Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

1. Complaint No. CC12400684

Tushar Dilip Suryavanshi


... Complainant/s

Versus

Pratham Varadvinayak Builders And Developers Private Limited,
Azad Nagar Krupa Sagar CHS,
IRP Devrajan Raman For A And A Shelter Pvt Ltd

... Respondent/s
Alongwith

2. Complaint No. CC12502086

Anil Gulabdas Shah,Anil G Shah,
Anil G Shah ( Bhutala Usa ),
Anil G Shah (Bhutala Usa) ,
Bhavana Shah ( Usa),
Ashwini Hemant Prasade ,
Tej Singh Baid/ Shreyans T Baid,
Darshan Mukesh Daru,
Gopichand Manwani ,
Jignesh Chudasama / Shailesh Chudasama,
John D’abreo


... Complainant/s

Versus

1. Azad Nagar Krupa Sagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd,

2. Pratham Varadvinaya Developers LLP ,

3. Pratham Varadvinaya Builders And Developers Private Limited ,

4. Abhishek R Vyas

5. A And A Shelters Pvt Ltd,

6. MHADA

7. EOW

8. Director General of Police/State of Maharashtra

... Respondents
( as per the online complaints)


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51800050904

Along with


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


Complaint No. CC12502281


A and A Shelters Gajmukh CHSL


... Complainant

Versus

1. Azad Nagar Gajmukh co-operative Housing society Ltd,

2. Pratham Vighnaharta Infracon LLP

3. ARC Aura, Achal Ramesh Chaurasia

4. Abhishek R Vyas

5. A&A Shelters Pvt. Ltd.

6. MHADA

7. EOW

8. Director General of Police


... Respondents
( As per the offline complaint uploaded by the complainant)


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51800049426


Coram: Shri. Mahesh Pathak, Hon’ble Member – I/MahaRERA.

Tushar Dilip Suryavanshi Anil Shah appeared for complainant at Sr. No. 1.
Mr. Anil Shah appeared for the Complainants at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3.
Ld. Adv. Vikram Garewal appeared for the respondent promoter- Pratham Varadvinayak Builders
And Developers Private Limited and Pratham Vighnaharta Infracon LLP.
Ld. Adv. Nimay Dave appeared for the Societies vis Azad Nagar Krupa Sagar Cooperative
Housing Society Ltd and Azad Nagar Gajmukh CHS Ltd.
Ld. Adv. Sayali Apte appeared for MAHADA.

INTERIM ORDER
(Order Pronounced on Wednesday, 31st December 2025)
(Matters reserved for orders on 15-09-2025 )

(Through Video Conferencing)


1. The complainants above named have filed these 3 separate online complaints before the
MahaRERA on 06-11-2024 (Sr. No. 1), on 26-06-2025 (Sr.No.2) and on 07-07-2025 ( in Sr. No.
3), mainly seeking directions from MahaRERA, to the respondents, for possession of the flat


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

along with interest/revocation of the project registration etc as prescribed under the
provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘RERA’) in respect of the booking their respective flats ( as detailed in the below mentioned
table at para- no. 5), in the registered projects known as “5TH ELEMENT” and “ARC Aura”
bearing MahaRERA registration Nos. P51800050904 and P51800049426 located at Azad
Nagar , Andheri ( West) Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the said projects).

2. The complaints at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 have been filed in respect of the same project
(P51800050904). Although the complaint at Sr. No. 3 pertains to a different project bearing
Registration No. P51800049426, both are located in the same MHADA layout and the facts,
submissions, and reliefs sought therein are identical to those in the complaint at Sr. No. 2.
Moreso, the Complainants in both these complaints have filed their common submissions.
Hence, notwithstanding that the complaint at Sr. No. 3 relates to a different project, it has
been clubbed and heard together with the complaints at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 filed in respect of
the project bearing Registration No. P51800050904.

3. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that the complainants at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3, while
filing the online complaints, have impleaded various respondents. However, in the
offline/hard-copy versions of the complaints, the said respondents have been shown under
different serial numbers. Hence, for the sake of convenience and consistency, the cause title
of these complaints has been considered and taken as per the available record. The societies
and the new promoter have filed their replies and written submissions by referring to the
said respondents as society/ new promoter.

4. Accordingly, these complaints were heard by the MahaRERA on several occasions and the
same were heard finally on 15-09-2025 as per Circular no. 49 dated 12-09-2025 issued by
MahaRERA for hearing of complaints through Hybrid Mode. Both the parties have been
issued prior intimation of this hearing. On the said dates of hearings, the parties have
appeared as per their appearances recorded in the Roznamas and made their respective
submissions. The MahaRERA heard the submissions of the parties as per their appearances
and also perused the available record.

5. After hearing the submissions of both the parties, the following Roznamas were recorded in


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

these complaints–
i) On 25-08-2025:-
“All the parties are present. The matters are fixed for hearing on the issue of
maintainability of these complainants raised by the societies and the new promoter.
The complainants have primarily argued the matter on the issue of privity, contending
that they have privity with the societies as well as with the new promoter. They have
further submitted that the association of complainants ( sr. nos. 43 (CC12502086) and
44 (CC12502281), need not be registered and that group complaints with similar prayers
have been entertained and allowed in the past The complainants relied on the various
judgements / case laws of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble Bombay High Court,
Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal as well as the National Consumer Forum which form the
part of their submissions. In the complaint at Sr. No. 42 (CC12400684), the complainant
has pointed out that he has a registered agreement for sale (the complaints at Sr. No.
43 and 44, the allottees have allotment letters issued by the erstwhile promoter). The
brief facts of the present case are as under:- - i) The present complaints at sr. nos. 43
and 44 have been filed by the group of allottees, of the said projects, who have formed
an Association of Allottees under the name “A and A Shelters,”and are seeking
revocation of the project registration certificates granted in favour of Respondent No.
1 (Pratham Varadvinayak Builders And Developers Private Limited), or in the
alternative, possession of their respective booked flats. ii) Respondent No. 2 (in all 3
complaints) are the housing societies that have undertaken the subject redevelopment
projects, being the owner of the project lands. iii) Respondent No.1 ( in all 3
complaints), is the new promoter, and it has registered the said projects with
MahaRERA in November 2022 (sr.nos. 42 and 43 ) and in February, 2023 ( sr. no. 44) iv)
The Respondent viz A And A Shelter Pvt Ltd is the erstwhile promoter who had booked
the flats for the complainants, and Respondent No. 4 (in sr. nos. 42 and 43) is a director
of the said erstwhile promoter. v) The Respondent No. 6 is MHADA, Respondent No. 7
is the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), and Respondent No. 8 is the Director General
of Police. vi) The complainants have alleged that Respondent Nos. 1, and 2 executed a
Development Agreement (DA) on 12-04-2022 ( in sr. no.42 and 43) and on 20-10-2018 (
in sr. no.44), without complying with the provisions of Section 15 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). vii). They further contended that the
societies had earlier executed a DA with erstwhile promoter ( A And A Shelter Pvt Ltd),
on 27-01-2010 ( in sr. nos. 42 and 43) and on 9-09-2010( sr. no. 44) and had assigned the


