Complaint No. CC006000000396812
& 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 18
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
MUMBAI

1. Complaint No. CC006000000396812

Rekha Ranawat


... Complainant

Versus

M/s Shreeji Construction
Amit Ruparel
M/s Shree Siddhivinayak Infrastructure


... Respondents

2. Complaint No. CC006000000396683

Shomik Ranavat


... Complainant

Versus

M/s Shreeji Construction
Amit Ruparel
M/s Shree Siddhivinayak Infrastructure


... Respondents

3. Complaint No. CC006000000396808

Sangeeta Ranawat


... Complainant

Versus

M/s Shreeji Construction
Amit Ruparel
M/s Shree Siddhivinayak Infrastructure


... Respondents

4. Complaint No. CC006000000396809

Vasantraj Ranawat


... Complainant

Versus

M/s Shreeji Construction
Amit Ruparel
M/s Shree Siddhivinayak Infrastructure


... Respondents

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51800007630


Coram: Shri. Mahesh Pathak, Hon’ble Member – I/ MahaRERA

Ld. Adv. Prachi Patel appeared for the complainants.
Ld. Adv. Anosh Sequeria appeared for the respondent no. 1.


Complaint No. CC006000000396812
& 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 18
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Ld. Adv. Amanjhot Anand appeared for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.

INTERIM ORDER
(Order Pronounced on Monday, 21st April 2025)
(Matter reserved for orders on 08-01-2025)

(Through Video Conferencing)


1. The complainants above named have filed these 4 separate online complaints
before the MahaRERA on 24-07-2023 (in sr. no.1) and on 25-07-2023 (in sr. nos.
2 ,3 & 4) mainly seeking directions from MahaRERA, to the respondents, to
execute the registered agreement for sale, to handover possession of the said
flats, interest for delayed possession, compensation and cost as prescribed
under the provisions of Sections 13 and 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation &
Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’), in respect of the
booking of their respective flats (as mentioned in the table below at para 5-
hereinafter referred to as the said flats), in the respondents’ registered project
known as “Ruparel Westsky” bearing MahaRERA registration No.
P51800007630, located at Borivali, Taluka- Borivali, Dist. Mumbai Suburban
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the said project’).

2. These complaints clubbed together being filed with respect to the said project
and the same were heard by the MahaRERA on several occasions and finally
on 08-01-2025 as per the Standard Operating Procedure dated 12-06-2020
issued by the MahaRERA for hearing of complaints through Video
Conferencing. Both the parties have been issued prior intimation of this
hearing. On the said dates of hearings, both the parties have appeared as per
their appearances recorded in the Roznamas and made their respective
submissions. The MahaRERA heard the arguments of the parties and also
perused the available record.


Complaint No. CC006000000396812
& 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 18
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

3. After hearing the arguments of the both the parties, the following Roznamas
were recorded in these complaints: -
(i)16-10-2024
“All the parties are present. The respondents have raised the issue of
maintainability of these complaints by filing replies which are uploaded
in the complaints. although late. Therefore, the complainants may file
rejoinder to the said replies and address the issues which have already
been raised in the previous hearing dated 31-07-2024. This may be done by
the complainants within a period of 4 weeks i.e. by 13-11-2024 along with
written arguments on the issue of maintainability. The respondents may
file their written arguments on the issue of maintainability and sur-
rejoinder, if any, within a further period of 4 weeks i.e. by 11-12-2024. The
respondent No. 1 has mainly contended that the complainants have raised
the issue of compensation. Moreover, neither 10% nor 20% of the
consideration amount has been paid and there is no question of paying any
interest as they deny the date of possession mentioned in the allotment
letters on various grounds contending that no date of possession has been
given. The respondent No. 2 and 3 has contended although the project is
registered by the respondent no. 1, which is the promoter, the respondent
no. 2 is only a director in the said company while the respondent no. 3 has
nothing to do with the respondent no. 1 and therefore, the respondent
contends that there is no need to file its reply to these complaints.
Therefore, the respondent no. 2 and 3 contends that this complaint is not
maintainable against them since they are not promoters. Therefore, these
matters are adjourned to a suitable date after 11-12-2024 for final
arguments on the issue of maintainability of these complaints as raised by
the respondents. List these matters for next hearing on 08-01-2025.”

