Chronological Facts of the Case

20 July 2005 — An allotment letter was issued in favour of Risham Sethi for Flat No. 901 on the 9th floor in the project “Sun Beam” (MahaRERA Registration No. P51800013366), situated at Lokhandwala Complex, Off Four Bungalows, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400053. The total consideration was fixed at ₹54,58,750/-. The complainant paid an earnest money deposit, which was acknowledged by the respondent.

2005–2006 — The complainant made further payments. Receipts on record show:

• ₹1,00,000/- on 16.07.2005 (acknowledged in the allotment letter)
• ₹1,50,000/- and ₹4,35,818/- on 06.03.2006
• ₹7,00,000/- on 29.05.2006
• ₹7,98,500/- on 05.06.2006

These payments, all received and acknowledged by M/s. Sharayu Developers Pvt. Ltd., totalled exactly ₹21,84,318/-. No registered Agreement for Sale was executed despite the promoter having received more than 10% of the total consideration — a clear violation of Section 13 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Subsequent Years — Possession of the flat was never handed over. The complainant remained ready and willing to pay the balance consideration as per the progress of the project. On perusal of the MahaRERA website, the proposed date of completion was shown as 30.09.2024, later revised to 31.12.2029. The project remains incomplete even after more than two decades.

The complainant approached MahaRERA seeking withdrawal from the project and refund of the amount paid along with interest at 18% per annum.

26 June 2024 — The respondent uploaded its reply and contested the complaint on multiple grounds:

• Limitation (claim time-barred after nearly 20 years)
• Lack of jurisdiction and maintainability under Section 31 of the RERA Act
• Non-joinder of necessary parties (project registered in the name of Sharayu Developers AOP, not Sharayu Developers Pvt. Ltd.)
• No specific possession date mentioned in the 2005 allotment letter
• Delay caused by internal disputes and litigation with Mr. Zahur Mohid concerning FSI and development rights; reliance placed on Bombay High Court order dated 28.04.2023 and Arbitral Tribunal interim order dated 22.03.2024
• No documentary evidence of any assurance regarding completion by 2010

Conciliation proceedings were attempted but failed.

16 September 2025 — Final hearing before Member II Ravindra Deshpande. The complainant was absent and had not uploaded any rejoinder. Time was granted for written arguments; the matter was reserved for orders.

22 June 2026 — MahaRERA passed the final order.

Authority’s Key Findings

• The cause of action is continuous because possession has not been delivered and the project remains incomplete. The complaint cannot be rejected on grounds of limitation.
• Applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. v. Trevor D’Lima & Ors., when no possession date is mentioned, a reasonable period of three years is to be considered. The last payment was received on 05.06.2006; therefore, possession ought to have been offered by 04.06.2009. Interest is accordingly computed from 05.06.2009.
• Internal disputes among developers (including arbitration and High Court proceedings) cannot be used as a defence against the statutory rights of an allottee. Such disputes are between the promoter entities and stakeholders; the homebuyer is not a party to them.
• Project records (Declaration Form-B dated 01.09.2017 and Form-1) show involvement of M/s. Mohid Construction Co., M/s. Sharayu Developers AOP and M/s. Sharayu Developers Pvt. Ltd. All these entities are jointly and severally liable towards allottees. The allotment letter and payment receipts were issued in the name of Sharayu Developers Pvt. Ltd., which received the money.
• Reliance placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. — the right to refund under Section 18(1)(a) is a substantive and indefeasible statutory right when the promoter fails to hand over possession.
• No separate compensation for mental agony was awarded as the interest itself is compensatory in nature. However, costs of ₹20,000 were granted because the complainant was forced to approach the Authority due to non-delivery of possession and failure to refund.

The Order

1. Complaint partly allowed.
2. Respondent/promoter directed to refund ₹21,84,318/- along with interest at SBI Highest MCLR + 2% p.a. from 05.06.2009 till actual realisation.
3. Amount to be paid within 60 days from the date of the order.
4. Respondent to pay ₹20,000/- as costs of the complaint.
5. Complaint disposed of accordingly.

