The Tribunal dismissed Appeal No. AT006000000174633 of 2023 filed by Mr. Sudhir Vithal Mulay, a member of Padmarekha CHS Ltd, Kothrud, Pune. The detailed judgment, pronounced on 4th May 2026 by Member (A) Dr. Rajagopal Devara and Member (J) Shri Shriram R. Jagtap, upheld the MahaRERA Chairperson’s order dated 4th July 2023 that had dismissed the complaint as “not maintainable”.

What Was the Dispute?

Padmarekha CHS Ltd, an old society registered in 1989, entered into a Development Agreement on 14th February 2019 with Rui Universal Realities for redevelopment of the dilapidated building. Under this agreement, existing members were to be given new flats in the rehab component. Mr. Mulay was allotted Flat No. 302 (518.60 sq.ft.) plus parking.

The Development Agreement also gave members an option to purchase an additional 100 sq.ft. at ₹10,250 per sq.ft., but this option had to be exercised within one month of the project’s RERA registration (which happened on 29th May 2020). Mr. Mulay paid ₹10,25,000 on 2nd August 2021 — well beyond the deadline. He also alleged that the developer had unilaterally reduced his flat’s area by removing the master bedroom toilet and open terrace without consent.

He filed a complaint before MahaRERA seeking execution of the agreement for the extra area and restoration of the original plan. MahaRERA dismissed the complaint, saying it had no jurisdiction over the rehab component. Mr. Mulay then approached the Appellate Tribunal.

Tribunal’s Key Observations and Ruling

The Tribunal firmly held that:

• In hybrid redevelopment projects, there are two distinct components — rehab component (for original society members) and sale component (new flats sold to outsiders).
• RERA Act, 2016 applies only to the sale component. The rehab component is governed solely by the Development Agreement signed between the housing society and the developer.
• Since no “Agreement for Sale” was executed between Mr. Mulay and the developer, he does not qualify as an “Allottee” under Section 2(d) of the RERA Act.
• Section 3(2)(c) of RERA explicitly exempts pure redevelopment projects that do not involve marketing or new allotments to third parties.
• Disputes regarding area, amenities, additional space, or delay in the rehab component must be resolved through the housing society or as per the dispute resolution mechanism in the Development Agreement — not through RERA.

The Tribunal relied on its earlier consistent rulings (including Savita Ravindra Deokar vs Bhalchandra Vinayak Wadnerkar) and reiterated:

“A redevelopment project or rehab component of a redevelopment project of hybrid nature do not fall within the purview of the RERA and flat taker/Appellant in rehab component is not entitled to any relief as provided under the RERA.”

The appeal was dismissed with parties bearing their own costs.

Important Message for All Housing Society Members

This judgment serves as an important public warning to every member of a cooperative housing society undergoing redevelopment in Maharashtra:

If you are an original flat owner getting a new flat in lieu of your old premises, RERA is generally NOT the forum for your grievances against the builder. Complaints about delay in possession, reduction in area, missing amenities, refusal of additional area, or changes in plan will most likely be dismissed by MahaRERA as “not maintainable”.

What should society members do instead?

• Resolve issues collectively through the Managing Committee of the society.
• Enforce rights as per the Development Agreement (or the individual Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement).
• Approach the Co-operative Court, Civil Court, or arbitration (if provided in the agreement).

Society members are advised to read the Development Agreement carefully before signing, insist on clear clauses regarding additional area options, timelines, and amenities, and keep all communication in writing.

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

The post RERA Not for Redevelopment: Tribunal Warns Housing Society Members appeared first on Square Feat India.

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.

The Verdict in Plain Language

“You accepted fit-out possession without an Occupation Certificate and stayed on. You acquiesced. You now get interest for 49 days — not 35 months.”

— MahaRERA Member II, in effect

The Story

In September 2016, Manasa Balumur — an NRI — purchased a flat in the Dinesh Kunj project in Goregaon (West), Mumbai, from builder Swastik Realty Pvt. Ltd. for a total consideration of ₹1,06,44,000. The Agreement for Sale was registered. The builder promised possession within 24 months — by 31 August 2018.

That date came and went. No Occupation Certificate. No lawful possession. Instead, in October 2018, the builder offered what it called “fitment possession” — a chance to enter the flat to carry out interior works, with no OC in sight. The buyer accepted, began her interiors, and moved in. The actual Occupation Certificate arrived only on 29 July 2021 — nearly three years after the promised possession date.

