The eight families? They were told to go chase the failed builder.

That, in essence, is what the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) ruled in a judgment pronounced on April 22, 2026 — in eight consolidated appeals filed by flat buyers against the SBI Employees Prashant Co-operative Housing Society, its erstwhile developer M/s Aditya Developers, and its new developer M/s URNA Evolved Living Private Limited. The bench of Shri S.S. Shinde J. (Chairperson) and Shri Shrikant M. Deshpande (Member-A)) dismissed all eight appeals, holding that neither the housing society nor the new developer is answerable to the flat buyers for the failures of the erstwhile developer.

The judgment does not make new law. What it does is apply — firmly, clearly, and without exception — a line of Bombay High Court rulings that have settled this question so definitively that the High Court itself has declared it “no longer res integra” — meaning it is beyond argument.

The Project, the Promise, and the Collapse

The SBI Employees Prashant Co-operative Housing Society is the owner of a plot of land bearing CTS No. 444/B at village Kanheri in Mumbai’s suburban district, in Borivali. The society has 26 members who lived in an old building on this plot. Like thousands of housing societies across Mumbai, they decided to redevelop — demolish the old building, build a new one for the members, and allow the developer to construct and sell additional flats to outside buyers to fund the project.

In September 2013, the society signed a Development Agreement with M/s Aditya Developers, a Borivali-based developer. The arrangement was standard for Mumbai redevelopments — the society would get a new, larger building for its members (the rehabilitation component), and Aditya would build and sell flats from the free-sale component on its own account, keeping the proceeds as its profit. Aditya was also granted a power of attorney by the society to execute these sale transactions.

Armed with the development agreement, Aditya obtained the necessary permissions — IOD in January 2015 and commencement certificate in May 2016, extended to the 10th floor in October 2017. The project was registered with MahaRERA in August 2017 under registration number P51800009323, with a promised completion date of May 2020 — later extended to May 2022.

Aditya then sold flats from the sale component to 12 outside buyers, including the eight appellants in this case. These buyers executed registered agreements for sale and paid substantial amounts to Aditya.

Construction progressed up to the fourth floor slab — and then stopped.

The Builder Defies Court Orders

In 2018, the society had had enough. Alleging prolonged delay and non-performance, it filed Arbitration Petition No. 711 of 2018 before the Bombay High Court against Aditya. During those proceedings, the High Court directed Aditya to do two things — not create any further third-party rights in the project, and deposit the money received from the flat buyers into a separate account.

Aditya violated both directions.

The society issued a termination notice to Aditya in April 2019 and filed a fresh Arbitration Petition No. 1470 of 2019. In December 2019, the Bombay High Court confirmed the termination of Aditya’s development agreement and permitted the society to complete the project — either by appointing a contractor or by bringing in a new developer.

It took the society over two years to act on that permission. In February 2022, it issued a public notice inviting a new developer. The notice disclosed the list of 12 existing flat buyers. In June 2022, the society’s General Body Meeting approved the appointment of URNA Evolved Living Private Limited (then called Living Habitats Pvt. Ltd.) as the new developer. A fresh development agreement was executed with URNA in August 2022.

What happened next was a blow to the flat buyers — URNA demolished the construction that Aditya had carried out up to the fourth slab, describing it as a dilapidated and faulty structure. URNA then obtained revised permissions from the MCGM, registered the project afresh with MahaRERA in June 2023 under a completely new registration number P51800051383, and started the project from scratch.

The original flat buyers — who had paid crores to Aditya for flats in the original project — found themselves completely outside the new project.

The Flat Buyers Fight Back

The eight families filed complaints before MahaRERA. They were not asking for anything unreasonable — they wanted possession of the flats they had paid for, interest for the years of delay, and legal protection of the rights they had acquired through their registered agreements for sale.

They made three specific legal arguments:

The first was that the housing society qualifies as a “promoter” under RERA. They argued that the society’s members received 52% additional area in their rehabilitation flats as a benefit flowing from the project — which, they said, amounted to an area-sharing arrangement that makes the society a co-promoter under RERA and therefore liable to discharge the developer’s obligations towards flat buyers.

