By Adv Fiona Mehta
In the matter of Vayuputra Realty Pvt Ltd vs. MahaRERA (2022), there is a considerable amount of completely unnecessary controversy about the form of proceedings before the Chairperson of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mumbai, MahaRERA. The Respondents to these petitions, specifically Respondents Nos. 2–4 (“the DB Group”), have requested that a residential project known as Turf View be “deregistered.” The Petitioners purchased residential properties sold by the DB Group in Turf View.
By email dated January 31, 2022, the DB Group applied to MahaRERA for an appropriate order of ‘deregistration.’ The application is not filed as a formal adversarial proceeding. Perhaps it should, given each of the five petitioners opposes DB Group’s deregistration application vigorously. The point, as the High Court understand it from Mr. Dhond and Mr. Seksaria, is that the RERA Act has no concept of deregistration. This is the issue that needs to be resolved.
Whereas, it is therefore necessary to alter the Practice of giving the nomenclature, “suo motu” to the regulatory matters adversarial in nature and accordingly the following directions are issued in Order 29 of 2022 RERA: -.
- a) Regulatory matters that that take the form of adversarial litigation shall be filed in the manner as detailed out in Annexure- A’
- b) The statement of facts contained in any filing shall be supported by a duly notarized affidavit which affidavit shall be in Form-I annexed hereto.
- c) The letter notifying defects if any in the filing of the regulatory matters shall be in Form -lI annexed hereto.
MahaRERA will accept hard copies in the manner mentioned above until a digital module is made available for the purpose of filing such regulatory concerns.
These guidelines do not apply to complaints submitted under the Act’s Section 31.
The practice of using the appellation “suo moto” for regulatory cases that are not adversarial in nature will continue. The preceding instructions will take effect immediately.