Her father, Anantha Krishna Balumur, armed with a registered Power of Attorney, filed a complaint before MahaRERA in October 2020 seeking interest on the full consideration for the period of delay and ₹10 lakh in compensation for mental agony.

The Timeline

Sep 1, 2016

Agreement for Sale registered. Builder promises possession within 24 months.

Aug 31, 2018

Contractual deadline for possession. Builder misses it. No OC obtained.

Oct 20, 2018

Builder offers “fitment possession” — flat handed over without Occupation Certificate. Buyer accepts for interior works.

Oct 31, 2020

Complaint filed before MahaRERA seeking interest and compensation.

Jul 29, 2021

Occupation Certificate finally obtained — 35 months after the agreed possession date.

Oct 2022

Buyer admitted to the Co-operative Housing Society.

Apr 20, 2026

MahaRERA passes final order. Interest awarded for 49 days only.

What the Law Says

This is not a grey area. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is explicit. Section 18(1) makes builders liable to pay interest for every month of delay in handing over possession. Section 19(10) gives allottees the right to receive possession only after the builder has obtained the Occupation Certificate. Without the OC, there is no lawful possession — period.

Rule 18 of the Maharashtra RERA Rules specifies the interest rate: SBI’s highest MCLR plus 2%. The law does not say this liability evaporates if a buyer, desperate after years of waiting, accepts entry into a flat she has already paid for in full, merely to begin her interiors.

“The flat had no OC. Under RERA, that means it legally did not exist as a deliverable unit. Yet the order penalises the buyer for daring to use what she paid ₹1.06 crore for.”

What MahaRERA Did

MahaRERA correctly dismissed several of the builder’s defences. It rightly held that the unregistered Deed of Cancellation — the builder’s claim that the entire sale agreement had been cancelled in September 2016 — was legally void. A registered agreement can only be cancelled by a registered instrument. The builder’s subsequent conduct — handing over possession, helping the buyer get society membership — confirmed the agreement was alive.

MahaRERA also rightly dismissed the builder’s claim that ₹45.3 lakh in dues were outstanding. The builder’s own cancellation deed admitted full consideration had been received. No contemporaneous demand for dues existed.

So far, so good. Then came the twist.

Having established that the Agreement for Sale was valid, that the builder was in breach, and that the OC only came 35 months late — MahaRERA then drastically curtailed the relief. The order held that because the buyer voluntarily accepted fitment possession in October 2018 and “continued to occupy the premises without raising any contemporaneous objection,” she had acquiesced to the delay. Therefore, interest would be awarded only for the gap between the contractual date (31 August 2018) and the fitment possession date (20 October 2018) — a grand total of 49 days.

The Arithmetic of Injustice

The buyer waited 35 months for a legal, OC-backed possession. MahaRERA awarded interest for 49 days. The remaining 34+ months of delay — during which the flat had no Occupation Certificate and therefore no legal standing as a completed unit — were wiped away because the buyer moved in to do her interiors.

The Fatal Flaw in the Reasoning

The order’s logic creates a perverse trap for homebuyers. Under RERA, a buyer is entitled to either interest for delay or a refund. The buyer here did not want a refund — she wanted her flat. After waiting, she accepted fitment possession to at least begin her interiors, mitigating her own losses while paying EMIs on her home loan. That act of pragmatic mitigation is now treated as a waiver of three years of statutory rights.

The order is silent on a crucial question: what was she supposed to do? Refuse entry into a flat she had paid ₹1.06 crore for, sit in limbo, and keep paying home loan EMIs while waiting for an OC that came three years later? If she had done that, would she have been entitled to interest? Apparently yes. Because she was practical and moved in, she is entitled to almost nothing.

This reasoning also directly conflicts with the plain text of the Act. Section 18 creates an obligation on the promoter to pay interest. The allottee’s decision to occupy the flat — which she paid for, in full — does not extinguish the promoter’s statutory obligation. The RERA framework does not contain an “acquiescence” exception. If it did, builders across Maharashtra would simply hand over possession without OCs, wait for buyers to move in, and be immunised from all liability.

