhaveri, and Mehul P. Mistry — made substantial payments under registered agreements for sale, with possession dates ranging from late 2015 to 2016.
Termination and Transfer of Promoter Status
In 2015, the society purportedly terminated the original development agreement with Zenal Construction and appointed Etco Builders Pvt. Ltd. as the new promoter.
Buyers were concerned that this transfer — which they alleged was a camouflage to avoid liabilities — would jeopardise their rights, including:
- Possession of units
- Rights under agreements for sale
- Entitlement to interest for delayed possession
Parallel Legal Proceedings — Civil Suits and RERA Complaints
Civil Court Action in 2016
The buyers filed Civil Suits Nos. 744–748 of 2016 in the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, seeking:
- Specific performance of agreements for sale
- Recognition of their rights to the flats
- Interim protection against transfer or encumbrance
The civil court granted a prima facie interim order recognizing the buyers’ rights.
RERA Complaints in 2019
Despite the pending civil suits, the buyers later approached MahaRERA in 2019, filing multiple complaints seeking:
- Declaration of allottee status
- Directions to hand over possession
- Interest for delayed possession under Section 18 of RERA Act 2016
- Injunction against third-party rights
MahaRERA allowed the complaints in an order dated 21 March 2022 — prompting appeals by both buyers and promoters before MahaREAT.
MahaREAT’s Core Legal Finding: Forum Shopping Is Not Permissible
The key legal issue MahaREAT was asked to determine was not whether buyers had valid claims, but whether their RERA complaints could proceed despite parallel civil suits with identical reliefs already pending.
In its unanimous judgment, the tribunal held:
- The reliefs claimed in the civil suits and the RERA complaints were identical
- The civil suits were filed before the RERA complaints
- Buyers did not withdraw their civil suits after filing RERA complaints
- Pursuing the same reliefs in multiple forums amounts to forum shopping, which courts do not allow
MahaREAT referenced established Supreme Court precedent to underline that a litigant cannot “shuffle from forum to forum” in hopes of obtaining favourable results.
Justice (Member J) Shriram R. Jagtap and Dr Rajagopal Devara (Member A) observed that since the civil suits and RERA complaints conflicted in subject matter and claimed the same remedies, the RERA proceedings were not maintainable.
Tribunal Sets Aside MahaRERA Order, Dismisses Appeals
Given this finding, MahaREAT ruled:
- The impugned MahaRERA order dated 21 March 2022 is set aside
- RERA appeals filed by the allottees (buyers) are dismissed
- Appeals filed by the developer and society are partly allowed
- Civil suits remain the appropriate forum for the dispute
- Parties shall bear their own costs
The tribunal’s order did not decide on the merits of possession, interest, or developer liability. Instead, it focused squarely on the procedural question of maintainability.
Why This Ruling Matters
1. Procedural Clarity for Homebuyers
Buyers across India often file multiple cases in different forums — Civil Court, Consumer Court, and MahaRERA — seeking the same reliefs. This ruling emphasises that:
- Once a civil suit for the same relief is pending,
- RERA complaints seeking identical outcomes will be dismissed
This prevents abuse of the judicial process and reduces unnecessary litigation.
2. Strategic Considerations for Future RERA Cases
The judgment serves as a caution to:
- Homebuyers
- Legal practitioners
- RERA authorities
about the pitfalls of parallel litigation. If your remedy lies in civil court first, you may lose the chance to pursue RERA claims on the same issue.
3. Impact on Developer and Society Disputes
The ruling clarifies that disputes over:
- Termination of development agreements
- Transfer of promoter status
- Rights under agreements for sale
Should be resolved in the first forum where the compliant claim was initiated.
Expert Take
Legal analysts note this decision reflects a trend where tribunals are taking a strict procedural view to avoid conflicting judgments and inconsistent enforcement of rights. It also underscores that RERA is not a catch-all remedy when identical disputes are already under adjudication elsewhere.
