Complaint No. CC12400781


BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, MUMBAI
Hearing in Hybrid mode as per MahaRERA Circular
No 49/2025

Complaint No. CC12400781


Mr. Abhishek Kelkar
...Complainant

Vs

M/s. Mohal Constructions Pvt.Ltd.
...Respondent


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P52100000181


INTERIM O R D E R
on Maintainability Application
(16.06.2026)
(Date of Hearing: 16.06.2025)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member-II, MahaRERA

In person for Complainant
Adv Ashish Jadhav for Respondent

1. ​ The present application has been filed by the Respondent challenging the
maintainability of the complaint on various grounds including alleged
non-compliance with the prescribed format under the Maharashtra Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, absence of locus standi of the
Complainant and prematurity of the complaint.

2. ​ The Respondent has submitted that the complaint has not been filed in the
prescribed Form-A as contemplated under Section 31 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 read with Rule 6 of the Maharashtra
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (General) Rules, 2017 and MahaRERA
Order No.11 dated 23.10.2019. It is contended that such non-compliance
constitutes
a
substantive
procedural
defect
rendering
the

complaint
non
-maintainable.


Complaint No. CC12400781

3. ​ The Respondent has further submitted that the Complainant does not qualify as
an “allottee” within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the RERA Act, 2016.
According to the Respondent, there is no direct contractual relationship between
the Complainant and the Respondent and therefore the Complainant lacks locus
standi to maintain the present proceedings.

4. ​ It is also the contention of the Respondent that the complaint is premature and
that the contractual grace period available under the Agreement for Sale had not
expired on the date of filing of the complaint. The Respondent has therefore
prayed for dismissal of the complaint at the threshold.

5. ​ In support of its submissions, the Respondent has relied upon various orders
passed by MahaRERA wherein complaints were disposed of on account of
non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements.

6. ​ It is observed that despite sufficient opportunity being granted, the Complainant
has not filed any reply to the present Maintainability Application. Hence, this
Authority proceeds to decide the application on the basis of the material
available on record.

7. ​ I have carefully considered the submissions made by both parties and perused
the material available on record.

8. ​ At the outset, it is necessary to note that the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 is a beneficial legislation enacted with the object of
protecting the interests of allottees and ensuring transparency and accountability
in the real estate sector. While procedural requirements prescribed under the Act
and Rules are required to be complied with, such requirements should not
ordinarily defeat substantive rights unless the defect is incurable in nature.

9. ​ The primary objection of the Respondent pertains to non-filing of the complaint
in Form-A. It is observed that filing of a complaint in the prescribed format is
undoubtedly a statutory requirement. However, where the basic facts


Complaint No. CC12400781


constituting the grievance are already on record and the defect is capable of
being rectified, the complaint need not be rejected at the threshold solely on such
technical ground.

10. ​The Authority is of the view that procedural defects which are curable should
ordinarily be permitted to be rectified so that disputes are decided on their merits
rather than on technicalities. The object of the Act would not be served by
driving parties to institute fresh proceedings for removal of a curable defect.

11. ​With regard to the contention that the Complainant is not an allottee under
Section 2(d) of the Act, it is observed that such issue involves examination of
documents relating to allotment, succession, legal heirship and other relevant
records. The said question is intrinsically connected with the merits of the
dispute and cannot be conclusively determined at this preliminary stage without
complete material being brought on record.

12. ​Similarly, the objection regarding prematurity of the complaint and existence of
cause of action requires examination of the Agreement for Sale, possession
timelines, grace period clauses and other contractual documents. These issues
involve mixed questions of fact and law and are therefore required to be
considered during adjudication of the complaint on merits.

13. ​In the circumstances, this Authority is of the considered opinion that the
objections raised by the Respondent do not warrant dismissal of the complaint at
this preliminary stage. However, in order to ensure procedural compliance and
enable effective adjudication, appropriate directions are required to be issued to
the Complainant for curing the procedural deficiencies.

14. ​Therefore, in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the
maintainability application deserves to be rejected while granting an opportunity
to the Complainant to place all requisite documents and pleadings on record.
ORDER


Complaint No. CC12400781


i.​ The Maintainability Application filed by the Respondent stands rejected.
ii.​ The Complainant is directed to upload/file the complaint in the prescribed
Form-A format along with all relevant documents, if not already filed, within a
period of 15 days from the date of this Order.
iii.​No order as to costs.

Date: 16.06.2026

Ravindra Deshpande
Member-II MahaRERA
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.06.16 14:39:53
+05'30'