“RERA does not contain an acquiescence exception. If it did, every builder in Maharashtra would hand over flats without OCs, wait for buyers to move in, and declare themselves immune.”

The Compensation Denial

Beyond the interest question, MahaRERA denied the ₹10 lakh compensation claim for mental agony entirely, observing that “no separate and specific evidence” had been placed on record. The order concluded that statutory interest “would sufficiently meet the ends of justice.” Interest for 49 days on ₹1.06 crore — likely amounting to a few thousand rupees — is described as sufficient to compensate for three and a half years of living in a flat without legal occupation, dealing with incomplete amenities, and funding litigation.

The Cost Award: A Final Insult

The Respondent was directed to pay ₹20,000 toward the cost of the complaint. For context, the complainant’s advocate fees and years of litigation costs almost certainly far exceed this figure. The builder — which delayed the OC by 35 months, tried to pass off an unregistered cancellation deed as legally valid, and claimed fictitious outstanding dues — walks away paying twenty thousand rupees in costs and 49 days of interest.

What This Order Signals

MahaRERA was created precisely to correct the power imbalance between builders and homebuyers. The RERA Act gave buyers the right to compensation for delay, the right to possession only with an OC, and the right to approach a statutory authority for redress. An order that uses a buyer’s practical acceptance of an incomplete flat against her — to deny the very relief the Act provides — undermines the architecture of the legislation.

If this reasoning stands, it sends a clear message to builders: delay your OC, hand over fitment possession, and wait. Once buyers move in, your liability is capped at the narrow gap between contractual deadline and fitment date. The longer you delay the OC after that, the more liability you shed.

And it sends a clear message to buyers: do not accept fitment possession, no matter how desperate you are, no matter how many EMIs you are paying, no matter how many years you have waited — because the moment you do, your right to compensation effectively disappears.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Full Refund with Interest to Homebuyer for Possession Delay

The post “You Stayed in It — So Stop Complaining”: How MahaRERA Let a Builder Off the Hook After 35 Months of Illegal Delay appeared first on Square Feat India.

A closer look at the official website of MahaRERA has revealed discrepancies that raise troubling questions about the authority’s functioning.

During a routine check of rulings published on the platform, it was observed that multiple orders uploaded in April 2026 were actually passed years earlier, creating confusion for users relying on the website for accurate and timely information.

What the Investigation Found

When this reporter filtered rulings between April 1, 2026 and April 17, 2026, and selected the “Final Order” category, the first page itself showed multiple inconsistencies.

Here are some key examples:

Case 1: VERDE RESIDENCE COLLECTION

• Project Registration Number: P52100004841
• Complainant: Pushpa Krishnagopal Sawhney
• Complaint No: CC005000000011846
• Respondent: M/s Stratford Realty LLP
• Upload Date on Website: April 13, 2026

However, when the order was opened, it was dated December 28, 2018
The order was passed by former MahaRERA member Vijay Satbir Singh, who is no longer associated with the authority

Case 2: KARRM PANCHTATVA – 2

• Project Registration Number: P51700010325
• Complainant: Shalini Kumar
• Complaint No: CC006000000057980
• Respondent: Nishikant Naiksatam
• Upload Date: April 13, 2026

On opening, the order was actually dated September 19, 2019

Case 3: KARUNA Project

• Project Registration Number: P52000011654
• Complainant: Almas Sayed
• Complaint No: CC006000000193319
• Respondent: Mr Parag Thakkar
• Upload Date: April 7, 2026

The actual final order was passed on February 28, 2025

Pattern, Not an Isolated Issue

Out of the first 10 orders listed, most did not match the dates shown on the website.

This suggests a systematic issue, not a one-off error.

For users:

• It becomes difficult to track recent rulings
• It creates confusion about case timelines
• It undermines the credibility of official records

Isn’t RERA Meant to Ensure Transparency?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was introduced with a clear objective:

To bring transparency, accountability, and trust to India’s real estate sector

Under RERA:

• All project details must be publicly accessible
• Orders and rulings must be clearly documented
• Homebuyers should be able to rely on accurate and updated information

Then Why This Lack of Clarity?

The current situation raises uncomfortable questions:

• Why are old orders being uploaded with current dates?
• Is this a case of backend data migration, or something else?
• Why is there no clear mention of original order dates upfront?

For an authority designed to protect homebuyers, such discrepancies can erode confidence.

