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

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


COMPLAINT NO. CC005000000290253

1. SHIVAJI NAMDEO GAME

2. ABHISHEK ARUN PANDE

…APPLICANTS/ COMPLAINANTS

VS

DILIP SUBHASH ANGAL
Partner in ANGAL & CO
…RESPONDENT


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P52100019074


INTERIM ORDER


(Amendment application)

July 12, 2024
(Date of hearing – 02.07.2024– matter was reserved for order on limited issue)


Coram: Shri. Ajoy Mehta, Chairperson, MahaRERA

Advocate Medha Bavadekar for the Complainant
Advocate Koyal Biradar for the Respondent

1. The Complainants are purported Allottees within the meaning of Section 2 (d)
of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred
to as the “said Act”) of Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to
as the “RERA”) and the Respondent is a partner in partnership namely ANGAL
& CO which is the Promoter/Developers within the meaning of Section 2 (zk) of
the said Act who has registered a Project namely “NAKSHATRA” under section
5 of the said Act bearing
MAHARERA Project Registration No. P52100019074

(hereinafter referred to as the “said Project”). On the MahaRERA Project
registration webpage the proposed completion date is 10.09.2024. An Occupation
Certificate (“OC”) dated 24.11.2022 has been received in the said Project.

2. The Complainants are seeking the following reliefs:
QUOTE

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

The covered mechanical car parking allotted to flat no 1001 and flat no 306 is inadequate
to accommodate/cover the cars. Also, it is unsafe to use due to possibility of damages to
car and injury to persons while parking and removing the car. The dimensions are not
in compliance to minimum size requirements as per UDCPR rules. The area of parking
of flat 306 is less than area of 10.5 SQM specified in sales agreement. Hence buyers of
flat 1001 and 306 requests promoter to allot new/alternative parking spaces with sizes as
per rules/agreement which shall accommodate cars and ensure safety of car and
personnel.
UNQUOTE

3. The Complainants had filed an application dated 19.07.2023 seeking amendment
in the captioned complaint (hereinafter referred to as the “said application”).
The reliefs under the said application are as follows:
QUOTE
a. Application may kindly be allowed.
b. The permission may kindly be granted to the Complainant to make amendment in
the complaint/case may kindly be continued in the name of Complainant No.1 Mr.
Shivaji Game.
c. The Complainant No.2 may kindly be permit/allot to file new/fresh complaint against
the Respondent.
UNQUOTE

4. The said application was listed for hearing before this Authority on 02.07.2024
wherein the following roznama was passed:
Complainant No.1 states that they have filed an amendment seeking two changes namely:
i. Deletion of the name of Complainant No. 2, namely Abhishek Pandey.
ii. The deletion of his relief and prayers namely those of parking.

They have served their amendment application on the Respondent. Respondent confirms
that they have also filed their replies to the amendment application. In the first instance
the authority will reserve the matter for orders on the limited issue of the amendment
application.”

5. The brief facts and submissions of the Applicants (Complainants) with respect
to the said application are as follows:
a. That the Complainants, vide two separate agreements for sale, had purchased
two separate flats along with car parkings in the said project.
b. However, the Complainants have filed a single complaints seeking reliefs
pertaining to two separate car parkings allotted to them under separate
agreements for sale, which constitute two separate causes of action.

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

c. Thus, the Complainant-Applicants seek to amend the captioned complaint as
per the said application.

6. The brief facts and submissions of the Respondent with respect to the said
application are as follows:
a. That the captioned complaint should be dismissed for misjoinder of parties
as the two separate complainants seeking reliefs under two separate
agreements for sale constitute separate cause of action.
b. Complainants have filed this complaint under the UDCPR rules 2020 while
RERA Authority does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters
falling under the provisions of the said rules. Therefore, the present
complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of the said Act and is
liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
c. That, as per clause 1(a) (i) in the said agreement, the Complainant has agreed
that the allotment of the parking is to be done as per first come, first serve
basis" and any dispute regarding the allotment or any other issue should be
dealt by the association of the allottees and the decision of the association of
allottees must be final, irrevocable and binding on the members without any
further doubt.
d. That the reliefs sought by the Complainants are contradictory to the terms
executed between the parties under their respective agreements for sale and
hence barred by doctrine of estoppel.
e. The said application be rejected.

7. From the facts and the submissions, the only issue that needs to be considered is
Whether the said application can be allowed?

8. It is observed that the said application does not seek to amend any substantial
reliefs but merely seeks to rectify the procedural error. Further, no prejudice will
be caused to the Respondent if the said amendment application is allowed.
Hence, the said application is allowed and the issue at para No.7 is answered in

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

affirmative. The Complainant No.2 is also granted liberty to file a fresh
complaint as per the provisions of the said Act and its rules and regulations.

9. It is also noted that the captioned complaint is not heard of merits. The captioned
complaint shall be heard on merits for the adjudication of reliefs strictly as per
seniority.


Ajoy Mehta
Chairperson, MahaRERA
AJOY
MEHTA
Digitally signed by
AJOY MEHTA
Date: 2024.07.12
12:50:03 +05'30'