CC12503543

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 12
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

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


COMPLAINT NO.: CC12503543

1. SUSHILA JAVATRAJ NAHAR

2. NIKITA SHAILESH NAHAR

3. ASHOK JAWANMAL NAHAR

4. SHAILESH ASHOK NAHAR
…COMPLAINANTS

Vs

1. MUNDARA DEVELOPERS

2. NIRAJ JAYANTILAL VORA …RESPONDENTS


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51800009600


INTERIM ORDER


(on maintainability application)

17. 06.2026
(Date of Hearing: 28.01.2026)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2 MahaRERA

C.A Tarun Ghia for Complainants
Advocate Anosh Sequeira for Respondents

1. The Complainants have filed an application seeking directions to the
Respondents to hand over possession of the subject flat and grant such other
reliefs as this Authority may deem fit.

2. It is the contention of the Complainants that, after filing the present complaint,
the Respondents obtained a part Occupation Certificate up to the 25th
habitable floor from the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and thereafter, by
email dated 26.11.2025, offered possession of the subject flat subject to

CC12503543

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 12
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

payment of alleged outstanding dues. According to the Complainants, the
Respondents did not disclose the particulars or computation of such dues and
further stated that maintenance and other charges would be payable from

26. 12.2025.

3. The Complainants submit that, by reply email dated 04.12.2025, they denied
any outstanding liability and contended that the Respondents had failed to
give credit for amounts payable to the Complainants under the registered
Agreement for Sale as well as interest payable under Section 18 of the Act on
account of delayed possession. The Complainants further stated that, even if
any amount was allegedly payable by them, the Respondents were bound to
disclose the deductions proposed and the net amount payable before
withholding possession. It is also their case that the Respondents did not
respond to the said email, and that the rental value of the flat is approximately
₹75,000/- per month, the flat having been purchased for their own use from
their savings and borrowings.

4. It is further the contention of the Complainants that, during discussions for
amicable settlement, the Respondents refused to pay compensation under the
Agreement for Sale and interest under Section 18 of the Act, whereupon the
Complainants decided not to pursue settlement and to seek adjudication of
their grievances, including the alleged unfair trade practices of the
Respondents. The Complainants have prepared a statement of account
showing that ₹32,19,768/- (inclusive of interest at 12% per annum) is payable
by them to the Respondents, whereas ₹86,30,027/- is receivable by them from
the Respondents, resulting in a net amount of ₹54,10,260/- payable by the
Respondents. On this basis, the Complainants contend that the Respondents
have no lawful basis to deny or delay possession and are illegally withholding
the same.

5. The Respondents have filed their reply and contested the same are as follows:

CC12503543

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 12
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

6. It is the contention of the Respondents that the Respondents deny all
allegations of the Complainants and submit that the Interim Application
seeking possession of Flat No. 2301 is misconceived, as the relief sought is not
in furtherance of the final reliefs claimed in the complaint, is in the nature of a
final relief, has become infructuous since possession was offered on

26. 11.2025, and the Complainants have failed to pay outstanding dues
aggregating to ₹32,70,253/-. The Respondents further contend that there is no
provision for set-off under the Agreement for Sale and that the Complainants
are attempting to circumvent their contractual obligations.

7. The Respondents submit that the Complainants are admittedly liable to pay
₹32,70,253/- under the Agreement for Sale dated 23.12.2021, though they have
incorrectly shown the amount as ₹32,19,768/-. According to the Respondents,
instead of clearing the outstanding dues and taking possession already
offered, the Complainants seek to adjust disputed claims allegedly payable by
the Respondents against the purchase consideration, despite there being no
contractual provision permitting such adjustment. The Respondents contend
that any claim for compensation can only be adjudicated upon at the final
hearing and cannot be set off against the amounts payable by the
Complainants.

8. The Respondents further contend that the complaint is restricted to monetary
reliefs, including compensation, interest, challenge to demand notices, fit-out
possession, adjustment of payments, compensation for mental agony and
penalty under the Act, and does not contain any substantive prayer for
possession of the flat. According to the Respondents, the relief of possession
sought through the Interim Application is beyond the scope of the complaint
and amounts to a final relief which cannot be granted at the interim stage.
They submit that possession has already been offered subject to payment of
dues and that grant of possession without payment would cause prejudice to

CC12503543

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 12
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

the Respondents and result in multiplicity of proceedings.

