The order, dated 7 October 2026, is in complaint SC/27/CC/80/2023 filed by Sejal Pravin Shah. The developer did not appear and did not file a reply. The Commission proceeded ex-parte on 27 December 2023 and decided the case on the owners’ unchallenged agreements and correspondence.

What the owners complained of

The complainants, along with their late mother Harsha Pravin Shah, owned a one-third undivided share in a property called Magan Vihar at Matunga. For redevelopment they signed an Agreement to Assign on 12 March 2010, and on 18 February 2015 a Supplementary Agreement and an Agreement to Offer Permanent Alternate Accommodation.

Under those documents the developer was to give Flat No. 402, of at least 1,395 sq ft carpet, with two car parks. It was also to pay compensation, rent for temporary accommodation, and a penalty if possession was delayed. Clause 18 required the developer to register the accommodation agreement and bear stamp duty and registration charges for up to 1,000 sq ft. The owners were to pay their share on the area above that.

Possession of Flat 402 was handed over in May 2018. The municipal occupation certificate was issued on 4 May 2018. The owners said the paperwork and the money never followed.

They alleged that the developer did not register the agreement or pay stamp duty up to 1,000 sq ft, though they were ready to pay their share on the balance. They also claimed it withheld ₹88 lakh as enhanced compensation for floor space index rising from 2.5 to 3, promised in the 2015 supplementary agreement. Further claims were ₹6.60 lakh as transit rent from December 2017 to April 2018, ₹16.50 lakh as the contractual delay penalty, and ₹10 lakh spent by them on raw materials.

Instead of clearing these dues, the developer sent a notice on 1 June 2022 demanding ₹30,26,592 towards alleged construction costs and unauthorised alterations. The owners called this demand baseless, because the occupation certificate was already in place.

Why the Commission treated them as consumers

The first question was jurisdiction. The Commission held that the owners were consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

It relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Faqir Chand Gulati vs Uppal Agencies (2008). Where a landowner gives development rights and the builder keeps part of the new construction for cost and profit while delivering the rest to the owner, the deal is a contract for housing construction service, not a joint venture.

Here, the one-third share in Magan Vihar was the consideration. In return, the developer had to build and hand over a 1,395 sq ft carpet flat and pay compensation. That, the Commission said, created a consumer–service provider relationship.

How the defaults were viewed

On the merits, the Commission said the developer took the development rights, handed over the flat in May 2018, and then ignored both the contract and the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, by not registering the accommodation agreement.

It held that three money claims were written into the agreements and remained unpaid: transit rent of ₹6.60 lakh under Clause 6.4, the delay penalty of ₹16.50 lakh under Clause 15.1, and enhanced compensation of ₹88 lakh for the higher FSI. Possession was due within 24 months from 15 June 2014, so by mid-2016. It was given only in May 2018. The ₹10 lakh materials claim was allowed because it was not denied.

The June 2022 demand of ₹30.26 lakh was described as a retaliatory tactic. The Commission noted that the BMC had already granted the occupation certificate on 4 May 2018, and said the later notice looked like a smokescreen to pressure the owners and avoid the developer’s own liabilities. With no evidence from the developer, the owners’ case stood unrefuted.

What Skyline must now do

The complaint has been allowed. The operative directions are:

• Execute and register the 18 February 2015 permanent alternate accommodation agreement within 60 days of receiving the order. The developer bears stamp duty and registration charges up to 1,000 sq ft carpet. The owners pay the proportionate cost on the remaining area, as agreed in Clause 18.
• Pay ₹88 lakh towards enhanced FSI compensation, with interest at 8 per cent a year from the date of default until payment.
• Pay ₹6.60 lakh as arrears of temporary accommodation rent and ₹16.50 lakh as the delay penalty.
• Reimburse ₹10 lakh spent on raw materials.
• Pay ₹1 lakh for mental agony, harassment and hardship, and ₹50,000 as litigation costs.

The lump-sum directions add up to ₹1.226 crore. Interest applies only to the ₹88 lakh. Copies of the order are to be given free to the parties. It is signed by Presiding Member Poonam V. Maharshi and Member Dr Nisha Amol Chavhan.

The flat itself was handed over in 2018. The order is about registering that flat in the owners’ favour and paying contractual dues that the Commission found had been withheld for years.

Also Read: Builders Took ₹90 Lakh, Sold Flat to Someone Else — Consumer Commission Orders ₹1.05 Crore Refund

The post Builder Told to Register Matunga Flat, Pay Over ₹1.22 Crore appeared first on Square Feat India.