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

development rights to the said erstwhile promoter. However, due to defaults
committed by the erstwhile promoter, the societies have terminated the said DA on 19-
02-2015 ( in sr. nos. 42 and 43 ) and on 9-08-2015( in sr. no. 44). viii) Thereafter, the
societies have executed the fresh DAs with Respondent No. 1 on 19-01-2017 and
subsequently executed a Supplemental DA on 12-04-2022 ( in sr. nos. 42 and 43) and on
20-10-2018 ( in sr. no.44), appointing Respondent No. 1 as the new promoter. ix) The
complainants had booked their respective flats in the year 2010 and made payments to
the erstwhile promoter. x) Further, since the erstwhile promoter failed to register the
said project with MahaRERA after the commencement of RERA, the complainants (as
applicable) had filed 15 separate source complaints before MahaRERA against the
erstwhile promoter (A and A Shelters), societies and the new promoter. The said
complaints were heard and disposed of by the MahaRERA vide a common order dated
14-10-2019 for want of requisite permissions. However, directions were issued to the
respondents therein to apply for registration within 30 days of obtaining valid
approvals. xi) It appears that the new promoter subsequently registered the said
projects with MahaRERA in November 2022 (in sr. nos. 42 and 43) and in February,
2023 ( sr. no. 44). xii) The complainants, being allottees of the erstwhile promoter, now
seek relief based on the allotments made by the erstwhile promoter. They are seeking
either revocation of the project registration due to the alleged violation of Section 15
of RERA by the societies and the new promoters or, in the alternative, possession of
their respective flats. The complainants have argued and quoted various judgements
on the issue of privity. The arguments of the rest of the respondents would be heard on
the next date of hearing on 15-09-2025 at 01.00 P.M. On the prayer of the complainants
not to create any third party rights, the respondents need to argue on the next date of
hearing.”
ii) On 15-09-2025 ( Sr. Nos. 1 and 2) :
“First Hearing Matter” The complainants are present. The new promoter is present. The
society is also present. The old promoter is absent. MHADA, which is the respondent
No. 6, is present. The respondent No. 1 has already filed its reply to the complaint
raising the issue of maintainability and the complainants have filed their rejoinder on
the said issue. The respondent No. 2 ( society) has pointed out to the relevant dates
contending that the earlier promoter was appointed and terminated prior to the
existence of RERA. While the new promoter was appointed only after the RERA came
into force. The respondent No. 2 has further pointed out that there is no challenge to


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 6 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

the said termination under any applicable law so far. Therefore, the respondent No. 2
contends that the said claims are time barred as per the prayers of the allottees for
revocation of the project since section 15 of the RERA is violated and also to protect
the allotted units and cancel the agreements signed by the new promoter. Therefore, the
respondent No. 2 contends that they have no locus standi in this project and no privity
with it or the new promoter and these complaints are not maintainable. Since the
society had already terminated the erstwhile promoter prior to commencement of
RERA, section 15 would not be applicable as per the case law in Vaidehi Akash ,
Goregaon Pearl, Kapil Kunj and Deepak Thakur matter of the Hon’ble Bombay High
Court and any relief which the complainants are claiming would be against the
erstwhile promoter who is the respondent No. 3. The arguments of the society in the
complaint at Sr. No. 33 (CC12502281) would also be adopted for the complaints at Sr.
No. 31 and 32. The new promoter - which is respondent No. 1 has argued that the RERA
is not retrospective, but it is retroactive and therefore there is no question of
applicability of section 15 in these complaints. Further to the prayer with regard to the
revocation under section 7, the respondent No. 1 has contended that the conditions for
revocation are not fulfilled in these matters. Moreover, with regard to the prayer for
cancellation of the third party rights created, the respondent No. 1 promoter has
pointed out that the said third parties are not even made respondents in these
complaints. The respondent no. 1 has further distinguished the said

JUDGMENT

of
Wadhva passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in February 2024 contending that
it would not be applicable in this matter and that the section 15 is for transfer of
projects when the projects are registered. But in this case, there is no prior registration.
In view of the above, the reply / rejoinders have already been filed, both the parties may
file written submissions within two weeks i.e. by 29-09-2025 along with the necessary
case laws. Accordingly, these matters are reserved for order suitably after 29-09-2025
on the issue of maintainability of these complaints including the prayer of the
complainants for protection of their allotments in the said project based on the
arguments of both parties as well as the reply, rejoinder and written submissions filed.
The future course of action in the matter would be taken once such an order is issued.”

Roznama dated 15-09-2025 passed in Complaint at Sr. No.3:-
” Both the parties are present. It is clarified that in this complaint and related
complaints, the new promoter would be treated as the respondent No. 1, the society


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 7 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

would be treated as the respondent No. 2, and the old promoter would be treated as the
respondent No. 3. Therefore, the respondent no.1 (new promoter) has pointed out the
relevant dates of the signing of the development agreement with the erstwhile promoter
as well as the dates with respect to the signing of the agreement with the new promoter
and the termination of the agreement with the erstwhile promoter. This is to show that
the earlier development agreement was prior to RERA, while the subsequent
development agreement with the new promoter is when the RERA was in force. The
respondent No. 1 has also pointed out to some of the receipts of the allottees who is
one of the members of the complainants association contending that the said receipts
are prior to the signing of the development agreement with the erstwhile promoter or
on the date of signing of the said development agreement. Therefore, these are prior to
appointment of the erstwhile promoter. The respondent No. 1 has pointed to the recent
judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court dated 09-09-2025 vide Writ Petition No.
1673 of 2025 on the issue of section 15 of the RERA and the two-third majority required.
Vide the said

JUDGMENT

it has been held that the section 15 of the RERA does not apply
in such cases which is the case of the complainant. The complainant refutes these
contentions of the respondent and have pointed out to an earlier

JUDGEMENT

of the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court dated 14-02-2024 in Second Appeal ( L) No. 21842 of 2023,
which has been confirmed right upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the
respondent contends that since there is no area share or any benefit to the society in
the development agreement with the new promoter, the issue of section 15 or issue with
privity with the complainant - association does not arise as per the said

JUDGEMENT

in
the matter quoted by the complainants. However, the complainant refutes the said
contention relying upon section 226 of the Contract Act. The rest of the arguments of
the complainant on the previous date of hearing held on 25-08-2025 in the complaints
would be adopted in this complaint as well, to which the parties have no objection (in
Sr. No. 31 and 32). The complainant has already filed a rejoinder on the issue of
maintainability. Both the parties may file their written submissions within a period
of 2 weeks i.e. by 29-09-2025. The respondent No. 4 - MHADA has contended that it is
a formal party and is not required to file any say. Accordingly, the matter is reserved
for order suitably after 29-09-2025 based on the arguments of both parties as well as
the reply, rejoinder and written submissions filed on the issue of maintainability of
this complaint. The future course of action in the matter would be taken once such an
order is issued including the issue of injunction and not to disturb the allotments of the


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 8 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

members of the complainant – association.”