The second was that the new developer URNA must honour their agreements. They pointed to Clause 12.4 of URNA’s development agreement with the society, which they argued contained an acceptance by URNA to discharge liabilities on behalf of the society. They also argued that URNA entered the project with full knowledge of the existing flat buyers and therefore cannot claim ignorance of their rights.

The third was that the new project registration obtained by URNA violated Section 15 of RERA. Section 15 requires that when a promoter seeks to transfer a project to another promoter, the prior written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees must be obtained. The flat buyers argued that instead of getting a brand new registration, URNA should have applied for a change of promoter in the old registration — which would have automatically kept their rights intact.

What the Society, the New Developer, and the Old Developer Said

The society’s position was straightforward — it had no contract with the flat buyers, had never sold them anything, had never collected any money from them, and was not responsible for what Aditya did. Its members had been without permanent housing since 2014 — over eleven years — and the equity, it argued, lay with them, not with the flat buyers who dealt with a developer the society had lawfully terminated.

URNA’s argument was equally firm. It had come into the project pursuant to a Bombay High Court order — not as a voluntary successor to Aditya. It had no contract with the flat buyers, had made no representations to them, had received no money from them, and had issued no advertisements or assurances to them. Section 15 of RERA, URNA argued, applies to voluntary transfers between promoters — not to court-mandated appointments of a new developer after lawful termination of the old one. And since the old registration had already lapsed in May 2022, there was nothing to “transfer” — URNA needed and obtained a fresh registration legitimately.

Aditya, interestingly, partly sided with the flat buyers — arguing that URNA should have applied under the old registration and that after its termination, all liability towards flat buyers passed to the society and URNA. This argument served Aditya’s interest in deflecting its own liability.

MahaRERA Dismisses the Complaints

MahaRERA dismissed all the flat buyers’ complaints. It held that the society was not a promoter under RERA, that URNA’s fresh registration was valid, that Section 15 did not apply because the change of developer happened under court orders and not voluntarily, and that there was no privity of contract between the flat buyers and either the society or URNA. The flat buyers were given liberty to pursue their claims against Aditya in the pending arbitration proceedings.

The flat buyers appealed to the MREAT.

The Tribunal’s Ruling: A Wall of Precedent

The MREAT dismissed all eight appeals and affirmed MahaRERA’s order in full. In doing so, it walked through a line of Bombay High Court judgments that have, over the years, built an almost impenetrable legal wall around housing societies in failed redevelopment scenarios.

On whether the society is a promoter, the Tribunal relied on the landmark ruling in Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt. Ltd. vs. New D.N. Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Union Ltd. (2014), which held that a housing society that gives development rights to a developer is not a “promoter” under the law. The developer builds and sells the free-sale component entirely on its own account, as an independent contractor. The society is merely the land owner. Getting additional area in the rehabilitation component — which is what the members received — is not the same as having a revenue-sharing or area-sharing arrangement from the sale component. Unless the society is registered as a co-promoter on MahaRERA and has a direct financial stake in the sale proceeds, it does not qualify as a promoter.

The Tribunal also noted that the society had not been shown as a promoter or co-promoter when Aditya registered the project with MahaRERA. The development agreement was executed on a principal-to-principal basis — there was no agency relationship between the society and Aditya.

On whether URNA must honour old agreements, the Tribunal’s answer was equally clear. The Bombay High Court in Goregaon Pearls CHSL vs. Dr. Seema Mahadev Paryekar had reiterated that third-party purchasers from a developer whose agreement has been lawfully terminated cannot claim performance of their agreements against the society or anyone claiming through the society — including a new developer. This position was reaffirmed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Deepak Prabhakar Thakoor vs. MHADA (2023) and again in Kapilkunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra (2023), which went as far as to say: “Third party purchasers will have no rights over the assets of the Society… amounts paid to Ved cannot possibly be given credit to by the Society.”

The most recent reaffirmation came in Tuvin Constructions LLP vs. State of Maharashtra decided by the Bombay High Court in September 2025, which held that no third-party purchaser from a terminated developer can seek performance against the society or its new developer, and that the new developer can obtain fresh registration without carrying any liability of the allottees of the erstwhile promoter.