Member: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA Date of Order: 22.06.2026

Also Read: Builder cancels booking, MahaRERA orders refund

The post 21-Year Wait: MahaRERA Orders Refund + Interest from 2009 for 2005 Andheri Booking appeared first on Square Feat India.

Member Mahesh Pathak pronounced the final order on May 22, 2026, in Complaint No. CC12504293, rejecting the claim made by Premji Anandji Rambhia against Arkade Developers Limited (formerly Arkade Developers Private Limited) in the “Arkade Aura” project at Santacruz West, Mumbai.

Case Details

Rambhia, a RERA-registered real estate agent, claimed he had introduced buyers Mr. Suresh Visaria and Mr. Kunal Visaria to the Arkade Aura project as early as 2023. He stated that he had been accompanying the clients and their family members for multiple site visits over two years. In September 2025, he allegedly showed them a 4 BHK flat (Unit C-701), shared the floor plan, and discussed pricing details.

According to the complainant, the buyers later finalized the purchase of the same flat through a third-party referrer, Mr. Shrikant Prasad (a society member), allegedly to avoid paying him the standard 2% brokerage. Rambhia argued that since Shrikant Prasad was not a registered RERA agent, the developer should still pay him the commission. He sought 2% brokerage along with interest.

Arkade Developers strongly denied the allegations. The company stated that while Rambhia had shown the buyers a different 3 BHK + 3 BHK jodi flat earlier, he had no role in the final transaction of the 4 BHK unit. The company maintained that the successful deal was completed through a valid member referral recorded in their register, and the complainant had neither tagged the clients for this specific flat nor participated in the final negotiations.

MahaRERA’s Ruling

After hearing both parties, MahaRERA dismissed the complaint, observing the following key points:

• There was no written brokerage or commission agreement between the agent and the developer specifying the rate, conditions, or obligations.
• The dispute involved complex factual questions — including the agent’s actual role in the specific transaction, oral understandings, market practices, and alleged collusion — which require detailed evidence and cross-examination.
• Such matters fall outside the summary jurisdiction of RERA, which primarily regulates the relationship between promoters and allottees.
• Brokerage disputes are essentially contractual and civil in nature and should be adjudicated before a competent Civil Court.

The Authority explicitly noted that the complainant failed to establish any contractual entitlement to brokerage under RERA provisions. However, it granted liberty to Rambhia to approach the appropriate Civil Court if he wishes to pursue the matter further.

Implications for Real Estate Agents Registered with RERA

This order sends a clear message to thousands of RERA-registered real estate agents across Maharashtra:

1. Written Agreements are Crucial: Oral understandings or “market practice” claims are unlikely to be accepted by RERA. Agents should execute formal brokerage agreements with developers specifying commission rates and conditions.
2. Proper Tagging & Documentation: Agents must strictly follow internal tagging procedures and maintain proof of their involvement (site visits, communications, floor plan sharing, etc.) for every specific unit.
3. Limited RERA Protection: RERA will not act as a recovery forum for brokerage disputes. Agents now have reduced leverage when dealing with powerful developers in commission-related conflicts.
4. Shift to Civil Courts: Pursuing such claims in civil courts will involve higher costs, longer timelines, and more rigorous evidentiary standards, which may discourage smaller agents from fighting big developers.
5. Industry Practice Under Scanner: Developers may now be more confident in using internal referral schemes or unregistered referrers, knowing that RERA is unlikely to intervene in brokerage battles.

Legal experts believe this ruling will encourage both developers and agents to formalize their relationships through clear agreements and could lead to fewer frivolous RERA complaints on brokerage matters going forward.

Also Read: Results of 5th Real Estate Agents Examination Released

The post Real Estate Agent Loses RERA Case for Brokerage appeared first on Square Feat India.

