CC12400335

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,

MUMBAI
Virtual Hearing held through Video Conference as per Circular No: 49/2025

COMPLAINT NO.: CC12400335

AQUID SHAHWAR


…COMPLAINANT
VS
VTP CORPORATION LLP

…RESPONDENT


MahaRERA Project registration No. P52100009865


INTERIM ORDER


(on Maintainability Application)

24. 06.2026
(Date of Hearing: 08.04.2026)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, Maha RERA

Advocate Ravi Jadhav for the Complainant
None for the Respondent

1. The present Maintainability Application has been filed by the Respondents
seeks dismissal of the complaint as not maintainable on the ground that the
Complainant has taken possession of the subject unit on 20.01.2024 and
executed waiver documents, along with imposition of exemplary costs and such
other reliefs as this Authority deems fit.

2. The Respondent submissions on maintainability of the Complaint are as below:


CC12400335

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

3. The Respondent has raised a preliminary objection regarding the
maintainability of the complaint and contended that the same deserves to be
dismissed at the threshold as being frivolous, an afterthought and devoid of any
surviving cause of action. It is submitted that the Complainant has already taken
lawful and peaceful possession of Flat No. D-705 in the project “Purvanchal
Phase 2 CDE” on 20.01.2024 after making full payment and completing all
requisite formalities, including execution of the Possession Letter, Indemnity
Bond and other possession-related documents.

4. The Respondent further submits that the Complainant voluntarily accepted
possession without raising any protest or objection and executed the possession
documents acknowledging satisfaction regarding the construction, delivery and
execution of the project. It is contended that the Complainant also accepted
certain concessions extended by the Respondent at the time of possession and,
by executing the possession and waiver documents, relinquished all present
and future claims against the Respondent, including claims relating to
compensation, interest for delay and alleged mental harassment. According to
the Respondent, the principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence are
attracted and operate as a bar against the present proceedings.

5. It is further contended that the Complainant suppressed the material fact of
having taken possession of the subject flat on 20.01.2024 and having executed
all possession-related documents without objection. The Respondent submits
that the complaint, filed on 26.08.2024, nearly seven months after possession, is
an afterthought instituted with an intention to harass the Respondent and seek
unjust enrichment despite the Respondent having fulfilled its contractual and
statutory obligations. It is further argued that, upon acceptance of possession
without protest, the Complainant ceased to be an aggrieved person under
Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and no
subsisting cause of action survives.


CC12400335

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

6. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the Respondent has relied upon the
MahaRERA decisions in Arvind Kumar v. Lodha Group (
Complaint No.
CC005000000096915
, order dated 03.09.2018), Smt. Dipti Tanwar v. Kalpataru
Ltd. (
Complaint No. CC006000000084515
, order dated 10.04.2019) and Gaurav
Virani v. Nirmal Lifestyle Ltd. (
Complaint No. CC006000000022555
, order dated

12. 12.2018), wherein it was observed that acceptance of possession and
execution of completion documents without protest attracts the principles of
acquiescence, waiver and estoppel. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Satya Narayan Garg
v. Sahara Prime City Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1747. The Respondent
therefore prays for dismissal of the complaint as not maintainable.

7. The Complainant has filed reply on maintainability application are as follows:

8. The Complainant has opposed the Respondent’s application and submitted that
the present complaint is maintainable both in law and on facts. It is contended
that though possession of Flat No. D-705 was taken on 20.01.2024, the same was
accepted under protest and not unconditionally. The Complainant submits that,
prior to and even after possession, several emails and communications were
addressed to the Respondent raising grievances regarding delay in handing
over possession, continued EMI liability and consequential financial hardship.
According to the Complainant, possession was accepted only to safeguard his
investment and avoid further financial loss and, therefore, such acceptance
cannot be construed as a waiver of his statutory rights under the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

9. The Complainant has further denied having executed any unconditional waiver
relinquishing his rights against the Respondent and contended that the
possession-related documents were merely procedural in nature. It is submitted
that the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence cannot defeat the
statutory remedies available under Sections 18 and 31 of the Act. The


CC12400335

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Complainant has also denied the allegation of suppression of material facts and
stated that the fact of taking possession on 20.01.2024 was disclosed, while the
contemporaneous correspondence on record demonstrates that possession was
never accepted without protest. It is further contended that the complaint filed
on 26.08.2024 is within limitation and the cause of action continues to subsist on
account of the financial loss and mental distress allegedly suffered due to
delayed possession.

10. The Complainant has further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the
Respondent, namely Arvind Kumar v. Lodha Group, Smt. Dipti Tanwar v.
Kalpataru Ltd., Gaurav Virani v. Nirmal Lifestyle Ltd. and Satya Narayan Garg
v. Sahara Prime City Ltd., are distinguishable on facts as they pertain to cases of
unconditional acceptance of possession. According to the Complainant, the
present case stands on a different footing in view of the continuous protest
recorded through written communications. It is therefore prayed that the
Respondent’s application challenging the maintainability of the complaint be
rejected and the complaint be adjudicated on merits in accordance with the
provisions of the Act.