On Section 15 of RERA, the Tribunal held that the provision simply does not apply here. Section 15 governs voluntary transfers of a project between promoters and requires 2/3rd allottee consent for such transfers. What happened in this case was not a voluntary transfer — Aditya was thrown out by court order, its agreement was terminated, its old registration had lapsed, and URNA came in through a fresh development agreement with the society, obtained fresh permissions, and registered a new project. This is a new project, not a transfer of the old one.

The Only Remedy: Chase the Failed Builder

All eight appeals were dismissed. The flat buyers were left where MahaRERA had left them — with nothing but the right to pursue Aditya Developers in the pending arbitration proceedings before the Bombay High Court in Arbitration Petition No. 1470 of 2019.

In practice, this is a remedy that offers little comfort. Aditya Developers — a company that violated High Court orders, stopped construction midway, and presumably exhausted the money it collected from buyers — is unlikely to have assets sufficient to compensate all its creditors. The flat buyers may win in arbitration and still recover nothing.

Why This Order Matters Beyond These Eight Families

Mumbai has hundreds — possibly thousands — of redevelopment projects at various stages. Many involve developers who are delayed, struggling, or have failed entirely. In most of these projects, the flat buyers who have paid money to the developer are in the same legal position as these eight families — their contract is with the developer, not the society, and if the developer is terminated, they are legally stranded.

This judgment is a stark reminder of that vulnerability. It also raises a question that courts and legislators have not yet squarely addressed — should RERA be amended to give flat buyers in failed redevelopment projects a direct claim against the society or the incoming new developer?

The arguments for such protection are not trivial:

• The society knew the flat buyers existed — they were disclosed in court proceedings
• The buyers’ money funded the construction of the rehabilitation building from which the society’s members benefited
• The society chose to appoint a new developer without making any provision for the existing buyers
• The new developer entered the project with full knowledge of the buyers’ existence

And yet, as the law stands today, none of this is enough to create liability. The absence of a signed contract between the society and the buyers is an absolute bar — regardless of the equities.

Until either the legislature amends RERA or the Supreme Court takes a different view, flat buyers in failed redevelopment projects will remain among the most exposed and least protected consumers in India’s real estate market. This judgment, and the long line of High Court decisions it follows, makes that vulnerability impossible to ignore.

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

The post Builder Fails in Redevelopment, Homebuyers Lose Flats — and Society Walks Free, Says Tribunal appeared first on Square Feat India.

For years, thousands of flat buyers across India have lived in a peculiar legal limbo — they own their apartments, they pay their maintenance, their cooperative housing society is registered and functioning, and yet the land their building stands on remains in the name of the builder. The reason given, almost always, is that some other wing or tower in the same large layout is still under construction, and the builder insists that conveyance of land will happen only once everything is done. A Supreme Court bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe has now firmly shut the door on that argument.

On April 10, 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by M/s Mahanagar Realty, a Pune-based developer, against a Bombay High Court judgment delivered in February 2026. In doing so, it has affirmed a ruling that carries consequences far beyond the plot of land in Dhankawadi, Pune that sparked the original dispute. The judgment establishes, with the Supreme Court’s seal of approval, that a completed housing society is entitled to its proportionate share of land under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA) — regardless of whether the builder has finished constructing other buildings in the same layout.

How It All Began

The story begins in the early 2010s, when Mahanagar Realty proposed a large residential development on a 22,609 square metre plot on Pune-Satara Road in Dhankawadi. The project was to consist of four wings — A, B, C, and D — forming three independent sub-projects. Wings A and B were clubbed together as “Ganga Ishanya AB,” Wing C was a separate project called “Ganga Ishanya C,” and Wing D was envisioned under the name “Ganga Nakshatra.”

Flat buyers began signing agreements from 2011 onwards. Over the next several years, construction of Wings A, B, and C was completed. The occupancy certificate for Wings A and B came through in September 2018, and for Wing C in June 2021. Two separate co-operative housing societies were duly registered — one for Wings A and B, and another for Wing C. Members moved in, the buildings were fully functional, and yet no conveyance of land was executed by the developer in favour of either society.

