BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI
Virtual Hearing held through video conference as per
MahaRERA Circular No.: 27/2020

COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000375193

1. TRIDIB NIDHISH DALAL

2. PURVI TRIDIB DALAL …COMPLAINANTS

Versus

1. MISHAL CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED

2. MR. NAVEENKUMAR MISHRIMAL JAIN

3. MR. AJITKUMAR KASTURCHAND JAIN …RESPONDENTS

MahaRERA Project registration No. P51900009332

O R D E R
On the application of the Complainant.

30. 06.2025
(Date of Hearing: 16.04.2025)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Hon’ble Member 2, MahaRERA

Adv. Shamant Satiya for Complainant
Adv. Jayshri Gilra for Respondent no 1-3
Adv. Sumeet Tirthani for Respondent no 4

1. ​ The Applicant has filed the present Application in order to implead the society registered
under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 namely Sri Krishin Co-operative
Housing Society Limited ("Society") on record in the array of Respondents and amend its
prayer accordingly in light of the recent developments that have come to the attention of
Applicant. The Applicants in the present Application are also seeking to amend the
inadvertent typographical error in paragraph no. 4.2(i) of the captioned Complaint, wherein
the Applicants have, instead of plot no.72, inadvertently due to a typographical error
mentioned the same as plot no. 73.

2. ​ The facts of the application are as follows:-
During the pendency of the present Complaint, the Applicant came across a public notice
dated 31st May 2024 in Times of India newspaper which mentioned that the society had
terminated the Development Agreement dated 8th November 2010, Supplementary
Agreement dated 2nd December 2013, Modified Supplementary Agreement dated 12th
1


January 2016 and Power of Attorney dated 31st December 2010 ("Development
Agreements") entered into with the Respondent in respect of project known as Shri Krishin
Cooperative Housing Society Limited on plot no. 73.

3. ​ The Applicant replied to the aforesaid public notice vide its letter dated 11th June 2024
whereby it was stated that the termination by the society was illegal as the same was
without any approval from this Hon'ble Authority, and therefore, it ought to be withdrawn
by the Society. The Applicant submits that the present Application for Amendment is filed
in view of the fact that the Society has sought to terminate the Development Agreements
and is further taking steps for the development of the project in which the applicant is
allotted the subject flat.

4. ​ The Society is now jointly and severally liable for all the obligations made by the
Respondent, and as such, it is only appropriate that the Society be impleaded as a party to
the present Complaint in order to seek relief against the Society as well.

5. ​ It is further submitted that the Society, being the owner of the said land, falls within the
definition of "Promoter" under RERA and is bound by the obligations cast upon the
Promoter under RERA. The Society is the owner of the land on which the said project is
being constructed by the Respondent, and therefore, it is equally liable to discharge the
duties of the Promoter towards the Complainant. The Development Agreements effectively
made the Respondent an agent of the Society, and Section 226 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872 states that the principal shall be liable for the acts of the agents as if they were done by
the principal itself. Thus, by virtue of the aforesaid provision, the Society is liable for all acts
of the Respondent with respect to the said project.

6. ​ Therefore, the Applicant requested this authority to permit to amend the complaint.

7. ​ The Respondent No-1 has filed the reply to the main complaint, and Respondent No. 4 has
filed a reply in regard to the said application.

8. ​ It is stated in the reply by Respondent No. 4 that he is the chairman of proposed
Respondent no 4 society and is authorized by the resolution dated 05.09.2021 to represent
the Respondent no.4. The Respondent No. 4 further denies all the contentions in the
application and opposes the joining of the Proposed Respondent no.4 society to the present
complaint.

9. ​ It is further stated in the reply that the proposed Respondent no.4 is the co-operative
housing society registered under the Maharashtra Co- Co-operative Societies act 1960, and
is the owner of the two land parcels, and the same are occupied by 12 members of the of
proposed Respondent no.4 society. The said building was an old building and was in
2


dilapidated condition, and required extensive repairs. Therefore, Respondent no 4 and the
members decided to go through the redevelopment of the said property. Thereafter,
Respondent No.1 came to be appointed as the developer of the said society and entered
into the Development agreement dated 08.11.2010, which was duly registered with the
sub-registrar at Kurla dated 03.01.2011.

10. ​Further, the Respondent no.1 was liable to complete the entire redevelopment work within
the prescribed time of 24 months however, the Respondent no. 1 failed to comply with the
obligation. The Respondent no 4 executed the supplementary agreement dated 02.12.2013.
Thereafter in view of delay the Respondent no 4 executed modified the supplementary
agreement dated 12.01.2016 with the Respondent no.1. Despite that the Respondent no 1
failed to comply with the obligations and committed several breach of the terms agreed
between the parties.

