CC006000000408582

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Hybrid Hearing held through video conference
as per MahaRERA Circular No.: 49/2025


COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000408582

1. KAYKASSHAN AREEF PATEL

2. MASTER NUMAIRE AREEF PATEL

3. MASTER ARHAAN AREEF PATEL …COMPLAINANTS
Vs

1. M/S RUPAREL ESTATES (I) PRIVATE LIMITED

2. M/S IIFL HOME FINANCE LIMITED
…RESPONDENTS


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51900005988

Order on amendment application

18. 05.2026
(Date of Hearing: 24.12.2025)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2 MahaRERA

Advocate Shlok Parekh Complainants
Advocate Sarthak for Respondents No.1
Advocate Indrajeet for Respondent No.2

1. The Complainant has preferred the present Application seeking permission to
carry out amendment to the Complaint in terms of Schedule II and for such
other consequential reliefs as this Authority may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

2. It is the contention of the Complainants that the present Complaint has been
filed alleging delay in handing over possession of Flat No. 2901 situated on
the 29th Floor of the building “Ruparel IRIS” at Senapati Bapat Marg, Tulsi
Pipe Road, Mahim, purchased for a total consideration of Rs. 2.70 Crores
excluding statutory taxes, stamp duty and registration charges, which amount

CC006000000408582

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

has been duly received by Respondent No. 1. It is further contended that the
subject flat was jointly purchased by the Applicant along with her husband,
Late Mr. Areef Patel, by availing home loan facility from Respondent No. 2,
pursuant to which amounts of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- and Rs. 54,00,000/- were
disbursed to Respondent No. 1 on 11.07.2016 and 17.05.2019 respectively
towards part consideration of the said flat.

3. It is the contention of the Complainants that under the Agreement for Sale
dated 02.07.2016, Respondent No. 1 was required to hand over possession of
the said flat within 36 months therefrom, i.e., by July 2019. However,
Respondent No. 1 failed to deliver possession within the stipulated period and
hence the present Complaint came to be filed. It is further contended that Late
Mr. Areef Asgar Patel expired on 29.07.2019 and thereafter his legal heirs,
namely Numaire Areef Patel and Arhaan Areef Patel, came to be impleaded as
Complainants in the present proceedings. The contents of the Complaint and
Affidavit in Rejoinder are treated as part and parcel of the present
Application.

4. It is further contended that after the demise of Mr. Areef Patel, the
Complainant faced financial difficulties resulting in default in repayment of
the home loan availed from Respondent No. 2, pursuant to which the loan
account was classified as NPA and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act
were initiated. It is further contended that Respondent No. 2 thereafter took
possession of the subject flat and subsequently sold the same to a third party..

5. It is the contention of the Complainants that the default in repayment of the
home loan was attributable to the failure of Respondent No. 1 to hand over
timely possession of the said flat. According to the Complainants, had
possession been delivered within the stipulated period, they could have
monetized the said flat and cleared the outstanding dues payable to
Respondent No. 2.

6. It is the contention of the Complainants that they had opted to continue in the
project and accordingly sought reliefs under Section 18(1)(b) of the Real Estate

CC006000000408582

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 directing Respondent No. 1 to pay
compensation of Rs. 1,36,08,347/- towards delay in handing over possession
for the period from 01.07.2019 to 30.11.2023, further monthly compensation of
Rs. 2,56,615/- from 01.12.2023 till handing over possession, interest thereon at
the rate of 10.85% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint till
realization, directions to obtain Occupation Certificate and hand over
possession of the said flat, along with legal costs of Rs. 2,00,000/-..

7. It is the contention of the Complainants that during the pendency of the
present Complaint, the subject flat came to be sold by Respondent No. 2
through e-auction conducted on 01.03.2022, wherein Mr. Kalpesh Jayantilal
Shah emerged as the successful bidder. It is further contended that the Sale
Certificate was issued in his favour on 14.02.2025 and the registered Sale
Certificate was uploaded on the MahaRERA website on 11.09.2025,
whereupon the Applicants became aware of the sale of the subject property.

8. It is further contended that the subject flat was purchased for consideration of
Rs. 2.70 Crores and that the said flat along with Flat No. 2902, which was
mortgaged with Respondent No. 2 in another loan account, came to be sold
for a total consideration of Rs. 2,05,00,000/-. According to the Complainants,
the sale proceeds were appropriate towards closure of the respective loan
accounts and adjustment of outstanding dues and other charges aggregating
to Rs. 4,63,00,000/-. It is the contention of the Complainants that they have
suffered loss of more than Rs. 2.70 Crores without deriving any benefit or
rights in respect of the subject flat and that Respondent No. 1, having failed to
fulfil its statutory obligations, is liable under Sections 18 and 19 of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

9. It is the contention of the Complainants that despite having paid the entire
consideration of Rs. 2.70 Crores, they have not only lost the subject flat but
have also suffered substantial financial loss on account of failure of
Respondent No. 1 to hand over possession within the stipulated period.
According to the Complainants, had timely been delivered, they could have

CC006000000408582

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

monetized the property and cleared the dues payable to Respondent No. 2.
However, pursuant to proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002,
the subject flat came to be sold and therefore the Complainants now seek
modification of the reliefs originally sought in the Complaint.

