A Mumbai builder’s excuse for a stalled occupation certificate did not survive contact with MahaRERA. Facing a housing society’s complaint over years of pending approvals, the promoter behind Joanita Villa in Andheri West pointed to an alleged dispute between the project’s earlier developer and an unnamed MLA as the reason the OC never came through. The regulator noted the claim and ordered the promoter to go get the certificate anyway.
The order, passed by MahaRERA Member-II Ravindra Deshpande on 9 September 2026, came in a complaint filed by Westin Joanita CHS Ltd, the society formed by flat purchasers in the building. It directed the promoter to obtain the building completion certificate, occupation certificate, and fire NOC, hand over amenities and parking, execute conveyance in the society’s favour, and formally update the promoter’s name on the MahaRERA record.
The MLA defence
The present management, which took charge of the project company around April-May 2019, told MahaRERA it inherited a “tumultuous” situation from the earlier board and has been trying to complete the project since. On why the OC remained pending years after construction finished and possession was handed over, its central plea was an “internal dispute between erstwhile Developers and a MLA” that it said had caused “a great deal of hassle in acquiring all the compliances.” It argued the society already knew about this, and pointed to a December 2025 Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal order, from a separate individual allottee’s case, which had recorded the same claim.
MahaRERA did not buy it as an excuse. The Authority did not name the legislator, did not investigate whether such a dispute actually existed, and did not treat it as a reason to withhold relief from the society. Delay blamed on a political dispute, without any finding that it amounted to force majeure or suspended the promoter’s statutory duties, did not wipe out the obligations under Sections 11, 15, and 17 of the RERA Act. The Authority simply directed the promoter to secure the OC through the competent municipal department, on top of everything else it was already required to do.
Why the OC has been stuck
The society’s own account of why the OC never came adds a different layer. It alleged the building has stood physically complete for years, with the certificate blocked because three commercial units, named in the pleadings as Royal Electric & Hardware Store, SRK’s SPA & Saloon, and Anamikaa Beauty Parlour, were built and sold in place of two sanctioned professional offices, a deviation from the BMC-approved plans. MahaRERA’s order does not rule on this allegation either way; it remains open for the municipal authority or a later proceeding to examine.
The promoter-name problem underneath it
Layered onto the OC dispute is a separate Section 15 fight over who the “promoter” even is on paper. The project was registered in 2017 under Westin Developers Pvt Ltd. New directors took over in 2019 without, the society says, any purchaser consent or MahaRERA approval, and in August 2021 the company renamed itself Westin Habitats Pvt Ltd while keeping the same Corporate Identification Number. The current management’s defence was that a name change and a change in directors are not a transfer of promoter rights under Section 15, since the registered entity and CIN never changed.
MahaRERA rejected that as a complete answer too. The Authority noted that the name still on file with the regulator is the old one, Westin Developers Pvt Ltd, even though the company itself has moved on to Westin Habitats Pvt Ltd, and held that the promoter was still required to run the formal change-of-promoter process to update the record. That had not been done, years after the name change.
What was ordered, and what was not
The complaint was allowed in part. Respondents must obtain the completion certificate, occupation certificate, and fire NOC; execute conveyance in the society’s favour; hand over amenities and parking; and update the promoter’s name on the MahaRERA record. Each side bears its own costs.
The order stops short of a penalty under Section 61, sets no fixed deadline, and does not rule on the alleged shop-versus-office deviation. For Joanita Villa’s roughly 97-per-cent-paid-up buyers, the practical question now is whether the promoter moves on the OC and the name correction, or whether the society has to return to MahaRERA to enforce what it has already won on paper.
Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Real Estate Agent to Pay 1% Refund to Homebuyer
