Comp. No. CC005000000117029

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

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI
Virtual Hearing held through video conference as
per MahaRERA Circular No.: 27/2020

Complaint No. CC005000000117029

1. VISHAL V TENDULKAR

2. MRS. PURTI VISHAL TENDULKAR.

3. DEBARATI CHATTERJEE.

4. DEBARGHO ROY CHOUDHURY

5. AVINASH DILIPBHAI TONDLE.

6. AJINKYA JAYSING JADHAV.

7. REKHA JAYSING JADHAV.

8. MEGHA ANANDA THAKUR

9. MEGHA ANANDA THAKUR

10. SHALAKA HARSHAL DHOLE
...COMPLAINANTS
Vs

SAMARTTHA BUILDCON THROUGH IT’S

PARTNER
MR. MAHESH HIRAMAN BARNE

2. MR. SHIVRAJ ASHOK BALWADKAR
...RESPONDENTS

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P52100018235

O R D E R
(27.11.2024)
(Date of Hearing: 20.08.2024)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Hon’ble Member-II, MahaRERA

Adv. Chinmay Kalyani for Complainants
Adv. Nilesh Borate for Respondents

1. The Complainants have filed the present complaint seeking possession of the
flat and rent. The Complainants have purchased flats in the “Downtown”
project bearing MahaRERA registration No. P52100018235, located in
Mulshi, Pune - 411045. A total of ten Complainants have filed a single
complaint seeking common reliefs.

2. This complaint was heard by MahaRERA on several occasions and finally on

20. 08.2024 as per the Standard Operating Procedure dated 12.06.2020 issued by
MahaRERA for hearing of complaints through Video Conferencing. Both the
parties have been issued prior intimation of this hearing. On the said dates of

Comp. No. CC005000000117029

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

hearings, the parties have appeared as per their appearances recorded in the
Roznamas and made their respective submissions. MahaRERA heard the
submissions of both the parties as per their appearances and also perused the
available records.

3. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, following Roznama was
recorded in the said complaint on 20.08.2024 :–
“Today Complainant is present. The Respondent is present. Adv. of the Respondent
submitted the argument on maintainability application. It is submitted that there is no
provision to file a common complaint by all allottees who purchased independent units in
the project. It is submitted that each Complainant is required to file separate complaints.
There are six complaints. There is clause No. 3 of MAHA RERA order ll dated 25.10.2024
which says that individual complaints need to be filed separately by the allottee for
individual relief, otherwise, the complaint is held not maintainable for the misjoinders for
the cause of action for the parties. It is submitted that the Complainants are seeking
individual relief therefore the complaint is not maintainable and therefore the interim
application is also not maintainable. It is submitted by the Adv. of the Respondent that
the Complainant received possession on 15.08.2023. Para-No. 8C and 8D regarding Rent
not pressed by the Complainant. It is submitted by the Complainant that OC is received
in March 2024 and only soft possession is given. The Complainant are ready to pay
RERA fees as necessary and as per direction. The Complainant are ready to comply what
is necessary. Hence the Adv. of the Complainant submitted that complaint may not be
dismissed on technical grounds. The parties are at liberty to file written notes if any on
or before 04.09.2024 thereafter this matter be posted on a suitable date on order of
maintainability application. List this matter on 26.11.2024.”

4. The Complainants have uploaded written submissions on 08.09.2024 on the
record of MahaRERA. However, the Respondents have failed to upload their
Written Submissions.

5. The brief facts of the maintainability application are as follows:-
a. that the present complaint and interim application are not maintainable at

