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

Complaint No. CC006000000303567


JANISH KAMLESH SURATWALA
UPASANA JANISH SURATWALA …COMPLAINANTS
Vs

PATEL ASSOCIATES A/C NEW BELEVUE
PURSHOTTAM K PATEL
HARSHAD P PATEL
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK …RESPONDENTS


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51800012805


O R D E R
On Miscellaneous application of Respondent No. 1
(Date of Hearing: 12. 11. 2024)


Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Hon’ble

Member 2, MahaRERA
Adv. Ritika Iyer for Complainant No. 1
Adv. Ranjit Shinde for Intervenor
Adv. Pragati Bandarkar for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Respondent No. 4 is absent

1. Respondent No. 1 has preferred the present Miscellaneous
Application challenging the maintainability of the captioned
Complaint hereinabove:

2. Respondents No. 1 contend that the flat in question is jointly owned
by the Complainants. The first name in the agreement for sale is
Upasana Jainish Surartwala, and M/s Patel Associates has received the

majority of the payments from the bank account of Upasana Janish
Suratwala.

3. Respondent No. 1 further contents that the present complaint has been
filed without the consent of Complainant No. 2 i. e. Upasana Janish
Suratwala and the complaint copy do not have the signature of the
Upasana Janish Suratwala.

4. Respondent No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint as
it is not maintainable.

5. Complainant No. 1 (Mr. Jainish K. Suratwala) has replied to the
application and opposed the same.

6. It is the contention of the Complainant that the flat in question is
jointly owned by the Complainants, however, a matrimonial dispute
arose between the Complainants. Respondent No. 1 is only trying to
escape from their statutory obligation to refund the amount of the
Complainant for the delay caused in handing over the possession of
the flat in question.

7. It is further contentions of the Complainant that it is false and frivolous
to say that the majority of payments have been received from the bank
account of Upasana Janish Suratwala as the amounts were transferred
by Mr. Kamlesh Suratwala being the father of the Complainant No. 1
(Mr. Jainish K. Suratwala) and Complainant No. 1 himself to the bank
account of the Upasana Janish Suratwala and thereafter, the same was
transferred to the Builder’s account. This was purely the arrangement
between the family members and the Respondents have no role and
are estopped from commenting on the same.

8. Moreover, Complainant No. 2 Upasana Suratwala has filed the
intervention application to allow her to intervene in the present
complaint as the necessary party “Complainant”.

9. Further, Complainant No. 1 uploaded his reply to the said application
of Complainant No. 2 and in para 7 of the reply contended that
Complainant No. 1 has very well mentioned the fact in the complaint
that the flat in question has been purchased in the name of Mrs.
Upasana Suratwal and Mr. Jainish Suratwala in the capacity of
husband and wife. The purchasing of the flat by both the
Complainants was nowhere suppressed by Complainant No. 1.
Moreover, the said intervention application is not heard and decided
by the Authority.

10. Considering the facts of the application and reply of Complainant No.
1 and uploading of intervention application by Complainant No. 2 to
implead her as Complainant and reply given by Complainant No. 1 to
the said intervention application of Complainant No. 2. In my
considered opinion, the application of Respondent No. 1 deserves to
be rejected.

11. Hence, I pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The application of the Respondent is rejected.

2. Cost in cause.


(Ravindra Deshpande)
Member-2, MahaRERA.

Date: 08.01.2025
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.01.08 17:40:57
+05'30'