MahaRERA Member Ravindra Deshpande, in the order dated 07 May 2026, ruled that the Agreements for Sale stand terminated, but restricted the forfeiture to only 2% of the total unit cost — far lower than the nearly 10% plus additional charges (interest, brokerage, and GST) that the developer had demanded.

Cases in Detail

Gera Developments filed two complaints:

1. CC005000000269618 – Against Mr. Prem Prakash Singh & Mrs. Priyanka Singh for Unit 1201 (12th Floor, F1 Tower). Agreement registered on 11 March 2022.
2. CC005000000279748 – Against Mr. Ganesh Uttamrao Dhamdhere for Unit G04 (Podium Floor, F1 Tower). Agreement registered on 04 October 2022.

The developer claimed the buyers repeatedly defaulted on installments despite multiple reminders and legal notices issued in 2023. The company invoked Clause 36 of the Agreement and formally terminated both deals.

Builder’s Demand vs RERA Decision

Gera Developments wanted to forfeit around 10% of the basic sale price along with interest, brokerage, and GST components. This would have allowed them to retain over ₹12 lakh in one case and over ₹11.6 lakh in the other.

However, MahaRERA held that while the cancellations were justified due to breach of contract and violation of Section 19(6) of the RERA Act, excessive forfeiture is not permissible. Citing its earlier Order No. 35/2022, the authority limited forfeiture to a reasonable 2% of the total unit cost in both matters.

The builder has been directed to refund the remaining amount paid by the buyers after deducting the 2% forfeiture. The developer must also bear the expenses of executing and registering the cancellation deeds.

Next Steps

The homebuyers have 60 days to execute the Cancellation Deeds. If they fail to do so, Gera Developments can file a non-compliance application under MahaRERA Circular No. 50/2025.

The allottees remained absent during the hearings, which strengthened the developer’s case on the issue of cancellation.

Industry Takeaway

This ruling highlights MahaRERA’s balanced approach — supporting developers against chronic defaulters while preventing unfair profiteering through excessive penalties. The project “Gera’s Planet of Joy IV” is registered under MahaRERA No. P52100031876.

Also Read: MahaRERA Told Homebuyers to Cooperate. Tribunal Tells Builder to Pay Up

The post Builder Drags Homebuyers to MahaRERA for Non-Payment, Gets Flats Cancelled & Money Forfeited appeared first on Square Feat India.

The survey, conducted by MHADA’s Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board, highlights a persistent structural risk in the city’s aging cessed buildings. Notably, 43 of these buildings were already classified as dangerous last year, underscoring the slow pace of redevelopment and repair.

Over 2,700 Residents at Risk

The identified buildings house 2,736 occupants, including 2,256 residential and 480 commercial tenants. Authorities have already initiated action:

• 176 residents issued evacuation notices
• 29 shifted to MHADA transit camps
• 36 residents relocated independently
• Over 2,100 residents still require relocation, with arrangements in progress

Officials have warned that stricter enforcement will follow if evacuation is delayed.

Emergency Helplines & Contact Details

To handle emergencies and assist residents, MHADA and civic authorities have activated round-the-clock control rooms:

MHADA Control Room (24×7):
Rajni Mahal, 1st Floor, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400034
Landline: 23536945 / 23517423
Mobile: 9321637699

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Control Room:
Municipal Headquarters, Fort, Mumbai
Telephone: 22694725 / 22694727

Residents have been urged to immediately report cracks, structural shifts, leakages, or unusual sounds from buildings.