(ii)On 08-01-2025
“All the parties are present. The complainants have argued these matters


Complaint No. CC006000000396812
& 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 18
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

today, however, they have not filed rejoinders and may file the same along
with written submissions within a period of 2 weeks i.e. by 22-01-2025. As
the respondent no. 1 has raised the issue of maintainability of these
complaints on various grounds, mainly that, the partnership firm which
issued allotment letters changed into a company, that no date of
possession is mentioned in the said allotment letters, the amount which is
paid by the complainants is less than 10% of the total consideration and
that there was no demand for further payment or there was no need for
signing of the agreement for sale as per section 13 and therefore, there was
no cause of action for the complainants to file these complaints. The
complainants have contended that although the change from a partnership
firm to a company occurred on 22-06-2023, the project has been registered
by the partnership firm. Moreover, since there is no date of possession a
reasonable period of 3 years would be treated and hence the cause of action
is continuous since 2013, which answers the issue of limitation. Moreover,
as per section 89 of the RERA, the Limitation Act would not apply. The
complainants have also contended that there is no minimum criteria for
the status of an allottee and even though less than 20% (as per MOFA) and
10% (as per RERA) has been paid, they are allottees of the project, by
virtue of the allotment letters issued in their names. Even though the name
of the project which was ‘Shreeji Heights’ has been changed now, this is a
subsequent development after registration of the project with the
MahaRERA. Moreover, the respondent no. 1 has never obtained any
consent for change of name or for change of the plans from the
complainants. Therefore, the complainants contend that it was only in
December 2022, when it was clear that the respondent would not go ahead
with the signing of the agreement for sale, they have filed these complaints
in July 2023 and hence, these complaints are maintainable. There is
another issue which is pointed out by both parties that there is stamp of
completion of December 2022, which has been signed by one Mr. Kirit


Complaint No. CC006000000396812
& 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 18
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Mehta, who was one of the partners of the respondent no. 1, when it was
a partnership firm. However, the respondent now disputes the said stamp
and the date of possession mentioned vide the said stamp, claiming that
the complainants themselves got this stamped somehow and the
signatures do not match. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 again reiterated that
they have nothing to do with the project since they are not the directors in
the company. However, the complainants refute this contention of the
respondent nos. 2 and 3. The respondent no. 1 may also file its written
submissions by the said date of 22-01-2025. In view of the above, these
matters are reserved for order on the issue of maintainability of these
complaints suitably after 22-01-2025 based on the arguments of both sides
as well as the reply, rejoinder and written submissions filed in the
complaints. Future course of action in these complaints would be decided
once such an order is issued.”

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions given by the MahaRERA, the
complainants have uploaded their written submissions on record of
MahaRERA on 17-03-2025. However, the respondents have not uploaded any
document on the record of the MahaRERA after the last hearing held on 08-
01-2025. Hence, the MahaRERA has perused the available record.

5. The complainants by filing these online complaints have prayed for execution
of the registered agreement for sale, to handover possession of the said flats,
interest for delayed possession, compensation and for costs. The information
provided by them in their respective online complaints is as follows –
Sr. no./

Complaint No.
Flat
Details
Total Consideration
Consideration Paid
Date of Allotment letter
Date of Possession
1
CC00600000
Flat bearing no. 706 on
the 7th Floor, 696 sq. ft.
15-04-2010- allotment letter
DOP- 31-12-2013 promised


Complaint No. CC006000000396812
& 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 6 of 18
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

0396812
saleable area
Rs.27,84,000/-
Rs. 2,00,000/-
by the respondent no. 1
2
CC00600000
0396683
Flat bearing no. 705 on
the 7th Floor, 666 sq. ft.
saleable area
Rs.26,64,000/-
Rs. 2,00,000/-
15-04-2010- allotment letter
DOP- 31-12-2013 promised
by the respondent no. 1
3
CC00600000
0396808
Flat bearing no. 701 on
the 7th Floor, 696 sq. ft.
saleable area
Rs.27,84,000/-
Rs. 2,00,000/-
15-04-2010- allotment letter
DOP- 31-12-2013 promised
by the respondent no. 1
4
CC00600000
0396809
Flat bearing no. 702 on
the 7th Floor, 666 sq. ft.
saleable area
Rs.26,64,000/
Rs. 2,00,000/-
15-04-2010- allotment letter
DOP- 31-12-2013 promised
by the respondent no. 1

