A Quadruplex was sold in Worli for ₹144 Crore, making it the most expensive home sold in this year till now.

By Varun Singh

A Quadruplex apartment was sold in Worli on March 31, 2022 for a whopping ₹144 crore.

Heard it right, the real estate industry has finally seen this year’s most expensive deal.

This big ticket deal took place in Worli’s Raheja Legend.

The Quadruplex numbered 1802 is spread over four floors.

The seller is Ashish Raheja, and the buyers are the three minor daughters of Siddharth Jain.

The buyers are Araadhya, Varenya and Nairiti Jain all three are the minor daughters of Siddharth Jain.

The buyer and seller of the Qaudruplex in Worli’s Raheja Legend
The seller & buyers of the Quadruplex in Worli

Siddharth Jain, is the Executive Director of Inox Group.

Let’s talk about the Quadruplex and the amount that’s making such big noise.

The Quadruplex is spread over four floors, that is 42, 43, 44 and 46th floor of the building Raheja Legend. (See Box)

Obviously a house in Mumbai being sold for ₹144 crore is a big deal, and hence we are reporting it.

But the per square feet rate at which this flat has been sold is also huge.

The total area of the Quadruplex is 10,566.50 square feet and thus the per square feet rate comes to ₹1.32 lakh.

Apart from Samudra Mahal building in Worli no other tower has commanded this huge a per square feet rate.

Along with the huge apartment the new buyers will also have access to 12 car parks in the building.

The stamp duty paid for this apartment is ₹7.2 Crore. Yes for this amount you can get a good house anywhere in South Mumbai.

Along with the apartment the new owners will also have exclusive access to the South elevator in the building.

In the past Indian Cricket Team’s former Captain Virat Kohli had rented an apartment in the building for a rent of ₹15 lakh per month in the year 2018.

Quadruplex

  • The details of the Quadruplex includes flat number 4202 (MCGM No.1802) admeasuring 520 sq. ft. i.e. built-up area (equivalent to 444 sq. ft carpet area) on the 42nd floor (on account of its height from the ground level as per the final sanctioned plans, but 18th floor as per the MGM approved plan).
  • The other flats are flat numbers 4203, 4303, 4403 and 4603 (MCGM Flat Nos. 1803, 1903, 2003 and 2203) admeasuring in the aggregate 6960 sq. feet built-up area (equivalent to 5,988 sq. ft. carpet area), on the 42, 43, 44 and 46 floors respectively (on account of its height from the ground level as per the final sanctioned plans, but 18′, 19′, 20′), and 22nd floors as per the MGM approved plan).
  • Flat Number 4301 (MCGM No. 1901) admeasuring 1034 sq. feet built-up area (equivalent to 902 sq. A. carpet area), on the 43rd floor (on account of its height from ground level as per the final sanctioned plans, but 19th floor as per the MCGM approved plan.)
  • Flat Number 4401 admeasuring 1806 sq. feet built-up area (equivalent to 1,561 sq. ft. carpet area), on the 44th floor (on account of its height from the ground level as per the final sanctioned plans, but 20th floor as per the MCGM approved plan).

Also Read: vicky and Katrina to move in this house

You May Also Like

Construction Activity To Get A Boost Because Of Vaccination Allowed Above 18 Years

Construction activity is all set to get a boost after central government’s…

Force Majeure for realty projects till 14th September

Force majeure period of six months, from 15th March to 14th September, 2020…

India Ranks 15th Globally in Housing Price Growth as End-User Demand Drives Market

India’s housing market is climbing the global ranks with 7.7% annual growth in Q1 2025. Strong demand, rising incomes, and stable interest rates are shaping the market — here’s how homebuyers can plan ahead.

Reliance to Receive ₹647 Crores from MMRDA in the BKC Convention Centre Case

In a landmark ruling, the Bombay High Court has directed MMRDA to return nearly ₹647 crore to Reliance Industries, holding that demands for delay penalty on the BKC Convention & Exhibition Centre project were arbitrary and illegal. The court cited the composite nature of the project, court stay, statutory delays and discriminatory policy on construction timelines.