The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has delivered an important ruling reinforcing homebuyer protection under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). In a significant order, MahaRERA rejected an application filed by Jangid Homes Pvt Ltd seeking dismissal of 17 complaints lodged by purchasers in the delayed Jangid Annexe project at Jogeshwari East, Mumbai.
The decision paves the way for all complaints to be heard on their merits and highlights that developers cannot alter the character of a project after making representations to buyers and regulatory authorities.
Background of the Dispute
The complaints were filed by buyers under Section 18 of the RERA Act, seeking relief for delayed possession and other grievances arising from the project.
However, Jangid Homes Pvt Ltd challenged the maintainability of the complaints and argued that:
- The project was approved as an industrial development.
- Municipal permissions classified the premises as industrial units.
- Industrial projects do not fall within the jurisdiction of MahaRERA.
- Therefore, MahaRERA lacked authority to entertain the complaints.
The builder sought dismissal of all 17 complaints at the preliminary stage.
Homebuyers Opposed Builder’s Stand
The complainants strongly contested the developer’s arguments and pointed out several inconsistencies.
According to the buyers:
- The allotment letters did not describe the units as industrial premises.
- Agreements for Sale contained no reference to industrial galas.
- Commercial stamp duty and registration charges were paid.
- The project was registered as a commercial project with MahaRERA.
- All 38 units were disclosed as commercial units on the MahaRERA portal.
The buyers argued that after collecting money and executing agreements on a commercial basis, the developer could not subsequently claim that the project was industrial merely to avoid regulatory scrutiny.
MahaRERA Examines Project Records
While considering the matter, MahaRERA Member-II Ravindra Deshpande examined project registration documents and records submitted before the authority.
The authority found that:
- The project had been registered as a commercial project.
- Applications for extension of project registration were also filed as a commercial development.
- Project disclosures on the MahaRERA portal categorized the units as commercial.
- Agreements executed with purchasers did not classify the premises as industrial.
MahaRERA observed that the promoter’s current stand was inconsistent with its own previous disclosures and representations made to buyers and the regulator.
Developer Cannot Take Contradictory Positions
A key aspect of the ruling is MahaRERA’s observation that a promoter cannot adopt contradictory positions at different stages of a project.
The authority noted that when a developer has consistently represented a project as commercial before regulatory authorities and purchasers, it cannot later argue that the same units are industrial merely to challenge jurisdiction.
This finding significantly strengthens the principle of transparency and accountability under RERA.
Investor Argument Also Rejected
The builder further contended that the complainants were investors rather than genuine allottees.
MahaRERA rejected this argument at the preliminary stage, noting that:
- Specific units had been allotted to the complainants.
- Consideration amounts had been received by the developer.
- Such issues require detailed examination of evidence and cannot be decided without a full hearing.
Accordingly, the authority held that the complaints were prima facie maintainable.
Why This Order is Significant
The ruling carries wider implications for the real estate sector and homebuyers across Maharashtra.
Key Takeaways
Builders are bound by their representations
Developers cannot make one set of disclosures during registration and sales and later adopt a different position when disputes arise.
MahaRERA records matter
Information uploaded on the MahaRERA portal can become crucial evidence in legal proceedings.
Jurisdictional objections may fail
Technical objections regarding the nature of a project may not succeed if project documents and agreements indicate otherwise.
Homebuyers get a fair hearing
Purchasers in delayed or disputed projects cannot be denied access to justice through preliminary technical challenges.
Advocate’s View
Advocate Anil D’Souza, President of the MahaRERA Bar Association and counsel for the complainants, welcomed the order.
According to him, the authority rightly recognized that a promoter cannot make one representation to purchasers and MahaRERA at the time of registration and sale and then take a contradictory stand when faced with complaints from allottees. He emphasized that the agreements and project layout itself identified the project as a commercial property, which became a decisive factor in the case.
Conclusion
The MahaRERA order in the Jangid Annexe, Jogeshwari East matter reinforces the regulator’s commitment to protecting homebuyers and ensuring transparency in real estate transactions. By rejecting the builder’s attempt to dismiss the complaints on technical grounds, the authority has ensured that the grievances of the 17 purchasers will now be examined on their merits.
The ruling serves as a reminder that developers must remain consistent with their project disclosures and cannot change the character of a project to escape accountability under RERA.
