In a significant order reinforcing the protective intent of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has ruled that the absence of a registered Agreement for Sale does not deprive a homebuyer of the right to a refund, particularly where retaining buyer money would result in injustice.
The ruling came in Complaint No. CC006000000303572, decided on 20 January 2026, in a dispute involving the project Ajmeri Heights, located at Andheri (East), Mumbai, developed by Ajmeri Realty Pvt. Ltd. The complaint was filed by Deepesh Nair, a homebuyer who had paid a substantial portion of the flat consideration without ever receiving a registered Agreement for Sale.
Over 70% Collected Without Agreement, Clear Section 13 Violation
As per the order, the complainant had paid ₹64 lakh out of a total flat consideration of ₹87.24 lakh in 2014, amounting to over 70% of the total cost. Despite receiving these payments, the promoter failed to execute a registered Agreement for Sale, issuing only an undated allotment letter.
MahaRERA observed that this conduct amounted to a blatant violation of Section 13 of RERA, which prohibits promoters from accepting more than 10% of the apartment cost without first entering into a registered Agreement for Sale.
Allotment Letter Has No Statutory Sanctity
The authority reiterated that an allotment letter does not confer enforceable contractual rights under RERA. In the absence of a registered Agreement for Sale, there was:
- No binding possession date,
- No defined obligations of the promoter, and
- No contractual safeguards for the allottee.
MahaRERA noted that such practices weaken buyer protection and cannot be permitted to defeat the purpose of the Act.
Section 18 Not Strictly Applicable, But Relief Cannot Be Denied
While considering the refund claim, MahaRERA acknowledged that Section 18 of RERA, which governs refunds for delayed possession, ordinarily requires the existence of:
- A registered Agreement for Sale, and
- A contractually defined possession date.
Since neither existed in the present case, the authority held that Section 18 could not be applied in its strict form. However, it categorically rejected the argument that this technical gap should allow the promoter to retain the buyer’s money indefinitely.
MahaRERA Invokes Inherent Powers to Prevent Unjust Enrichment
To ensure justice, MahaRERA invoked its inherent powers under Regulation 39 of the MahaRERA General Regulations, 2017, observing that RERA is a beneficial and social welfare legislation.
The authority held that allowing the promoter of Ajmeri Heights, Andheri to retain over ₹64 lakh without executing an agreement or offering possession would result in unjust enrichment and defeat the objectives of RERA.
Accordingly, MahaRERA directed Ajmeri Realty Pvt. Ltd. to:
- Refund ₹64,00,000 to the complainant,
- Pay interest at SBI MCLR + 2% per annum from the respective dates of payment made in 2014 until realization, and
- Pay ₹20,000 towards litigation costs,
- Within 30 days of the order.
Builder’s Absence Weighed Against Them
The order records that the respondent developer:
- Remained absent during proceedings,
- Filed no written reply, and
- Did not dispute receipt of the amounts paid.
MahaRERA treated the complainant’s assertions as uncontroverted, strengthening the case for granting relief.
Supreme Court’s Newtech Judgment Distinguished
MahaRERA also clarified that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. was not applicable to the facts of this case, as that judgment presupposes the existence of a registered Agreement for Sale with a stipulated possession timeline — conditions absent in the Ajmeri Heights matter.
Why This Order Is a Big Signal for Homebuyers
Legal experts say the order has wide implications for:
- Pre-RERA bookings,
- Projects where builders deliberately avoided executing agreements, and
- Buyers trapped in long-stalled developments.
The ruling makes it clear that promoters cannot take advantage of their own statutory violations and that MahaRERA will step in to ensure equity, even where technical requirements are missing due to the promoter’s fault.
Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Full Refund with Interest to Homebuyer for Possession Delay