Impact on Homebuyers and Industry

For homebuyers, especially those actively tracking disputes:

• It becomes harder to identify latest judgments
• It affects legal awareness and decision-making
• It creates doubt about the authenticity of records

For the industry:

• It weakens trust in the regulator
• It raises concerns about data governance and transparency

A Credibility Question for the Regulator

MahaRERA has often been considered one of the more proactive RERA authorities in India.

However, such inconsistencies:
Risk damaging its reputation
Raise questions about internal processes
Highlight the need for better digital transparency practices

Final Take

At a time when the real estate sector is striving for greater transparency, such discrepancies on an official regulatory platform are concerning.

The bigger question remains:
Is this a technical oversight, or something deeper?

Until clarified, this issue risks undermining the very trust that RERA was meant to build.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Refund with Interest in Serenity Project Case, Dismisses Premature Complaints

The post What Is MahaRERA Up To? Old Orders Uploaded as New Raise Transparency Concerns appeared first on Square Feat India.

The order, issued on 23 February 2026, applies to incomplete applications related to project registration, project corrections and project extensions that remained pending because promoters failed to complete or resubmit them.

Cleaning Up Backlog on Old Portal

According to the regulator, several applications on the old MahaRERA portal were left incomplete for extended periods as developers did not upload the required documents or complete the submission process.

Under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, developers must register their projects before marketing or selling units. Section 3 of the law mandates project registration, while Section 4 requires promoters to submit detailed information and documents as part of the application process.

However, the authority observed that a large number of applications had been pending at the promoters’ end, primarily because they were never completed or resubmitted after deficiencies were pointed out.

Opportunity Given Earlier to Promoters

Before taking the decision to close these applications, MahaRERA had issued notices on 15 October 2025 and 2 January 2026, giving promoters an opportunity to complete their applications.

Developers were granted a one-month facilitation window to rectify deficiencies and re-submit their pending filings. Despite this, the regulator said many promoters did not respond or take corrective steps.

In some cases, communication sent by the authority was returned undelivered due to inactive email IDs or outdated contact information provided by the promoters.

Administrative Closure, Not Rejection

MahaRERA clarified that the closure of applications on the old portal is purely an administrative step and should not be interpreted as a rejection of the project applications.

The authority said the move is intended to streamline the regulatory system and remove inactive records from the earlier platform.

Developers who still wish to pursue the registration or modification of their projects can submit fresh applications on the MahaRERA Web Portal 2.0 (MahaCRITI) in accordance with the prescribed procedures and applicable fees.

Shift to MahaRERA’s New Digital Platform

The regulator has been gradually transitioning to the MahaCRITI platform, the upgraded version of its online system designed to handle project registrations, updates and compliance filings more efficiently.

By removing long-pending incomplete applications from the old portal, MahaRERA aims to ensure that only active and properly documented applications remain in the system, improving transparency and regulatory oversight in the state’s real estate sector.

The order came into effect immediately following approval from the chairperson of MahaRERA.

Also Read: Parking Issue: Shift The Wall Orders MahaRERA

The post Developers With Incomplete RERA Applications Asked to Reapply After MahaRERA Closes Old Portal Cases appeared first on Square Feat India.

The order was passed by Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA, in Complaint No. CC005000000116882, decided on January 13, 2026.

Background of the Case

The complaint was filed by Mohammad Iqbal Pathan, a homebuyer, against Xrbia Mirth Properties, the promoter of a residential real estate project titled “Xrbia Singapune”, located at Dhanori, Taluka Haveli, District Pune (MahaRERA Registration No. P52100021752).

According to the complaint, the developer launched the project in 2020 and invited bookings for residential flats. Relying on the developer’s representations, the homebuyer booked Flat No. B-2-213, situated on the 2nd floor of Wing ‘B’, for a total consideration of ₹25 lakh.

Between March 2020 and September 2020, the homebuyer paid a total amount of ₹1,28,954 towards booking. However, no Agreement for Sale was ever executed or registered between the parties.

Cancellation and Refund Dispute

In June 2021, citing severe financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic and health issues in the family, the homebuyer requested cancellation of the booking and sought refund of the booking amount through an email dated June 15, 2021.