6. Pursuant to aforesaid directions issued by the MahaRERA, the complainants on 29-09-2025
(Sr. Nos. 1 and 2), have uploaded their written arguments on record of MahaRERA. The
societies ( Azad Nagar Krupa Sagar CHS Ltd and the Azad Nagar Gajmukh CHS Ltd) and
the new promoter (Pratham Varadvinayak Builders And Developers Private Limited,) have
uploaded their respective written submissions on record of MahaRERA on 29-09-2025 and
30-09-2025 ( as applicable). The said submissions have been accepted and taken on record in
compliance of principles of natural justice. The MahaRERA has perused the available record.

7. The details of the flats (in these 3 complaints) booked by the complainants herein, dates of
agreements for sale, dates of possession, total consideration, consideration paid, substantive
reliefs are as per the table given below –
Sr no./
Complai
nt no. /
Flat
details

AFS/
Possession date
Total
Consideration/
Consideration
Paid
(As per
complaint)
Reliefs

1. CC124006
84
Flat
no.
1602, 5th
Element
AFS - 09-06-2014 uploaded

On or before 27 Months
from
the
date
of
this
Agreement-as per clause 9
of AFS
Rs. 94,38,000/-
Rs. 55,00,000/-
Possession
along
with interest OR
Refund with interest

2. CC125020
86

Sr.
No.
Name
Date of
Agree
ment/
Allotm
ent
Letter
Flat
No.
Total
Consideratio
n
Consideratio
n
Paid

1. Anil Shah
[Seems to
be resale
flat]

20. 08.2
010
[AFS]
1119
Rs.
40,00,000/-
Not provided

2. Anil Shah,
Butala usa

21. 12.2
009
[AL]

1302
Not
provided
Rs.
75,00,000/-

3. Anil Shah,
Butala usa

16. 01.2
010
[AL]

1202
Not
provided
Rs.
75,00,000/-
Revoke registration
P51800050904
and
P51800049426
under
section
5,7 of RERA; as a
deliberate

act
of
cheating Allotee of
evading
procedure
under section
15 of RERA . to strike
down / documents /
Sale deed entered by
Respondents1,2,3 with
third
parties
in
defiance of section 15
of RERA and act of
fraud.



Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 9 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

4. Bhavna
Shah

09. 11.2
010
[AFS]

1001
&
1002
Rs.
94,00,000/-
Rs.
94,00,000/-

5. Ashwini
Prasade

16. 10.2
010
[AL]

1101
Not
provided
Not provided

6. Tejsingh
Baid

07. 08.2
011
[AL]

Not
provi
ded
Rs.
42,00,000/-
Rs.
25,00,000/-

7. Darshan
Daru

07. 04.2
011
[AL]
Not
provi
ded
Rs.
42,00,000/-
Rs.
25,00,000/-

8. Gopichan
d
Manwani

19. 07.2
010
[Al]
1701
Not
provided
Rs.
35,00,000/-
[As
per
payment
receipts]

9. Jignesh
Chudasam
a

03. 09.2
013
[AFS]
1404
Rs.
1,02,50,000/
-

Rs.
51,25,000/-

10. John
D’Abreo

20. 02.2
012
[AL]

20. 02.2
012
[MOU]
1604
Rs.
66,75,000/-
Rs.
62,00,000/-
[As
per
payment
receipts]

3. CC125022
81
S
r
.
N
o
.
Name
Date of
Allotment
Letter/

Flat
No.
Total
Considerati
on
Consideration
Paid

1. MNA
Krishnan
May 2011
[AL]

1203
Rs.
40,00,000/-
Rs.
40,00,000/-

2. Mehul
Champakla
l Talsania

10. 03.201
6 [AL]
One
BHK
Flat
Rs.
30,00,000/-
Rs.
30,00,000/-


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 10 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

3. Parimal
Desai

21. 11.201
0 [AL]
3BH
K 950
Squar
e feet
+ dry
balco
ny
Rs.
41,00,000/-
Rs.
19,00,000/-

4. Ajay
Ramesh
Bajaj

16. 08.201
0
[Payment
receipts]
1201
Not provided
Rs.
40,00,000/-

5. Mahendra
Tawde

07. 02.201
1
1003
Not provided
Rs.
40,00,000/-

6. Bhavana
Anish
Valia

03. 02.201
1
1102
Not provided
Not provided

8. It is the case of the complainants that they booked their respective flats in the respondent’s
registered project and paid substantial amounts towards the consideration, as shown in the
table at para 5. The agreements for sale were duly registered, under which the respondents
were required to hand over possession on the specified dates mentioned therein. However,
the respondents failed to comply with their obligations and did not complete the construction
or hand over possession within the stipulated period. The project is a redevelopment project
of respondent no. 1 (Society). The complainants further stated that after collecting money
from them, the builder paid rent to society members for many years and obtained the CC
and IOD from MHADA in the name of Respondent No. 1. The complainant in Sr. No. 1 stated
that the respondent no. 5 became insolvent and an IRP was appointed, yet the Society has
not provided the said flat. The new developer is also refusing to allot a flat in the new
construction despite the complainant’s readiness to pay the balance consideration. Both the
developer and the Society are denying the flat as well as refund, even though the Agreement
is registered and the complainant has receipts as proof. Respondent No. 3 is only a formal
party, as the company is under liquidation, and no claim is made against it. The complainants
in Sr. No. 2 submitted that the Society executed a registered Redevelopment Agreement with
Respondent No. 2 in 2017 and again executed another registered Redevelopment Agreement
with Respondent No. 3 in 2022. According to the complainants, Respondents 1, 2 and 3
collusively entered into the new redevelopment agreement without following the mandatory


