In a notable and somewhat unusual ruling, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed a long-pending complaint filed by homebuyer Uma Masurkar against promoter Muhammed Nensey (now represented by Royal Palms (I) Pvt. Ltd.), even as it entertained the case on merits despite the promoter’s strong objection that the transaction was governed by a Lease Deed and not an Agreement for Sale.
The final order, pronounced on June 5, 2026 by Member Mahesh Pathak, highlights critical lessons for homebuyers regarding the binding nature of settlements and the jurisdictional nuances under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Background of the Dispute
The case pertains to Flat No. 308 in the “Piccadilly IV” project (MahaRERA Registration No. P51800004140) located at Survey No. 169, Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon East, Mumbai. Complainant Uma Masurkar claimed she had made full down payment for the flat. However, instead of a conventional Agreement for Sale, a registered Agreement of Lease dated 10-04-2019 was executed jointly between the promoter (as lessor) and Uma Masurkar along with her brother Siddhesh Masurkar (as lessees).
In November 2019, Uma Masurkar filed Complaint No. CC006000000161382 before MahaRERA, citing severe deficiencies: delay in obtaining Occupancy Certificate (OC), flooding, poor construction quality, contaminated water, structural defects, lack of fire safety, and health issues affecting her premature twins and elderly father. She sought ₹80 lakhs as full and final settlement or directions to hand over OC and statutory approvals within seven days, along with heavy compensation.
The Settlement That Proved Decisive
Just weeks after filing the complaint, on 26-11-2019, the parties executed a Settlement Letter. The promoter paid ₹6.25 lakhs to Uma Masurkar. In return, she agreed to treat all complaints before MahaRERA and other authorities as withdrawn. The promoter later produced proof of payment, which the complainant did not dispute.
An earlier MahaRERA order dated 01-06-2021 had favoured the complainant (directing OC or refund with interest), but this was passed without considering the settlement, as the matter was heard ex-parte against the promoter.
Appellate Intervention and Remand
The promoter challenged the 2021 order before the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal. In its order dated 04-02-2026, the Tribunal set aside the earlier ruling specifically for this complaint and remanded the matter back to MahaRERA for fresh adjudication on merits, giving due importance to the settlement letter. The Tribunal also rejected Siddhesh Masurkar’s intervention application.
Fresh Hearings and Key Arguments
During hearings in March-April 2026, several crucial issues emerged:
- Lease vs Sale – Jurisdiction Question: The respondent strongly argued that since the transaction was a lease arrangement and not a sale, it fell outside the purview of RERA, which primarily governs allottees under Agreements for Sale. Despite this jurisdictional challenge, MahaRERA proceeded to hear the complaint in full on merits — a unique aspect of this order.
- Non-Joinder of Co-Lessee: The promoter highlighted that Siddhesh Masurkar, the joint lessee and brother of the complainant, was a necessary party. Any refund or cancellation would require his involvement, as the lease remained valid in both names. Siddhesh Masurkar filed an intervention application claiming co-ownership interest, but MahaRERA noted that the Appellate Tribunal had already rejected his plea. The Authority declined to entertain fresh intervention while acknowledging that the joint nature of the lease complicated any relief.
- Binding Settlement: The promoter emphasised that the complainant had accepted the ₹6.25 lakh settlement and agreed to withdraw all cases. The settlement letter explicitly stated that all pending complaints would be treated as withdrawn. MahaRERA held the complainant bound by these terms.
- Occupancy Certificate Obtained: The promoter informed the Authority that the OC was received on 09-06-2022, addressing one of the core grievances.
MahaRERA’s Ruling and Reasoning
In the detailed order, Member Mahesh Pathak observed:
- The complainant is bound by the Settlement Letter dated 26-11-2019. Having accepted the consideration, she cannot reagitate the same cause of action.
- With the OC now in place, the primary grievance regarding possession formalities stood addressed.
- Issues relating to construction quality, amenities, water supply, fire safety, and health damages involve disputed questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated summarily in RERA proceedings, especially post-settlement.
- Due to the joint lease, granting refund or cancellation without the other co-lessee would be improper.
Result: The complaint was dismissed in its entirety. No refund, interest, or additional compensation was granted.
Implications for Homebuyers
This case underscores two important realities in RERA disputes:
- Settlements are final and binding. Accepting money and agreeing to withdraw cases can permanently close the door on higher claims, even if buyers later regret the decision.
- Document matters: Entering into a Lease Deed instead of an Agreement for Sale can fundamentally alter the legal relationship (from allottee-promoter to tenant-landlord) and affect remedies available under RERA. Buyers should exercise extreme caution before signing any document and ensure it aligns with their understanding of the transaction.
The ruling also shows that while MahaRERA may entertain cases even when jurisdiction is contested, outcomes often hinge on documentary evidence like settlements and the nature of the underlying agreement.
Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Refund Paid for Seven Flats in Godrej RKS Project
