In a rare and revealing development, a homebuyer couple and a Mumbai developer jointly told the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority that they would not act upon any order the Authority might pass — even though their delay-in-possession complaint had already been fully heard and reserved for final orders.
The case (Complaint No. CC12400159) was filed by Shilpa Amol Vyawahare and Amol Vijaykumar Vyawahare against Acme Housing India Private Limited. The complainants sought interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act for the delayed handover of Flat No. 2107 in the project “Gingelia Residential” (MahaRERA registration P51700001033). The Agreement for Sale was executed on 17 October 2017.
The matter was heard on 29 January 2026 and reserved for orders. At that stage, the pleadings were complete, evidence had been led, and arguments had concluded. A decision on merits was expected.
What followed changed the course of the proceedings. The promoter secured a Part Occupation Certificate on 4 April 2024. The complainants took possession of the flat on 11 October 2024. On 16 April 2026, both parties jointly filed a settlement letter before MahaRERA.
The settlement went far beyond a simple withdrawal. The parties recorded that all claims and disputes arising from the complaint stood fully and finally resolved. Crucially, they stated that although the complaint had already been heard and reserved for orders, neither side would challenge, enforce or act upon any order that the Authority might still deliver. They further agreed that if no order had yet been passed, the complaint could simply be treated as withdrawn.
Member Ravindra Deshpande took note of these terms in the final order dated 6 August 2026. In a significant observation, the Authority held that the dispute was private in nature and that the parties had voluntarily arrived at a comprehensive settlement. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by adjudicating the rival claims on merits. The settlement was found to be lawful, voluntary and complete. There was no reason to refuse to take the consent terms on record.
Accordingly, MahaRERA:
- Took the settlement on record,
- Disposed of the complaint in view of the amicable settlement, and
- Made no order as to costs.
The order is noteworthy because it shows that even after a case has reached the reserved-for-orders stage, parties retain the freedom to settle and expressly waive their right to the very decision the Authority is about to pronounce. By accepting this arrangement, MahaRERA has reinforced that its role is to resolve disputes, not to keep them alive when both sides have chosen finality through settlement.
For homebuyers and promoters, the message is practical. Once possession is taken and commercial differences are resolved, parties can close the chapter completely — including by agreeing that any residual order will remain unenforced. The Authority, in this instance, respected that choice.
Also Read: Double Booking Costs Builder Dear: MahaRERA Orders Refund to Homebuyer in Sunteck Project