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 11 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

procedure under Section 15 of the RERA, by filing false declarations before MahaRERA,
thereby misleading MahaRERA and defrauding homebuyers. They also alleged that
MHADA officials ignored the mandatory compliance of Section 15 despite several written
reminders. The complainants stated that they have filed several source complaints before
MahaRERA, which are specifically mentioned in the present complaint. The Complainants
are purchasers who bought flats from Respondents 1, 4 and 5, who were erstwhile developers
and had obtained redevelopment rights from the Society. The respondents allegedly acted in
collusion and violated Section 15 of the RERA by entering into a new redevelopment
agreement without the required consents and approvals. Detailed facts of the complainants
in Sr. No. 2 are already stated in the complaint. The complainants stated that 36 written
grievances were filed by Mr. Anil G. Shah between 2016 till date. The detailed MHADA
letters, NOCs and BMC plan approvals were obtained by the erstwhile developers in 2010
and 2011. The erstwhile developer also faced hostile litigation by certain society members,
including two writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court alleging irregularities by society
office-bearers, MHADA officials and the developer. Due to disputes and prolonged
litigation, the erstwhile developer’s resources were exhausted, and he became financially
bankrupt. The complainants further submitted that the 2010–2011 Adarsh Society Scam
resulted in a freeze on redevelopment approvals until 2017, which stalled several projects,
including the present one. They stated that 15 source complaints filed on 17-12-2018 were
disposed of on 14-10-2019. The complainant No. 1 also filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 1151
of 2020 concerning the same erstwhile builder. The complainants alleged that Respondent
No. 3 obtained MahaRERA Registration No. P51800050904 on 12-08-2023 by submitting false
encumbrance certificates and affidavits. According to the complainants, Respondents Nos. 1,
2 and 3 acted in collusion with fraudulent intent, concealed material facts, and failed to obtain
written consent from two-thirds of the allottees or prior permission from MahaRERA, as
required under Circular No. 24 of 2019 for transfer of a project. The complainants relied on
several judgments to support their case.

9. The complainant at Sr. No. 3 has also alleged large-scale fraud and violation of Section 15 of
the RERA in a MHADA redevelopment project of Azad Nagar Gajmukh CHSL. It has stated
that the said society has illegally terminated the old developer and entered into a fresh
redevelopment agreement with new promoters without obtaining mandatory consent of
two-thirds allottees and without the MahaRERA approval, by filing false declarations. The


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 12 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

complainant, who had been allotted flats to its members and whose monies were allegedly
utilised for redevelopment, assert that their rights were suppressed to enable double selling
and fresh registration of the project. They seek revocation of the new project registration,
action under Sections 5, 7, 8 and 15 of RERA, investigation for cheating and fraud, and
alternatively, completion of the project, possession, execution of agreements for sale,
refund/compensation under Section 18 of the RERA, penalties, and injunctive reliefs
restraining further sale or creation of third-party rights.

10. The respondent no. 1 (new promoter ) has uploaded its reply in sr. no. 1 on record of
MahaRERA on 30-07-2025, wherein it has denied all allegations and stated that the
complainant has suppressed material facts. According to Respondent No. 1, there is no valid
or lawful claim against it, and the complainants have no locus standi to file the present
complaint. It submitted that the development agreement with the developer represented
through respondent No.5 was terminated on 19-02-2015, i.e., before the commencement of
the RERA on 01-05-2017. Respondent No. 1 claimed that it is not a party to the alleged
transaction, has not received any consideration from the complainants, and has no
contractual relationship with the complainant. The Respondent No. 1 further stated that
while certain provisions of MahaRERA may have limited retrospective effect, Hon’ble Courts
have clarified that MahaRERA does not apply to completed transactions or terminated
entities with no ongoing obligations after enforcement. The respondent No. 5 viz A & A
Shelters Pvt. Ltd., represented through Respondent No. 3, was never registered under
MahaRERA, and therefore the claims cannot be made against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under
the regulatory framework. It also submitted that MahaRERA has clarified that it does not
have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising from development agreements, which fall
within the domain of civil courts. Section 15 of MahaRERA does not apply to unregistered
projects or to termination of a developer prior to commencement of the Act. Since A & A
Shelters Pvt. Ltd. was terminated on 19-02-2015, the respondent argued that Section 15 is
inapplicable. On these grounds, Respondent No. 1 contended that the complaint is not
maintainable and should be dismissed with costs.

11. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 ( new promoters) have uploaded their reply on record of
MahaRERA on 30-07-2025 (Sr. Nos. 2 and 3). It has denied all the allegations made against
them in the said reply. The complainants have failed to disclose necessary information in


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 13 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

relation to establishment, legal status and validity of complainant no. 1. Moreover, no
documentary proof is submitted. The present complaint is not maintainable under
MahaRERA as the developer i.e., respondent nos. 4 and 5 against whom the allegations are
made, its development agreement was terminated on 19-02-2015. Further, the respondents
no. 1 to 3 have no privity, are not a party to the alleged transaction and have not received
any consideration from the complainants.

12. The complainant at Sr. No. 1 has uploaded rejoinder to reply of the respondent no. 1 on
record of MahaRERA on 08-08-2025. The said complainant stated that the present complaint
is maintainable as it seeks reliefs arising from the registered Agreement for Sale executed by
the developer, based on rights derived under the registered Development Agreement dated
27-01-2010 and the Power of Attorney executed by the Society. The complainant purchased
the flat through a registered Agreement for Sale and has payment receipts; hence, he is legally
entitled to the reliefs sought. The complainant submitted that Respondent No. 2 (the Society)
is the owner of the land (Building No. 51) and had executed a registered Development
Agreement and Power of Attorney in favour of M/s A & A Shelters Pvt. Ltd. The project,
“Krupa Sagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.”, is a redevelopment project comprising a
rehab component and a sale component. The developer was authorized to sell flats and
parking spaces in the open market and to allot additional area to existing members.
Necessary permissions were obtained, and redevelopment commenced. A dispute later arose
between the developer and the Society, leading to the termination of the Development
Agreement with A & A Shelters Pvt. Ltd., and the appointment of Respondent No. 1 as the
new developer through a redevelopment agreement dated 19-01-2017. The Society, as the
owner and ultimate beneficiary of funds contributed by allottees, is equally liable for the
obligations of the developer. The project has been registered as an ongoing project under
Section 3 of the RERA, and therefore the Act applies to it. The complainant further pointed
out that clauses 21 and 22 of the Development Agreement dated 27-01-2010 expressly
authorize the developer to construct and sell additional flats beyond the original entitlement
of 31 members, with the Society agreeing to admit such purchasers as members. Under
Section 15(2) of the RERA, the new developer (Respondent No. 1) is legally bound to fulfil
all pending obligations under the Act, including obligations arising from agreements for sale
executed by the erstwhile developer. The complainant relied on the Supreme Court

JUDGMENT


in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. [(2021) 18 SCC 1], which


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 14 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

held that the RERA Act is retroactive and applies to ongoing projects and existing contracts
even if they were executed before the Act came into force. Accordingly, once the project is
registered, all pre-existing rights and obligations fall within the RERA framework,
irrespective of the termination of the previous developer or whether the earlier promoter had
registered the project. Several other judgments were cited to support this position. Therefore,
the complainant asserted that the present complaint is legally maintainable.

