Complaint No. CC006000000375350


BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI
Hearing in Hybrid mode as per MahaRERA Circular No 49/2025

Complaint No. CC006000000375350

1. ​ NIKITA RAJEN BADHEKA,

2. ​ RAJEN DINKARRAI BADHEKA ​
​
​
...COMPLAINANTS
Vs

1. ​ RAVIRAJ DEVELOPERS,

2. ​ RAVINDRA SHANKAR SAWANT,

3. ​ CHHAYA K BORIYA ...RESPONDENTS

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51800001493

INTERIM O R D E R
(25/02/2026)
(Date of Hearing: 28/10/2025)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2, MahaRERA

Adv. Archana Kakade is present for Complainant
Adv. Shreya Dholakia is present for the Respondent

1. ​ The Respondent No.1 has filed the application challenging the maintainability
of the present complaint.
In short facts of the application are as follows:

2. ​ The Respondent No.1 contended that the Complainants are not allottees and
the agreement is a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA).
The Respondent No.1 further requested to allow present Miscellancous
Application and dismiss of the present complaint on the ground that it is
not-maintainable for lack of jurisdiction.

3. ​ The Complainants has uploaded reply and opposed this application
contending that same is liable to be dismissed with cost as same is filed
belatedly, that too without application of mind to the facts and legal position
and filed with the sole intention to delay the rightful possession of flat to the
original complainant. It is further contended that Complainants denies all the
contentions made by the Respondent no. 1 in the said Application as irrelevant

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


Complaint No. CC006000000375350


and inapplicable. Hence, the Complainant requested for dismissal of the
present application.

4. ​ Considering the submissions of both parties and the documents placed on
record, this Authority notes that the Complainants have purchased 290 sq. ft.
additional area along with one car parking under a duly registered agreement
for consideration, for which stamp duty and registration charges have been
paid. The said transaction constitutes a “sale” of premises.

5. ​ The project is registered with MahaRERA and the issues raised in the
complaint relate to delay in possession, balance consideration, unpaid rent
adjustment and compliance with the registered agreement. These matters fall
within the jurisdiction of this Authority. The case law relied upon by the
Respondent no.1 pertains to transactions involving only PAAA without any
sale component and is therefore not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Hence, in my considered view, the miscellaneous application filed by the
Respondent No.1 challenging the maintainability of the present complaint
deserves to be rejected. Hence, I proceed to pass following order.

O R D E R

1. ​ The application is rejected.

(Ravindra Deshpande)
Member-2, MahaRERA
Date: 25/02/2026

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

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.02.25 15:19:23
+05'30'