Full List of 82 Dangerous Buildings

MHADA has released the following list of buildings declared highly dangerous:

1. 30 C–30 D, Bomanji Lane
2. 120, Bora Bazaar Street
3. 15, Tandel Cross Lane
4. 100–102, Kambekar Street
5. 71–77, Samuel Street
6. Building No. 23–27, Banyan Street
7. Building No. 40, Bapu Court Street
8. Building No. 404–416 cluster, Sheikh Memon Street & adjoining areas
9. Building No. 404-D, Kalbadevi Road
10. Building No. 157/3, Cavel Cross Lane No. 5
11. Building No. 83–85, Trinity Street
12. Building No. 377-A, J. S. S. Road
13. Building No. 7–9, Ropa Lane
14. Building No. 25, Nawroji Street
15. Building No. 22–34, V. P. Road
16. Building No. 51, First Carpenter Street
17. 31A, Mama Parmanand Marg, Girgaon
18. 16–22A, Khattar Ali Lane, Girgaon
19. 11–13, M. K. Road, Girgaon
20. 5D, Dubhash Lane, Girgaon
21. 316-AB, V. P. Road, Girgaon
22. 247-B, V. P. Road, Girgaon
23. Kalyan Building, Girgaon
24. 88D–88G, Khadilkar Road, Girgaon
25. 41–45, J. S. S. Road, Girgaon
26. Mancharam Niwas, Shenvi Wadi
27. Vishnu Niwas, Shenvi Wadi
28. 21–BC, Khadilkar Road
29. Building No. 314-B, V. P. Road
30. Building No. 5-J, Dubhash Lane
31. 66–68A, Tatya Gharpure Path
32. Matruvandana, Khetwadi 6th Lane
33. 2–8, Pawaiwala Street
34. 1, Khetwadi 12th Lane
35. 427-E, M. S. Ali Road
36. 346–348A, Bellasis Road
37. 3, Raghavji Road
38. 25, Sussex Road, Mazgaon
39. 86B, Maplavi Motisha Lane
40. 7–9A, Hathi Baug Road
41. 10, Hathi Baug Road
42. 22, Naralwadi Road
43. Unwala Building, D. N. Singh Road
44. 26, Sussex Road
45. 76, Tank Bandar Road
46. Digvijay Mill Chawl, Kalachowki
47. 2–18, Babula Tank Road
48. Jaguli Building, Sankli Street
49. Gujaria Building, Maulana Azad Road
50. 440–442, Sir J. J. Road
51. 85–97, Sophia Zuber Road cluster
52. 67–81, Sophia Zuber Road
53. Multiple structures, Maulana Azad Road
54. 50–64, Maulana Azad Road
55. 4–6–8, Maulana Azad Road
56. Dimtimkar Road cluster
57. 10, Maulana Azad Road
58. 12–20, Maulana Azad Road
59. Kamathipura 10th Lane
60. Kamathipura 11th Lane
61. Noor Manzil, Falkland Road
62. Laxmi Building, Clare Road
63. Retable Street building cluster
64. New Star Mansion, K. K. Road
65. Koli Chawl No. 3, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg
66. Laxmi Building, Elphinstone Road
67. Meher Lodge, Saat Rasta
68. Sai Prasad, Murari Ghag Marg
69. Fitwala Building, Elphinstone Road
70. Haji Kasam Chawl, Shaheed Amar Sheikh Marg
71. Kharas Building, N. M. Joshi Marg
72. Vira Building, Jagannath Bhatankar Road
73. Daya Vira Building, Jagannath Bhatankar Road
74. Corner Chambers, Shivaji Park Road, Dadar
75. Goregaonkar Wadi, Dadar West
76. Hedavkar Wadi No. 2, Dadar West
77. Kubal Niwas, Gokhale Road
78. Ilam Mahal, S. K. Bole Road
79. Jamal House, Mahim
80. Anand Bhavan (Old), Shivaji Park
81. Minerva Building, Dadar East
82. Minerva Mansion, Dr. B. A. Road

A Recurring Urban Crisis

This annual exercise once again highlights Mumbai’s ongoing struggle with aging housing stock and delayed redevelopment, particularly in South and Central Mumbai. Experts warn that without faster redevelopment approvals and tenant cooperation, such high-risk lists will continue to expand each year.

MHADA has reiterated that public cooperation is critical—timely evacuation can save lives.