Comp. No. CC005000000117029

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

all as there is no provision in the RERA Act 2005 to file a common
complaint by allottees, who have purchased their independent units in
one project, against the promoter.
b. that in the present complaint, the Complainants either jointly or
individually have purchased their independent units in Downtown,
which is one of the projects of the Respondents. Though it is one project,
the complaint is to be filed by each of the Complainants separately against
the Respondent, and not like the present complaint. Hence, it is not
maintainable at all as there is no provision in the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) to
file complaints like representative complaints or common complaints.
c. that in the present complaint, there are a total of 6 allottees, who have paid
only Rs. 5000/- towards the complaint fee with MahaRERA Authorities.
Paying only Rs. 5000/- for a common complaint, is a grave loss of revenue
for the respective department of Government i.e. MahaRERA Authorities.
d. That the present complaint has been filed by the Complainants as a
Representative Complaint. Hence, such representative action cannot be
allowed in a single Complaint. Hence, the complaint is liable to be
dismissed with costs.
e. that as per Clause No. 3 of MahaRERA order No. 11 dated 23.10.2019,
individual complaints need to be filed separately for individual reliefs
otherwise they will be held not maintainable for misjoinder for cause of
action and parties. Therefore, according to said MahaRERA order, the
present complaint is not maintainable.
f. that the Complainants' reliefs are individual. If the complaint itself is not
maintainable then any interim relief sought under the complaint is not
maintainable.
g. that the Respondents have received a part occupancy certificate from the

Comp. No. CC005000000117029

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

competent authority, i.e. Pune Metropolitan Region Development
Authority (PMRDA) on 14.03.2024, and the Complainants have already
received possessions from the Respondent.
h. that the Complainants have admitted that they have also been in receipt
of rental compensation from the Respondent for the delayed possession.
Moreover, at the time of the receipt of the said rental compensation, the
Complainants had promised to withdraw the complaint from MahaRERA
Authority. However, the Complainants fail to withdraw the complaint. It
shows the greedy nature and malafide intentions. Therefore, the present
complaint deserves to be dismissed. Prayers sought by the Complainants
are also not maintainable because the Complainants are seeking
compensation in terms of rent and this Hon’ble Authority has no
jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as per NEWTECH


JUDGMENT

.

6. The brief facts of the reply of the Complainants on the maintainability application
filed by the Respondents are as follows:-
a. That all the contents of the maintainability application are false, fictitious,
and a concocted story put forth by the Respondent and hence denied in
toto by the Complainant.
b. That the core objective of this transformative legislation is to ensure
regulation and promotion of the real estate sector in an efficient and
transparent manner and to protect the interest of home buyers. The said
Act along with the Rules would ensure timely completion of projects. This
is helping to achieve the vision of Hon’ble Prime Minister “HOUSING
FOR ALL”. It prevents the diversion of funds and protects the buyers’
interests. Therefore, dismissing this case on technical grounds would deny
the very purpose of legislation. Further, every court has inherent
discretion power to utilize them in the interests of justice or to avoid

Comp. No. CC005000000117029

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

misuse of the court's procedure.
c. that the Complainants have no intention to undermine government
revenue. The Respondent's assertion that paying only Rs. 5,000/- for a
common complaint constitutes a grave loss of revenue for MahaRERA
Authority is unfounded. The Complainants are fully prepared to pay an
additional court fee of Rs. 25,000/- to address any concerns regarding the
proper contribution to the respective departments of the government. This
willingness to pay the additional amount underscores the Complainants'
commitment to compliance and their intention to resolve the matter in
good faith, ensuring no loss of revenue to MahaRERA Authority. The
primary focus remains on addressing the delayed possession and the
associated hardships faced by the Complainants.
d. that the Complainants are already at a significant disadvantage due to the
Respondents' actions. The possession of the flats has been delayed well
beyond the agreed timeframe, causing considerable hardship and
inconvenience to the Complainants as flat buyers. Many have faced
financial strain, having to bear the burden of paying rent in addition to
their EMIs for the delayed possession of their flats. On the other hand, the
Respondents have not suffered any loss. They have been enjoying the
financial benefits of the money received from the Complainants. The
funds paid by the Complainants for the purchase of their flats have been
utilized by the Respondents, providing them with continued liquidity and
financial stability. This inequitable situation has only exacerbated the
hardships faced by the Complainants.
e. that the Complainants’ prayed to reject the maintainability application filed
by the Respondent; to allow the present complaint in its entirety; in the
alternative, to grant the Complainants the liberty to file individual
complaints; such other and further reliefs as this Authority may deem just
and proper in the interest of justice.

Comp. No. CC005000000117029

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

7. The Complainants have uploaded Written Submissions wherein, the
Complainants have repeated and reiterated the contents of their reply to the
maintainability application.

8. Hence, considering the pleadings of the parties, the following points arise for my
determination. My findings thereon are recorded as under for the reasons stated
below:
REASONS
No.
Points
Findings
1
Whether the complaint is maintainable?
Negative
2
What Order?
As per final
order.

