━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
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. CC006000000303184

RAJENDRAKUMAR KRISHANKUMAR KALRA
…COMPLAINANT
VS

SIDDHITECH HOMES PVT.LTD. & ORS.

…RESPONDENT/S


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51700001928


INTERIM ORDER


January 05, 2024
(Date of hearing – 07.12.2023 – matter was reserved for order)


Coram: Shri. Ajoy Mehta, Chairperson, MahaRERA

Advocate Seema Pandey for the Complainant
Advocate Ashwin Rana present for the Respondent

1. The Complainant is a home buyer and an Allottee 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 Respondents are the Promoters within the meaning of Section 2
(zk) of the said Act who has registered the Project namely “SIDDHICITY PHASE-V”
under section 5 of the said Act bearing
MAHARERA Project Registration No.
P51700001928
(hereinafter referred to as the “said Project”).

2. On the MahaRERA Project registration webpage the proposed date of completion is

31. 10.2017, the revised date of completion is 31.12.2019 and the extended date of
completion is 30.12.2021. The said Project registration has lapsed since 31.12.2021.

3. The Complainants are seeking the following reliefs:
QUOTE
a. that this Hon'ble Authority be pleased to revoke the registration of the subject matter
project of the Respondents;

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

b. that this Hon'ble Authority be pleased to order and direct the Respondents herein, either
jointly and/or severally, amount of Rs.33,61, 240/- to refund an (Rupees Thirty Three
Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Two Hundred and Forty only) along with interest @ 18%
p.a. or any such other rate, as this Hon'ble Authority may deem fit and proper from the
respective dates of payments, till the date of payment and/or realization of such
payments by the Complainant herein;
c. this Hon'ble Authority be pleased to order & that direct the Respondents herein, either
jointly and/or severally to pay an compensation of Rs.25,00, 000//- (Rupees Twenty Five
Lakh only) or such other amount, as this Hon'ble Authority may deem fit and proper, as
under the RERA Act, for causing undue prescribed hardship, harassment and mental
agony to the Complainant herein;
d. that this Hon'ble Authority be pleased to determine and penalize the Respondents with
5% of the total cost of the said project for contravening the provisions of the RERA Act
e. costs of the present proceeding.
f. such other and further relief, this Hon'ble as Authority may deem fit and proper be
granted.
UNQUOTE

4. The complaint was heard on 07.12.2023 wherein the following roznama was recorded
by this Authority:
QUOTE
Complainant; it appears has filed 1 complaint for 2 flats. This is brought to the notice of the
Complainant. However, the Complainant states that the same can be done and only a court
fee should be imposed for the same. The Respondent objects to 2 flats being clubbed in the
single complaint. In the first instance the Authority will decide whether 2 different properties
can be taken up for adjudication in a single complaint.
Parties are at liberty to submit written submissions if any on the limited issue as mentioned
above on or before 22.12.2023, Subsequent to which the matter will be reserved for orders.
UNQUOTE

5. The brief facts & submissions of the Complainant are as follows:
a. The complaint was filed on 31.10.2022.
b. The Complainant vide two separate agreements for sale dated 22.01.2020,
purchased two flats bearing flat Nos. 401 and 402 in the said Project for a total
consideration amount of Rs 14,60,000/- each out of which the Complainant has
paid an amount of Rs. 29,20 000/- till date towards both the flats. The Complainant
has also paid an additional amount of Rs. 4,41,240/- towards stamp duty and
registration. (hereinafter referred to as “said flats” and “said agreements”).

6. Before moving ahead, it is observed that the Complainant, vide Written Submissions,
has sought permission to pay additional court fees and to continue hearing of the

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

captioned complaint for 2 flats of the Complainant or in the alternative, has sought
permission to amend the captioned complaint so as to delete the details of one of the
said flats and proceed with the complaint for seeking reliefs against only one flat with
liberty to file a fresh complaint in respect of the other flat.

7. The Respondent, during the course of hearing, had made oral submission that the
captioned complaint, seeking reliefs against 2 flats vide a single complaint, cannot be
allowed and should be dismissed. It is noted that despite time being given to file
written submissions, the Respondent has not filed any submissions in accordance
with Roznama dated 07.12.2023.

8. From the facts and submissions of the Parties the issue that needs to be examined at
this juncture is Whether the complaint is maintainable to seek reliefs with respect to multiple
flats allotted under separate agreements for sale, vide a single complaint?

9. In order to answer the issue hereinabove, it is pertinent to note here that the two flats
vide two separate agreements for sale constitute two separate cause of action and
hence separate complaints for each is to be filed in this regard. Combining two cause
of action in one complaint is not permitted. The option available to the Authority is
to reject the captioned complaint and give liberty to the complainant to refile the
complaints as per the prevailing law and procedure. Exercising this option would
entail harassment for the Complainant and would mean another round of hearings
and procedure before the matter is concluded.

10. Hence in order to prevent further lapse of time and also expense towards litigation,
the Authority will give a onetime waiver to this rule and accept the complaint as
valid and adjudicate upon the same. However, to ensure that this does not become a
practise and procedure as set out and followed, the Authority would impose a cost
on the Complainant herein.

11. The Complainant to deposit Rs.10,000/- towards cost with the Authority within a
period of 30 days from the date of this order. The Complainant shall draw a demand

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

draft in the name of “REAL ESTATE REGULATORY FUND” and deposit the same
with MahaRERA BKC office within 30 days from the date of this order. The matter
will be taken up for hearing upon the payment of aforementioned cost.


(Ajoy Mehta)


Chairperson, MahaRERA


AJOY
MEHTA
Digitally signed by
AJOY MEHTA
Date: 2024.01.08
17:15:28 +05'30'