Also Read: These are Mumbai’s 15 Most Dangerous Buildings

The post These 82 Are Most Dangerous Buildings Of Mumbai appeared first on Square Feat India.

Saumitrakumar Saha and Deepa Dutta had booked two flats (No. 901 and 902) in Tower 2 (Rohin Wing B) of the project registered under MahaRERA No. P51800014021. They claimed that Ruchita Dhaiya, an employee of Horizon Proptech Pvt. Ltd., misrepresented herself as a sales executive of the developer and allegedly inflated the price with hidden brokerage components totaling over ₹7 lakh.

The complainants approached MahaRERA under Section 31 of the RERA Act, 2016, seeking refund of the brokerage amount along with 18% interest and compensation, citing violations of Sections 9 and 10 of the Act (which regulate real estate agents). They pointed out that Horizon Proptech’s registration had lapsed in June 2022.

However, in an order pronounced on April 23, 2026, Member Mahesh Pathak dismissed the complaint as not maintainable. The Authority observed that:

• The real estate agent was not listed as an authorised agent in the project registration details on the MahaRERA portal.
• The complainants failed to upload invoices or documentary proof of the alleged brokerage payments.
• A registered Deed of Cancellation for one flat was already executed in May 2024, after which the complainants ceased to be allottees.
• The dispute essentially pertained to a private financial claim against the agent, which falls outside the specific jurisdiction of MahaRERA in this case.

The Authority clarified that while the homebuyers are free to pursue their claims against Horizon Proptech Pvt. Ltd. and Ruchita Dhaiya before appropriate forums such as Consumer Court or Civil Court, no relief was granted under RERA.

This order highlights the importance of proper documentation and verification of real estate agents before booking properties.

Also Read: Indian Residential Real Estate – Highlights of 2021

The post MahaRERA Rejects Homebuyers’ Brokerage Refund Plea appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a detailed final order dated 18 May 2026 passed by Member II Ravindra Deshpande, MahaRERA disposed of two complaints filed against the promoter and other respondents.

Case 1: Partial Refund Allowed (CC006000000209849)

Complainant: Bharat Babu Ishwar Peta Booking: Flat No. 3604, Tower-4 on 21 September 2021 Amount Paid: ₹5,00,000 (booking amount)

The complainant cancelled the booking within 16–18 days citing inability to secure a home loan. He claimed the promoter had advertised a “pre-launch refundable booking” and sought full refund with interest.

MahaRERA observed that the cancellation was on personal grounds and not due to any fault of the promoter. However, noting that the Application Form was not countersigned by the promoter and the cancellation occurred at a very early stage, the Authority held that full forfeiture of ₹5 lakh was not justified.

Ruling: Applying MahaRERA Order No. 60/2024, the promoter was allowed to forfeit 1% of the total consideration (₹1,26,46,880), i.e., ₹1,26,469. The promoter must refund the balance ₹3,73,531 within 45 days from the date of the order without interest. In case of delay, interest at SBI’s Highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate + 2% p.a. shall apply. No costs were awarded.

Case 2: Complaint Dismissed (CC006000000198880)

Complainants: Manoj Agiwal & Nutan Lohia Booking: Flat No. 1905, Tower-1 in March 2021 Amount Paid: ₹4,27,590 + ₹1,57,100 (stamp duty & registration)

The complainants challenged four clauses in the draft Agreement for Sale — primarily Clause 4.1(iv) (payment milestones), Clause 28 (transfer/NOC charges of ₹2,422 per sq.mtr.), Clause 30.8, and Clause 31 (area variation).

MahaRERA noted that three of the clauses were already addressed by the promoter. On Clause 28, the Authority held that it was not among the non-negotiable clauses declared by MahaRERA (Orders 38/2022, 54/2024, 57/2024, etc.) and was a standard administrative charge. The complainants had also shown inconsistency by withdrawing and re-joining the transaction.

Ruling: The entire complaint was rejected. The Authority held that no violation of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was established.