10. Accordingly, the Complainants have filed the present Application seeking
amendment to the Complaint in terms of the Schedule annexed thereto on the
ground that the same has become necessary in view of subsequent
developments arising during the pendency of the proceedings. It is contended
that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents if the amendment is
allowed, as they would have an opportunity to file additional pleadings, and
therefore the present Application deserves to be allowed.

11. Respondent No. 1 has filed reply opposing the present Application
contending that the Complaint was filed on 19.12.2023 whereas the
amendment application came to be filed on 23.12.2025, nearly two years
thereafter, and therefore the same is a belated afterthought.

12. Respondent No. 1 further contends that the proposed amendment seeks
substitution of the original reliefs and introduction of an altogether new case
by seeking refund of the entire sale consideration along with interest, which is
a complete departure from the reliefs originally sought in the Complaint.
According to Respondent No. 1, the proposed amendment changes the very
nature and foundation of the Complaint and is therefore not permissible.

13. It is further contended by Respondent No. 1 that the subject flat had been
mortgaged with Respondent No. 2 and on account of default in repayment of
the loan, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 were initiated and the
flat came to be sold through auction. According to Respondent No. 1, the
Complainants themselves committed default in repayment of the loan and
therefore cannot seek refund from Respondent No. 1 on account of their own
default.

14. Respondent No. 1 further contends that there was no delay in handing over
possession under the Agreement for Sale dated 02.07.2016 and that
Occupation Certificate for the subject project has already been obtained on

CC006000000408582

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

16. 07.2021. It is therefore submitted that the present amendment application is
devoid of merits and deserves to be rejected.

15. Respondent no2 has not filed reply on amendment application and contested
the same.

16. I have heard the Learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and
perused the material available on record. The present Application has been
filed by the Complainants seeking amendment to the Complaint on the
ground of subsequent developments which have taken place during the
pendency of the proceedings.

17. It is not in dispute that the original Complaint came to be filed alleging delay
in handing over possession of the subject flat under the Agreement for Sale
dated 02.07.2016 and seeking reliefs under Section 18(1)(b) of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 on the basis that the Complainants
intended to continue in the project. It is also not in dispute that during
pendency of the Complaint, the subject flat came to be sold pursuant to
proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Sale Certificate in favour of the auction
purchaser was issued on 14.02.2025 and uploaded on MahaRERA website on

11. 09.2025.

18. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, the factual position
prevailing at the time of filing of the original Complaint has materially
changed. Once the subject flat has been sold in auction proceedings and third-
party rights have been created, the reliefs relating to continuation in the
project and handing over possession of the subject flat would no longer
survive in the same form. The amendment sought by the Complainants is
therefore founded upon subsequent events which have arisen during
pendency of the proceedings and which require consideration for effective
adjudication of the dispute between the parties.

19. The contention of Respondent No. 1 that the proposed amendment changes

CC006000000408582

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 6 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

the nature of the Complaint by converting the claim from possession to refund
cannot be accepted at this stage. The original Complaint as well as the
proposed amended reliefs arise out of the same Agreement for Sale dated

02. 07.2016, the same transaction and the alleged failure of Respondent No. 1 to
hand over possession within the stipulated period. Merely because the
Complainants now seek refund and consequential monetary reliefs in place of
possession owing to subsequent developments, the same cannot be said to
travel beyond the scope of the original dispute. The reliefs continue to arise
under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
and remain within the four corners of the original cause of action.

20. So far as the objection regarding delay in filing the amendment application is
concerned, it is observed that the amendment has been sought after the
Complainants became aware of the sale of the subject flat upon uploading of
the registered Sale Certificate on the MahaRERA website on 11.09.2025. The
amendment sought is based upon subsequent events and therefore the
objection regarding delay does not merit acceptance.

21. It is further observed that allowing the proposed amendment would not cause
any irreparable prejudice to the Respondents, as adequate opportunity can be
granted to them to file additional pleadings and contest the amended case on
merits. On the contrary, refusal of amendment may result in multiplicity of
proceedings.

22. In the circumstances, this Authority is of the view that the proposed
amendment is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute
between the parties and therefore deserves to be allowed. Hence, the
following order:-

ORDER
A. The Amendment Application stands allowed.
B. The Complainants are permitted to carry out amendments in the complaint
in terms of the Schedule annexed to the application only.
C. The Complainants are directed to upload amended complaint within 15

CC006000000408582

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 7 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

days from date of this order.
D. No order as to costs.


Date:18.05.2026

Ravindra Deshpande
Member2, MahaRERA

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.05.18 15:49:11
+05'30'