Why the Homebuyer Was Asked to Pay a Cost
In Complaint No. CC12400317, decided by MahaRERA on 12 October 2026, the complainant Rajyog Corporations was directed to pay ₹5,000 to the Authority. The cost was imposed solely for filing one composite complaint covering two separate flats.
The complainant had booked Flat Nos. 904 and 603 in the project “Rajhans” (MahaRERA registration No. P51900002771). Separate agreements for sale were executed on 23 May 2018 for each flat with the original promoter, Pratham Developers. Each agreement fixed its own possession date and consideration (₹66 lakh and ₹64 lakh respectively). The project was later transferred to Prashanti Land Developers Private Limited on 6 November 2023 under Section 15.
Instead of filing two distinct complaints, the complainant filed a single complaint for both flats.
Authority’s Observation on Composite Complaints
The Authority noted that each agreement for sale constitutes a distinct cause of action. Filing one complaint for multiple flats under separate agreements is not permissible under law. Separate complaints are required for each.
However, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary hardship to the complainant, the Authority accepted the single complaint as a one-time exception. It expressly recorded that this waiver shall not be treated as a precedent. A cost of ₹5,000 was therefore imposed on the complainant for the composite filing. The amount is to be paid to the MahaRERA Authority within ten days of the order.
The main reliefs—possession of both flats and delay interest under Section 18 from 1 July 2020 till actual handover with occupation certificate—were granted. The case had proceeded ex-parte as the respondents neither appeared nor filed a reply. Other reliefs sought by the complainant were rejected, and the respondents were directed to pay ₹20,000 as costs to the complainant.
What Homebuyers Should Learn
Homebuyers approaching MahaRERA should file a separate complaint for each flat or agreement, even if the flats are in the same project and the issues are similar. A combined complaint risks a cost and may not always be accepted as an exception.
The ₹5,000 cost in this case is modest compared to the interest and possession relief granted, but it highlights a procedural requirement. Properly drafted separate complaints help avoid such costs and reduce the chance of the Authority treating the filing as irregular.
Allottees should also note that a Section 15 transfer does not erase earlier possession timelines, and interest can run from the original agreed date even after a new promoter takes over. At the same time, procedural compliance—such as filing distinct complaints where causes of action differ—remains necessary.
Also Read: MahaRERA fine Builders for printing ads without MahaRERA number