13. The complainants in sr. nos. 2 and 3 have uploaded rejoinder on record of MahaRERA on
04-08-2025, wherein the said complainants referred to order dated 28-03-2022 in the matter
of Anil G. Shah & Ors Vs. Azad Nagar Gem C.H.S Ltd. & Ors. Several other judgments have
been specifically mentioned in the said rejoinder on maintainability of the complaint.

14. The complainants have uploaded application of injunction on record of MahaRERA on 24-
08-2025 (Sr. Nos. 2 and 3) and several judgments have been specifically mentioned in the said
application on the claims that the complainants’ rights be protected, as respondent nos. 1 and
3 have violated section 5, 7 and 15 of the RERA.

15. The complainants have uploaded Rejoinder to Judgements submitted by Respondents on 08-
09-2025 (Sr. Nos. 2 and 3), wherein they opposed the 8 judgments cited by the respondent
nos. 1 to 3 and that the same are not applicable under RERA.

16. The complainant has uploaded written submissions on record of MahaRERA on 29-09-2025
(Sr. No. 1), which is mere repetition of the complaint/facts. Additionally, the said
complainant has stated that the Housing Department of the State of Maharashtra directed
MHADA to address the grievances of flat purchasers in incomplete projects. Pursuant to
MHADA’s communication dated 23-08-2024, directing the complainant and others to
approach the competent authority, the complainant filed the present complaint before this
Hon’ble Authority on 05-10-2024. Since the project is registered as an ongoing project under
Section 3 of the RERA Act, the complaint is well within limitation. Therefore, the Society’s
objection that the complaint is barred by limitation is without merit. The respondent’s
objections regarding jurisdiction are also misconceived. Several orders were relied upon to
support this contention. The complainant submitted that the project is liable to be revoked
due to false information and concealment of material facts. It was further pointed out that


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 15 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

the respondent developer and its directors, Dharmesh Arvind Minawala and Ashok Ramesh
Rane, have been involved in fraud in another redevelopment project, Azad Nagar Shivsagar
CHS Ltd. Pursuant to the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order dated 18.10.2022 in CC No.
4400515/SW/2022, Amboli Police Station registered FIR No. C.R. 1040 of 2022 against them.
The complainant submitted that the respondent developer is a habitual offender. The
complainant contended that the

JUDGMENT

in Vaidhe Akash is pre-RERA and does not
consider the expanded definition of “promoter” under Section 2(zk) of the Act. Likewise, the
decisions in Goregaon Pearl and Kapilkung CHS Ltd. do not lay down binding law, as they
merely rely on earlier single-judge decisions. These decisions are ex facie per incuriam
because they do not consider Section 226 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or the obligations
arising thereunder. Therefore, they are neither applicable nor binding in the present case.
The complainant submitted that while registering the present project, the respondents
deliberately suppressed the existence of the registered Agreement for Sale executed in favour
of the complainant, despite respondent No. 2 being fully aware of it due to the earlier
criminal proceedings against the erstwhile developer, M/s A & A Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Such
concealment violates the statutory disclosure duties under Sections 4 and 11 of the RERA
Act. Once the society authorized its developer to execute binding Agreements for Sale with
allottees, the society became fully bound as a principal under Section 226 of the Indian
Contract Act and as a co-promoter under Section 2(zk) of RERA. The unilateral termination
of the Development Agreement cannot extinguish the statutory or contractual rights of flat
purchasers. Therefore, the society cannot avoid liability by attributing default to the
developer. The complainant accordingly prayed that no third-party rights be created in
respect of the said unit in the project.

17. The written submissions on behalf of the new promoter was uploaded on 29-09-2025 (Sr. No.
1) which is a mere repetition of the said reply filed by the respondent. Additionally, it stated
that the complaint is not filed as per the RERA format-Form A. The said complaint be
dismissed with cost.

18. The new promoters viz Pratham Varadvinayak Builders And Developers Private Limited/
Pratham Varadvinaya Developers LLP, have uploaded written submission on record of
MahaRERA on 29-09-2025 and on 30-09-2025 (Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 ), which is mere repetition of
the earlier submissions made by the said respondents. There is no cause of action made out


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 16 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

against them in the captioned Complaints and they have suppressed vital and material facts.
The complaints are not filed as per RERA format.

19. The complainants have uploaded written submissions on record of MahaRERA on 29-09-
2025 (Sr. Nos. 2 and 3). The respondents relied upon the Bombay High Court order dated

09. 09.2025 passed by R.I. Chagla & Farhan Dubhas in Tuvin Construction LLP vs. State of
Maharashtra & MahaRERA. The complainants submitted that the said order is not applicable
to the present matter, as no allottees were parties to those proceedings, and therefore it
cannot be relied upon to defeat the statutory rights of flat purchasers. The complainant
reiterated that once the respondent society authorised its developer to execute binding
Agreements for Sale with allottees, the society became fully bound under Section 226 of the
Indian Contract Act as a principal, and under Section 2(zk) of the RERA as a co-promoter.
Therefore, the society cannot escape liability by attributing default to the developer, as the
acts of the authorised developer bind the society and render it jointly and severally liable to
comply with all obligations towards allottees. The complainant further relied on the decision
of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the Goregaon Pearl CHS Ltd.
matter, wherein, after considering the Bombay High Court’s decision in Vaidhe Akash, it
was categorically held that an erstwhile developer acts as an agent of the society under a
registered development agreement and power of attorney, and the society is bound by the
obligations arising therefrom. This decision has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and is therefore a binding precedent. The complainant submitted that upon registration of
the project under Section 3 of the RERA, all statutory obligations—including compliance
with Sections 4, 11, 13, 15 and the protection of allottee rights—became fully enforceable. The
proviso to Section 15 expressly provides that any transfer or assignment shall not affect the
allotments or sales already made by the erstwhile promoter, irrespective of whether the
earlier project was registered or whether the RERA was in force at the time of the
Development Agreement. Therefore, the complainant’s rights under the registered
Agreement for Sale remain fully protected. The complainant also relied on the findings of
the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal in New Sangeeta CHS Ltd. (paras 13–14), wherein it was
held that societies cannot evade obligations arising from agreements executed by authorised
developers, and that termination of a development agreement does not absolve the society
of its continuing obligations towards bona fide purchasers. Therefore, the complainants
prayed for Revocation of the project registrations P51800050904 and P51800049426 granted


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 17 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

to Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 under Sections 5 and 7 of the RERA Act, Striking down all
documents and sale deeds executed by Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 with third parties in
violation of Section 15 of the RERA, and initiation of action under the MPID Act for
fraudulent transfer of projects. Alternatively, directing Respondents 1, 2, and 3 to complete
construction and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the flats to the complainants
as per earlier MahaRERA complaints, directing the respondents to execute and register
Agreements for Sale or Letters of Allotment with the complainants, impose penalty,
compensation, and direct them not to create third-party rights in respect of the said units.

