• Parties: The complaint was filed by Raajyam Realty LLP (the promoter) against Radhika Ganatra and Rishabh G. Mastaram (the allottees / homebuyers), regarding a flat in Amity Apartments (MahaRERA Reg. No. P51800004960).
• What promoter wanted: Raajyam Realty claimed the buyers had not paid full sale consideration (balance ₹14 lakh + GST) under the agreement for sale dated 8 July 2019. They alleged that the buyers moved in, started residing before giving full payment, and thus committed breach.
• Promoter asked MahaRERA to:
  1. Declare the agreement and booking as cancelled and terminated.
  2. Direct buyers to sign a deed of cancellation before sub-registrar within 15 days.
  3. Allow promoter to forfeit ₹20 lakh + claim additional ₹20 lakh for trespass.
  4. If buyers don’t comply, allow promoter (or government authority) to execute cancellation deed unilaterally or register it and recover unpaid dues (₹ 65.3 lakh plus interest).
• Buyers’ response: Buyers (Ganatra & Mastaram) argued: OC (Occupancy Certificate) was not valid — the promoter had only a conditional OC (pending statutory certifications like Section 270A for water supply). They also said no formal possession letter was issued by promoter, so balance payment was not due yet. They disputed GST liability and raised other project deficiencies (water supply, parking, amenities).

In short — a serious conflict: promoter said buyers defaulted; buyers said promoter hasn’t legally offered possession.

What the Authority (MahaRERA) Ruled

• The hearing was conducted by Manoj Saunik — Chairperson, MahaRERA.
• MahaRERA noted: the Occupation Certificate produced by promoter dated 4 March 2022 is not a final and valid OC — it is conditional, subject to statutory certifications (MOLOI / IOA / MMC’s 270A water-supply clearance).
• The buyers have already filed separate consumer proceedings (Consumer Complaint No. 154/2024) claiming deficiency in service; those litigation proceedings are pending.
• Crucially: MahaRERA observed that eviction, recovery of flat / possession, cancellation of agreement, eviction or unilateral cancellation deed registration — these are proprietary and possessory rights. These fall outside the jurisdiction of MahaRERA.
• Because the reliefs sought are beyond what the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 empowers MahaRERA to do, the complaint was dismissed.

The Chairperson held that such matters must be pursued before a competent civil court — MahaRERA cannot substitute itself for a civil court in matters of eviction or property recovery.

Final Order: Complaint dismissed, no costs awarded.

Why This Order Matters — What It Means for Homebuyers and Promoters

Clarifies the Limitations of MahaRERA

• Many promoters or buyers may assume MahaRERA can enforce civil-property rights (eviction, cancellation, possession recovery).
• This order clearly states those powers lie with civil courts — not MahaRERA.

Prevents Misuse of RERA for Civil Disputes

• Disputes over payment defaults, possession timing, ownership rights are often tangled.
• This judgment prevents misuse of RERA regulations to bypass due legal process (civil suits) in pursuit of unilateral cancellation or possession recovery.

For Homebuyers: Extra Protection

• Buyers get a safeguard — they cannot be evicted or treated as defaulters through RERA if they believe the project lacks valid OC or if possession was not lawfully offered.
• They can raise complaints or deficiency-of-service claims via appropriate forums (Consumer Court or civil court) without fear of summary eviction under RERA.

For Promoters: Legal Caution Required

• Promoters must ensure: valid/final OC, formal possession letters, clear title transfer documentation, and follow payment terms strictly.
• If buyers default, promoters can’t expect RERA to grant eviction or forfeiture — they must go to civil court.

The post MahaRERA Cannot Decide Issues Relating to Eviction or Recovery of Flat appeared first on Square Feat India.