In a significant ruling that reinforces the primacy of registered Agreement for Sale (AFS) terms, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has allowed promoter Raveshia Realtors to cancel seven agreements for office units in its project ‘The Metropole’ while dismissing the allottees’ claims for refund with interest.

The order was passed on 13 August 2026 by Chairperson Manoj Saunik in a batch of 14 cross-complaints involving office units numbered 9-02 to 9-08 in the project registered under MahaRERA number P51900026208. The allottees in the case are Mr. Milan Rajnikant Tanna and Mrs. Chaitali Milan Tanna.

Background of the Dispute

The seven registered Agreements for Sale were executed on 26 September 2022 for a total consideration of approximately ₹8.99 crore. As per the agreements, the promoter was to hand over possession by 30 March 2024. The project later received its Occupancy Certificate from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation on 29 November 2024, and the promoter uploaded Form 4 confirming completion.

According to the promoter, the allottees failed to pay the balance consideration despite multiple demand notices issued between September 2022 and July 2023. Acting under the terms of the agreements, Raveshia Realtors issued a termination notice on 1 August 2023.

The allottees, on the other hand, approached MahaRERA seeking a declaration that the termination was illegal. They claimed the transactions formed part of a composite barter arrangement linked to work orders executed between their sister concern, M/s Natural Arts, and the promoter’s sister concern, M/s Crimson Chrome Construction LLP. They argued that amounts due under those work orders should have been adjusted against the sale consideration and sought refund of nearly ₹6.92 crore in each complaint along with interest at 18 per cent, stamp duty, registration charges, housing loan interest, and compensation under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Key Arguments and Subsequent Developments

The promoter maintained that the registered AFS contained no provision for barter, set-off or adjustment of amounts arising from separate contractual arrangements between different legal entities. It also alleged that the allottees had later created third-party rights by executing registered agreements for sale dated 24 September 2025 for five of the seven units (9-04 to 9-08) in favour of one Mr. Deepak Kumar Kanjibhai Patel. The promoter challenged a purported No Objection Certificate dated 29 December 2025 as forged and lodged a police complaint.

The Authority noted that the allottees’ positions had shifted during the proceedings. While the original complaints sought refund, later amendment applications sought execution of conveyance deeds, allotment of parking spaces, and a restraint on the promoter from creating third-party rights — even as the allottees themselves had already sold five units.

MahaRERA’s Findings

Chairperson Manoj Saunik held that the registered Agreements for Sale did not contain any clause permitting adjustment or set-off of amounts claimed under separate work orders. Email correspondence between the parties could not override the written contractual terms.

The Authority observed that Section 19(6) of the RERA Act places a clear duty on allottees to make payments in the manner and within the time specified in the agreement. Having failed to do so despite repeated demands, the allottees could not avoid the consequences of default by relying on claims arising from independent contracts between sister concerns.

The termination notice of 1 August 2023 was found to be in accordance with the agreements and Section 11(5) of the Act. The Authority further noted that the allottees’ challenge to the termination came only after the promoter had initiated cancellation proceedings, and that their subsequent conduct of selling five units while seeking restraint against third-party rights was inconsistent.

Amendment applications seeking to introduce new reliefs of conveyance and parking were rejected as they substantially altered the original refund-based complaints. Preliminary objections regarding pending arbitration between the sister concerns were also dismissed, as those proceedings did not arise from the Agreements for Sale of the office units.

Final Directions

MahaRERA allowed the seven complaints filed by the promoter and dismissed the corresponding seven complaints filed by the allottees.

The Authority directed the promoter to refund the amount payable strictly in accordance with the terms of the respective Agreements for Sale within 30 days. Importantly, the allottees were held not entitled to any interest on this amount. Upon receipt of the refund, the allottees must execute the deed of cancellation within 60 days. In case of failure, the promoter is free to approach MahaRERA for appropriate action for non-compliance.

The allottees were also directed to clear any loans or liens created on the units so that the properties are free from encumbrances. All other reliefs claimed by the promoter, including broader forfeiture and litigation costs, were rejected. No order as to costs was passed.

Implications

The ruling underscores that informal understandings or disputes involving sister concerns cannot dilute the binding payment obligations under a registered Agreement for Sale. It also highlights that inconsistent conduct by allottees — particularly creating third-party rights while pursuing refund claims — can weaken their case before the Authority.

For promoters, the order provides clarity that a validly issued termination notice based on documented payment defaults can be upheld, subject to refund of amounts as per the contract. For homebuyers and commercial allottees, it serves as a reminder that payment defaults carry consequences and that claims of barter or adjustment must be clearly reflected in the registered agreement itself.

Also Read: Homebuyer Claims Dispute Between Shapoorji and Nirmal Lifestyle Delaying Mulund Project, MahaRERA Asks Shapoorji to File Its Response

The post MahaRERA Upholds Builder’s Termination of 7 Office Units Over Payment Default appeared first on Square Feat India.