6. It is the case of the complainants that they have booked the said flats in the
said project registered by the respondent no. 1 promoter for which the
allotment letters have been issued on 15-04-2010 by the respondent no. 1 (as
per the details mentioned in the table at para-no. 5 above). They further stated
that at the time of the booking of the said flats, the respondent nos. 1 & 2
promised to handover the possession of the said flats to them by 31st December

2013. However, despite several reminders to the respondents to execute
agreement for sale, it has failed to do so. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 has
registered the said project with the MahaRERA in the year 2017 and
unilaterally changed the project name from ‘Shreeji Height’ to “Shreeji


Complaint No. CC006000000396812
& 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 7 of 18
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Parkview” and thereafter to “Ruparel Wetsky” (in the year 2023) and has also
transferred the development rights to the respondent no. 3. Later, they called
the complainants with their allotment letter to affix the RERA no. and also
affixed the stamp of estimated possession date as 31-12-2022 without their
consent and approval. On their questioning, the respondent nos. 1 & 2 have
stated that the said date of possession has been added by them only as a
formality and that the respondent no.1 would handover possession of the said
flat to the complainants immediately within next 6 months. The complainants
contended that, in case no date of possession is mentioned, a reasonable
period of 3 years needs to be considered from the date of the allotment letter
which comes to 31-04-2013. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 04-05-
2023 to the respondent no. 1 to execute agreement for sale however, the
respondent neglected the same. Therefore, the respondents have violated
various provisions of section 18 of the RERA i.e. section 18 for delay in the
handover of the project, section 13 for not registering the agreement for sale,
section 14 for change in the layout plan without consent, section 15 for
transferring the development rights without taking 2/3rd consent. Hence being
aggrieved with the actions of the respondent, the present complaints are filed
by the complainants to execute agreement for sale, to handover possession of
the said flats, interest for delayed possession, compensation and cost.

7. The respondent no. 1 i.e. M/s Shreeji Construction, denied the contentions of
the complainants (Sr. Nos. 1 to 4) and on 16-10-2024 uploaded its reply
regarding the issue of maintainability of the complaints on record of
MahaRERA. It stated that the complaints filed by the complainants are not
maintainable, as they were not filed in accordance with the provisions of
RERA. In furtherance of the complainants’ claim for execution of agreements
for sale, the respondent contended that the complainants have not paid 10% of
the total consideration amount, due to which the respondent has not executed


Complaint No. CC006000000396812
& 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 8 of 18
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

the agreements for sale. The said allotment letters do not specify any particular
date of possession and were issued in the year 2010, which renders them time-
barred under the Limitation Act. Furthermore, it was contended that the
complainants have tampered with and forged the original allotment letters. It
was also pointed out that the original allotment letters issued in 2010 had no
project registration number, contained forged signatures and are ex-facie
interpolated documents. Additionally, respondent no. 1 is no longer a
partnership firm, as it has now been incorporated into a private limited
company. Hence, the complaints filed against respondent no. 1 are not
maintainable.

8. The respondent no. 2, i.e. Amit Ruparel, denied the contentions of the
complainants (Sr. Nos. 1 to 4) and on 16-10-2024, uploaded his application on
the issue of maintainability of the complaints on record of MahaRERA. He
stated that the complaints against him are not maintainable, as he is not the
promoter, nor has he registered the said project. He pointed out that he signed
the documents only as the authorized signatory of respondent no. 1 and,
therefore, cannot be held personally liable. He further noted that the
complainants have not filed the complaints in the proper format as prescribed
under the provisions of RERA and that he has no privity with the
complainants. Hence, he requested that his name (respondent no. 2) be deleted
from the complaints (Sr. Nos. 1 to 4) and that the complaints be dismissed as
not maintainable.