11. The Respondent has not filed written arguments on maintainability
application.

12. The Complainant has filed written arguments on maintainability application
are as follows:

13. The Complainant has filed additional written arguments opposing the
Respondent’s application challenging the maintainability of the complaint. It is
submitted that the Respondent’s objection is misconceived and contrary to the
scheme of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. According
to the Complainant, acceptance of possession does not extinguish the statutory
rights available to an allottee under the Act. The Complainant contends that,


CC12400335

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

while taking possession, only routine documents such as the Possession Letter
and Indemnity Bond were executed for the purpose of handing over physical
possession of the flat, and no document was executed whereby the Complainant
expressly or impliedly waived his statutory rights under Section 18 of the Act.

14. The Complainant further submits that Section 18 of the Act confers a statutory
right upon an allottee to claim interest and compensation where the promoter
fails to hand over possession within the timeline stipulated in the Agreement
for Sale and such right survives notwithstanding subsequent acceptance of
possession. In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon the decision of
the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in Ashley Neil Serrao v. Propel
Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Appeal No. AT0006000000052847), wherein it was held
that the entitlement of an allottee to seek interest under Section 18 cannot be
defeated merely because possession was subsequently offered or accepted and
that such right continues unless expressly waived.

15. It is further submitted that the present complaint arises out of the delay in
handing over possession and the alleged failure of the Respondent to honour its
commitments regarding subvention and pre-EMI obligations, resulting in
financial loss to the Complainant. According to the Complainant, Section 31 of
the Act empowers this Authority to adjudicate such grievances and there is no
provision under the Act barring a complaint merely because possession has
been taken. The Complainant has therefore prayed for rejection of the
Respondent’s application challenging maintainability and for adjudication of
the complaint on merits, including grant of interest, compensation and
reimbursement of pre-EMI amounts.


CC12400335

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 6 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

16. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both parties, the
pleadings, documents placed on record and the authorities relied upon by them.
The short question that arises for consideration is whether the present complaint
is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable merely because the Complainant
has taken possession of the subject flat on 20.01.2024 and executed possession-
related documents.

17. It is an admitted position that the Complainant has taken possession of Flat No.
D-705 in the subject project on 20.01.2024. The Respondent has contended that
the Complainant voluntarily accepted possession and executed the Possession
Letter, Indemnity Bond and other possession-related documents, thereby
waiving all present and future claims against the Respondent, and that the
principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence operate as a complete bar to the
present proceedings. The Complainant, however, has specifically asserted that
possession was accepted only to safeguard his investment and to avoid further
financial hardship and was not an unconditional acceptance of the Respondent's
conduct. The Complainant has further relied upon various communications
exchanged with the Respondent both before and after taking possession to
demonstrate that grievances relating to delay in handing over possession, the
financial burden of EMIs and consequential losses were continuously raised.

18. In my view, whether the documents executed by the Complainant amount to a
conscious, voluntary and unconditional relinquishment of his statutory rights,
and whether the principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence are attracted
in the facts of the present case, are issues which require examination of the
possession documents, correspondence exchanged between the parties and the
surrounding circumstances in which possession was accepted. Such issues are
intrinsically connected with the merits of the dispute and necessarily require
appreciation of evidence. Therefore, they cannot be conclusively determined at
the stage of deciding a preliminary objection regarding maintainability.


CC12400335

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 7 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

19. The contention of the Respondent that the Complainant ceased to be an
aggrieved person upon taking possession also cannot be accepted at this stage.
Section 31 of the Act permits an aggrieved person to file a complaint alleging
violation or contravention of the provisions of the Act. Further, Section 18
confers upon an allottee the right to seek interest and compensation in
circumstances contemplated therein. Whether the Complainant is ultimately
entitled to the reliefs claimed is a matter which falls for determination on merits.

20. The judgments relied upon by the Respondent have been rendered in the facts
of the respective cases. The applicability and effect of the principles laid down
therein can be appropriately examined at the stage of final adjudication after
appreciation of the evidence and documents placed on record. At this
preliminary stage, those decisions do not warrant dismissal of the complaint as
not maintainable.

21. Upon overall consideration of the material available on record, I am of the view
that the objections raised by the Respondent substantially overlap with the
issues arising for determination in the main complaint. The question whether
the Complainant has waived his rights, whether any cause of action survives
after acceptance of possession and whether the reliefs claimed are legally
sustainable are all matters requiring adjudication on merits. The complaint, on
the face of it, discloses a triable cause of action and therefore cannot be rejected
at the threshold.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that no case is made out for dismissal
of the complaint on the ground of maintainability. The Maintainability
Application filed by the Respondent therefore deserves to be rejected. However,
all contentions of the parties on the merits of the dispute, including the effect of
possession-related documents, waiver, estoppel, acquiescence and entitlement
of the Complainant to the reliefs claimed, are expressly kept open for


CC12400335

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

consideration and determination in the main complaint. Hence, I proceed to
pass following order:
O R D E R

1. The Maintainability Application filed by the Respondent on 03.11.2025 stands
rejected.

2. No order as to costs.


Ravindra Deshpande


Member-II, MahaRERA
Date: 24.06.2026

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.06.24 14:21:28
+05'30'