Key Observations by MahaRERA

• The promoter’s reliance on clauses in the Application Form and MahaRERA-approved model Agreement for Sale was upheld in the second case.
• Early cancellations before Agreement for Sale execution are governed by MahaRERA’s forfeiture guidelines.
• Homebuyers must act consistently and cannot indefinitely challenge standard clauses after booking.

The order underscores MahaRERA’s balanced approach — protecting genuine homebuyer interests in early-stage cancellations while upholding the sanctity of promoter agreements that comply with regulatory norms.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Refund Paid for Seven Flats in Godrej RKS Project

The post MahaRERA Orders Partial Refund in Godrej City Panvel Case, Rejects Clause Challenge appeared first on Square Feat India.

Chairperson Manoj Saunik passed the order on 14 May 2026 in Complaint No. CC006000000196772 filed by Imran Haedr against M/s K.K. Constructions and its partners Anis Yakub Khan, Imran Yakub Khan, and Iqbal Yakub Khan.

The Case in Brief

Haedr had booked Flat No. F-304 in the SRA project “K K Residency” (MahaRERA Registration No. P51800005115) located in Kirol Village, Kurla (Mumbai Suburban). He signed a registered Agreement for Sale on 28 December 2011 for a total consideration of ₹17 lakh.

The agreement did not specify any fixed date for possession. It only stated that possession would be given “on or before” subject to availability of construction materials, court orders, and force majeure conditions — a standard vague clause seen in many old pre-RERA agreements, especially SRA projects.

Haedr claimed he made substantial payments (over ₹21 lakh as per him) and that the builder had orally assured possession by December 2013 (even mentioned in a letter to a bank). He alleged years of delay, unauthorised construction, extra cash demands, and that the flat was allegedly given to third parties. He approached MahaRERA seeking interest on the amounts paid from 2010 till possession, along with other reliefs including forensic audit and society formation.

The builder countered that Haedr had paid only ₹10.5 lakh, defaulted on payments since 2013 despite multiple demand letters, and that the agreement was terminated in March 2021. They argued there was never any fixed possession date in the contract.

MahaRERA’s Stand: Strict Technical Interpretation

The Authority held that breach of Section 18 of the RERA Act cannot be established in the absence of a contractually established date for possession.

It observed that the buyer had “duly signed and registered” an agreement that made possession conditional and open-ended. Therefore, the promoter could not be held liable for delay interest.

All major reliefs sought by Haedr — interest for delayed possession, restraint on third-party rights, forensic audit, and others — were rejected. The complaint was dismissed.

However, in a small relief, MahaRERA directed the respondents to refund the amounts actually paid by the complainant strictly as per the terms of the contract.

The Core Issue: Signing a Vague Agreement

This order underscores a harsh reality for thousands of homebuyers who signed pre-RERA or early agreements with deliberately vague possession clauses. Even though the project was later registered under RERA (with its own proposed completion dates), and even though the buyer waited over 14 years, the absence of a clear date in the 2011 AFS proved fatal to his claim for compensation.

MahaRERA chose a narrow, literal reading of Section 18 — which ties the right to interest to the date mentioned in the agreement — over a broader protective approach that many buyers expected from the regulator.

The project itself is now listed among lapsed projects on the MahaRERA portal, with the proposed completion date long gone.

Why This Order Feels Insane to Many

Critics argue that such rulings reward builders who insert escape clauses in agreements and penalise ordinary buyers who may not have understood the legal implications in 2011. It raises serious questions about whether RERA is truly delivering on its promise of protecting homebuyers in long-delayed projects, especially SRA schemes in Mumbai.

While the order does order a refund, the denial of delay interest after more than a decade of waiting sends a chilling message: if your old agreement lacks a specific date, you may have little recourse under RERA for compensation.

This case is a stark reminder to every prospective homebuyer — never sign an Agreement for Sale without a clear, fixed possession date and clear consequences for delay.