The developer allegedly refused the refund, stating that the booking amount was non-refundable. Despite a legal notice dated December 17, 2021, no refund was made, prompting the homebuyer to approach MahaRERA seeking refund, interest, and compensation.

Builder’s Stand

The developer opposed the complaint, arguing that:

• The booking amount was non-refundable
• The complaint under Section 18 of the RERA Act (refund due to delay in possession) was not maintainable
• The project had received extensions due to COVID-19 being treated as a force majeure event
• Possession timelines had not yet expired

The developer further claimed that the buyer had defaulted on payment obligations and that the complaint was premature.

MahaRERA’s Findings

After examining the record, MahaRERA noted several key facts:

• The homebuyer had indeed paid ₹1,28,954 as booking amount
• No Agreement for Sale was executed
• The booking was cancelled after about one year
• The developer failed to show any actual financial loss caused by the cancellation

The Authority held that Section 18 of the RERA Act does not strictly apply in the absence of an Agreement for Sale. However, it emphasized that RERA is a beneficial and consumer-oriented legislation, and a promoter cannot act unfairly or unjustly enrich itself by forfeiting money without justification.

Why Only 2% Deduction Was Allowed

MahaRERA relied on its earlier Order No. 35/2022 dated August 12, 2022, which lays down a standard principle for cases where:

• A booking is cancelled
• No Agreement for Sale exists
• The promoter cannot prove actual loss

As per this order, a promoter may deduct only 2% of the total cost of the unit as administrative charges and must refund the remaining amount.

In this case:

• Flat value: ₹25,00,000
• Permissible deduction (2%): ₹50,000

Accordingly, MahaRERA directed the developer to refund the balance amount to the homebuyer.

Final Order

MahaRERA ordered that:

1. Xrbia Mirth Properties may deduct 2% of the flat value
2. The remaining amount must be refunded within 30 days
3. If the refund is delayed, the developer must pay interest at SBI’s MCLR plus 2%
4. Both parties shall bear their own litigation costs

Why This Order Is Important

This ruling is significant for homebuyers and the real estate sector for several reasons:

• It clarifies that “non-refundable booking amount” clauses cannot override fairness, especially when no Agreement for Sale is signed
• It reinforces that builders cannot forfeit large sums without proving actual loss
• It standardizes the 2% deduction rule, bringing predictability to pre-agreement cancellations
• It strengthens consumer confidence by reaffirming MahaRERA’s role as a protector of homebuyer interests, even where strict statutory provisions may not apply

Conclusion

The order sends a clear message: booking a flat does not give developers a free hand to retain buyers’ money, particularly in the absence of a formal agreement. While MahaRERA recognizes that builders may incur administrative expenses, it has drawn a firm line against excessive and unfair forfeiture—an important reassurance for thousands of prospective homebuyers across Maharashtra.

Also Read: Homebuyers Can Face Jail Too for Disobeying MahaRERA Tribunal Orders?

The post Booked a Flat but Didn’t Sign Agreement? MahaRERA Says Builder Can’t Keep Your Money appeared first on Square Feat India.

The direction came while disposing of a set of four complaints filed against Pearlite Real Properties Private Limited, the promoter of the project registered under MahaRERA No. P52100001005. While three complaints were rejected on different legal grounds, MahaRERA partly allowed one complaint solely on the issue of seepage, underlining that a promoter’s responsibility for structural defects continues even after possession.

The Seepage Complaint: What the Homebuyer Alleged

The seepage-related grievance arose from Complaint No. CC12502913, filed by an allottee of Flat No. 1402, Building G1, who had taken possession of the flat in August 2022.

The homebuyer alleged that:

• Severe seepage in the living room was noticed from November 2021
• The issue was repeatedly reported to the promoter with photographs
• The complaint was raised well within the defect liability period
• Despite multiple site visits, the promoter only carried out temporary and cosmetic repairs, such as repainting and removal of damp plaster
• The seepage continued to recur, affecting habitability and interior finishes

Builder’s Defence: Repairs Were Done

The promoter argued that:

• The seepage issue was attended to on multiple occasions
• The defect was linked to waterproofing problems in the flat above
• Necessary repair work was undertaken and would continue as required
• Therefore, no further relief was warranted

However, MahaRERA was not convinced.

MahaRERA’s Key Finding: Temporary Repairs Are Not Enough

After examining submissions and records, MahaRERA held that repeated recurrence of seepage itself indicates that the root cause has not been resolved.

