MahaRERA came out with a fresh circular for deciding the seniority of complaints, in this, the regulatory authority has decided to give priority to complaints from people suffering from a serious life-threatening illness.

By Varun Singh

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has come out with a fresh circular for deciding the seniority of complaints.

The circular states, “RERA Act was enacted so as to establish the Real Estate Regulatory Authority having amongst others some of its objectives as being, protection of the interest of the consumers in real estate sector and to establish adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal.”

Section 31 of the Act, enables any aggrieved person to file a complaint with MahaRERA for any violation or contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules and Regulations.

Chairperson, MahaRERA is empowered with the powers of general superintendence and directions in the conduct of the affairs of the authority.
.
In the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience it is necessary that complaints filed are heard and disposed of on merits in accordance with and as per their seniority.

The circular further states, hence, all complaints filed with MahaRERA shall be heard and decided on merits by the respective single benches of MahaRERA or the Adjudicating officer as the case may be as per the seniority of the complaint which shall be decided as per the date of filing/registration of the complaint before MahaRERA except in the following cases:

Where the complainant is suffering from a serious life-threatening illness and an application in that regard is submitted along with Doctor’s certificate.

Where a superior Forum/Tribunal/Court directs that the complaint is to be disposed of in a fixed time.

Where complaints in respect of the same project are clubbed together for hearing, then in that event seniority of the clubbed complaints shall be the date of filing/registration of the complaint filed first in point of time from amongst the clubbed complaints.

Where disputes have been settled between the parties before the Conciliation Bench.

Besides the above if due to unavoidable circumstances or in special circumstances if the seniority of any complaint has to be changed, in that event, a proper reason/justification shall be submitted before the Chairperson, MahaRERA and only on approval the seniority of such complaints could be changed.

Adv Sunil Kewalamani, who fights RERA cases said, “This is a great proactive step taken by the authority especially giving priority to complaints by people suffering from serious life-threatening illness on providing doctor’s certificate. This move needs to be appreciated.”

Also Read: Disputes Between Builders & Homebuyers To Reduce

Leave a Reply
You May Also Like

India’s Real Estate to Become a ₹800 Lakh Crore Powerhouse by 2047 — Tier II Cities to Drive the Next Big Boom

A new Colliers–CII report projects India’s real estate sector to grow 20 times by 2047 — reaching USD 5–10 trillion and contributing up to 20% of GDP. Tier II cities, alternative assets, and redevelopment are set to lead the next big boom in India’s housing and infrastructure story.

CREDAI asks for reducing home loan interest to 5%

CREDAI has started an online campaign Revive Real Estate Revive Economy, and…

Bombay High Court Empowers Homebuyers: Grants Deemed Conveyance Relief to Society, Reinforcing Flat Owners’ Right Against Builder Delays

Bombay High Court empowers housing societies by ordering deemed conveyance in Kartik Regency case, ruling that builder defaults trigger statutory relief under MOFA — a blueprint for thousands facing non-conveyance issues.

Bombay HC Removes Eldest Kilachand Son as Executor of Father’s Will After Decades of Delay

In a landmark ruling, the Bombay High Court has removed Harsh Kilachand as executor of his late father Rajnikant Kilachand’s estate, condemning years of inaction that left his mother Ramila waiting until her death in 2024 for her legacy. The court appointed an independent retired Chief Justice to administer the remaining assets, highlighting willful contempt of prior orders and breach of fiduciary duty in this long-running Mumbai family dispute.