CC006000000428751

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
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.: CC006000000428751

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 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK 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 Abir Patel 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. 1001 alongwith
3car parking situated on the 10th Floor of the building “Ruparel IRIS” at
Senapati Bapat Marg, Tulsi Pipe Road, Mahim, purchased for a total
consideration of Rs. 5 Crores excluding statutory taxes, stamp duty and

CC006000000428751

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

registration charges, which amount 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.
2,25,00,000/-

3. It is the contention of the Complainants that under the Agreement for Sale
dated 01.04.2016, Respondent No. 1 was required to hand over possession of
the said flat within 36 months therefrom, i.e., by March 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 the contention of the Complainant that due to delay in handing over
possession of the subject flat and subsequent demise of Mr. Areef Patel in July
2019, default occurred in repayment of the home loan, pursuant to which
Respondent No. 2 – Kotak Mahindra Bank classified the loan account as NPA
on or about 08.11.2019 and initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002, including issuance of e-auction notice for sale of the
property. According to the Complainant, possession of the flat was expected
in March–April 2019 and, had timely possession been handed over, the
Applicant could have monetized the flat and cleared the dues of Respondent
No. 2. It is further contended that physical possession of the flat was not taken
by Respondent No. 2 till the order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai in Case No. 417/SA/2021
and though Respondent No. 1 challenged the action before the Debt Recovery
Tribunal, no relief was granted therein nor any relief sought against the
Complainants in Securitization Application No. 90 of 2023..

CC006000000428751

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

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 sought directions against Respondent
No. 1 to take necessary steps for obtaining the Occupation Certificate and to
hand over possession of the subject flat at the earliest, along with interest
under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act at the prescribed rate from 01.04.2019 till
handing over of possession, and further sought legal costs of Rs. 2,00,000/-
towards the present Complaint.

7. It is the contention of the Complainant that during pendency of the present
Complaint, Respondent No. 2 – Kotak Mahindra Bank sold the subject flat
through e-auction conducted on 04.02.2025 wherein Mr. Rohit Uchil emerged
as successful bidder and Sale Certificate dated 12.03.2025 was issued in his
favour. It is further contended that the registered Sale Deed was uploaded on
the website of MahaRERA on 10.09.2025, whereupon the Applicant became
aware of the sale. According to the Complainant, the flat purchased for Rs. 5
Crores in April 2016, though valued at Rs. 2.99 Crores was auctioned at Rs.

2. 30 Crores. It is further contended that though Rs. 2,27,70,000/- was adjusted
towards outstanding loan dues, an amount of Rs. 2,01,26,141.24/- still
remains payable and, therefore, the Complainants have suffered substantial
financial loss due to failure of Respondent No. 1 to fulfil its statutory
obligations under Sections 18 and 19 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016.

8. It is the contention of the Complainant that Respondent No. 2 has already
recovered substantial amounts towards the outstanding loan dues from the
sale proceeds of the subject flat auctioned on 04.02.2025 under the provisions

CC006000000428751

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

of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, while Respondent No. 1 has unjustly enriched
itself by retaining the sale consideration paid by the Complainants since
execution of the Agreement dated 01.04.2016 without handing over
possession of the flat. According to the Complainant, despite payment of the
entire consideration of Rs. 5 Crores, possession of the subject flat was never
handed over for beneficial enjoyment, and the property ultimately came to be
sold in distress through auction proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2. It
is further contended that had timely possession been handed over, the
Complainants would have had an opportunity to monetize the property for
repayment of the loan dues. Hence, alleging grave financial loss and prejudice
due to failure of Respondent No. 1 to fulfil its statutory obligations, the
Complainants seek modification of the reliefs in the Complaint and seek
refund of the amounts paid under the Agreement dated 01.04.2016 along with
interest at the rate of 24% p.a..

9. It is contention of the Complainant that , in view of the subsequent
developments which occurred during pendency of the present Complaint,
namely conduct of e-auction of the subject flat on 04.02.2025 and issuance of
Sale Certificate dated 12.03.2025, amendment of the Complaint as proposed in
the Schedule annexed to the Application has become necessary for proper
adjudication of the dispute. The Complainant further submits that no
prejudice would be caused to the Respondents if the amendment is allowed
as they would have an opportunity to file additional pleadings, whereas
refusal of the amendment would cause serious loss and prejudice to the
Complainants.

10. Respondent No. 1 has filed reply opposing the present Application
contending that the Complaint was filed on 04.01.2024 whereas the
amendment application came to be filed on 23.12.2025, nearly 23 months
thereafter, and therefore the same is a belated afterthought.

11. Respondent No. 1 further contends that the proposed amendment seeks
substitution of the original reliefs and introduction of an altogether new case

CC006000000428751

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

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.

12. 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.

13. Respondent No. 1 further contends that there was no delay in handing over
possession under the Agreement for Sale dated 01.04.2016 and that
Occupation Certificate for the subject project has already been obtained on

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

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

15. 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.

16. 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 01.04.2016 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

CC006000000428751

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

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 12.03.2025 and uploaded on MahaRERA website on

11. 09.2025.

17. 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.

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

01. 04.2016, 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.

19. 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 12.03.2025. The
amendment sought is based upon subsequent events and therefore the
objection regarding delay does not merit acceptance.

20. It is further observed that allowing the proposed amendment would not

CC006000000428751

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

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.

21. 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 Complainant is 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 the amended Complaint within
15 days from the 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 15:53:52
+05'30'