The Authority observed that:

• Section 14(3) of RERA imposes a statutory and continuing obligation on promoters
• Merely carrying out surface-level repairs does not amount to compliance
• The promoter’s responsibility continues until permanent rectification is achieved

This interpretation is crucial, as seepage and waterproofing defects are among the most common post-possession complaints faced by homebuyers across projects.

Section 14(3) of RERA Explained Simply

Under Section 14(3) of RERA:

• If a structural defect or defect in workmanship, quality, or services is brought to the promoter’s notice
• Within five years from the date of possession
• The promoter must rectify the defect at its own cost
• Within 30 days, failing which compensation becomes payable

MahaRERA reaffirmed that this provision applies even after possession, and promoters cannot evade liability by claiming that the flat has already been handed over.

The Final Direction

MahaRERA ordered that:

• The promoter must permanently rectify the seepage and structural defects
• Entirely at its own cost
• Within 30 days from the date of the order (2 January 2026)

The Authority further warned that:

• Non-compliance would attract penal action under Section 63 of RERA, which deals with penalties for failure to comply with Authority’s directions

Why This Order Matters for Homebuyers

This ruling sends a clear message to both developers and homebuyers:

• Possession does not end a builder’s liability for construction defects
• Cosmetic fixes cannot be passed off as permanent solutions
• Section 14(3) is an enforceable remedy, not a symbolic provision
• Homebuyers can approach MahaRERA for effective relief, even years after possession, provided the complaint falls within the defect liability period

Bigger Implication

By strictly enforcing Section 14(3), MahaRERA has reaffirmed that quality of construction is a continuing responsibility, and that promoters cannot rely on delay, possession, or partial repairs to avoid accountability. The order is likely to guide similar seepage and structural defect disputes across Maharashtra.

Also Read: MahaRERA asks Developers to mediate with Developers of lapsed housing projects

The post Builder of Godrej 24 Project Directed by MahaRERA to Permanently Repair Seepage Defects appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a significant order strengthening homebuyer protections, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has ruled that a booking application form by itself does not amount to a concluded or binding sale contract, especially when the booking process is incomplete.

The Authority directed Mahindra Happinest Developers Ltd to refund ₹1.50 lakh to a homebuyer who had cancelled her booking before paying the second instalment of the booking amount.

The ruling came in Complaint No. CC006000000194936, filed by Moushumi Rohan Gala, concerning a flat booked in the developer’s Mahindra Happinest Kalyan Project.

What Was the Dispute About?

The complainant had booked a 1 BHK apartment in August 2020 and paid:

• ₹25,000 as token amount
• ₹1,25,000 as Booking Amount–1

The second instalment (Booking Amount–2) was due on October 9, 2020. However, due to COVID-related travel restrictions, the complainant—who was residing in Qatar—requested time for registration.

Despite this, the developer:

• Issued an allotment letter before receiving the full booking amount
• Sent repeated reminders for registration
• Eventually forfeited the entire ₹1.50 lakh when the complainant cancelled the booking one day before the second instalment due date

Aggrieved, the homebuyer approached MahaRERA seeking a refund.

Developer’s Argument: Booking Form Is a Binding Contract

The developer argued that:

• The booking application form constituted a concluded contract
• The complainant had voluntarily cancelled the booking due to “personal circumstances”
• As per the booking terms, the developer was entitled to forfeit 10% of the total flat cost
• Issuing the allotment letter created enforceable contractual obligations

The developer also cited Supreme Court judgments supporting forfeiture of earnest money.

MahaRERA’s Key Finding: No Completed Booking, No Binding Contract

Rejecting the developer’s stand, MahaRERA held that:

“Signing of the booking form does not in itself create a binding contract.”

The Authority noted that as per the booking terms:

• The booking would be completed only after payment of both Booking Amount–1 and Booking Amount–2
• The developer was required to issue the allotment letter after receiving the full booking amount

By issuing the allotment letter before receiving Booking Amount–2, the developer violated its own booking conditions.

