In a significant ruling reiterating the strict statutory framework of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed complaints filed by 11 individuals who claimed to be bona fide homebuyers in a real estate project near Mumbai. The Authority held that the complaints were not maintainable under RERA due to the absence of registered Agreements for Sale and the complainants’ own description as “investors” in the project.
The complainants approached MahaRERA stating that they had booked residential flats based on the developer’s representations regarding approvals, construction progress, and timely completion. Between 2016 and 2018, the group paid over ₹3.70 crore to the developer. Of the 11 complainants, 10 had entered into an “investment document”, while one had received only an allotment letter.
The complainants alleged that the developer failed to execute and register agreements for sale, in violation of Section 13 of the RERA Act, while continuing to raise monetary demands. They also claimed that construction activity at the site was negligible and sporadic, with only a few slabs completed over several years.
Allegations of Unilateral Changes and Prolonged Delay
According to the complainants, the developer unilaterally altered material terms such as possession timelines, flat numbers, floor levels, carpet areas, and consideration amounts without their consent and without registered agreements. They further contended that the original completion date of December 2021, as disclosed on the MahaRERA portal, was later unilaterally extended to December 2027, resulting in an inordinate delay of over six years.
The complainants rejected the developer’s justifications citing litigation, injunctions, financial constraints, and COVID-19 disruptions, arguing that many delays occurred prior to March 2020.
Developer’s Defence Before MahaRERA
The developer strongly opposed the complaints, terming them false, frivolous, and vexatious. It argued that the complainants had expressly acknowledged themselves as “investors” under the investment documents. In the absence of a duly executed and registered agreement for sale, the precondition for invoking Section 18 of RERA—delay in possession as per the agreement—was not satisfied.
The developer also alleged that the complainants had defaulted in payment of lawful demands, failed to pay applicable taxes and registration charges, and did not come forward to register agreements due to financial constraints or lack of loan approvals. It further cited a court injunction until November 2021 and force majeure events such as COVID-19 disruptions under Section 6 of RERA.
MahaRERA’s Key Findings
MahaRERA noted that all complainants had relied on investment documents describing them as “investors” rather than homebuyers. Crucially, the Authority observed that most of these documents were unsigned, casting serious doubt on their evidentiary value, authenticity, and enforceability.
The Authority further held that no registered agreements for sale had been executed between the parties as mandated under Section 13 of RERA. In the absence of an agreement specifying a definite possession date, the essential requirement for seeking relief under Section 18 was not met.
Final Verdict and Implications
MahaRERA concluded that the complaints were not maintainable and did not warrant adjudication on merits. The ruling underscores that RERA remedies are available only to allottees with valid agreements for sale, and that investor-based arrangements without statutory compliance fall outside the protective ambit of the Act.
This decision serves as a cautionary precedent for investors and buyers alike to ensure proper documentation, registered agreements, and clarity of status before seeking relief under RERA.