2011

Original layout sanctioned for Wings A, B, C and a small ground+one floor Wing D. Flat purchase agreements begin.

2017–2022

Developer repeatedly revises sanctioned plans. Wing D is quietly expanded from a small commercial structure to a proposed 26-floor, 203-unit residential tower — without flat buyers’ explicit consent.

Sept 2018 & June 2021

Occupancy certificates issued for Wings A&B and Wing C respectively. Two co-operative housing societies registered. Land conveyance still not executed by developer.

2023

Both housing societies file Application No. 167 of 2023 before the District Deputy Registrar under Section 11 of MOFA, seeking deemed conveyance of their proportionate land share.

November 17, 2023

Competent Authority grants deemed conveyance — 11,890.53 sq.m. to Ganga Ishanya AB and 4,174.39 sq.m. to Ganga Ishanya C, calculated proportionately based on the 2018 sanctioned plan.

February 23, 2026

Bombay High Court (Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh) dismisses Mahanagar Realty’s writ petition, fully upholding the Competent Authority’s order.

April 10, 2026

Supreme Court dismisses Special Leave Petition. The societies’ land rights are now final and binding.

The Developer’s Objections

Mahanagar Realty’s opposition to the conveyance was not a blanket refusal — the developer acknowledged that some land had to be conveyed. The dispute was about how much. The developer produced an architect’s certificate showing smaller land entitlements for the two societies, which would have left a larger portion available for the under-construction Wing D. The developer argued that the competent authority had conveyed more land than the societies were entitled to, and that this made it practically impossible to complete Wing D as per the building permissions already granted.

The developer also leaned on a contractual clause present in some flat purchase agreements, which stated that conveyance would be executed to an apex society — comprising all three sub-projects — only after the last building in the entire layout was completed. In essence, the argument was: wait for Wing D to finish, and then everything will be conveyed together. The developer further contended that without a formal architect’s certificate placed before the competent authority, there was no proper basis for the area calculation.

What the Courts Found

The Bombay High Court was unimpressed by each of these arguments. On the question of the architect’s certificate, Justice Deshmukh noted that the calculation was straightforward arithmetic — the constructed built-up area of each wing as a proportion of total permissible FSI, multiplied by the total plot area, as directed by a Government Resolution of June 22, 2018. The sanctioned plan of 2018 was already on record and the built-up areas were undisputed. No separate architect’s certificate was needed for a calculation of this nature.

The architect’s certificate the developer sought to rely on was, in any event, disqualified on multiple grounds — it had been produced before the High Court for the first time (never placed before the competent authority), it was based on a revised 2022 sanctioned plan rather than the 2018 plan, and it came with a disclaimer that its figures were subject to a pending decision before the Pune Municipal Corporation. The court declined to place any reliance on it.

A builder cannot use the unfinished portion of a layout as a shield to indefinitely delay handing over land rights to residents whose buildings are long completed.

On the contractual clause requiring conveyance only after the apex society is formed, the High Court cited a coordinate bench ruling in Lok Housing & Construction Ltd vs State of Maharashtra, which had held that such clauses directly conflict with Rule 9 of the MOFA Rules. The law does not permit a developer to tie conveyance to an indeterminate future event — the completion of another building — no matter what the agreement says. A contractual term cannot override a statutory right.

The court went further and addressed what it found to be the real motive behind the developer’s resistance. Over the years, Mahanagar Realty had progressively revised the sanctioned plan for Wing D — from a modest ground-plus-one commercial structure envisioned in the 2011 plans to a 26-floor, 203-unit residential tower. To fund this enhanced construction, the developer had been loading additional Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). The mathematical consequence of loading more TDR is that the proportionate share of already-completed buildings in the total plot area gets diluted. By opposing the area conveyed to the two societies, the court found, the developer was effectively asking the flat buyers of Wings A, B, and C to subsidise the enhanced construction of Wing D with their own land entitlement.

The Supreme Court, on April 10, 2026, saw no reason to interfere with this reasoning. The petition was dismissed without qualification.

What This Means for Flat Owners Across India

The immediate effect of this ruling is concrete and clear for the residents of Ganga Ishanya — their land is now theirs, legally and finally, without any further obstacle. But the significance of this judgment reaches well beyond one housing complex in Pune.