20. The MahaRERA has examined the rival submissions made by all the parties and also perused
the available record. In the present case, there are two complaints filed by the allottee and
the association of the allottees. However, since the same were filed with respect to the said
project the same were clubbed together and heard by MahaRERA along with other connected
complaints filed with respect to the other project registration No. P51800049426.

21. The complainant at Sr. No. 1 is filed by the allottee seeking following reliefs:-
“that the Respondent No 1 and 2 be directed to give effect to the Sale Agreement and
Complaint name be incorporated as an Allottee for Flat No. 1602 in the project name 5th
Element which was earlier know as Project Name Azad Nagar Krupa Sagar CHS new project
is registered bearing RERA Project No. P51800050904 as project name 5th Element. That the
Respondent No 1 and 2 be directed to accept the amount of Rs. 39,38,000 Thirty Nine Lakhs
Thirty Eight Thousand Only towards full and final consideration towards the Flat No 1602
in the project bearing RERA Project No. P51800050904 Project name 5th Element. In the
alternate, Respondent No. 1 and 2 be directed to refund the amount Rs. 55,00,000 Rupees Fifty
five Lakhs Only along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. or on such rate as this Hon'ble
Tribunal deem fit as well as they be directed to refund the amount of the Stamp duty and
registration”.

22. Further, complaints at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 are filed by the group of allottees mainly seeking
following reliefs under the provisions of the RERA:-
“a)This Hon’ble Authority may please revoke the registration of Project no. P51800014003/
P51800049426 granted to the Respondent nos. 1,2,3 under section 5 ,7 of RERA Act; as a
deliberate act of cheating & robbery Allotee by evading procedure under section 15 of the


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 18 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

RERA Act, as per law laid down by Hon’ble supreme court reported in S.P.
CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY L.RS in the matter, any Order or decree obtained
by Fraud, is nullity in law .
b) This Hon’ble Authority be please to struck down / documents / Sale deed entered by
Respondents1,2,3 with third parties in defiance of section 15 of RERA Act and Act of fraud.
c) This Hon’ble Authority be pleased to facilitate the remaining development work to be
carried out in accordance with provisions of section 8 of RERA Act.”

23. The record shows that the allottees have filed the present complaints by impleading the
societies, the new promoter, the erstwhile promoter, MHADA, the Economic Offences Wing
(EOW), and the Police Commissioner, inter alia. In other words, the complainants have filed
these complaints by impleading Azad Nagar Krupa Sagar CHS Ltd./Azad Nagar Gajmukh
CHS Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the societies’), M/s. Pratham Varadvinayak Builders
and Developers Private Limited and its sister concern (hereinafter referred to as ‘the new
promoter’), and M/s. A & A Shelters Pvt. Ltd. along with its director (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the old promoter’), as party respondents to these complaints (as applicable as per their
respective serial numbers). Although the complainants at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 have also
impleaded MHADA, the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), and the Inspector General of
Police, no specific reliefs have been sought against them. Hence, they appear to have been
joined as formal parties to the present complaints.

24. Be that as it may, the complainants in all 3 complaints are ostensibly seeking reliefs against
the societies and the new promoter, who have contested these complaints mainly raising the
preliminary issue of maintainability of these complaints on the ground of privity between
them and these complainants.

25. In the present case, the record shows that the societies have undertaken their
redevelopment projects, being the owners of the project lands. The societies had earlier
executed a Development Agreement with the old promoter on 27-01-2010 ( in Sr. Nos. 1 and
2) and on 09-09-2010 (in Sr. No. 3), had assigned the development rights with respect to the
said project lands. However, due to defaults committed by the said old promoter, the
societies had terminated the said DA on 19-02-2015 ( in Sr. Nos. 1 and 2) and on 09-08-2015
( in Sr. No. 3). The societies thereafter executed a registered Development Agreement with


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 19 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

new promoter on 19-01-2017 and subsequently executed a Supplemental DA on 12-04-2022 (
in Sr. Nos. 1 and 2) and on 20-10-2018 ( in Sr. No. 3), appointing the new promoter as the
promoter of the said projects.

26. The complainant at Sr. No. 1 has filed the said complaint seeking possession of the said
booked flat or for refund along with interest. Further, the complainants in complaints at SR.
Nos. 2 and 3 have contended that the societies without complying with the statutory
provisions under Section 15 of the RERA have appointed the new promoter. Hence, they
prayed for revocation of the said project registration granted in favour of the new promoter
as well as the societies under Section 7 of the RERA.

27. Admittedly, the complainants have done the said booking with the old promoter. However,
since the old promoter had failed to register the said projects with MahaRERA after the
commencement of RERA, the complainants (as applicable) filed 15 separate source
complaints before MahaRERA against the old promoter and the societies seeking
registration of the said project with the MahaRERA. The said complaints were disposed of
by a common order dated 14-10-2019 for want of requisite permissions being obtained for
the said projects. However, directions were issued to the old promoter and the society to
apply for registration within 30 days of obtaining valid approvals. It appears that the new
promoter subsequently registered the projects with MahaRERA in November 2022 ( in Sr.
Nos. 1 and 2) and in February, 2023 ( in Sr. No. 3).

28. The complainants, claiming to be the allottees of the said projects have filed these
complaints seeking reliefs based on the allotments made by the old promoter. They are
seeking either revocation of the project registrations due to the alleged violation of Section
15 of RERA by the society and the new promoters or, in the alternative, possession of their
respective flats.

29. However, the new promoter and the society have assailed the aforesaid claims of the
complainants mainly by raising the preliminary issue of maintainability of these complaints
on the grounds such as i) there is no privity of contract between them and the complainants
as they have done the said booking with the old promoter and paid the money to it, ii) the
old promoter was appointed and terminated prior to the RERA coming into force and the


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 20 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

new promoter was appointed thereafter. Hence, Section 15 of the RERA is not applicable to
this case, iii) the termination of the old promoter has not been challenged under any law and,
therefore, the complainants’ claims are time-barred. On these grounds, the new promoter
and the society both have prayed for dismissal of these complaints. To support their claims
they have relied upon the judgements passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the
matter of Vaidehi Akash, Goregaon Pearl, Kapil Kunj, and Deepak Thakur. It was contended
that the termination has not been challenged under any law and, therefore, the complainants’
claims are time-barred. The society argued that Section 15 of the RERA is not applicable and
relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vaidehi Akash, Goregaon
Pearl, Kapil Kunj, and Deepak Thakur and Tuvin Construction.