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

The post No Date, No Justice: MahaRERA Rejects Homebuyer’s Delay Claim Over Vague 2011 AFS appeared first on Square Feat India.

The final order, pronounced by Member II Ravindra Deshpande on 10 March 2026 in Complaint No. CC006000000194668, has sent ripples through Mumbai’s real-estate circles. It underscores a hard legal truth: paying full consideration does not automatically give you rights if the payment does not reach the promoter’s designated bank account.

The Case in Brief

Complainant A.K. Enterprises claimed it was allotted Flat Nos. 801, 802 and 804 (8th floor) in the project “Ramkrishna Heights” (MahaRERA Registration No. P51800005327) at LBS Marg (West), Kurla, via three allotment letters dated 22 March 2013. The firm said it paid the full amount – ₹53.20 lakh for Flat 801, ₹38.25 lakh for Flat 802 and ₹46.55 lakh for Flat 804 – totalling ₹1.38 crore.

Despite the payment, the developer never executed registered Agreements for Sale nor handed over possession. The complainant approached MahaRERA seeking directions to the promoter, M/s. Pooja Enterprises and its partners, to register the agreements and deliver vacant possession within four weeks.

Developer’s Strong Defence

Pooja Enterprises (Respondent No. 1) and its partners (Respondents 2 to 7) flatly denied the claim. They told MahaRERA that:

• The project is fully completed, Occupation Certificate was received, and the society was registered on 29 June 2022.
• All flats, including the three in question, were sold to genuine third-party buyers through registered sale deeds in 2017 (dated 23.03.2017, 21.03.2017 and 23.05.2017) and possession handed over.
• No money was ever received in the promoter’s bank account from A.K. Enterprises.
• The complainant is not an allottee at all.

The Fatal Flaw That Cost the Buyer Everything

The turning point came when the complainant itself admitted in its rejoinder that the ₹1.38 crore was paid not to M/s. Pooja Enterprises (the RERA-registered promoter) but to M/s. Spaceline Realtors Pvt. Ltd., a separate private company. The buyer argued that some partners of the promoter firm were “associated” with Spaceline.

MahaRERA rejected this argument outright.

In a detailed 6-page order, Member Deshpande held:

“Payments made to third parties or to entities other than the registered promoter cannot automatically create rights of allotment in a RERA-registered project… Such an arrangement cannot bind the registered promoter unless it is demonstrated that the amount was actually received by or on behalf of the promoter.”

The Authority noted that:

• There were no bank entries, receipts or books of accounts of the promoter showing receipt of the money.
• Allotment letters dated 2013 do not constitute a registered Agreement for Sale as mandatorily required under Section 13 of the RERA Act.
• The three flats had already been legitimately transferred to other buyers via registered deeds years ago.

Consequently, the complainant failed to prove it was an “allottee” under Section 2(d) of the RERA Act. The complaint was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Why This Order Is a Wake-Up Call for Every Homebuyer

Maharashtra saw a massive 81% jump in homebuyer complaints in 2025 (6,945 cases disposed). This ruling comes at a time when buyers are increasingly routing payments through “convenient” channels – partners’ accounts, marketing companies, or group entities – to save on documentation or on the advice of middlemen.

MahaRERA has repeatedly emphasised that the promoter’s designated RERA project bank account is sacrosanct. Seventy per cent of buyer funds must flow into this escrow-like account and can be used only for project costs. Paying anywhere else breaks the legal chain.

Legal experts say the order reinforces three iron-clad rules:

1. Money must reach the promoter – not a related company, not a partner personally.
2. Registered Agreement for Sale is non-negotiable – allotment letters alone give no enforceable rights.
3. Third-party rights created later are protected – once flats are sold and registered to genuine buyers, courts will not disturb them.

What Buyers Must Do Now

Real-estate lawyers advise every prospective buyer to:

• Verify the exact name of the RERA-registered promoter and project number on the MahaRERA portal before paying even a rupee.
• Insist on the promoter’s designated project bank account details (mentioned in the allotment letter and Agreement for Sale).
• Never exceed 10% advance without a registered Agreement for Sale.
• Demand official receipts issued only in the promoter’s name.
• Avoid “pay to this account for convenience” requests.

