━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

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


COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000057306

1. JAIDEEP ROY

2. BHRAMAR ROY
…COMPLAINANT

VS

RARE TOWNSHIPS PVT. LTD.
…RESPONDENT


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51800001041


INTERIM ORDER


July 30th, 2026
(Date of hearing – 20.07.2026 matters were reserved for

INTERIM ORDER

)

Coram: Manoj Saunik, Chairperson, MahaRERA

Advocate Nilam Gupta appeared for the complainants
Rubin Vakil appeared for the respondent.

1. The complainants are homebuyers and 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 the promoter within the
meaning of section 2 (zk) of the said Act who has registered the project namely
“NORTH SEA HEIGHTS (A1) - UPTO 14TH FLOOR” under section 5 of the said
Act bearing
MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51800001041
(hereinafter
referred to as the “said project”).

2. On the MahaRERA project registration webpage, the proposed date of
completion is mentioned as 30/12/2024, revised proposed date of completion is
30/06/2026. The said project has not received any occupation certificate.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

3. By way of the proposed amendment, the complainants seek the following reliefs:
a.
Declare and hold that the purported termination of the allotment of Flat No. 1007
vide letter dated lz.rr.2org issued by the Respondent is illegal, arbitrary and void,
and not binding upon the Complainant.
b.
Direct the Respondent to refund to the complainant the entire amount paid towards
the said flat along with interest from the respective dates of payment till realization,
in accordance with the provisions of the Rear Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016.
c.
Direct the Respondent to pay compensation to the complainant for the financial
loss, mental agony and hardship caused due to the Respondent’s failure to complete
the project within the promised timeline.
d.
Award costs of the present proceedings in favour of the Complainant; and
e.
Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Authority may deem lit in the
interest of justice.

4. The captioned amendment application was heard on 20.07.2026, wherein the
following roznama was recorded by the Authority:
Heard both parties on the issue of the amendment application. The amendment
application is reserved for orders. The main complaint stands adjourned to 03.08.2026.

5. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
COMPLAINT NO.
& DATE OF
FILING
FLAT
NO.
DATE OF
AL1
DATE OF
POSSESSION
TOTAL
CONSIDERATIO
N
RELIEF
SOUGHT
CC006000000057306

15. 12.2018
1007

30. 12.2014
Not Specified
Rs. 1,25,29,800/-
Refund with
interest,
compensation,
etc.

6. The brief submissions of the complainants are as follows:
A.
The applicant has filed the present application seeking amendment of the
complaint pursuant to the

JUDGMENT

and order dated 14.02.2026 passed by
the Hon'ble Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.
AT006000000063834 of 2022, whereby the order dated 02.02.2022
dismissing the complaint on the ground of maintainability was set aside

1 AL- Allotment Letter

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

and the matter was remanded to this Authority for fresh adjudication on
merits with liberty to carry out necessary amendments to the pleadings and
reliefs. The applicant submits that the proposed amendments are based on
the existing record and subsequent developments relevant for effective
adjudication of the complaint.
B.
The applicant further submits that the proposed amendments seek to
incorporate pleadings regarding his continuous readiness and willingness
to perform his contractual obligations, including his repeated requests for
execution of a RERA-compliant agreement for sale, his visit to the
respondent's office for making payment, and the respondent's refusal to
accept the same. The applicant further seeks to plead that the respondent
failed to execute and register a RERA-compliant agreement for sale despite
receipt of more than ten per cent of the sale consideration, acted in violation
of Section 13 of the said Act, failed to comply with the directions issued by
this Authority vide order dated 10.07.2018, continued to rely upon a draft
agreement containing clauses allegedly contrary to the provisions of the
Act and the MahaRERA Model Agreement, failed to obtain the requisite
approvals for continuation of the project and thereafter illegally terminated
the allotment of the subject flat.
C.
By way of the amended complaint, the applicant seeks a declaration that
the termination of the allotment is illegal, arbitrary and void, refund of the
entire consideration paid towards the subject flat along with statutory
interest, compensation for the financial loss, mental agony and hardship
allegedly caused by the respondent's failure to complete the project within
the promised timeline, costs of the proceedings and such other
consequential reliefs as this Authority may deem fit.
D.
The applicant in his rejoinder contends that the amendment application is
liable to be considered in accordance with the settled principles governing
amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. It is submitted that the application has been preferred
pursuant to the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Maharashtra Real Estate

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Appellate Tribunal while remanding the complaint for fresh adjudication
on merits. According to the applicant, the proposed amendments neither
introduce a fresh cause of action nor alter the nature of the original
complaint but merely elaborate the existing pleadings arising from the
same allotment, contractual relationship and statutory obligations. The
applicant further contends that the respondent has misconstrued the
judicial precedents relied upon, whereas the settled legal position is that
bona fide amendments necessary for determining the real controversy
should ordinarily be permitted.