30. Hence, before dealing with the facts of these complaints on merits, the MahaRERA needs to
adjudicate the said issue of maintainability of these complaints being the preliminary issue.

31. Hence, all the parties were directed to submit their respective submissions on the said issue
of maintainability of these complaints. Accordingly, the parties have filed reply / rejoinder
and filed their respective written submissions on record of MahaRERA.

32. The societies and the new promoter have reiterated their contentions on the issue of
maintainability of these complaints. In addition, they have submitted that the conditions for
seeking revocation of the project registrations under Section 7 of the RERA are not satisfied.
They have further contended that, although the complainants have sought cancellation of
third-party interests allegedly created in the project, such third parties have not been
impleaded as respondents in the present complaints. The societies and the new promoter
have also denied the applicability of the

JUDGMENT

in Wadhwa Group Housing passed by the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court to the facts of the present case. On these grounds, they have
prayed for dismissal of the complaints as not maintainable.

33. The complainants have denied the objections regarding maintainability raised by the
societies and the new promoter, contending that the complaints are maintainable and that
there exists privity of contract and a legal relationship between the complainants, the
societies , and the new promoter, who have stepped into the project and derived
development rights. It was submitted that registration of an Association of Allottees is not


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 21 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

mandatory and that group complaints with similar prayers have been consistently
entertained by MahaRERA and the appellate forums. Further, the complainant in Sr. No. 1
holds a registered agreement for sale, while the complainants in Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 are holding
valid allotment letters issued by the old promoter, conferring enforceable rights under
RERA. The complainants further contended that the societies have terminated the
Development Agreements with the old promoter and thereafter executed fresh and
supplemental Development Agreements with the new promoter without complying with
Section 15 of the RERA, particularly without obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the
allottees, rendering the transfer of projects illegal and therefore the project registrations are
liable to be revoked. The complainants further contended that they had booked their flats
as early as 2010 and made substantial payments, and that despite earlier source complaints
being disposed of in 2019 with liberty to register the project upon obtaining approvals, the
new promoter registered the projects only in 2022–2023. Hence, the complainants sought
protection of their allotments and prayed for revocation of the project registrations for
violation of Section 15 of the RERA or, in the alternative, for possession of their respective
flats. In support of their claims, they have relied upon various judgements of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the Appellate Tribunal, and the National
Consumer Forum, including the

JUDGMENT

dated 14-02-2024 in Wadhwa Group Housing,
affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The complainants further sought restraint on
creation of third-party rights during pendency of the complaints and prayed that the
complaints be held maintainable under RERA.

34. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by complainants, societies and the new
promoter and after perusing the available record, the following observations are noteworthy
in these complaints:-
a) Admittedly, the complainants have booked their respective flats in the year 2010 by
executing registered agreements for sale (in Complaint at Sr. No. 1) and by virtue of
allotment letters (in Complaints at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3) with the old promoter and paid
the amounts to the said old promoter.
b) The old promoter had undertaken the redevelopment project pursuant to
Development Agreements executed with the societies, being the owners of the project
lands. It is also not in dispute that the old promoter failed to complete the project within


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 22 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

the stipulated time, on account of which the society terminated the said Development
Agreements on 19-02-2015, i.e., prior to the commencement of the RERA.
c) It is also an admitted fact that subsequent to the termination of the old promoter, the
societies have appointed a new promoter by executing a registered Development
Agreements on 19-01-2017 and a Supplemental DA on 12-04-2022 ( in Sr. Nos. 1 and 2)
and on 20-10-2018 ( in Sr. No. 3), The new promoter thereafter registered the said
projects with MahaRERA in November 2022 ( in Sr. Nos. 1 and 2) and in February, 2023
( Sr. No.3), as the “ongoing projects” under Section 3 of the RERA and obtained the
MahaRERA Registration Certificates.
d) The complainants have challenged the validity of the said transfer/appointment of the
new promoter and the registration of the projects, mainly on the ground that the same
is in violation of Section 15 of the RERA, and accordingly they have sought revocation
of the project registrations.
e) As regards the alleged violation of Section 15 of the RERA, the MahaRERA is of the
considered view that Section 15 of the RERA applies to transfer or assignment of a
project after registration of the projects under RERA. In the present case, the
termination of the old promoter is admittedly done prior to the commencement of
RERA. Hence, the statutory requirement of transfer of the said registered projects from
the old promoter to the new promoter under Section 15 of the RERA does not arise. The
said issue has also been dealt with by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal in its order dated
06-05-2022 -passed in Appeal No. AT006000000053403 and other connected Appeal
filed by Samudra Darshan CHS Ltd vs Peter Almeida and Anr.
f) Hence, the MahaRERA finds no substance in the allegation that the appointment of the
new promoter is in violation of Section 15 of the RERA, which warrants revocation of
the project registrations granted in favour of the new promoter.
g) Moreso, as far as the substantive reliefs sought by the said complainants under section
7 of the RERA, it is pertinent to note that as per the provision of section 7 of the RERA,
the MahaRERA registration may be cancelled if the promoter makes default in doing
anything required by or under the RERA or if the promoter violates any of the terms
or conditions of the approval given by the competent authority or if the promoter is
involved in any kind of unfair practice or irregularities as specified under section 7(1)(a)
to (c) and (A) and (B) of the RERA. However, in the instant case, as stated hereinabove,
the said complainants have has not produced any cogent documentary evidence to


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 23 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

show that the new promoter has violated any of the terms or conditions stipulated in
the provisions of section 7 of the RERA. Therefore, the prayer for revocation of the said
projects registered by the new promoter with the MahaRERA sought by the
complainants is devoid of any merits. Also, the said complainants have also not
established the fact that the respondent is involved in any kind of unfair trade practice
or irregularities by submitting any order passed by the competent court of law. Moreso,
the complainants have failed to submit any cogent documentary proof on record of
MahaRERA i.e. any order passed by the competent court of law to establish the fact that
respondent has done any forgery or the same is cancelled. Hence, the relief sought by
the complainants under section 7 of the RERA for revocation of the MahaRERA project
registrations granted to the new promoter is devoid of any merits.

h) With regard to the objection raised by the societies and the new promoter on the issue
of lack of privity of contract, it is an admitted fact that complainants have done the said
bookings and made payments to the old promoter, who stood terminated prior to the
commencement of RERA. It is also an admitted fact that the said termination has not
been set aside or declared invalid by any competent court of law. Therefore, the
complainants cannot claim contractual privity with the new promoter, who stepped
into the project after the termination of the old promoter (which is prior to RERA
coming into force).