Why Issuing Allotment Letter Early Hurt the Developer’s Case

MahaRERA observed that:

• The developer acted prematurely and contrary to the agreed process
• The complainant cancelled the booking before the due date of the second instalment
• The booking transaction was never completed
• Mere issuance of an allotment letter cannot justify forfeiture when conditions precedent were not fulfilled

Flat Was Resold, No Loss to Developer

A crucial factor influencing the decision was that:

• The same flat was later sold to a third party
• A registered agreement for sale was executed in March 2021
• The developer suffered no actual financial loss

Hence, MahaRERA ruled that forfeiture of the entire booking amount was unjustified and against the spirit of RERA, which is consumer-protective legislation.

Final Order by MahaRERA

MahaRERA directed the developer to:

• Refund ₹1,50,000 (token + Booking Amount–1)
• Pay the refund within 30 days
• Failing which, pay interest at 2% above SBI’s MCLR
• No order as to costs

Why This Order Is Important for Homebuyers

This ruling is significant because it clarifies that:

• Booking forms are not equal to sale agreements
• Developers cannot forfeit money if booking is incomplete
• Allotment letters issued prematurely do not create binding rights
• Refunds are justified when developers breach their own booking terms
• RERA will look at substance over paperwork

Key Takeaway

Homebuyers should note that payment milestones matter, and developers must strictly follow their own booking procedures. MahaRERA has once again reinforced that consumer interest comes first, even when standard forfeiture clauses exist.

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

The post Booking Form Alone Does Not Create Binding Sale Contract: MahaRERA Orders Refund to Homebuyer appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a significant ruling that strengthens homebuyer rights, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has held that developers cannot forfeit the entire booking amount when an allottee cancels a unit booking. The Authority directed Mahalunge Township Developers LLP (Godrej Hill Retreat 2) to refund the full amount paid by complainant Bhuvan Chawla, after deducting only 1.5% of the total unit cost, as permitted under Order No. 60/2024 dated 03.09.2024.

The order was pronounced by MahaRERA Chairperson Shri Manoj Saunik on November 20, 2025, after the matter was reserved for orders on August 26, 2025.

Case Background

The complainant, homebuyer Bhuvan Chawla, booked Unit No. 2504 (25th floor) in Godrej Hill Retreat 2, paying ₹8,49,442 between May and June 2024. An allotment letter was issued on June 22, 2024, showing the proposed possession date as March 28, 2027, with a total unit cost of ₹80,89,925.42.

However, after receiving the draft Agreement for Sale on July 2, 2024, Chawla raised objections to multiple clauses that he alleged were unilateral, arbitrary and contrary to Section 14(2) of RERA, including:

• Provisions permitting the developer to change building plans unilaterally
• Escalation charges
• Excessive holding/maintenance costs

Chawla requested cancellation and refund on July 29, 2024, within 37 days of the allotment letter—within the permissible period defined in the model allotment form under Order 60.

Developer Forfeited Entire Amount

Instead of processing a refund, the developer forfeited the full booking amount, claiming the cancellation was buyer-driven and arguing that forfeiture was justified under contract law. The respondent relied on Supreme Court judgments regarding earnest money to support its position.

The complainant issued repeated follow-ups and served a legal notice on December 26, 2024, receiving a reply on February 3, 2025, after which he filed the present complaint on February 14, 2025.

MahaRERA Examination

MahaRERA observed:

• The allotment letter was signed only by the promoter; yet both parties accepted it as valid.
• The developer accepted more than 10% consideration without executing an Agreement for Sale, prima facie violating Section 13(1) of RERA.
• Under Clause 9 of the model allotment form, when cancellation is requested between 31–60 days, the developer may deduct only 1.5% of the unit cost.
• Refund must be made within 45 days from the cancellation request.
• Delay mandates payment of interest at SBI highest MCLR + 2%.

Key Findings & Order

MahaRERA held that the developer’s action was inconsistent with RERA norms:

“The action of the respondent in forfeiting the entire paid amount of Rs. 8,49,442/- is inconsistent with Clause 9 of the allotment letter and the provisions of Order No. 60/2024.”

Final Directions

• Developer must refund the balance amount after deducting only 1.5% of total unit cost
• Refund must be paid within 60 days
• Interest due from September 13, 2024, until realization, at rate prescribed under Rule 18
• Refund includes only principal consideration, excluding stamp duty, taxes, registration fees and statutory charges
• No costs were awarded

Key Legal Significance

This ruling reinforces that:

• Developers cannot arbitrarily confiscate booking amounts
• Refund rules are governed uniformly by Order No. 60/2024 and model allotment terms
• Buyer intent or cancellation reasons are irrelevant once procedure is followed
• MahaRERA prioritizes consumer protection and transparency obligations

Industry professionals expect this decision to influence how forfeiture disputes are handled across Maharashtra.

