Complaint No. CC005000000095985


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

Complaint No. CC005000000095985


ANTHEIA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN MR. MANOJKUMAR BABULAL AGARWAL​ ...COMPLAINANT
Vs
MAHINDRA LIFESPACES DEVELOPERS LIMITED THROUGH ITS
CEOS MD MR. ARVIND SUBRAMANIAM ​
...RESPONDENT


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P52100016677

I N T E R I M O R D E R
(11/06/2026)
(Date of Hearing: 05/06/2025)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2, MahaRERA

Adv. Swarangi Dhoble is present for Complainant
Adv. Rubin Vakil is present for the Respondent No.1

1. ​ The Respondent has filed the present Miscellaneous application for challenging the
maintainability of the complaint.
In short facts of the application are as follows:

2. ​ According to the Respondent, the present application is filed for seeking of dismissal of the
present complaint on the ground that it is not maintainable in law or in facts. The complaint
is purported to have been filed by the Co-operative Society through some of its managing
committee members, it is pertinent to note that the development residential buildings (7
residential buildings under MOFA regime and 8 residential buildings under the RERA
regime) comprising of over 1443 flat owners. The Complainant has neither produced nor
made any averment on oath about any resolution passed by the general body of the
Complainant Society authorizing the Complainant to file the present complaint. The
Complainant has not produced any resolution of the managing committee authorizing
some of its members to file the present complaint on the behalf of the Complainant Society.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


Complaint No. CC005000000095985

3. ​ According to the Respondent, a bare perusal of the prayer clause (C) of the present
complaint demonstrates that the compensation u/sec. 18(3) of RERA; it is well settled that
the jurisdiction to determine any claim for compensation, inter alia, u/sec. 18(3) of RERA is
exclusively vested with the adjudicating officer u/sec. 71 of RERA and not with Hon’ble
Authority u/sec. 31 of the REEA.

4. ​ According to the Respondent, this hon’ble authority is a statutory authority which has
been vested with limited jurisdiction only to adjudicate disputes relating to breach of
violation or contravention of the provisions of RERA and its Rules. This is evident from
Section 31 of RERA.

5. ​ According to the Respondent, it is case of Complainant that the Respondent has allegedly
misappropriated funds which were deposited in the bank account created towards
common area maintenance. The Complainant has not made any allegation or averment
relating to violation or contravention of any provisions of RERA or the Rules. The
Respondent has prayed in the present application that the to dismiss the present complaint.

6. ​ There is reply to the said application of the Complainant, it states that the present
application filed by the Respondent is nothing shier try to prolong the present matter. It is
further submitted that the present application under reply and contents/grounds therein
are absolutely misleading, false, frivolous, vexatious and bogus and on this count also the
same deserves to be dismissed with costs.

7. ​ The Complainants states that the averments from para 3.1 with regard to the averments that
there is no board resolution filed by the applicant society is absolutely false and frivolous.

8. ​ The Complainant states that the para 3.3 are totally denied in toto. The Respondent has
miserably failed to perused the complaint field by the Complainant. The Respondent had
taken efforts to perused the complaint field by the Complainant more particularly starting
with the caption of the complaint then they would have realized that the complaint itself
speaks that it has been filed before the Hon’ble Adjudicating Officer.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


Complaint No. CC005000000095985

9. ​ The Complainant states that the para 3.6 & 3.7 are nothing but an attempt to take a formal
defense. It is further submitted that the applicant has more particularly pleaded in his
complaint the misappropriation of funds done by the respondent developer.

10. ​The Complainant states that the Respondent has filed the present application under reply
only with a mala-fide intention to prolong the present case. It is further submitted that the
Respondent is very well aware that he is guilt and have not provided the amenities as
agreed by him more particularly the grounds mentioned in the complaint; so only with a
view to prolong the matter the Respondent has filed such kind of baseless application that
to after a lapse of 2 same years. The afterthought and it is evident from the record and
roznama of the present proceeding.

11. ​I have gone through the complaint’s prayer clause no. c of the present complaint which
states that the to direct the Respondent, its directors and/or the representatives on their
behalf, to pay an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the Complainant society as per sec. 18 of the
Rera act as and by way of compensation amount.

12. ​In my opinion sec. 18 of the RERA act states that, Return of amount and
compensation.—(1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an
apartment, plot or building,— (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the
case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business
as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any
other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw
from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by
him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may
be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act:
Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the
promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as
may be prescribed; it basically for allottees and not for the society.

Section. 18(3):- If the promoter fails to discharge any other obligations imposed on him under this
Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder or in accordance with the terms and conditions of

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


Complaint No. CC005000000095985


the agreement for sale, he shall be liable to pay such compensation to the allottees, in the manner as
provided under this Act.

13. ​I have gone through the facts of the application filed by the Respondent and reply of the
Complainant for the said application and also to the rejoinder filed by the Respondent
readover and treated as facts of the same as application, a Co-operative Housing Society,
being a collective body of allottees, is competent to file a complaint before MahaRERA
and/or the Adjudicating Officer for issues relating to: common areas, amenities, statutory
obligations of promoter, misappropriation of common funds, defects affecting all allottees.
The Respondent’s contention that matters under Section 18 / 18(3) are maintainable only
before the Adjudicating Officer is incorrect in view of the binding

JUDGMENT

of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP (2021).
The Supreme Court has held that:
●​ The MahaRERA Authority has jurisdiction to determine violation of obligations under
Sections 12, 14, 18, 19,
●​ The Adjudicating Officer has jurisdiction only for quantification of compensation,
●​ A complaint cannot be dismissed for being filed before the incorrect forum; it should be
heard by the proper authority or transferred appropriately. Therefore, the complaint cannot
be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Where compensation is sought, the appropriate
course is to proceed before the Adjudicating Officer, not to reject the complaint.

14. ​The grounds raised in the Miscellaneous Application do not render the
complaint
non
-maintainable. If any part of the complaint pertains to adjudication of compensation,
the matter shall be dealt with by the Adjudicating Officer in accordance with Section 71.
Dismissal of the complaint at this stage would be contrary to the scheme of the Act.

Hence, I pass following:
ORDER

1. ​ The Miscellaneous Application challenging the maintainability of the complaint is rejected.

2. ​ To the extent the prayer involves adjudication of compensation, the matter shall stand
transferred to the Adjudicating Officer for further proceedings under Section 71 of the Act.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


Complaint No. CC005000000095985

3. ​ No order as to costs.


(Ravindra Deshpande)
Member-2, MahaRERA
Date: 11/06/2026

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

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.06.11 15:43:24
+05'30'