9. To answer the points raised above, it is imperative that Order No. 11 of 2019
passed by MahaRERA is perused. Vide the said order, the directions with regards
to filing of complaints with MahaRERA were issued. Out of the said directions,
directions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 are germane to the present case. As per
the direction at Sr. No. 2, Group Complaints are to be entertained only in respect
of common relief claimed under Section 7 & 8 of the said Act or for common
amenities. As per direction mentioned at Sr. No. 3, direction was issued to file
individual complaint separately for individual reliefs and if not done, the said
complaints were to be held not maintainable for misjoinder for cause of action
and parties.

10. The present complaint which is a single complaint was filed by the
Complainants, who are the allottees of the Respondents mainly seeking prayers
for (i) an order from refraining the Respondents from extending the registration
unless the Complainant(s) has/have been given an opportunity of being heard
in the matter, (ii) direction against the Respondent to complete the construction
in the scheduled manner (iii) direction against the Respondent to give the
possession of flat as soon as possible (iv) direction against the Respondent to pay
the Rent paid by the Complainant(s) from the proposed date of possession to till

Comp. No. CC005000000117029

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

the date of filing the Complaint (v) direction against the Respondent to pay the
Rent which is being paid and will be Paid by the Complaint(s) from the date of
filing the Complaint to the date of possession of flat, (vi) direction against the
Respondent to stop the work of other projects and complete the Said Project, (vii)
direction against the Respondent to disclose the Books of Accounts, (viii)
direction against the Respondents to pay Rs. 25,000 (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand Only) as compensation for Legal Charges and Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand Only) as compensation for harassment and mental agony
and inconvenience caused total amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
Only) to each Complainant.

11. As per direction mentioned at Sr. No. 3, a clear direction was issued to file
individual complaints separately for individual reliefs and if not done, the said
complaints were to be held not maintainable for misjoinder for cause of action
and parties. It is observed that by filing the present group complaint, the
Complainants are seeking individual reliefs together with relief under section 6
of the said Act. Consequently, by virtue of the said Order dated 11 of 2019, the
present complaint is not maintainable for misjoinder for cause of action and
parties.

12. It would be imperative to see the objective of the enactment of the said Act in
order to decide the present maintainability application. The said Act was enacted
for regulation and promotion of the real estate sector and to ensure sale of plot,
apartment or building, as the case may be, or sale of real estate project, in an
efficient and transparent manner and to protect the interest of consumers in the
real estate sector and to establish an adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute
redressal. The said Act was mainly enacted to protest the interests of consumers
in the real estate sector and to establish an adjudicating mechanism for speedy
dispute redressal.

13. In order to adhere with the objective of the said Act and to meet the ends of

Comp. No. CC005000000117029

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

justice, in my opinion, the Complainants be permitted to file individual
complaints as prayed for in the alternative in their reply to the maintainability
application even if the present complaint is not maintainable by virtue of Order
No. 11 of 2019.

14. The contentions raised by the Respondents in their maintainability application
under the title “SUBMISSION ON MERITS” can be heard at the time of final
hearing of the complaints.

15. In light of the aforesaid, I pass following order.
O R D E R
a. The Complainants are given liberty to file individual complaints with
MahaRERA, if they want to agitate their individual claim.
b. The Complainants may file an application within a period of one week from the
date of this order as to which flat, this complaint would pertain to and file a
separate complaint seeking individual reliefs and file 9 separate complaints for
the remaining flats by 16.12.2024. The seniority of this complaint i.e. 23.05.2022
would be granted to the remaining 9 complaints. The Registry is directed to
grant the seniority of this complaint i.e. 23.05.2022 to the complaints to be filed
by the remaining Complainants.
c. Accordingly, the Respondents may file its reply to these complaints within a
period of further two weeks from the date of the complainants filing their
respective complaints. The Complainants may file a rejoinder to the reply of the
Respondents within a further period of two weeks from the date the
Respondents file their reply to the individual complaints filed by the
Complainants. Accordingly, this matter is adjourned to a suitable date after

01. 02.2025 for further hearing. List the matter for next hearing on 12.02.2025.


(Ravindra Deshpande)
Member II, MahaRERA
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO DESHPANDE
Date: 2024.11.27 17:25:40
+05'30'