i) The complainants, as well as the new promoter/societies, have relied upon various
judgments passed by the Hon’ble Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, the Hon’ble Bombay
High Court, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein the Hon’ble Courts have
laid down principles relating to the liability of the landowner and/or promoter in
redevelopment projects, including the consequences arising from the termination of the
erstwhile promoter and the shifting or continuation of liabilities. It is, however,
pertinent to note that the said exposition of law on this issue has been recently
crystallised in the year 2024 by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Wadhwa
Group Housing Pvt. Ltd ( which is upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court), wherein the
scope and extent of liability of the owner and/or the new promoter in redevelopment
projects, upon termination of the erstwhile promoter, has been examined and clarified.
Hence, while adjudicating the present complaints, on the issue of maintainability, the


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 24 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

MahaRERA cannot disregard the aforesaid binding

JUDGMENT

relied upon by the
complainants and is duty-bound to take the same into consideration, subject, however,
to its applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

j) However, the above conclusion cited by the MahaRERA in the aforesaid para no.(h)
above, does not absolve the societies of their obligations in view of the

JUDGMENT

of
the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Wadhwa Group Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra (14-02-2024), as relied upon by the complainants. In the said

JUDGEMENT

,
the Hon’ble High Court has categorically held that in redevelopment projects, the
owner ( in this case society of the land, continues to remain responsible for allotments
made through its authorised developer and cannot escape liability by merely
terminating the Development Agreement. Similarly, in Goregaon Pearl CHS Ltd. v.
MahaRERA & Ors., the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that the definition of
“promoter” in RERA, like earlier in MOFA, does not impose promoter obligations on a
landowner society simply because it entered into a development agreement with a
developer. Unless the society is expressly shown as a promoter in the RERA
registration, it cannot be independently saddled with the developer’s statutory
obligations towards third-party flat buyers. These principles have been affirmed by the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and upheld by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, thereby a constituting binding precedent.
k) However, in the present case, the societies are shown as the landowners’ promoters
having area share in the said projects on the MahaRERA website. Moreso, the
commencement certificates have also been issued in the name of the societies.
Therefore, the societies squarely fall within the expanded definition of “promoter”
under Section 2(zk) of the RERA. Hence, in view of the statutory framework and the
settled legal position, the societies , being the landowners’ promoters, cannot disclaim
their liability towards the complainants by attributing default solely to the old
promoter.
l) Hence, the MahaRERA holds that although the complainants do not have privity of
contract with the new promoter, they do have enforceable legal privity with the society,
which continues to be a promoter under the RERA. Hence, these complaints are
maintainable against the societies to the extent of protection of their rights arising from
allotments made through their appointed promoter (old promoter).


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 25 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

m) As regard the issue raised by the complainants about the non-creation of third party
rights in the said projects, the MahaRERA is of the considered view that the said
projects are registered with the MahaRERA in the year 2022/2023 ( as applicable), and
the complainants in Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 have approached MahaRERA in the year 2025 by
filing the said complaints. Also, the said allotments have been done by them in the year
2010 and they have filed these complaints before the MahaRERA in the year 2025 for
establishing their rights under the said allotments. The said complainants have not
justified the said delay in filing these complaints before the MahaRERA. Hence, they
are not entitled to seek any equity from the MahaRERA towards creation of the third-
party rights in respect of the said project. Hence, the MahaRERA does not find any
merits in the said reliefs sought by the complainants at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 for injunction
from creation of third-party rights in the said projects.

35. In view of the aforesaid observations, the MahaRERA holds that the present complaints are
maintainable only against the societies, and that too limited to the extent of the complainants’
claims arising out of the registered agreement for sale and/or the allotment letters ( as
applicable). The said claims shall be adjudicated by the MahaRERA as per their own merits
at the stage of final disposal. However, the other reliefs sought by the complainants,
particularly in Complaint Sr. Nos. 2 and 3, including the prayers for revocation of the project
registrations, cancellation of third-party rights, and other ancillary reliefs against the new
promoter, are held to be not maintainable under the provisions of the RERA and accordingly
stand rejected at this stage.

36. However, in the present case, the MahaRERA has also noticed that the complaints at Sr. Nos.
2 and 3 have been filed as group complaints by a set of allottees seeking both common as
well as individual reliefs in respect of possession of their respective booked flats. Such
individual reliefs are not maintainable in group complaints. Moreover, the MahaRERA has
also noticed that only a few complainants in the complaints at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 have a
registered agreements for sale, whereas the remaining complainants are agitating their
claims solely on the basis of allotment letters. Also, in some cases there is vague allotment
done ( no flat number is mentioned) and the payment receipts have been issued prior to the
execution of the Development Agreement with the old promoter. In view of the above, it is
clarified that all issues relating to the maintainability of the complaints at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 as


Complaint Nos
. CC12400684
CC12502086
CC12502281

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 26 of 26
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

group complaints, as well as the contentions regarding delay, laches, and belated filing, are
expressly kept open and shall be examined and decided by the MahaRERA at the time of
final adjudication of these complaints on their own merits. It is further clarified that, in the
event the MahaRERA comes to the final conclusion, upon consideration of the delay and
circumstances, that the complainants have privity of contract with the societies, the reliefs, if
any, that may be granted to such complainants shall be restricted to refund of the amounts
paid, with or without interest, on merits, as may be deemed fit and proper. It is ostensibly
because the societies have entered the projects only after the termination of the old
promoter. Therefore, they cannot be held responsible for development, construction, flat
area, layout, or handing over possession on the basis of agreements, representations, or
commitments made by the old promoter prior to such transition. Moreso, under the
provisions of the RERA, particularly Section 18 of the RERA, the obligation to hand over
possession or to deliver a specific flat or area arises only from a valid and subsisting
agreement for sale executed by a promoter in respect of a registered project. However, in the
present case, admittedly, the societies are not signatory to the agreement for sale/allotment
letter issued in favour of the complainants. Further, the Commencement Certificates issued
for the said projects was subsequently revised, and therefore any earlier allotments made on
the basis of the said CC do not survive.. Hence, the necessary contractual and statutory
foundation to grant possession or area-related reliefs does not exist against the societies.
Meaning thereby that , even if privity of contract is found to exist with the societies, their
liability, if any, can only be limited to restitutionary reliefs, namely refund of amounts, with
or without interest, depending on the facts and equities of each case.

37. With these directions, the Registry of this Bench is directed to list these complaints for next
hearing as per their seniority.


(Mahesh Pathak)
Member – 1/MahaRERA

MAHESH
DINKAR
PATHAK
Digitally signed
by MAHESH
DINKAR PATHAK
Date: 2025.12.31
17:43:45 +05'30'