━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
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.: CC006000000408558

SIDDHA SHILA CO – OPERATIVE
HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.


…INTERVENER/APPLICANT
BETWEEN
SANJAY MAHENDRA PARMAR JAIN (HUF)
AND ORS.


…. COMPLAINANTS

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 Makarand Raut for Complainants
Advocate Dishang Shah 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.

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

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.

5. It is submitted by Adv. Makarand Raut, the advocate of the Complainant, that
the Complainant has filed the complaint under sec. 18 r/w. 31 of MahaRERA
Act for the interest on delay possession, the Complainant has no cause of action
against the society, and nor any relief has been asked against the society. There
is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Society. It is further
submitted that there is no privity of contract between the Society and the
Respondent. The society is registered in the year 2024. The presence of the
society is not necessary to decide the present complaint. It is further submitted
that the members of the society are bogus, the promoter has executed the AFS
with the same payment receipt, one flat has been sold twice i.e. Flat no. 1401. It
is further submitted that the application is filed on delay possession, and the
society is not a promoter as per MahaRERA act. Hence, presence of society is
not required.

6. 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, MahaRERA


RAVINDRA
PADMAKARA
O DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.12.03
14:11:02 +05'30'