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

CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA


COMPLAINT NO.: CC12400749

MOHAMMED IQBAL NOOR MOHAMMED BIJAL …COMPLAINANT
Vs
DUDHWALA REAL ESTATE AND INVESTMENT …RESPONDENT

MahaRERA Project registration No. P51900004897

Order on miscellaneous application

16. 07.2026
Date of hearing - 13/05/2026
Uwais Bijal (son of the complainant) for Complainant
Advocate Sachin Karia for Respondent

1. The respondent has filed miscellaneous application challenging the maintainability
of the complaint.

2. The Respondent has filed the present application seeking dismissal of the complaint
primarily on the ground that no promoter-allottee relationship exists between the
parties. It is contended that neither any Agreement for Sale nor a valid allotment
letter has been executed in favour of the Complainant in respect of the subject flat
and car parking spaces, and no consideration has been received by the Respondent.
The Respondent has further submitted that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties, namely the original purchasers and the present co-owner, whose
rights would be directly affected by the adjudication.

3. The Respondent has further contended that the Complainant is already in possession
and occupation of the subject flat after issuance of the Occupation Certificate and,
therefore, no cause of action survives under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016. It is submitted that the reliefs pertaining to delayed
possession are no longer maintainable and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

4. The Respondent has further submitted that the Complainant has filed the original
complaint, amended complaint and rejoinder containing additional allegations and
reliefs without obtaining the permission of the Authority. It is contended that the
rejoinder has been improperly used to enlarge the scope of the proceedings by
introducing new causes of action and has relied upon additional documents, which
is contrary to settled principles governing pleadings and has caused prejudice to the
Respondent. The Respondent has challenged the maintainability of the complaint on
the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, limitation, suppression of material facts and abuse

of the process of law. It is contended that the disputes relating to car parking and
other contractual issues fall outside the jurisdiction of the Authority, the claims are
barred by limitation, and the Complainant has deliberately suppressed material facts
while seeking reliefs not permissible under the Act. The Respondent has, therefore,
prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5. The Complainant has opposed the Respondent's application challenging the
maintainability of the complaint contending that the application is devoid of merit
and has been filed only to avoid adjudication on merits. It is submitted that every
document challenged by the Respondent, including the complaint copy, Proforma-
A and Rejoinder, was uploaded strictly pursuant to the specific directions contained
in the roznama passed by the Authority on different hearing dates. The Complainant
submits that the Respondent repeatedly defaulted in complying with the timelines
fixed by the Authority, failed to upload its reply and written submissions within the
stipulated period, and, after fully participating in the proceedings, raised procedural
objections only at the stage of final hearing. It is further contended that the
Respondent has deliberately suppressed the relevant roznama and the Proforma-A,
which forms the statutory complaint under Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Real Estate
Rules, 2017, while filing the present application.

6. The Complainant has further submitted that the Proforma-A was not an amendment
introducing a new cause of action but merely the statutory form of the complaint
filed pursuant to the Authority's directions. According to the Complainant, the
subsequent complaint letter, Proforma-A and Rejoinder merely elaborated the
grievances already raised in the original complaint and did not alter the nature of
the dispute or seek inconsistent reliefs. It is contended that the additional documents
produced with the Rejoinder comprised RTI records and contemporaneous
photographs obtained subsequently, besides documents filed in response to the new
contentions raised by the Respondent in its affidavit. The Complainant has also
relied upon the order passed by this Authority in Kate v. Atul Builders to contend
that correction or reformatting of pleadings pursuant to the Authority's directions
does not amount to an impermissible amendment or expansion of the complaint.

7. The Complainant has specifically denied each ground raised in the maintainability
application. It is submitted that privity of contract stands established through the
Respondent's own documents, including the written consent granted for transfer of
the flat and the Agreement for Sale relied upon by the Respondent itself, and that a
subsequent purchaser is entitled to enforce statutory rights under the Act. The
objections regarding non-joinder are stated to be misconceived since the previous
purchasers have no subsisting interest in the subject property and the present co-
owner is not a necessary party as no adverse relief is sought against her. The
Complainant has further contended that legal possession has never been handed
over as registered possession letter has not been executed, the project has not
obtained full Occupation Certificate, several contractual amenities and allotted
parking spaces remain unavailable, and the project continues to be shown as

"Lapsed" on the MahaRERA portal. The objections relating to jurisdiction, limitation,
inconsistent reliefs and additional documents are also disputed by contending that
the claims arise under Sections 11, 18 and 19 of the Act, constitute continuing causes
of action and are supported by documentary evidence.

