In a major ruling reinforcing homebuyer protection, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has held that even unregistered allotment letters issued before RERA came into force are valid evidence of property allotment — provided that money was paid and flats were promised by the developer.

The order, passed by MahaRERA Chairperson Manoj Saunik on October 30, 2025, came in response to five complaints filed by homebuyers against AAP Realtors Ltd. and Samta Builders Pvt. Ltd., the promoters of the Tirumala Habitats project (MahaRERA Reg. No. P51800004278) in Mumbai.

What the Case Was About

Between 2010 and 2016, several buyers booked apartments in the Tirumala Habitats project, paying sums ranging from ₹10 lakh to ₹50 lakh. The developers had promised possession between 2014 and 2019, but no agreement for sale was executed and possession was never granted.

Buyers alleged that the promoters later sold their booked flats to third parties without refunds, leading to complaints before MahaRERA.
The developers, in defense, claimed that these were loan transactions and not genuine bookings — arguing that the allotment letters were issued merely as “security for advances”.

MahaRERA’s Observations

• The Authority found no proof of any loan agreements and accepted the buyers’ documents as valid evidence of flat allotment.
• Since no possession dates were mentioned in the letters, MahaRERA treated June 30, 2019 (declared RERA completion date) as the official possession date.
• The developers had also failed to disclose details of sold and unsold units, violating Sections 11(1)(b), (e), and (f) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

The Order

1. Complaint Allowed: All five complaints were upheld.
2. Refund for One Buyer: The first complainant, who cancelled his booking, will get a refund with interest.
3. Alternate Flats for Four Buyers: The remaining buyers will get possession of alternate flats of equivalent size within the same project after paying balance dues.
   • If no unsold flats remain, they too will receive refunds with interest.
4. Interest Rate: To be calculated under Rule 18 of Maharashtra RERA Rules (SBI MCLR + 2%).
5. Penalty: MahaRERA imposed a ₹1 lakh penalty on the promoter for failing to disclose mandatory project details.
6. Compensation: Buyers can approach the Adjudicating Officer for computation of damages.

Why This Order Matters

This ruling sends a strong message to developers who attempt to label pre-RERA bookings as loans to escape accountability. MahaRERA has made it clear that any document showing payment and a flat promise establishes an “allottee” relationship under the law — even if it predates RERA registration.

For homebuyers, it reaffirms that RERA protection extends to genuine pre-RERA transactions, especially when developers have accepted substantial amounts without fulfilling commitments.

Key Takeaway

MahaRERA once again emphasized that transparency and accountability are non-negotiable — and that even unregistered documents hold weight if they reflect a bona fide promise to homebuyers.

Also Read: MahaRERA Appoints Revenue Recovery Officers to Enforce Builder Penalties, Boosting Homebuyer Protection

The post Even Unregistered Allotment Letters Before RERA Hold Value If Money Was Paid and Flats Promised appeared first on Square Feat India.

Case Background: Homebuyers vs Suraj Homes Developer

The case (Complaint No. CC005000000064549) was filed by 20 homebuyers of “Suraj Homes” in Khed, Pune, against the project promoters Sujit Atmaram Kale and Nilesh Sadashiv Sandbhor.
Buyers alleged several violations — including deviations from the sanctioned plan, lack of completion certificate, absence of sewage and solar water systems, poor road access, and unauthorised alterations to open spaces and amenity areas.

They also accused the builder of collecting ₹50,000 towards parking and ₹10,000 per flat for solar systems that were either insufficient or missing, and demanded refund of those amounts.

Buyers’ Key Grievances

The complainants alleged that:

• The construction did not match the PMRDA-approved plans.
• Internal roads and side margins were narrower than sanctioned widths.
• Sewage and drinking water connections were incomplete.
• Amenity spaces such as swimming pool, play area, and garden were allegedly built illegally in open space.
• Several flats suffered from leakages and structural issues.
• The completion certificate was allegedly obtained “in a disoriented manner.”

They also accused the developer of failing to transfer ownership records to the Gram Panchayat and claimed the entrance gate and compound wall were constructed in violation of the approved layout.

Developer’s Defense: Project Completed and Handed Over

The developer denied all allegations, stating that the project was completed as per the sanctioned plan, and a completion certificate was issued by PMRDA in January 2020.
He argued that the housing society had already been formed and conveyance executed, and therefore, it was the society’s responsibility to address any post-handover maintenance or amenity issues.

The developer also claimed that the buyers were trying to harass and blackmail the promoter by filing a “frivolous” collective complaint for personal monetary benefit.

MahaRERA’s Observation: Misjoinder of Causes and Parties

After reviewing the submissions and evidence, MahaRERA Member II, Ravindra Deshpande, ruled that the case combined too many individual disputes under one complaint — such as refund demands, parking allotments, leakages, and flat-specific issues — making it not maintainable as a group complaint.

Citing Order No. 11 of 2019, the Authority clarified that:

• Group complaints can only be filed for common reliefs like project delays or common amenities (under Sections 7 and 8 of RERA).
• Individual grievances — such as maintenance, leakage, or refund — must be filed separately by each allottee.

As such, the complaint was dismissed on grounds of “misjoinder of causes of action and parties.”

Relief for Homebuyers: Option to File Individual Cases

While dismissing the group complaint, MahaRERA granted buyers the liberty to file individual complaints for their respective issues.
It also stated that such refiled complaints would retain the original seniority (i.e., earlier filing date) — ensuring that buyers don’t lose time in the regulatory queue.

Both sides were directed to bear their own costs.

What This Means for Homebuyers

This order serves as an important procedural lesson for homebuyers:
When issues vary from one flat to another — such as parking refunds, leakages, or individual amenities — they must not be filed as a single group complaint.
Instead, buyers should file separate RERA cases, or form a society and file for common grievances like project delays, open space violations, or incomplete amenities.

Failing to do so can lead to dismissal of the entire complaint, even if the grievances are genuine.

Key Takeaways

• Group complaints only valid for common issues under RERA.
• Individual issues must be filed separately.
• Society formation or conveyance doesn’t erase the builder’s accountability, but procedure matters.
• MahaRERA retains jurisdiction even if PMRDA or local bodies are involved — but filings must follow the correct format.

Also Read: Builder Takes MHADA To MahaRERA, Gets No Relief

The post Homebuyers’ Lesson from MahaRERA: Group Complaints Can Get Dismissed if Individual Issues Are Clubbed appeared first on Square Feat India.