The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has rejected a senior citizen couple’s request for an alternative showroom or compensation after they claimed that poor visibility and inadequate access to their commercial shop in Wakad, Pune, made it difficult to secure tenants. The authority held that the buyers’ inability to find tenants did not entitle them to an alternative showroom under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
The dispute also involved allegations that the promised access road and parking facilities were unavailable. However, MahaRERA observed that construction and opening of the 24-metre-wide Development Plan (DP) road fell within the jurisdiction of the competent planning authority. It also noted that the complaint had been filed before the contractual possession date.
Senior Citizens Bought Shop to Generate Retirement Income
The case concerned a commercial shop in a real estate project at Wakad, Pune. The senior citizen couple purchased the premises through a registered Agreement for Sale approximately two years before filing their complaint.
According to the buyers, they acquired the shop primarily to generate rental income during retirement. They stated that they had paid more than 80% of the total consideration and expected possession along with two dedicated parking spaces and completion of a 24-metre-wide DP road.
The buyers alleged that the commercial access road remained unopened and the promised parking spaces had not been provided. They claimed that these circumstances prevented them from taking physical possession of the premises and putting the shop to its intended commercial use.
Incomplete DP Road Allegedly Affected Visibility and Leasing
The complainants argued that the incomplete road adversely affected the shop’s visibility and accessibility, discouraging prospective commercial tenants.
According to their complaint, access to the premises remained restricted to a narrow, unpaved road obstructed by metal fencing and construction debris. The buyers claimed that prospective tenants were unwilling to lease the showroom because of these conditions.
They further stated that the developer’s leasing team had initially agreed to assist in finding tenants but later informed them that prospective occupants had declined to rent the premises because of the poor visibility caused by the unfinished road.
The buyers also alleged that commercial premises in an adjoining project had been leased after similar road obstructions were removed, whereas the showrooms in the developer’s project remained unrented.
Buyers Sought Rental Compensation, Refund or Alternative Showroom
The senior citizens contended that the shop had been purchased as a source of retirement income, but the alleged access-related difficulties prevented them from achieving that objective.
They stated that they had retained the outstanding payment in a fixed deposit rather than releasing the balance amount while the issues concerning access and possession remained unresolved.
The reliefs sought included:
- Rental compensation from December 2025 until completion of the DP road.
- A refund of the amount paid, along with interest.
- An alternative showroom at another location.
The authority, however, rejected the request for an alternative showroom, holding that RERA did not provide a basis for granting such relief merely because the complainants were unable to find tenants.
Developer Argued That Occupation Certificate Had Been Obtained
The developer contested the complaint and argued that the Occupation Certificate (OC) for the premises had been obtained. It maintained that the buyers had failed to pay the outstanding dues and take possession of the shop.
Regarding the 24-metre-wide DP road, the developer stated that the land earmarked for the road had been handed over to the municipal corporation in 2023. According to the developer, construction and opening of the public road were the responsibility of the relevant local authority rather than the promoter.
The developer also disputed the buyers’ claim regarding two dedicated parking spaces, contending that the Agreement for Sale did not contain a promise to provide them. It further argued that claims relating to leasing and the inability to find tenants fell outside MahaRERA’s jurisdiction.
MahaRERA Says Public Road Construction Falls Within Planning Authority’s Jurisdiction
MahaRERA held that the construction and implementation of the 24-metre-wide DP road, including the removal of obstructions on land outside the project, fell within the jurisdiction of the competent authority under the applicable laws.
The authority observed that it could not exercise the powers of the concerned planning authority in the complaint.
This finding distinguished the alleged deficiencies relating to a public road outside the project from matters that MahaRERA could adjudicate under the RERA framework.
The order did not establish that the buyers’ concerns about accessibility were unfounded. Rather, it held that the authority could not assume the jurisdiction of the competent authority responsible for the public road.
Complaint Filed Before Contractual Possession Date
Another important consideration was the possession date stipulated in the Agreement for Sale.
According to MahaRERA, the agreement specified June 30, 2026, as the date for possession of the shop. The complaint had been filed on May 28, 2026, before that contractual date had expired.
On this basis, MahaRERA considered the complaint premature insofar as the buyers sought relief under Section 18 of RERA on the merits of their possession-related claim.
Section 18 provides remedies in specified circumstances involving a promoter’s failure to complete or give possession in accordance with the Act and the agreement. In this case, the contractual possession date had not expired when the complaint was instituted.
The authority’s observation was therefore linked to the timing of the complaint and the relief sought under Section 18.
MahaRERA Rejects Request for an Alternative Showroom
On the specific request for a replacement commercial unit, MahaRERA held that the complainants’ inability to find tenants did not entitle them to an alternative showroom under RERA.
The authority stated:
“Complainant’s inability to find tenants does not entitle them to seek an alternative showroom, MahaRERA is of the view that there is no provision under RERA, under which such relief can be granted by MahaRERA. Hence, the same stands rejected.”
The decision means that the requested replacement showroom could not be granted on the basis presented in this complaint. It should not, however, be read as a general finding that every dispute involving access, possession or delayed delivery of commercial premises falls outside RERA.
What the Order Does—and Does Not—Decide
MahaRERA clarified that it was not deciding whether access to the shop was adequate, whether possession had been lawfully offered, or whether withholding the balance payment was justified. These matters were left subject to the decision of the competent authority and the applicable legal framework.
The order therefore turns on two central considerations: the limits of MahaRERA’s jurisdiction over a public road outside the project and the fact that the complaint was filed before the agreed possession date.
For commercial property buyers, the case highlights the importance of examining the Agreement for Sale, the contractual possession date, the precise commitments concerning access and parking, and the authority responsible for public infrastructure. A buyer’s inability to generate the expected rental income does not, by itself, establish an entitlement to a replacement commercial unit under RERA.