9. In furtherance, respondent no. 3 i.e. M/s Shree Siddhivinayak Infrastructure,
denied the contentions of the complainants (Sr. Nos. 1 to 4) and on 16-10-2024,
uploaded its application on the issue of maintainability of the complaints on
record with MahaRERA. It has further pointed out that there is no privity
between it and the complainants (Sr. Nos. 1 to 4) nor has it registered the said
project as a promoter. Therefore, all the reliefs and claims made by the


Complaint No. CC006000000396812
& 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 9 of 18
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

complainants are not applicable to respondent no. 3. Accordingly, it requested
that the name of respondent no. 3 be deleted from the complaints and that the
complaints be dismissed as not maintainable.

10. The complainants have uploaded the written submissions on record of
MahaRERA on 17-03-2025 on the objections of the respondent no. 1 on
maintainability. The complainants denied the contention of the respondent no.
1 on compensation claims as it falls solely within the jurisdiction of the
Adjudicating Officer and not before this Hon’ble Authority by referring to the


JUDGEMENT

of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors
Suburban Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India (2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9302)
were held that, “the Regulatory Authority has the power to decide issues concerning
interest, possession, and enforcement of obligations of promoters under RERA. While
specific claims for compensation may be determined by the Adjudicating Officer, this
does not bar the Regulatory Authority from granting interest or directing execution of
agreements for sale and possession”. With regard to respondent’s contention on
non payment of 10% of the consideration amount, the complainants stated that
there is no minimum payment threshold required to attain the status of an
allottee. The allotment letters issued to the complainants confirm their status
as allottees, thereby entitling them to the rights and remedies provided under
RERA. The respondent no. 1 claimed that the present complaints are barred by
limitation because the possession date allegedly expired in 2013. However, the
complainants stated that, such argument is legally flawed due to the following:
a. The Supreme Court in B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Parag Gupta
& Associates (2018 SCC Online SC 1921) has held that where an obligation is
continuing, the limitation period does not apply as long as the breach persists.
b. The MahaRERA has also repeatedly held that delay in possession constitutes
a continuous cause of action and that limitation does not start running unless
the builder expressly denies the obligation to hand over possession. c. Further,
Section 89 of RERA has an overriding effect over the Limitation Act, meaning


Complaint No. CC006000000396812
& 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 10 of 18
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

MahaRERA is not bound by strict limitation periods applicable in civil courts.
d. Since respondent no. 1 has failed to hand over possession, the cause of action
continues, and the complaint is well within time. The complainants denied the
contention of the respondent no.1 that the complainants have come before this
Hon’ble Authority with unclean hands and have tampered with the allotment
letters by affixing stamps thereon and forging signatures of one Mr. Kirit
Mehta and or otherwise as there is no documentary evidence for the same. The
complainants further denied the contention of the respondent that it is no
longer a partnership firm and is now a company and the complaints have filed
these complaints against respondent no. 1 as a partnership firm. They further
stated that the project was registered under MahaRERA by the partnership
firm before it was converted into a company. Hence, the present complaints
need to be allowed and the application made by the respondent on
maintainability be rejected.

11. The complainants have uploaded the written submissions on record of
MahaRERA on 17-03-2025 on the objections of the respondent no. 2 on
maintainability. The complainants denied the contention of respondent no. 2
that he is not a promoter whereas on the RERA webpage it has been added as
a partner and shown as the authorised signatory. Hence, it has violated
sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and thus the respondent
no.2 is a proper and a necessary party. The complainants relied upon the


JUDGEMENT

of the Supreme Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI (2015) 4 SCC 609
wherein it held that officers and signatories of a company can be held liable if they
are actively involved in decision-making and execution of contracts. The
complainants contended that the absence of a signature on the allotment letter
does not absolve liability if the person is acting as a key representative of the
entity by relying on

JUDGEMENT

in Imperial Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni & Anr.
(2019) SCC Online NCDRC 1107, wherein it was held that promoters are liable


Complaint No. CC006000000396812
& 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 11 of 18
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

for delays irrespective of whether they personally signed the allotment letters.
Hence the present complaints be allowed and the application made by the
respondent on maintainability be rejected.

