COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000364582


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 2
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Hearing held through hybrid mode as per MahaRERA Circular No.: 49/2025

CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA


COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000364582

SIDDHA SHILA CO – OPERATIVE
HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.


…INTERVENER/APPLICANT
BETWEEN
PIYUSH RAMESH MEHTA …. COMPLAINANT

Versus

R. K. E. BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS
…RESPONDENT


MahaRERA Project registration No. P51800046233

O R D E R
On Intervention application
(Order Date- 03.12.2025)


Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2 MahaRERA

Adv. Vikramjit Garewal for the Intervener/ Applicant
Advocate Abir Patel for Complainant
Advocate Dishang Shah and Adv. Rubin Vakil for the Respondent

1. The present application is filed by the intervener/ applicant to implead them as the
Respondent no. 2 in the complaint.

2. The complainant has opposed the intervention application.

3. Heard both the parties as on 09.10.2025, Adv. Garewal appearing for the intervenor
submitted that the application is filed by the society which is formed by the flat
purchasers. All purchasers who have purchased flats are eligible to become the
members of the society including the Complainant. All flat purchasers have come
together and formed the society for the purpose of the completion of the project. It is
submitted that all the flat purchasers have agreed to pay the balance consideration in
an escrow account which may be managed and operated by the society and this money
will be used for the completion of the project. Now, the developer is also giving some
financial contribution. Thus, if this arrangement is allowed to go through, the building
will be completed as per the date disclosed in MahaRERA which is December 2025.
The Complainants and one more person out of 95 purchasers who has decided to go
against the will of the majority and have filed the present complaint.

4. It is submitted on behalf of Adv. Garewal that sec. 15 is not applicable to them and it
is applicable when the promoter transfers the interest from the project.


COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000364582


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 2
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

5. It is submitted by Adv. Abir Patel appearing for the Complainant that, the intervention
is possible only when it is proper and necessary party in the complaint which is
pending before this authority. The Complainant has asked for the possession of the
flat which has been sold to the Complainant by the Respondent and not by the
intervenor. The Complainant, in the prayer, has asked for interest in delay possession,
compensation and cancellation of the double sale which has been done by the
Respondent. None of the reliefs are asked from the society and the said reliefs are
against the promoter. There is no role of the society in the complaint. There is no locus
to claim that it is project of the society. There is no locus standi to make this application
and no application is filed under sec. 8 of MahaRERA Act. The society has never
approached the Complainant for the consent. The society has unilaterally decided to
become the intervener applicant. The Complainant is not the member of the society
hence there is no question of going against the will of the majority. The society has not
taken the permission under sec. 15 of MahaRERA act to complete the project. It is
submitted that the society is asking the Complainant to pay Rs. 35 lakhs. The developer
is trying to collect more money through the society. The society is created by the
developer and misusing the name of the society to extract the money from the buyers.
It is submitted that the builder is trying to collect the money through society. The
builder is managing this society, and the builders has taken the entire consideration.
The Complainant has already paid the entire consideration and now the society is
asking to pay Rs. 35 lakhs.

6. The advocate of the Complainant brought to my attention towards certain pages of the
reply i.e. Page nos. 7, 8 and 9 showing that the society is collecting money in the
account of the builder.

7. There is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Society. There is no
privity of contract between the Society and the Respondent. The presence of the
Society is not necessary for adjudication in the complaint, which has been filed against
the Promoter by the complainant/ allottee in relation to delayed possession of the
subject premises. Hence, in my considered view there is no necessity to implead the
society as a party in the present complaint. Hence, I proceed to pass the order:-

ORDER

1. The applicant is not permitted to be impleaded as Respondent No. 2 in the present
complaint.

2. The Intervention Application dated 07.07.2025 is hereby rejected.

3. No order as to Cost.


Ravindra Deshpande,
Date: -03.12.2025 Member II, MahaRER
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.12.03
14:10:29 +05'30'