What This Ruling Means for You — If You Live in a Large Layout

• If your building is complete and your co-operative housing society is registered, you are entitled to seek deemed conveyance of your proportionate land share — even if other wings or towers in the layout are still being built.
• A builder cannot use the “wait for the apex society” or “wait for the last building” argument to delay your land rights indefinitely. Such clauses in sale agreements have been held to conflict with MOFA Rules.
• The proportionate area you are entitled to is calculated based on the sanctioned plan at the time your building was completed — the developer cannot dilute your share by loading additional TDR for other under-construction wings.
• You do not need to wait for the developer to voluntarily execute the conveyance deed. Section 11 of MOFA allows your society to approach the Competent Authority (District Deputy Registrar) directly for deemed conveyance.
• The Government Resolution of June 22, 2018 provides a clear formula for calculating proportionate land area in multi-building layouts. Competent authorities are bound to follow it.

India’s real estate landscape is full of large township projects and multi-tower layouts where some buildings have been completed and occupied for years while other phases remain under construction. In many of these cases, flat buyers have received their homes but not the land beneath them. Developers have routinely cited the ongoing construction in other phases as a reason to defer conveyance. This judgment categorically rejects that position.

The ruling also sends a pointed message about TDR manipulation. Where a developer seeks to enhance construction in an unfinished wing by loading additional development rights, courts will not allow this to come at the cost of residents in already-completed buildings. The FSI and TDR position as it stood when a building was completed will be the basis for calculating that building’s land entitlement — it cannot be retroactively diluted.

For housing societies considering action against their developers, this judgment provides a clear and well-reasoned legal foundation. The path to the Competent Authority under Section 11 of MOFA is open, the formula for calculation is settled, and the Supreme Court has now confirmed that no contractual sleight of hand can take away what the law guarantees.

As for Mahanagar Realty, the developer retains the remaining land and is free to continue constructing Wing D. But if the developer wishes to claim additional TDR benefits for an expanded Wing D, the High Court has made clear that the appropriate forum is a civil court — not a proceeding that compromises the land rights of the residents next door.

The post Landmark Verdict: Housing Societies Need Not Wait for Builder to Complete Entire Project to Claim Their Land, Rules Supreme Court appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Core Issue: Builders’ Failure to Convey Title

Under MOFA (Section 11), once a builder sells flats and buyers form a cooperative society, the promoter is legally bound to execute a conveyance deed transferring the land and building title to the society. If the builder refuses or delays, the society can apply for deemed conveyance — an automatic legal transfer ordered by the Competent Authority (usually the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies).

Many societies face prolonged delays, disputes over membership, pending appeals against registration, or claims of future development consents, leading to rejection of applications. This leaves flat owners without clear title, hindering loans, redevelopment, or resale.

Case Background: Kartik Regency in Belapur, Navi Mumbai

• The building (Kartik Regency) was constructed on ~1479.10 sq m land (CTS Nos. 100, 101, 103–107) with Commencement Certificate (Sept 13, 2007) and Occupation Certificate (March 21, 2009).
• Builders (Vijay Agre & Vidya Vijay Agre) sold most flats before the OC but failed to form the society or execute conveyance.
• Flat buyers formed the society (with 16 of 28 owners); applied for deemed conveyance.
• Deputy Registrar rejected it on August 26, 2025, citing partial membership, pending appeal against society’s registration (status quo order in place), and promoters’ claims of 2021 meeting minutes/consents allowing further construction on open land.

The society challenged this rejection via writ petition.

High Court’s Landmark Ruling (Justice Amit Borkar, Feb 6, 2026)

The court allowed the petition, quashed the rejection, and directed the Deputy Registrar to grant deemed conveyance within six weeks for the exact 1479.10 sq m area as per sale agreements, Commencement/Occupation Certificates, and Architect’s Certificate.

