COMPLAINT NO. CC12502802

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

COMPLAINT NO. CC12502802

AJINKYA ANANT KHAIWALE
…COMPLAINANT

VS

ATUL BUILDERS
…RESPONDENT


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P52100008740

ORDER
(in interim application)

06. 03.2026
(Date of hearing – 13.11.2025)


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

Complainant in person
Adv. Aditya Suryarao for the Respondent

1. ​ The Respondent has filed a miscellaneous application with
respect to maintainability of the complaint under section 31
r/w. Rule 6 and 7 and Circular Order No. 11 of 2019 dated

23. 10.2019 of the RERA act.

2. ​ It is contention of the respondent that the present complaint
filed by the complainant suffers serious defects in law and is to
be rejected in toto. The Complainant has failed to follow the
mandatory procedure for filing a complaint before the
concerned Authority as required under Section 31 read with
Rules 6 and 7 of the Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017. This requirement has been affirmed
as settled law in the

JUDGMENT

of M/s. NewTech Promoters and
Developers Private Limited vs. State of UP and Others. Additionally,
the Complainant has not complied with Circular Order No. 11

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


COMPLAINT NO. CC12502802

of 2019 dated 23.10.2019, which specifically directs that
complaints must be filed in accordance with Section 31 read
with Rules 6 and 7. Therefore, in view of the said circular, the
present complaint is not maintainable.

3. ​ The complainant has submitted his reply to the miscellaneous
application and has thereby mentioned that the complaint was
filed on the official MahaRERA portal, accompanied by full
documentary evidence and the prescribed fee. The

JUDGMENT

of
of M/s. NewTech Promoters and Developers Private Limited vs. State
of UP and Others clearly affirms the jurisdiction of MahaRERA to
entertain
complaints
regarding
delayed
possession
and
compensation and does not restrict or deny an allottee’s
statutory right to approach the Authority. It is a settled principle
that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive
justice, particularly under a protective statute like RERA that
safeguards consumer rights against exploitative builders.

4. ​ The respondent has filed written arguments and has submitted
that in view of Rule 7, the Complainant must be directed to
follow the due procedure prescribed by this Hon’ble Authority,
and the present Complaint deserves to be dismissed in its
current form. Further, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
M/s. NewTech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP &
Ors., the Regulatory Authority has the power to decide matters
relating to refund, interest, penalty, and delayed possession,
whereas the power to adjudicate claims for compensation under
Sections 12, 14, 18, and 19 of the Act lies exclusively with the

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


COMPLAINT NO. CC12502802

Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 read with Section 72.
Therefore, the MahaRERA Regulatory Authority does not have
jurisdiction to adjudicate the relief sought by the Complainant.

5. ​ The primary objective of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 is to protect the interests of
homebuyers and ensure speedy adjudication of disputes in the
real estate sector. It is a settled principle of law that procedural
requirements should not be interpreted in a manner that defeats
the substantive rights of the parties, particularly in welfare
legislation. In so far as the reliance placed by the Respondent on
the

JUDGMENT

in M/s. NewTech Promoters and Developers Pvt.
Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. is concerned, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has clarified that the Regulatory Authority has
jurisdiction to entertain complaints relating to refund, interest
for delayed possession and other reliefs under the Act, whereas
claims specifically seeking compensation under Sections 12, 14,
18 and 19 are to be adjudicated by the Adjudicating Officer
under Section 71 of the Act. In the present case, the objection
raised by the Respondent pertains to the maintainability of the
Complaint on procedural grounds. Since the Complaint has
been filed through the prescribed online mechanism of
MahaRERA with the necessary fee and documents, the
Authority does not find merit in the contention that the
Complaint is liable to be rejected in toto on this ground alone.
Moreover, upon perusal of the facts stated by the Complainant,
it is observed that the Complainant has sought relief on account
of delayed possession, which falls within the jurisdiction of this

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


COMPLAINT NO. CC12502802

Authority. Hence, The Miscellaneous Application filed by the
Respondent challenging the maintainability of the Complaint is
rejected. Hence, I pass the following order –
O R D E R

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


(Ravindra Deshpande)
Date: 06.03.2026​​
​
​
Member-II, MahaRERA

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

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.03.06 16:25:48
+05'30'