12. The complainants have uploaded the written submissions on record of
MahaRERA on 17-03-2025 on the objections of the respondent no. 3 on
maintainability. The complainants denied the respondent no. 3’s contention
that he is not a promoter whereas on the RERA webpage it has been shown
that the respondent no. 2 is the authorised signatory and partner of the
respondent no. 3. Thus, the respondent no. 3 is liable for the actions by and
against the respondent no. 1. They further stated that, Section 2(zk) of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act) defines a
promoter broadly, covering not only the entity in whose name the project is
registered but also its partners, persons in charge, and those involved in the
development and as per RERA Section 11(4)(a), the promoter is bound to
discharge all obligations as per the agreement for sale and allotment letters. By
virtue of the legal and operational nexus among the respondents, respondent
no. 3 is liable. With regard to the documentary proof, the complainants stated
that the letterhead bears the name of Ruparel thus this clearly demonstrates
the nexus between the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and it proves that it is a proper
and a necessary party. With regard to the contentions of the respondent that
the complainants have no privity with it and has not taken the consideration
amount, the complainants stated that, as per the

JUDGEMENT

of the Supreme
Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India (2019), it
has been held that a developer or promoter cannot evade liability by creating
complex corporate structures. Subsequently, the doctrine of ‘lifting the
corporate veil’, as laid down in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper
Construction (1996), applies in cases where corporate entities are used as a
façade to defeat statutory obligations. They also stated that the doctrine of


Complaint No. CC006000000396812
& 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 12 of 18
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

group of companies applies in this case, as respondent no. 3 is not a separate
and independent entity but is deeply intertwined with the project on the basis
of various judgements. Hence, the present complaints be allowed, and the
application made by the respondent on maintainability be rejected.

13. The MahaRERA has examined the rival submissions made by all the parties
concerned and also perused the available record. The complainants herein
claiming to be the allottees of the said project registered by the respondent no.
1, by filing these complaints under section 31 of the RERA, have approached
the MahaRERA mainly seeking reliefs under sections 13 and 18 of the RERA
towards execution of the registered agreements for sale. They also pray for
possession of the said booked flats along with interest and compensation on
account of the delay in handing over possession of the said flats to them on the
agreed date of possession promised by the respondent no.1. The complainants
have agitated their claims by virtue of the allotment letters dated 15-04-2010
duly issued by the respondent no. 1, vide which they alleged that they have
booked the said flats. They further contended that the respondent no. 1 has
orally agreed to handover possession of the said flats to them on or before 31-
12-2013. However, even if there is no date of possession mentioned in the said
allotment letters, in that event, the respondent should have handed over the
possession of the said flats to them within a reasonable period of 3 years, which
the respondent promoter has failed to do so. Hence, they prayed to allow these
complaints and grant the reliefs as sought for by them in these complaints.

14. In the present case, the respondent no. 1 is the partnership firm of the promoter
which has registered the said project with the MahaRERA and the respondent
no. 2 is one of the partners of the respondent no. 1 firm. Further the respondent
no. 3 seems to be another entity of the respondent no. 1 firm, which has not
been shown as promoter of the said project as per the website information


Complaint No. CC006000000396812
& 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 13 of 18
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

uploaded by the respondent no. 1 promoter, on the MahaRERA website.
Hence, for the sake of brevity, the respondent no. 1 is hereinafter referred to as
the ‘respondent promoter’.

15. The respondent promoter has refuted the claims of the complainants by filing
an application on record of MahaRERA on 16-10-2024 raising the preliminary
issue of maintainability of these complaints. It has mainly contended that the
complainants have raised the issue of compensation, despite the fact that they
have neither paid 10% amount (as per RERA) and 20% (as per the prevailing
provisions of MOFA under which the said booking was done) while booking
of the said flats, due to which they should be paid an interest. Also, there is no
specific date of possession mentioned in the said allotment letters issued to the
complainants. Hence, the complainants cannot claim any interest on account
of the alleged delay. It has also contended that the partnership firm which has
issued the said allotment letters is converted into a company. Hence, it has
contended that there is no cause of action for the complainants to file these
complaints seeking reliefs under sections 13 and 18 of the RERA. Hence, it has
prayed for dismissal of these complaints being not maintainable.

16. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also raised the issue of maintainability of
these complainants against them, on the ground that the said project is
registered by the respondent promoter, in which the respondent no. 2 is one of
the partners and also the respondent no. 3 is some different entity of the
promoter, which has nothing to do with the respondent promoter. Hence, they
also prayed for dismissal of these complaints against them being not
maintainable.