Key Holdings (Simplified):

• Section 11 proceedings are summary (quick, not full trial). Authority must check prima facie: valid MOFA agreements, property description, flats sold, builder’s default — not resolve complex title disputes.
• Core documents (agreements + certificates) clearly established entitlement; builder’s failure undisputed.
• Pending registration appeal doesn’t invalidate society — registration valid until cancelled.
• 2021 meeting minutes/consents don’t override MOFA obligation; no clear waiver of conveyance right; authenticity disputed.
• New construction permissions (challenged separately) irrelevant to conveyance for completed building.
• Builder’s delay can’t block statutory right; deemed conveyance protects buyers from indefinite uncertainty.

The court rejected promoters’ stay plea, emphasizing MOFA’s protective intent.

Why This Matters for Other Societies

This judgment strengthens homebuyers’ position: Collateral disputes (membership challenges, informal consents, future plans) cannot derail Section 11 applications if basic documents align. Societies facing similar rejections can cite this ruling to argue for limited enquiry and prompt relief. It promotes faster resolution, clearer titles, and discourages builder tactics to retain control.

Societies in similar situations should gather MOFA agreements, municipal certificates, and apply under Section 11 — and approach High Court if wrongly rejected.

Also Read: Developers Mandated to Execute Conveyance Deed Within 3 Months of Occupancy Certificate

The post Bombay High Court Empowers Homebuyers: Grants Deemed Conveyance Relief to Society, Reinforcing Flat Owners’ Right Against Builder Delays appeared first on Square Feat India.

The division bench of Justice Amit Borkar allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a deemed membership conferred on a flat buyer in an SRA redevelopment project, and restored the buyer’s membership rights, underlining that possession and statutory rights under MOFA take precedence over payment disputes.

Background of the Dispute

The case, Writ Petition No. 13583 of 2025, involved a flat purchaser, Digant Parekh, who executed a registered Agreement for Sale dated 16 September 2013 with developers Akruti Kailash Construction and Wellgroomed Venture for a flat in Hubtown Viva, Jogeshwari (East). The agreement was registered in the prescribed Form No. 5 under MOFA, which provides enhanced protections to flat buyers.

Despite the existence of this agreement, and after the purchaser applied for membership in the cooperative housing society formed for the project, the society did not grant membership. The purchaser then sought deemed membership under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and the Assistant Registrar granted it on 18 August 2022.

However, the developers challenged this decision before the Divisional Joint Registrar, who in an order dated 25 November 2024 set aside the deemed membership, primarily on the ground that a civil suit (Suit No. 2225 of 2016) filed by the developers to enforce the Agreement for Sale was still pending in the City Civil Court, and that payment was allegedly incomplete.

High Court Trial of Key Legal Issues

The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, raising several critical issues:

• Whether a registered MOFA buyer has “taken” the flat for society membership purposes even if full payment remains due.
• Whether a pending civil suit on validity and enforcement of the agreement bars membership.
• Whether the appellate authority had jurisdiction to set aside the deemed membership order in light of a government notification reforming appellate powers.

Court’s Historic Ruling

After reviewing the law and statutory purpose of MOFA, the High Court made several important findings:

1. Validity and Effect of the MOFA Agreement

The court observed that a registered MOFA agreement in Form No. 5 confers a special legal position on a buyer. The statute treats a purchaser under such an agreement as someone who has “taken” the flat, since registration itself contains detailed mandatory disclosures about the project, title, possession, price, and responsibilities of the promoter.

Accordingly, the court found that such purchasers are entitled to exercise rights available to flat buyers — including society membership — even if some payment remains outstanding. This is because:

• MOFA protects purchasers from unfair practices of builders.
• A purchaser’s legal status does not depend on full payment alone.
• Any unpaid amount places the developer in the position of an “unpaid seller”, whose remedies are limited to recovery, not denial of membership.

“When a purchaser signs a registered agreement under Section 4 of MOFA, the law gives enforceable rights, including membership rights in the co-operative society,” the judgment stated.

2. Pending Civil Suit Does Not Bar Membership

The court rejected the argument that the mere pendency of a civil suit to enforce the agreement should prevent the conferral of membership. It held that a civil dispute on title or payment does not automatically block administrative steps such as granting membership, unless a civil court issues a specific injunction.