8. The Complainant submitted that the Respondent has suppressed material facts by
omitting the Proforma-A, misrepresenting the project status and withholding
possession-related documents while seeking dismissal on technical grounds. It is
submitted that the Respondent, after filing a detailed affidavit on merits and
responding to every prayer without objection, is precluded from subsequently
challenging the maintainability of the complaint. According to the Complainant, the
maintainability application is an afterthought intended to avoid adjudication on
merits despite continuing statutory violations, including non-delivery of complete
possession, non-completion of amenities, unauthorised construction, fire safety
deficiencies and failure to fulfil disclosure obligations under the Act. The
Complainant has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the miscellaneous application
with costs and for final adjudication of the complaint on merits.

9. I have carefully considered the pleadings, documents placed on record and the
submissions of both parties. The Respondent has primarily challenged the
maintainability of the complaint on the ground that no promoter-allottee
relationship exists between the parties. However, such objection cannot be
conclusively determined at the threshold when the record discloses disputed
questions regarding transfer of rights, the Respondent's consent, and documents
relied upon by both parties. Whether the Complainant has acquired the status of an
allottee is a mixed question of fact and law which requires adjudication on the basis
of evidence and cannot be decided merely on the pleadings in a miscellaneous
application.

10. The objection regarding non-joinder of the original purchasers and the co-owner is
also devoid of merit. The Respondent has failed to demonstrate that any effective
adjudication of the present dispute is impossible in their absence. The complaint
essentially concerns the statutory obligations of the promoter under the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and such objection does not render the

complaint non
-maintainable.

11. The contention that the complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant is already
in possession also cannot be accepted at this stage. The Complainant has specifically
disputed complete and lawful possession by alleging non-availability of promised
amenities, parking spaces and incomplete statutory compliance. Such issues relate
to the merits of the complaint and require adjudication after appreciation of the
material placed on record. The effect of the issuance of the Occupation Certificate or

handing over of possession in relation to the statutory obligations under the Act will
be considered at the stage of final adjudication.

12. The Respondent has further objected to the filing of the Proforma-A, amended
complaint and rejoinder. The record indicates that these documents were filed
pursuant to the procedural directions issued by the Authority during the course of
the proceedings. They substantially elaborate the grievances already pleaded and
place on record additional material in reply to the Respondent's defence. The
Respondent has failed to show that the procedural filings have caused any prejudice
warranting dismissal of the complaint. Procedural requirements are meant to ensure
proper adjudication and cannot be used to defeat substantive rights in the absence
of any prejudice.

13. The objections relating to jurisdiction, limitation, suppression of material facts and
abuse of process will be decided at the final stage of the proceeding. Such reliefs
claimed arise from the breach of the statutory obligations under the Act, as
contended by the Complainant. The question whether the Complainant is entitled to
such reliefs is a matter for final adjudication. At the stage of deciding maintainability,
the Authority is only required to ascertain whether the complaint discloses a cause
of action under the Act, which, in the present case, it does.

14. It is also pertinent that the Respondent has participated in the proceedings by filing
its reply on merits. Having contested the complaint on merits, the Respondent
cannot subsequently seek dismissal on technical objections which do not go to the
root of the Authority's jurisdiction.

15. In view of the foregoing, this Authority finds no merit in the miscellaneous
application. The objections raised by the Respondent involve disputed questions of
fact which can be decided only while adjudicating the complaint on merits.
Accordingly, the miscellaneous application challenging the maintainability of the
complaint deserves to be rejected.
O R D E R

1. The miscellaneous application filed by the respondent is rejected.

2. No order as to cost.


Date- 16.07.2026


Ravindra Deshpande
Member II, MahaRERA
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.07.16 16:06:35
+05'30'