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

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


COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000354474

ANANDH GANESHLAL BAHETI


…COMPLAINANT
VS
MAN REALTY LTD


…RESPONDENT

MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51700013016

ORDER
June 18th, 2026
(Date of hearing 06.05.2026- Application was reserved for orders)

Coram: Manoj Saunik, Chairperson, MahaRERA

Advocate Nilesh Bhandari present for complainant
Advocate Abir Patel and Advocate Sharmila present for respondent.

1. The complainant is home buyer and allottee within the meaning of Section 2(d) of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Act”) of Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as the
“RERA”). The respondent is the promoter/developer within the meaning of
Section 2 (zk) of the said Act and is registered as the promoter of the project
namely “ONE PARK AVENUE - AVENUE 1” under section 5 of the said Act
bearing
MAHARERA project registration no. P51700013016
(hereinafter referred
to as the “project”).

2. On the MahaRERA project registration webpage the proposed completion date
(PDC) of the said project is mentioned as 30.12.2023, revised proposed date of
completion is 31.12.2026. The promoter has not obtained occupancy certificate till
date.

3. The complainant is seeking the following reliefs:
A.
The application may kindly be allowed.
B.
The proposed Respondent No. 2 may kindly be added in the instant complaint as
Respondent No. 2.

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

C.
That the complainant be allowed to add and make necessary amendment in the
complaint to that extent.
D.
Any other order in the interest of justice may kindly be passed.

4. The amendment application was heard by this Authority on 06.05.2026 - Matter
was reserved for orders (listed therein at Sr. No. 24) wherein the following roznama
was recorded:
“Heard both parties on the amendment application for impleadment of the proposed
respondent no. 2, the proposed respondent no. 2 has filed a reply and relied upon
Clause/Para 3A(VI) of the Project Management Agreement.
The amendment application is reserved for orders. The matter is adjourned to

10. 06.2026.”

5. The brief facts and the submissions of the complainant are as follows:
A.
That the complainant had filed the present complaint on 22.09.2023 against
respondent no. 1 seeking relief for delay in handing over possession of a flat
booked in the project "One Park Avenue–Avenue 1" (MahaRERA
registration no. P51700013016).
B.
That the complainant booked the subject flat for a total consideration and has
fulfilled the payment obligations under the transaction. At the time of
booking, respondent no. 1 was the promoter of the project. During the
pendency of the complaint, the project was transferred to the proposed
respondent no. 2 under Section 15 of the RERA Act by order dated 13.08.2024.
C.
That the proposed respondent no. 2 has subsequently dealt with the
complainant as an allottee/customer and has issued demand notices in
respect of the subject unit, thereby acknowledging its role as the promoter of
the project.
D.
That the proposed respondent no. 2 is a necessary party for effective
adjudication of the dispute, as any order passed in its absence may become
unenforceable against the current promoter and may result in multiplicity of
proceedings.
E.
That under Section 15(2) of the RERA Act, the intending promoter is required
to comply with all pending obligations of the erstwhile promoter. Therefore,

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

the proposed respondent no. 2 is liable to fulfil the obligations relating to
delivery of possession and compensation for delay.
F.
That the definition of "promoter" under Section 2(zk) of the Act contemplates
joint responsibility of promoters, and therefore respondent nos. 1 and 2 are
jointly and severally liable towards the complainant. The plea of lack of
privity of contract raised by the proposed respondent no. 2 cannot absolve it
of the statutory obligations cast upon it under the RERA Act
G.
That the complainants deny all allegations and contentions raised by
respondent no. 2 in its reply and submit that the application for impleadment
is maintainable both in law and on facts. The respondent no. 2 was inducted
as the promoter of the project pursuant to the RERA Order dated 13.08.2024.
Under Section 15(2) of the RERA Act, the intending promoter is mandatorily
required to independently comply with all pending obligations arising from
allotments made by the erstwhile promoter. Further, Section 2(zk) of the Act
provides for joint and several liability of promoters, and therefore
respondent no. 2 cannot evade its statutory obligations by raising technical
pleas regarding lack of privity of contract.
H.
That the contention of respondent no. 2 that no relationship exists between
the parties is contrary to its own conduct. By demand letter dated 09.09.2025,
respondent no. 2 demanded a sum of Rs.1,46,11,042/- from the
complainants, thereby unequivocally acknowledging the promoter-allottee
relationship and assuming rights and obligations arising from the original
booking. Having asserted rights as promoter, respondent no. 2 is estopped
from denying its corresponding obligations towards the complainants.
I.
That the reliance placed by respondent no. 2 on selective clauses of the
Project Management Agreement is misconceived. Any internal arrangement
between respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 cannot override the statutory
rights of allottees under RERA. The agreement must be read as a whole and
cannot be used to defeat the object of the Act or absolve respondent no. 2
from obligations arising after it assumed control of the project. The
respondent no. 2 has altered the carpet area, revised the consideration and

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

modified payment terms without obtaining their consent, thereby directly
affecting their rights and interests.
J.
That the respondent no. 2 is the present registered promoter and the entity
capable of delivering possession of the subject flat. Therefore, it is a necessary
and proper party to the present proceedings. Any order passed in its absence
would be ineffective and difficult to enforce. Accordingly, the application for
impleadment deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice.

