In a classic case highlighting the vulnerabilities of informal real estate bookings in India, a Mumbai homebuyer couple who paid nearly ₹39 lakh for a flat in 2005–2006 finally received relief from the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) and its Appellate Tribunal — despite the death of the director who handled the transaction and the remaining directors’ denial of any knowledge.
The story revolves around Mr. Harishankar Kankani and Mrs. Pramila Harishankar Kankani, who in late 2005 approached M/s. Reddy Builders & Developers for a 3BHK flat (No. 804 on the 8th floor of proposed Sale Building No. 1) in their upcoming project in Goregaon West, Mumbai (later registered as “34 Park Estate” or “Oregon” under MahaRERA No. P51800006729).
They issued multiple cheques totaling ₹38,99,740 to the firm, handed over to the then-partner/director, the late Mr. P.V. Sreeram Reddy. In return, receipts dated 27 December 2005 and 5 January 2006 were issued, explicitly mentioning the flat number, floor, building details, location (CTS No. 49(P) and 50, Village Pahadi Goregaon), and the total consideration amount. These documents clearly acknowledged the payment as a “booking amount” for the allotment of the specific flat.
Tragically, Mr. P.V. Sreeram Reddy passed away on 28 March 2015. The surviving partners (including those inducted around 2005) claimed complete ignorance of this transaction. They asserted that the late director had never informed them, no formal agreement for sale was executed, and no such flat existed in the project’s records as per their understanding. When the Kankanis followed up in 2019–2020 with letters inquiring about the project status and asserting their claim, the promoters did not respond, effectively denying the allotment.
Frustrated, the homebuyers approached MahaRERA in 2021 by filing a complaint under Sections 13 (execution of agreement for sale) and 18 (interest/compensation for delay) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. They sought either registration of the agreement for the booked flat or a refund with interest.
After hearing both sides, MahaRERA (through Hon’ble Member Dr. Vijay Satbir Singh) passed an order on 19 April 2021. The Authority upheld the validity of the booking based on the receipts (which detailed the flat specifics) and directed the promoters to:
- Either allot an equivalent flat (same area) to the complainants and execute/register an agreement for sale, or
- Refund the entire amount paid along with interest.
This effectively recognized the homebuyers as legitimate allottees and rejected the promoters’ claim of no valid transaction.
Aggrieved, the promoters (M/s. Reddy Builders & Developers & Ors.) appealed to the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) in Appeal No. AT006000000053249/2021, challenging the Authority’s order on multiple grounds, including that the receipts did not constitute a valid allotment, contradictions with prior coordinate Bench rulings, improper admission of documents at the appellate stage, and lack of consideration of their submissions.
The Appellate Tribunal (Bench comprising Shri Shriram R. Jagtap, Member (J), and Dr. Rajagopal Devara, Member (A)) dismissed the appeal on 15 July 2024, upholding the MahaRERA order in full.
The promoters then filed a review application (M.A. No. 9 of 2024), arguing errors apparent on record — such as non-consideration of coordinate Bench precedents (e.g., cases where ambiguous/incomplete allotment letters were held invalid), failure to refer conflicting views to a Larger Bench, and improper reliance on “new” documents (like a floor plan) produced by the allottees.
On 18 February 2026, the same Appellate Tribunal rejected the review application. It emphasized that the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC (applied analogously) is extremely narrow: limited to patent, self-evident errors on the face of the record, not re-hearing or re-appreciation of evidence/arguments. The Tribunal found:
- No error apparent — the coordinate Bench cases cited by promoters were factually distinguishable (e.g., no specific flat details in those matters, unlike here where receipts explicitly mentioned flat no., floor, area, and consideration).
- Documents produced in reply to the appeal were permissible (from promoters’ own records with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority; already referenced in the original complaint; Appellate discretion under CPC Order 41 Rule 27).
- The promoters’ grounds amounted to re-agitating settled issues, which is impermissible in review.
Thus, the Appellate Tribunal confirmed that the original appellate dismissal stood, reinforcing MahaRERA’s directive: honour the equivalent allotment and execute the agreement, or refund with interest.
This case serves as an important reminder for homebuyers to insist on formal, registered agreements early on, while also underscoring RERA’s protective role — even for older, pre-RERA bookings backed by clear payment acknowledgments. It highlights how authorities can pierce claims of “ignorance” post-director death when documentary evidence supports the transaction.
Also Read: 📰 Homebuyers Beware: India’s Housing Boom May Have Peaked — Construction Delays Raise Red Flags