9. It is further the contention of the Respondents that the Complainants cannot
seek enforcement of the Agreement for Sale without first complying with their
own obligations thereunder. The Respondents deny the allegations in the
Interim Application and maintain that all demands have been raised in
accordance with the Agreement for Sale, that the claims of the Complainants
are disputed, that the email dated 04.12.2025 was replied to on 20.12.2025, and
that settlement discussions were conducted on a without-prejudice basis. The
Respondents therefore submit that the Interim Application is not maintainable
and deserves to be dismissed with costs.

10. The Complainants have filed rejoinder upon reply filed by the Respondents.

11. It is the contention of the Complainants that Flat No. 2103 was booked under a
registered Agreement for Sale dated 23.12.2021 for a consideration of
₹1,51,96,000/-, with possession promised on or before 30.06.2022. The
Agreement provided for payment of monthly rental compensation of
₹50,000/- and interest on the amounts paid in the event of delayed possession.
The Complainants had paid ₹1,31,63,535/- by the agreed possession date and
thereafter repeatedly sought payment of compensation and interest.
According to the Complainants, the Respondents avoided settlement of such
dues, continued raising demands for the balance consideration, failed to
indicate any probable possession date and granted fit-out possession to other
purchasers while denying the same to the Complainants, who sought
adjustment of mutual dues. Consequently, the Complainants filed the
complaint seeking adjustment of accounts, fit-out possession and other reliefs.

12. The Complainants further contend that, when the complaint was filed, no
Occupation Certificate had been obtained and therefore no prayer for
possession could be sought. Subsequently, after obtaining a part Occupation
Certificate, the Respondents offered possession by email dated 25.11.2025
subject to payment of alleged outstanding dues without furnishing particulars

CC12503543

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 12
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

thereof. The Complainants, by email dated 04.12.2025, sought adjustment of
amounts payable and receivable and requested that possession should not be
withheld. According to the Complainants, the Respondents merely proposed a
meeting by email dated 20.12.2025 and did not address the issues raised. The
Complainants therefore filed the Interim Application seeking possession. They
further contend that the Respondents are raising a technical objection
regarding absence of a possession prayer in the original complaint, despite the
Occupation Certificate having been obtained only subsequently. The
Complainants have since filed an amended complaint incorporating a prayer
for possession.

13. The Complainants submit that, as per their statement of account, ₹32,19,768/-
is payable by them to the Respondents, whereas ₹86,30,027/- is receivable
from the Respondents, resulting in a net amount of ₹54,10,260/- being payable
by the Respondents. They further allege that the Respondents have failed to
honour their obligations towards monthly rental compensation and interest
for delayed possession, despite having acknowledged such liability on earlier
occasions. The Complainants have also raised issues regarding alleged
excessive and illegal charges, misappropriation of ₹11,00,000/-, unfair
contractual clauses, differing possession dates and unfair trade practices.
Stating that they are a middle-class family who have been deprived of
possession for more than three and a half years, the Complainants seek
immediate possession of the flat and express willingness to comply with any
condition, including deposit of amounts before MahaRERA or in an escrow
account, as may be directed by the Authority.

14. The Complainants have filed Written Arguments are as follows:

15. It is the contention of the Complainants that the Interim Application was
heard by this Authority on 28.01.2026 and both parties were directed to file
their written submissions. As recorded in the Roznama dated 28.01.2026, the
order on the Interim Application was to be passed on or before 26.02.2026 and

CC12503543

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 6 of 12
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

the matter was thereafter listed for final hearing on 30.04.2026. According to
the Complainants, no order has yet been passed on the Interim Application
despite repeated reminders addressed to the Authority. The Complainants
submit that the Respondents obtained the Occupation Certificate in November
2025 and offered possession subject to payment of alleged dues, though
according to the Complainants, the Respondents are liable to pay substantially
higher amounts towards contractual compensation and interest than the
amounts claimed by them. The Complainants therefore sought, through the
Interim Application, a direction for handover of possession pending final
adjudication, contending that they continue to be deprived of their rightful
flat.

16. The Complainants further submit that the complaint was filed on 04.10.2025
and that the Respondents filed their reply to the complaint only on 28.04.2026,
two days prior to the scheduled final hearing, thereby adopting delaying
tactics. According to the Complainants, objections regarding the
complaint not

being signed or not being filed in the prescribed format were never raised
earlier, either during the pendency of the complaint or while filing the reply to
the Interim Application on 12.02.2026. The Complainants contend that the
complaint was filed online in accordance with the procedure prescribed by
MahaRERA and, as per the online scrutiny process, any defects would have
been required to be removed before the complaint was assigned to the Bench.
The Complainants therefore submit that the belated technical objections raised
by the Respondents deserve no consideration and that the matter ought to be
decided on its merits, particularly when the hearing of the Interim Application
stood concluded on 28.01.2026 and the Complainants continue to remain out
of possession of the subject flat.

