1

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI
Hearing held through Hybrid mode

COMPLAINT NO.: C12504088

NARSHI DEVJI PATEL


…COMPLAINANT
Vs
JANGID HOME PVT LTD …RESPONDENT

MahaRERA Project registration No. P51800008642


CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA


INTERIM ORDER

29. 07.2026
(Date of hearing - 19/05/2026)
Adv. Dhaval Panchal for the complainant
Adv. Shreya Dholakia for the respondent

1. The respondent has uploaded application challenging the Maintainability of
the present complaint.

2. The brief facts are as follows:
The Respondent has submitted that the complaint relates to Unit No. 105 in the
project "Jangid Annexe", which is an industrial gala. It is contended that the
sanctioned plans, Intimation of Disapproval (IOD), Commencement Certificate
and architectural drawings classify the building exclusively as an industrial
building and the unit as an industrial gala. Accordingly, the Respondent
submitted that the project is neither residential nor commercial in nature.

3. The Respondent has further submitted that the provisions of the RERA Act are
applicable only to residential and commercial real estate projects. Relying upon
Sections 2(e) and 2(zn) of the Act, it is submitted by the respondent that
industrial premises are not included within the definition of "apartment" or
"real estate project". The Respondent has also submitted that registration of the
project under MahaRERA was undertaken as a precautionary measure before
the legal position regarding industrial projects was settled and such
registration cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists.


2

4. The Respondent has placed reliance upon the decisions in Techno Drive
Engineer Pvt. Ltd. vs. Renaissance Indus Infra Pvt. Ltd., the order of the
MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal in the same matter, and the Suo Motu
proceedings relating to Inspira City Shendra, wherein it has been held that
industrial projects fall outside the ambit of the RERA Act. It is further
submitted that the MahaRERA registration framework itself recognises only
residential, commercial and mixed-use projects and does not provide a separate
regulatory category for industrial projects.

5. On the aforesaid grounds, the Respondent has contended that no cause of
action arises under Section 18 or any other provision of the Act in respect of the
subject industrial unit. The Respondent has therefore prayed that the complaint
be held to be not maintainable, dismissed with exemplary costs, and such
further orders be passed as deemed fit.

6. The Complainant has opposed the Maintainability Application and
submitted that the present complaint is fully maintainable both in law and on
facts. It is contended that the application is misconceived, based on suppression
of material facts, and deserves to be rejected. The Complainant has reiterated
and adopted the pleadings made in the main complaint.

7. The Complainant has submitted that although the project "Jangid Annexe" was
initially sanctioned as an industrial project, the Respondent subsequently
registered the project with MahaRERA and induced purchasers to invest on the
basis of such registration. It is contended that the Complainant has paid about
80% of the agreed consideration, yet possession has not been handed over
despite the lapse of several years.

8. It is further submitted that the Respondent has executed inconsistent
agreements by describing units as industrial as well as commercial and has
unilaterally changed the nature of the project from industrial to commercial
without obtaining the consent of the allottees. Despite such change, the
Respondent continued to accept consideration from the Complainant, thereby
acknowledging their status as allottees in a MahaRERA registered project.

9. The Complainant has relied upon the

INTERIM ORDER

dated 08.06.2026 passed
by this Authority in
Complaint No. CC12400218
arising from the same project,
wherein the Respondent's maintainability application was rejected, and the
complaint was directed to proceed on merits. It is submitted that the said order
squarely applies to the present case. On the aforesaid grounds, the


3

Complainant has contended that the project presently stands registered as a
commercial project under MahaRERA and, therefore, the complaint is
maintainable under the RERA Act. The Complainant has prayed for dismissal
of the Maintainability Application, a declaration that the complaint is
maintainable, and adjudication of the complaint on merits.

10. I have considered the submissions and the documents placed on record. The
Respondent has contended that the sanctioned plans, IOD and Commencement
Certificate describe the project as an industrial building and, therefore, the
provisions of the Act are inapplicable. The Respondent has also relied upon the
decisions in Techno Drive Engineer Pvt. Ltd. and the proceedings relating to
Inspira City Shendra to contend that industrial projects are outside the scope
of the Act. The judgments relied upon by the Respondent are distinguishable
on the facts. In the present case, the Respondent itself registered the project
with MahaRERA as a commercial project, disclosed the units as commercial
units, executed the agreement without describing the premises as industrial
units. Therefore, the factual matrix of the present case is materially different
from the cases relied upon by the Respondent.

11. The Complainant, on the other hand, has specifically contended that the
Respondent voluntarily obtained registration of the project under MahaRERA,
marketed the project under such registration, accepted substantial
consideration from the purchasers and represented the project as a MahaRERA
registered project. The Complainant has further alleged that the Respondent
subsequently treated the project as commercial and continued to accept
consideration without handing over possession. These assertions raise
disputed questions of fact which require adjudication on merits.

12. From the material placed on record, it is evident that the Allotment Letter, the
Agreement for Sale and the project disclosures made before MahaRERA
website do not describe the subject premises as an industrial unit. The project
was registered by the Respondent as a commercial project. The Respondent
cannot ignore its own representations made before MahaRERA and the
purchasers while raising a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of this
Authority.

13. Having voluntarily sought registration under the Act and accepted
consideration from the purchasers under the umbrella of such registration, the
Respondent cannot, at the threshold, seek dismissal of the complaint by
contending that the Act itself is inapplicable. Whether the project is ultimately
covered by the Act and the effect of the Respondent's contentions are issues


4

which can appropriately be examined at the stage of final adjudication after
considering the complete evidence on record.

14. The objections raised by the Respondent are, therefore, matters touching the
merits of the dispute and require detailed examination during final
adjudication. Rejecting the complaint at the threshold would deprive the
parties of an opportunity to establish their respective cases by leading
appropriate evidence.

15. In view of the above, I find that the Respondent has not been able to show
prima facie that the present Complaint is outside the jurisdiction of this
Authority. The material available on record prima facie shows that the subject
unit was represented and dealt with as a commercial unit.

16. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the
Respondent has failed to make out a case for dismissal of the complaint at the
threshold. The application challenging the maintainability of the complaint is,
therefore, liable to be rejected. The rights and contentions of both parties on all
other issues are expressly kept open to be decided at the stage of final hearing.

O R D E R
a. The Respondent's application challenging the maintainability of the
complaint stands rejected.
b. The present Complaint shall proceed for adjudication on merits.
c. No order as to costs.


Date- 29.07.2026


Ravindra Deshpande


Member II, MahaRERA
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.07.29 15:54:15
+05'30'