A senior RERA practitioner in Mumbai told this newspaper: “This order is not against buyers – it is for them. It protects the sanctity of the RERA ecosystem so that genuine allottees are not cheated by clever routing of funds.”

The complainant may still pursue civil remedies against Spaceline Realtors or the individual partners, but under RERA its claim against the project promoter stands extinguished.

In an era when homebuyers are fighting hard for timely possession and refunds, this March 2026 order stands as a crystal-clear warning: the path to legal protection under RERA runs only through the promoter’s official account.

The message is loud and simple: Pay to the right account – or risk losing everything.

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

The post MahaRERA Shock: Buyer Pays ₹1.38 Cr for 3 Flats, Loses All Over Wrong Account appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a crucial order that serves as a lesson for homebuyers, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has ruled that refusing possession of a completed flat amounts to default by the buyer, not the developer. The Authority held that once a builder has obtained the Occupancy Certificate (OC) and offered possession within the agreed time, the homebuyer is bound to accept it — failing which, refund or compensation claims will not stand.

The Case: Buyer Sought Refund Despite Project Being Ready

The case involved Jayshri Mahendra Sukhadia, who had booked a flat in the project “The Morning” developed by Satyam Buildcon in Karjat.
She paid the full consideration of ₹13.15 lakh for her apartment and claimed that the developer failed to hand over possession on time. Sukhadia approached MahaRERA seeking:

• A refund with interest,
• ₹1 lakh as legal fees, and
• ₹5 lakh as compensation for mental agony.

However, the developer countered that the building was completed before the possession date, with the part OC obtained on October 1, 2019, well before the contractual deadline of December 31, 2019. The builder said the buyer repeatedly refused possession, insisting on not paying an additional ₹1.75 lakh that was due as Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC), as per a separate signed assurance.

MahaRERA’s Finding: Builder Was Ready, Buyer Was Not

After examining documents and hearing both sides, MahaRERA Member Ravindra Deshpande observed that the developer had completed construction, obtained part OC, and offered possession before the agreed deadline.
The Authority found:

• The buyer acknowledged the flat was ready for interiors in her own email in 2018.
• The developer made repeated possession offers, which the buyer did not accept.
• The delay was on the buyer’s side, not the promoter’s.

MahaRERA noted that under Section 19(10) of the RERA Act, an allottee must take possession within two months of the occupancy certificate being issued. Since the promoter had complied with all obligations, the buyer’s refusal amounted to a breach of her own duties under RERA.

Refund Denied: RERA Dismisses Complaint

The Authority ruled that since the project was completed before the possession deadline and the builder was ready and willing to hand over possession, the buyer was not entitled to any refund, interest, or compensation.

“The Complainant has failed to substantiate her claim by cogent evidence and is not entitled to any relief,” the order stated.

MahaRERA also clarified that Section 18(1)(a) — which allows buyers to claim a refund for delayed possession — does not apply when the promoter has completed construction and offered possession on time.

The complaint was therefore dismissed, with no costs awarded.

Key Takeaway for Homebuyers

This order reinforces that RERA protects both sides — not just homebuyers. Once a project receives an occupancy certificate and possession is formally offered, a buyer cannot indefinitely refuse to take the flat and later seek refund or compensation.

Experts say the order should caution homebuyers against using possession refusal as leverage in disputes over minor or non-material issues.

What This Means for You

• If your builder has offered possession with OC, you are legally obligated to take it within two months.
• Refusal without valid cause (such as non-completion or lack of OC) can weaken your legal case.
• Always document possession offers and responses carefully — it may decide the outcome of future disputes.

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

The post 🏠 Possession Refusal Considered Buyer’s Default: MahaRERA Sends Strong Message to Homebuyers appeared first on Square Feat India.