7. The brief submissions of the respondent No. 2 are as follows:
A.
The respondent has opposed the amendment application in its entirety and
submitted that the amendment application has not been duly verified and
affirmed in accordance with the prescribed procedure and, therefore, is not
maintainable. The respondent further submits that the proposed
amendments are neither explanatory nor clarificatory in nature but
fundamentally alter the scope and foundation of the original complaint.
B.
The respondent submits that the original complaint was founded on the
allegations relating to delay in completion of the project and refund of the
consideration amount. According to the respondent, by way of the
proposed amendments, the complainants seek to introduce an altogether
new factual and legal foundation by incorporating allegations relating to
the draft agreement for sale, the respondent's alleged non-compliance with
Section 13 of the said Act, statutory approvals, readiness and willingness
and additional declaratory and consequential reliefs, including a challenge
to the respondent's termination of the allotment. It is contended that these
pleadings were never part of the original complaint and amount to setting
up a fresh and independent cause of action under the guise of amendment.
C.
The respondent further submits that the proposed amendments are
founded upon documents and pleadings relied upon before the Hon'ble
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal and seek to cure defects and

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

fill lacunae in the original complaint. It is contended that the liberty granted
by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal to seek amendment is not unconditional
and each amendment must independently satisfy the settled principles
governing amendment of pleadings. According to the respondent, the
complainants had the opportunity to challenge the termination notice
under Section 11(5) of the Act but failed to do so and have sought to raise
such challenge only after remand. The respondent therefore contends that
the proposed amendments are barred by delay, cause serious prejudice, do
not satisfy the principles governing amendment of pleadings under Order
VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and are liable to be rejected
in light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders
and Developers and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders
Private Limited.

8. From the facts and submissions made by the parties, the issue that needs to be
answered is Whether the complainants are entitled to the amendments sought in the
amendment application??

9. Before answering the issue framed herein above the following observations are
noteworthy:
A.
Upon perusal of the original complaint and the proposed amended
complaint, it is observed that the original complaint was essentially
founded on the respondent's alleged delay in completion of the project and
the consequential claim for refund of the consideration amount paid by the
complainants. However, by way of the proposed amendments, the
complainants seek to incorporate pleadings relating to the draft Agreement
for Sale, the respondent's alleged non-compliance with Section 13 of the
said Act, alleged deficiencies in the draft agreement, refusal to accept
payment, the complainants' readiness and willingness, absence of statutory
approvals and the legality of the respondent's termination of the allotment.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 6 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

The proposed amendments also seek declaratory and consequential reliefs
founded upon the aforesaid allegations.
B.
It is further noted that while the original complaint was founded on the
respondent's alleged delay in completion of the project and the
consequential claim for refund, the proposed amendments seek to
invalidate the respondent's termination of the allotment by introducing
allegations relating to the complainants' readiness and willingness to
perform their contractual obligations, the respondent's alleged refusal to
accept payment, non-compliance with Section 13 of the said Act,
deficiencies in the draft agreement for sale and absence of statutory
approvals. Adjudication of the validity of the termination would
necessarily require examination of these independent factual and legal
issues, which neither formed the basis of the original
complaint nor
arose
for consideration therein. Consequently, the proposed amendments
materially enlarge the scope and nature of the dispute and cannot be
regarded as a mere elaboration of the existing pleadings.
C.
It is observed that the complainants have contended that the proposed
amendments have been sought pursuant to the liberty granted by the
Hon'ble Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal while remanding the
complaint. However, the said order merely granted liberty to seek
amendment and cannot be construed as dispensing with the settled
principles governing amendment of pleadings. Since the proposed
amendments materially alter the nature and scope of the original complaint
by introducing a substantially different factual and legal basis for the reliefs
sought, this Authority is of the considered opinion that the proposed
amendments fall beyond the permissible scope of amendment and,
therefore, cannot be permitted.

10. In view of the foregoing observations, this Authority is of the considered opinion
that the proposed amendments are not merely clarificatory or consequential to
the existing pleadings but seek to introduce a distinct factual and legal

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

foundation by incorporating a challenge to the respondent's termination of the
allotment together with additional statutory and contractual allegations and
consequential reliefs. The proposed amendments would materially alter the
nature and scope of the original complaint and require adjudication of issues
which did not originally arise for consideration. The liberty granted by the
Hon'ble Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal to seek amendment cannot
be construed as dispensing with the settled principles governing amendment of
pleadings. Therefore, the issue at paragraph no. 8 is answered in the negative.


FINAL ORDER

11. Therefore, after considering the aforementioned observations and provisions of
the Act, the materials placed on record, the facts of the case and submissions
made by the parties, the Authority passes the following order:
A.
The captioned amendment application is dismissed for the reasons more
specifically mentioned hereinabove.
B.
List the main complaint for further proceedings on 03.08.2026.


Manoj Saunik

Chairperson, MahaRERA
MANOJ
SAUNIK
Digitally signed by
MANOJ SAUNIK
Date: 2026.07.30
10:14:43 +05'30'