Also Read: How Much Money Can a Builder Forfeit If a Homebuyer Cancels a Deal?

The post MahaRERA Rules Developer Cannot Forfeit Entire Booking Amount Upon Cancellation appeared first on Square Feat India.

For years, homebuyers in Maharashtra faced uncertainty on this very issue. Developers often included vague clauses in booking forms, with some retaining 10% or more of the total cost upon cancellation. Such arbitrary deductions frequently led to disputes, especially when buyers had barely crossed the initial booking stage.

But things have changed. A regulatory order issued by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) in 2022 has finally brought clarity — and relief — to homebuyers by placing firm limits on what developers can forfeit.

A Uniform Rulebook for All Developers

MahaRERA’s 2022 directive was designed to end confusion and standardize documents used in property transactions. It made it mandatory for every developer registering a project to upload the model allotment letter and agreement for sale, both of which clearly spell out the dos and don’ts when a booking is cancelled.

This move ensured transparency right from the early stages of the transaction, when buyers typically pay up to 10% of the flat’s cost as a booking advance — often before the main sale agreement is signed. Cancellations at this stage are common, whether due to financing issues, delays, or personal reasons.

Before the order, there was no uniform rule — and forfeiture amounts varied wildly from one project to another. MahaRERA’s intervention created a single, state-wide framework to ensure fairness for all.

Gradual Deduction, Strict Limits

Under the new framework, the forfeiture depends on how long the buyer holds the booking before cancelling.
If a buyer cancels within 15 days of receiving the allotment letter, no deduction is allowed.
Between 16 and 30 days, the developer can deduct up to 1% of the apartment cost.
For cancellations between 31 and 60 days, the limit rises to 1.5%, and beyond 60 days — before the agreement for sale is executed — the builder can retain a maximum of 2%.

That’s the ceiling. Whether the apartment costs ₹50 lakh or ₹1 crore, the developer cannot legally forfeit more than 2% before the agreement is registered.

If the builder takes longer than 45 days to refund the remaining amount, they must pay interest at the SBI marginal cost of lending rate (MCLR) plus 2%, ensuring buyers aren’t left waiting indefinitely for refunds.

Even in Default, Fairness Prevails

The MahaRERA order also outlines what happens if a buyer fails to move ahead after allotment — such as missing further payment deadlines or not showing up to register the agreement for sale. In such cases, the builder must first send a 15-day notice asking the buyer to comply. If the buyer still does not proceed, the developer can cancel the booking — but even then, forfeiture cannot exceed the 2% cap.

All remaining money must be returned within 45 days. Any delay again triggers the same interest penalty.

Why This Order Matters

Before RERA came into effect, developers routinely retained hefty sums — often 20% or more — in the name of cancellation charges. Homebuyers rarely had a legal footing to challenge this practice. The 2022 MahaRERA order changed that landscape by aligning forfeiture norms with transparency and accountability, the very principles the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, stands for.

Developers now have to upload their allotment letter formats and highlight any deviation from MahaRERA’s approved model in colour, so buyers can easily see what’s changed. This makes it harder for builders to sneak in unfavourable terms or clauses that go beyond what the law permits.

For homebuyers, this means peace of mind — knowing that a decision to cancel won’t lead to massive financial loss. For developers, it means clear boundaries and fewer legal disputes.

A Safer Market for Homebuyers

Today, any project registered after 2022 in Maharashtra must comply with these guidelines. For buyers, this ensures transparency not just in pricing and possession, but even in the event of a change of mind. MahaRERA has also made it easier to file complaints online if a developer violates the refund norms.

With a clear forfeiture cap and structured refund timelines, Maharashtra’s real estate sector is gradually becoming more equitable — one rule at a time.

Also Read: Homebuyer Loses Flat, Payment Forfeited After Ignoring MahaRERA Order to Clear Dues

The post How Much Money Can a Builder Forfeit If a Homebuyer Cancels a Deal? appeared first on Square Feat India.