11. ​The Respondent no.4 society sent the letter through advocate dated 23.05.2024 to the
Respondent no. 1 looking at the conduct of the Respondent no.1 for all the breaches. By the
letter, the Respondent no 4 terminated all the agreements that were executed between
Respondent no. 4 society and Respondent no.1. The termination of the agreements was
published by the Respondent .4 in the public newspaper. The Respondent No. 1 failed to
reply to the said letter thus accepting the termination of the Development rights. Thereafter
Respondent no. 1 file the proceeding before hon’ble high court under section 9 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996.

12. ​The Respondent no 4 states that the Respondent no 4 is not liable for any of the acts stated
herein above and neither Respondent no. 4 is shown as co-promoter by Respondent no. 1. It
is further submitted that the society cannot be made liable for the acts of the Developer. It is
also stated that the development rights granted to the Respondent no 1 are lawfully
terminated and the same is recorded by the arbitrator vide order dated 20.03.2025. It is also
submitted by the Respondent no 4 that no amount has been paid by the Complainant to the
Respondent no 4 and there absolutely no privity of contract between the Complainant and
Respondent no 4. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled to claim any relief against the
proposed Respondent no.4 and the Miscellaneous Application be dismissed.

13. ​The Complainant has filed a written submission with regard to the application. It is
submitted that the Complainant had vide its reply dated 11th June responded to the public
notice of the Society informing the Society that Respondent No. 1 has executed a registered
agreement for sale dated 15th November 2021 allotting Flat No. 801 in favour of the
Complainant and that Complainant has already paid a sum of Rs.1,76,03,909/- (Rupees
One Core Seventy Six Lakhs Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Nine Only). It was further
3


stated that the termination by the society was illegal as the same was without any approval
from this Hon'ble Authority.

14. ​It is further mentioned in the written submissions that the Society in its Affidavit in reply
dated 28.03.2025 to present Amendment Application of the Complainant, has made the
following admissions. The Society has terminated the Development Agreements, and
public notice to that effect was published, recording the facts of the termination of the
development agreement and further recording that any third-party rights created by the
Respondent No. 1 would not be binding on the Society.

15. ​It is submitted that the Hon'ble Authority has issued Circular No. 12/2017 dated 4th
December 2017 directing that land owners fall within the definition of the term 'Promoter'
on account of being landowners. Therefore, the Society is a necessary party for adjudication
of the present Complaint, in view of the admitted fact that the Society is the landowner and
that the Society has developmental rights in the Project pursuant to the Arbitration Order.

16. ​The Authority has perused the submissions and observed that the Society has sought to
terminate the Development Agreements and is further taking steps for the development of
the project.

17. ​It is also observed by the Authority that the Society is admittedly the landowner and had
entered into multiple registered agreements with Respondent No.1 for development of the
subject property. As per Circular No. 12/2017 issued by MahaRERA, landowners who enter
into development arrangements with third parties are deemed "Promoters" under RERA.

18. ​It is further observed that the Applicants in the present Application are also seeking to
amend the inadvertent typographical error in paragraph no. 4.2(i) of the captioned
Complaint, wherein the Applicants have, instead of plot no.72, inadvertently due to a
typographical error, mentioned the same as plot no. 73. In view of the authority, it is
necessary to mention the correct the facts for the better adjudication of the complaint.

19. ​In the considered opinion of the authority, the proposed amendment is not going to change
the nature of the complaint. Moreover, in order to adjudicate the complaint properly at once
and to avoid the multiplicity of the litigation. Moreover, the proposed Respondent No-4 is
having opportunity to file the reply and contest the complaint and the objection raised by
the Respondent No.1 can be adjudicated at the time of final hearing hearing of the
complaint

20. ​Hence , the authority pass the following order:-

O R D E R

1. ​ The Application is allowed.
4


The Complainant is permitted to implead Sri Krishin Co-operative Housing
Society Limited as Respondent No. 4 to the Complaint.

2. ​ The Complainant is further permitted to amend paragraph 4.2(i) of the Complaint
by substituting “plot no. 73” with “plot no. 72”.

3. ​ The amended Complaint shall be filed within two weeks from the date of this Order,
with due service to all Respondents.

4. ​ The newly impleaded Respondent No. 4 shall have the liberty to file its reply.


​

​
​
​
​
(Ravindra Deshpande)
Member 2, MahaRERA
Date:- 30.06.2025
5

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.06.30 15:48:04
+05'30'