17. The Respondents have filed written arguments are as follows:


CC12503543

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 7 of 12
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

18. It is the contention of the Respondents that the Interim Application seeking
possession of Flat No. 2301 is infructuous since a Part Occupation Certificate
for the building was obtained on 27.10.2025 and possession of the subject flat
was offered to the Complainants on 26.11.2025, subject to payment of
outstanding dues. The Respondents submit that, under Clauses 6, 10(c), 10(d)
and 29 of the Agreement for Sale and Sections 19(6) and 19(10) of the Act,
payment of the entire consideration is a precondition for entitlement to and
acceptance of possession. According to the Respondents, the Complainants
have themselves admitted liability to pay ₹32,70,523/- (incorrectly stated as
₹32,19,768/-) and, therefore, cannot seek possession without complying with
their contractual and statutory obligations.

19. The Respondents further contend that the Complainants are seeking unilateral
adjustment of the admitted outstanding consideration against their disputed
claims for compensation and interest for delayed possession. According to the
Respondents, the amounts claimed by the Complainants are disputed and
form the subject matter of the complaint, while the Agreement for Sale
contains no provision permitting any set-off or adjustment. The Respondents
submit that, even assuming entitlement to compensation or interest, the same
can be determined only upon final adjudication of the complaint and cannot
be adjusted against the consideration payable by the Complainants. The
Respondents further dispute the calculations furnished by the Complainants,
contending that the interest has been computed at an incorrect rate, for an
incorrect period and without considering the Covid-related extension period.

20. It is further the contention of the Respondents that the relief of possession
sought in the Interim Application is neither in furtherance of nor incidental to
the reliefs sought in the complaint, which is confined to monetary claims and
does not contain any substantive prayer for possession. According to the
Respondents, possession is a final relief and cannot be granted at an interim
stage. The Respondents submit that there is no risk of the flat being dealt with

CC12503543

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 8 of 12
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

adversely since possession has already been offered, and therefore no
prejudice would be caused to the Complainants if interim relief is refused. On
the contrary, grant of possession without receipt of the agreed consideration
would seriously prejudice the Respondents and amount to granting specific
performance of the Agreement for Sale without the Complainants first
fulfilling their obligations thereunder. The Respondents therefore contend that
the Interim Application is an afterthought seeking final relief under the guise
of interim relief and deserves to be dismissed with costs.

21. The Complainants have filed objection to written arguments filed by
Respondents.

22. It is the contention of the Complainants that the Interim Application was
heard on 28.01.2026 and the matter was reserved for orders. According to the
Complainants, once a matter is heard and kept for orders, only the pleadings,
replies and written submissions filed up to that stage can be considered. The
Complainants therefore submit that the affidavit and written submissions
filed by the Respondents on 15.05.2026 ought not to be taken into
consideration. It is further contended that, pursuant to the Roznama dated

28. 01.2026, the Respondents had already filed their reply to the Interim
Application and the Complainants had filed their rejoinder well before

26. 02.2026, which was the date fixed for passing orders on the Interim
Application. According to the Complainants, despite completion of pleadings,
no order was passed on or before 26.02.2026 and no reasons for such delay
were either recorded or communicated, resulting in prejudice to the
Complainants, who contend that justice delayed amounts to justice denied.

23. The Complainants further submit that, as recorded in the Roznama dated

28. 01.2026, the Respondents were granted time till 26.02.2026 to file their reply
to the main complaint, time till 12.02.2026 to file their reply to the Interim
Application, and the matter was listed for final hearing on 30.04.2026 after

CC12503543

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 9 of 12
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

passing orders on the Interim Application. According to the Complainants,
the Respondents filed their reply to the main complaint only on 28.04.2026,
two days prior to the scheduled final hearing, thereby defeating the timelines
fixed by the Authority and frustrating the purpose of listing the matter for
final hearing on 30.04.2026. The Complainants contend that the Respondents
did not adhere to the directions contained in the Roznama and that the
sanctity of the proceedings and the timelines prescribed by the Authority have
thereby been undermined. It is also their case that no reasons were recorded in
the Roznama dated 30.04.2026 for not proceeding with the final hearing as
scheduled.