6. The submissions of the respondent are as follows:
A.
That the present reply is being filed in opposition to the amendment
application dated 22.01.2026 filed by the applicant seeking impleadment of
Purva Oak Pvt. Ltd. as respondent no. 2 in the present complaint.
B.
That the proposed respondent no. 2 has already filed a detailed Affidavit in
reply dated 29.12.2025 in response to the applicant's earlier request for
impleadment. The contents thereof are reiterated and relied upon as if
specifically reproduced herein.
C.
That the amendment application is wholly misconceived, devoid of merits
and liable to be rejected. The applicant has failed to disclose any cause of
action whatsoever against the proposed respondent no. 2 or demonstrate
how the proposed respondent no. 2 is either a necessary or proper party to
the present proceedings.
D.
It is an admitted position that the entire transaction pertaining to the subject
flat was entered into between the applicant and respondent no. 1. All
payments were made to respondent no. 1 and any alleged delay, breach or
deficiency, if at all, arose on account of acts and omissions attributable solely
to respondent no. 1. The proposed respondent no. 2 was never privy to the
said transaction and has had no dealings whatsoever with the applicant.
E.
That the proposed respondent no. 2 entered the project only pursuant to a
distress acquisition under the provisions of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
through Sale Certificate dated 07.06.2024. Thereafter, an application for

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

change of promoter under Section 15 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 was approved by the Authority. Accordingly, the
proposed respondent no. 2 cannot be saddled with liabilities arising from
transactions and events that occurred long before it became associated with
the project.
F.
That clause 3(a)(vi) of the Project Management Agreement dated 12.07.2024
executed between respondent no. 1 and the proposed respondent no. 2
specifically provides that respondent no. 1 shall remain solely responsible
for claims of those allottees who have not consented to the revised project
plans. In the present case, the applicant admittedly falls within such
category. Consequently, respondent no. 1 alone is required to defend the
present proceedings and bear any liability arising therefrom.
G.
Significantly, respondent no. 1 is already a party to the present proceedings.
Therefore, no purpose would be served by impleading the proposed
respondent no. 2. The applicant has failed to explain how effective
adjudication of the dispute is not possible in the absence of the proposed
respondent no. 2.
H.
That the amendment application merely states that the proposed respondent
no. 2 is a necessary party. However, no factual foundation has been laid to
establish any cause of action against it. The application is conspicuously
silent as to which provision of the RERA has allegedly been violated by the
proposed respondent no. 2 or how any relief can be claimed against it. In the
absence of such pleadings, the requirements of Section 31 of the RERA are
not satisfied.
I.
That the proposed respondent no. 2 cannot be mechanically impleaded
merely because it is presently developing the project. Such impleadment
would be contrary to settled principles of law governing necessary and
proper parties and would result in serious prejudice to the proposed
respondent no. 2.
J.
That the project had stalled prior to the entry of the proposed respondent no.

2. The proposed respondent no. 2 has undertaken substantial efforts to revive

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

and complete the project for the benefit of approximately 170 allottees
awaiting possession. Fastening historical liabilities of respondent no. 1 upon
the proposed respondent no. 2 would adversely affect project completion
and defeat the very object of the RERA.
K.
The applicant himself admits that respondent no. 1 is the original promoter
against whom the grievance has been raised and who received the
consideration amounts. Since respondent no. 1 is already before this
Authority, the proposed amendment serves no legitimate purpose and is
liable to be rejected.
L.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the amendment application
is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

7. From the above facts and the submissions, the issue that needs consideration is
whether the amendment application seeking impleadment of the proposed respondent no.
2 deserves to be allowed?

8. Before determining the issue at para-No.7, the following observations are
noteworthy:
A.
The Authority has considered the submissions and material on record. It is
undisputed that during the pendency of the complaint, the project was
transferred to the proposed respondent no. 2, and the change of promoter
was approved under Section 15 of the RERA Act on 13.08.2024. It is also not
in dispute that the proposed respondent no. 2 has subsequently issued
communications and demand notices to the complainant in respect of the
subject unit.
B.
The complainant seeks possession of the subject flat. Since the proposed
respondent no. 2 is the present registered promoter responsible for
completion of the project, its presence would facilitate complete and effective
adjudication of the dispute. The internal arrangement between Respondent
No. 1 and the proposed respondent no. 2 cannot, at this stage, defeat the
complainant's prayer for impleadment. The question regarding the

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

respective rights, obligations and liabilities of the parties shall be considered
on merits at the time of final hearing.

9. In view of the above discussion, this Authority is satisfied that the proposed
respondent no. 2 is a necessity party to the present proceedings. In the interest of
complete adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the amendment
application deserves to be allowed. The observations made herein are confined to
the present application and shall not influence the final adjudication of the
complaint on merits.


FINAL ORDER

10. 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 amendment application seeking impleadment of the proposed
respondent no. 2 is allowed.
B.
The complainant is directed to carry out amendments in the complaint.


Manoj Saunik


Chairperson, MahaRERA

MANOJ
SAUNIK
Digitally signed
by MANOJ
SAUNIK
Date: 2026.06.18
09:19:45 +05'30'