The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that a promoter cannot convert an IT building, sold as part of a registered mixed-use project, into a larger commercial building and load extra FSI on it without the prior written consent of two-thirds of the allottees.
In Appeal No. AT06/00804/2025, a bench of Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande on 16 September 2026 allowed the appeal of RA Residences Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Dadar East, against RA Associates and its partners. The Tribunal found a violation of Section 14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and imposed a penalty equal to 2% of the estimated project cost. It also held that conveyance to the society must follow the 2017 sanctioned plan shown to buyers, not the later enlarged commercial scheme.
The project, RA Residences (MahaRERA registration P51900001634), stands on CTS/Plot/Survey No. 2/12 at Plot No. 810, opposite Sharda Cinema, Dr B.A. Road, MMGS Marg, Dadar East. It comprises residential Wings A and B and a third building originally disclosed as an IT/office building (Wing C). The promoter firm is RA Associates of Mittal Tower, Nariman Point. The respondents include partners Sushil Kothari, Rajendra Kothari, Ashok Kothari, Vinay Kothari, Vivek Kothari, Varun Kothari and Chandraprakash Siroya.
When the project was registered on 29 July 2017, the promoter disclosed a plot of about 12,751 sq m, total built-up area of 33,772.40 sq m, Wings A and B as “RA Residences”, Wing C as “RA Business Park”, and 492 proposed parking spaces. The completion date first shown was 30 June 2018. It was later extended to 30 June 2019 and then to 31 March 2025. Part occupation certificates for the residential wings were issued on 23 June 2020, 15 December 2020 and 9 December 2021. The society of residential allottees was registered on 18 October 2022. The commercial building remains incomplete.
The 18 July 2017 sanctioned plan, which was shown to purchasers and formed part of their agreements for sale, showed about 30,540.77 sq m for the residential wings and 3,231.63 sq m for the IT building. Recreational open space was shown both on ground and on the podium. Required parking was 430 spaces; 492 were proposed. A clubhouse of about 376.86 sq m was also shown.
In January 2021 the promoter obtained a revised municipal plan. Total built-up area rose to 39,243.50 sq m. Residential built-up area moved only slightly, to 31,769.76 sq m — within the 5% band that planning authorities ordinarily permit. The third building, however, was recast for commercial use under DCPR 2034 and extra premium FSI under Regulation 30. Its built-up area jumped to about 7,457 sq m, more than double the 2017 IT component. Parking requirement rose to 467; 588 spaces were proposed.
The society told MahaRERA that buyers were induced by representations of completion by June 2018, solar power, rainwater harvesting, luxury amenities, a full ground-floor guest-parking layout, a 40,000 sq ft IT park, designated RG, gymnasiums, a glass rear façade, a single occupation certificate for the residential portion, and international-standard fire systems. It alleged unilateral plan changes, use of residual FSI without consent, delayed society formation, incomplete handover of documents, and fire-safety failures after a fire on 26 January 2023 on the 42nd floor of Wing A, when pipes burst, sprinklers failed and lifts were flooded.
The complaint sought completion of leftover works or a large deposit, handover of the project, injunctions against changed plans and third-party rights in the commercial building, documents, fire NOCs, parking details, and related reliefs. In its 7 July 2025 order, MahaRERA only partly allowed the complaint. It held that Section 14(2) had been violated, directed payment of Rs 5 lakh as costs, ordered uploading of permissions on the MahaRERA website, and asked the promoter to apply within 30 days to revive the registration that lapsed on 31 March 2025. Most other prayers were left undecided.
The society appealed. It argued that long extensions under Section 7(3) were used to amend plans without allottee consent; that conversion of the IT building into a commercial building was a change of use; that extra FSI of about 45,000 sq ft built-up area was exploited; that open RG was shifted to the podium; that 64 of 73 guest parking spaces were not handed over; that incomplete works had already cost the society about Rs 1.24 crore, with a larger estimate of nearly Rs 19.92 crore for balance amenities; and that about Rs 17.50 crore collected as clubhouse and advance maintenance had not been accounted for. It also sought conveyance as per the 2017 plan.
The promoters said the residential wings were complete, members were in occupation without protest, maintenance had been handed over in April 2023, fire NOCs were in place, and many internal fire-sprinkler changes were made by flat owners themselves. They argued that COVID-era force majeure justified extensions, that Wing C was an independent structure so MOFA Section 7A allowed plan changes without residential allottees’ consent, that clubhouse relocation benefited residents, that podium RG was permitted under DCPR and environmental clarifications, that extra FSI and change of user were sanctioned after payment of premium, that amended plans were uploaded on the MahaRERA website, that guest parking is not a statutory mandate, and that conveyance under the agreement is due only after the entire project, including the commercial building, is complete.
The Tribunal rejected the “independent structure” defence for RERA purposes. It compared the 2017 and 2021 plans and held that the IT building disclosed at registration and in the agreements was part of the same project. Changing its use and substantially increasing its FSI was a material alteration of the sanctioned plan and layout. Section 14 therefore required previous written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees, other than the promoter. That consent was not obtained.
On the three issues framed, the Tribunal answered:
- Consent of two-thirds of the allottees was required for construction of Wing C / the commercial building as approved in the 2021 revised plan.
- The promoters did violate Section 14 of RERA.
- The promoters must execute conveyance in favour of the society as per the approved plan of 2017.
- The MahaRERA order required interference.
The Tribunal imposed a penalty of 2% of the estimated project cost under Section 61 for the Section 14 breach.
The ruling matters for mixed-use towers across Mumbai. Promoters often sell residential flats against an early layout that shows a modest IT or office block, then later convert that block into shops or larger commercial floor space with premium FSI. Municipal sanction of a revised plan does not, by itself, satisfy RERA. If the change was not disclosed at booking and two-thirds consent is missing, the alteration is a statutory violation. Conveyance cannot be postponed indefinitely by treating an unfinished commercial wing as a reason to withhold the land and common areas that residential allottees were shown in 2017.
The society had also pressed large money claims for incomplete works, clubhouse refunds, parking transfer, debit freeze on the RERA escrow account, cancellation of extensions, and even an inquiry into the MahaRERA Member who passed the first order. The Tribunal’s published findings centre on consent, Section 14 and conveyance as per the 2017 plan, together with the 2% project-cost penalty. Those findings already go well beyond the Rs 5 lakh costs awarded at the first stage.
For housing societies sitting on mixed layouts, the message is direct: the plan annexed to the agreement for sale is the baseline. Extra commercial FSI taken later, without two-thirds consent, is not a private arrangement between the builder and the municipal corporation. It is a RERA issue.
Also Read: MahaREAT orders Sheth Infraworld to compensate homebuyers for project delays