24. The Complainants further contend that the delayed and last-minute filings by
the Respondents were intended to prolong the proceedings and ought not to
be considered. According to them, the complaint was filed in October 2025
and the Respondents failed to comply with the timelines fixed by the
Authority despite specific directions. The Complainants submit that the
proceedings before MahaRERA and the directions contained in the Roznama
cannot be treated casually and that parties cannot be permitted to file
pleadings at their convenience. Referring to the objective of the Act and the


JUDGMENT

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mansi Brar Fernandes vs. Shubha
Sharma (Civil Appeal No. 3826 of 2020), the Complainants submit that the
proceedings should be conducted in a manner that advances timely justice to
homebuyers. The Complainants have therefore prayed that the Interim
Application be decided solely on the basis of the pleadings and written
submissions filed by the parties up to 26.02.2026, being the date by which the
order on the Interim Application was directed to be pronounced.

25. I have carefully considered the Interim Application, replies, rejoinder, written
submissions filed by the parties and the documents placed on record.

26. The present Interim Application has been filed seeking directions to the

CC12503543

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 10 of 12
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Respondents to hand over possession of Flat No. 2301 pending adjudication of
the complaint.

27. It is an admitted position that the Respondents have obtained Part Occupation
Certificate in respect of the building and thereafter offered possession of the
subject flat to the Complainants vide email dated 26.11.2025. The Respondents
have contended that possession was offered subject to payment of the
outstanding dues payable under the Agreement for Sale.

28. It is pertinent to note that the Complainants themselves have prepared a
statement of account showing the alleged mutual claims between the parties.
In paragraph 5 of the Interim Application, the Complainants have specifically
stated that, according to their own calculations, an amount of ₹ 32,19,768/-
(inclusive of interest @ 12% per annum) is payable by them to the
Respondents. The Complainants have further contended that an amount of ₹
86,30,027. /- is receivable by them from the Respondents towards various
claims including compensation and interest and, therefore, according to them,
a net amount of ₹ 54,10,260/- is payable by the Respondents to the
Complainants.

29. Thus, from the pleadings of the Complainants themselves, it is evident that
the Complainants have admitted that a sum of ₹32,19,768/- remains payable
by them to the Respondents. The case of the Complainants is that such
admitted liability should be adjusted against the amounts allegedly
recoverable from the Respondents.

30. In my view, the question whether the Complainants are entitled to
compensation, interest for delayed possession, adjustment of accounts, set-off
of amounts and the exact amount, if any, payable by either party are disputed
issues which form the subject matter of the main complaint. The entitlement of
the Complainants to the amounts claimed by them has not yet been

CC12503543

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 11 of 12
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

adjudicated by this Authority. Similarly, the correctness of the demands raised
by the Respondents is also yet to be determined.

31. The relief sought in the present Interim Application is substantially founded
upon the Complainants' contention that the amount admittedly payable by
them should be adjusted against the disputed claims raised by them against
the Respondents. However, such adjustment or set-off cannot be granted at
this stage without first adjudicating the respective rights and liabilities of the
parties. Determination of these issues would require detailed consideration of
the Agreement for Sale, the rival statements of account, the claim for
compensation, interest and other reliefs sought in the complaint.

32. At the stage of deciding an Interim Application, this Authority is not expected
to finally determine the disputed monetary claims of the parties. Acceptance
of the Complainants' contention would effectively amount to granting the
benefit of adjustment and adjudicating the monetary disputes without a final
hearing of the complaint.

33. Therefore, considering that the Complainants themselves admit that an
amount of ₹32,19,768/- is payable by them to the Respondents and
considering further that the issue of adjustment/set-off against the amounts
allegedly receivable from the Respondents is yet to be adjudicated, I am not
inclined to grant the relief sought in the present Interim Application. The
issues relating to compensation, interest, adjustment of accounts, set-off and
determination of mutual liabilities shall be considered at the time of final
hearing of the complaint.

34. Accordingly, the Interim Application deserves to be rejected. Hence, the I
proceed to pass following order:


CC12503543

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 12 of 12
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

O R D E R

A. The Interim Application stands rejected.
B. No order as to costs.


Date:17.06.2026

Ravindra Deshpande
Member2, MahaRERA

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.06.17 14:31:11
+05'30'