3. Jurisdictional Error

The court also found that a State Government Notification dated 8 October 2024 had transferred appellate powers for grievances related to SRA housing societies to a newly constituted authority. As such, the Divisional Joint Registrar who set aside the membership order in November 2024 did not have jurisdiction to do so.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that:

• The revisional order dated 25 November 2024 cancelling membership was quashed.
• The original deemed membership order dated 18 August 2022 was restored.
• The civil suit filed by the developers will continue independently and will not affect the society membership of the buyer.
• An application for stay of the judgment was rejected.

Impact of the Judgment

This judgment sends a strong message to the real estate sector, especially in redevelopment contexts:

• Society membership cannot be withheld solely on the basis of unpaid dues claimed by builders.
• Flat buyers under valid MOFA agreements have enforceable statutory rights that extend to society membership.
• Developers cannot use payment disputes to delay or block flat purchasers’ participation in the governance and management of their societies.

Legal experts say this interpretation reinforces MOFA’s protective purpose and ensures that housing society membership rights are not made hostage to payment disputes.

Also Read: Tribunal Rules Housing Society Not a Promoter Under RERA

The post Full Payment to Builder Is NOT a Pre-Condition for Society Membership appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a significant decision that could have far-reaching implications for redevelopment projects across Maharashtra, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has ruled that a housing society taking over its own redevelopment after terminating a developer is to be treated as a “promoter” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

The ruling was delivered in a batch of appeals filed by D.N. Nagar Shivneri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., which challenged a common order of the MahaRERA Authority that had directed the society to compensate flat buyers for delays in possession — a liability typically imposed on developers.

Background: Society vs. Flat Buyers

The society had originally entered into a redevelopment agreement in 2010 with a private developer, M/s Sai Siddhant Developers. However, due to continued delays and contractual breaches by the developer, the society terminated the development agreement and opted to complete the project through self-redevelopment.

Meanwhile, several flat buyers (allottees) who had purchased flats from the original developer approached MahaRERA, claiming delays and seeking refund with interest. The MahaRERA Authority passed a common order in April 2025, holding the society jointly and severally liable along with the developer and directing compensation under Section 18 of RERA.

Tribunal: Society Must Follow RERA Rules

Challenging this, the society filed appeals and sought exemption from the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, arguing that it is not a “promoter” under the law, and hence the pre-deposit requirement should not apply.

However, in a detailed judgment, the Tribunal rejected this plea and clearly held:

“We come to the conclusion that prima facie the appellant society falls within the definition of promoter under the provisions of RERA Act, 2016…”

The Tribunal further stated that since the society had taken over the project and continued construction, and was even shown as a “landowner/promoter” on MahaRERA records, it could not disown the obligations that came with that role — especially those towards allottees.

Pre-Deposit Required

As per the RERA Act, a promoter who appeals a MahaRERA order must first deposit at least 30% of the penalty or compensation amount. The Tribunal ruled that the society must make this pre-deposit before the appeals can be entertained on merits.

This is a setback for the society, which claimed it had no contractual relationship with the flat buyers and that it had not received any money from them.

Legal Significance

This decision draws a clear line: if a society steps into the shoes of a defaulting developer and continues the project, it cannot escape the regulatory responsibilities and consumer liabilities under RERA. It sets a precedent that could impact hundreds of self-redevelopment and society-led projects across the state.

The Tribunal relied on the fact that the society:

• Took over possession of the project and continued construction,
• Is named as a landowner/promoter in MahaRERA registration,
• Benefited from approvals and plan modifications post termination of the developer.

What It Means for Homebuyers and Societies

For homebuyers, the judgment is a relief. It means that they can seek redress and compensation even when the original builder is out of the picture.

For housing societies, it sends a strong message: if you take over redevelopment, you take over the legal liabilities too — including timely delivery, compensation for delay, and registration duties.

What’s Next?

The society now has four weeks to comply with the pre-deposit condition. Only after that will the Tribunal hear the actual appeals on the merits of the case — including whether the society is ultimately liable for delay compensation.

This decision may trigger more cautious and legally informed decisions among societies embarking on self-redevelopment.

Also Read: MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal Rejects Developer’s Appeal Over Delay in Filing

The post Not Just Developers! Tribunal Says Society is Also a Promoter Under RERA appeared first on Square Feat India.