The Case in Brief
Mrs. Bindu Shree Joshi and Mr. Vinit Joshi approached the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal seeking condonation of delay in challenging a MahaRERA order dated 9 September 2025. The order, passed in Complaint No. CC12500579 against Rare Township Pvt. Ltd., directed them to pay the remaining consideration for the flat as per the agreement for sale, along with interest for the delayed period, within 15 days. If they failed to do so, the promoter was given liberty to execute and register cancellation deeds.
The homebuyers said the order was ex-parte. They claimed they were not properly served, had shifted to Dubai in 2017 after informing the promoter of their new address, and had already paid about 72% of the total consideration. They further stated that they learned of the order only on or about 15 September 2025 while checking their email.
The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, rejected the delay application on 22 October 2026. As a result, the main appeal and the connected stay application also stood disposed of.
Time Limit to File an Appeal Under Section 44
Under Section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, any person aggrieved by a direction or order of the Authority (MahaRERA) may prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
The statutory time limit for filing such an appeal is 60 days from the date of receipt of the order or direction. The Tribunal has the power to condone delay beyond 60 days if the appellant shows “sufficient cause.” In practice, the period is often calculated from the date the aggrieved party actually came to know of the order, provided that knowledge is established.
In this case the applicants themselves admitted knowledge on 15 September 2025. They filed the appeal only on 27 March 2026. After excluding the statutory 60-day period, the Tribunal calculated a delay of 134 days.
What the Homebuyers Claimed
The applicants argued that no effective notice of the complaint or hearing was served on them. They pointed to Clause 49.1 of the agreement for sale, which required notices to be sent by post to the residential address, and said the promoter continued using their old Kolkata address despite a 2017 intimation of the Dubai address. They also said email communication was not reliable for them while abroad and that they hoped the matter would be settled amicably after they contacted the promoter. They relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji for a liberal approach to condonation of delay in the interest of substantial justice.
Why the Tribunal Rejected the Delay
The Tribunal noted two key admissions by the applicants themselves:
- They became aware of the 9 September 2025 order on 15 September 2025.
- They thereafter participated in the non-compliance proceedings arising out of that very order. Rojnamas showed personal appearance by one of the applicants on 26 November 2025, 6 January 2026, 20 January 2026, 4 February 2026 and 18 February 2026.
Despite this continuous knowledge and participation, the appeal was filed only on 27 March 2026. The Tribunal held that the applicants had failed to disclose any sufficient cause for the 134-day delay. It observed that it was open to them to file the appeal immediately after acquiring knowledge, yet they chose not to do so.
Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, and both the main appeal and the stay application were disposed of.
What Went Wrong for the Homebuyers
Several factors worked against them:
- Clear admission of knowledge on 15 September 2025 fixed the starting point of limitation.
- Subsequent participation in non-compliance hearings demonstrated ongoing awareness of the adverse order and the proceedings flowing from it.
- Waiting in the hope of an amicable settlement, without filing the appeal, was not accepted as sufficient cause.
- Claims of improper service and residence abroad, while raised, did not overcome the admissions of knowledge and participation once the 60-day statutory period had long expired.
In short, once knowledge of the order was established, the 60-day clock under Section 44 began to run, and the applicants did not act within that window or show adequate reasons for the further delay.
Key Takeaway for Homebuyers
If a MahaRERA order is passed against you, the safe course is to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 44 within 60 days of receiving or coming to know of the order. Participation in later proceedings or hopes of settlement do not automatically stop the limitation clock. Failure to act promptly can result in the appeal being rejected on the ground of delay, as happened in this case, leaving the original MahaRERA order unchallenged.
Also Read: MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal Rejects Developer’s Appeal Over Delay in Filing