17. In view of the above, being dealing with the facts of these complaints on merits,
the MahaRERA has to decide the said issue of maintainability raised by the


Complaint No. CC006000000396812
& 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 14 of 18
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

respondent promoter as well as the respondent nos. 2 and 3, being the
preliminary issues.

18. The complainants in reply to the aforesaid issue of maintainability raised by
the respondents have contended that although the partnership firm of the
respondent promoter changed from a partnership firm to a company on 22-
06-2023, however, the said project has been registered by the respondent
promoter being a partnership firm. They further contended that, since there is
no specific date of possession mentioned in the said allotment letters, a
reasonable period of 3 years should be considered for handing over possession
of the said flats to them. Considering the said 3 years period, the date of
possession comes to 15-04-2013. However, the respondent promoter has failed
to handover possession of the said flats to them. Hence, there is a continuous
cause of action against the respondent promoter, and hence, these complaints
are maintainable under section 18 of the RERA. They further contended that
as per the provision of section 89 of the RERA, the Limitation Act, is not
applicable to their case. Also, there is no minimum criteria for the status of
an allottee and even though less than 20% (as per MOFA) and 10% (as per
RERA) has been paid, they are allottees of the said project, by virtue of the
allotment letters issued in their name by the respondent promoter. Even
though the name of the project which was changed from ‘Shreeji Heights’ to
“Shreeji Parkview” and thereafter to “Ruparel Wetsky”, their rights do not get
affected in any way as the said change in the name of the project was done
without their consents. Furthermore, the actual cause of action against the
respondent promoter has arisen, only in December 2022, when the respondent
promoter refused to execute the registered agreements for sale with them.
Hence, they claimed that these complaints are maintainable under the
provisions of sections 13 and 18 of the RERA.

19. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by both the parties and also after


Complaint No. CC006000000396812
& 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 15 of 18
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

perusing the available record, the following observations are noteworthy in
these complaints:-
a) As far as the issue of maintainability raised by the respondent nos. 2 and 3
is concerned, the MahaRERA is of the view that admittedly, the respondent
no. 2 is one of the partners/directors (after conversion) of the respondent
promoter (partnership firm/company). Hence, he is already a part of the
respondent promoter and hence, he cannot be held separately liable to be
sued in these complaints. Also, admittedly, the respondent no. 3 is a
separate entity, which is not a part of the said project. Hence, it is not the
necessary party to these complaints. Hence, the MahaRERA feels that these
complaints do not lie against the respondent nos. 2 and 3. However, the
same are maintainable against the respondent promoter.
b) As far as the issue of maintainability raised by the respondent promoter,
the MahaRERA has noticed that the respondent promoter has raised 3 main
issues such as i) the said allotment letters have been issued by a
partnership firm, which is now converted into a company, ii) the
complainants have not paid 10% as per RERA or 20% as per the MOFA of
the total consideration amount towards the said booking and iii) there is no
date of possession mentioned in the said allotment letters and hence, no
cause of action has arisen for the complainants to file these complaints
under the provisions of the RERA.
c) In this regard, as far as the issue raised by the respondent promoter at point
no. (i), the MahaRERA is of the view that admittedly, the complainants
have done the said booking by virtue of the said allotment letters dated 15-
04-2010 duly issued by the respondent promoter. Admittedly, the
respondent promoter was initially a partnership firm (which has issued the
said allotment letters) and it was subsequently, converted into a company
on 29-06-2023 vide a certificate of incorporation issued by the ROC.
However, admittedly, the said change/conversion of partnership firm has


Complaint No. CC006000000396812
& 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 16 of 18
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

happened in the year 2023, which is subsequent to the registration of the
said project with the MahaRERA, in the year 2020. Meaning thereby that
the said partnership firm, which has issued the said allotment letters has
registered the said project with the MahaRERA and even as on date the
respondent promoter is reflected as a partnership firm on the MahaRERA
website. Hence, the MahaRERA does not find any merits in the said issue
raised by the respondent promoter at point no. (i) above that these
complaints are not maintainable since the entity which has issued the said
allotment letters is now converted into a company. Hence, these complaints
are maintainable on this ground.
d) As far as the other issue raised by the respondent promoter at point nos. (ii)
and (iii) are concerned, the MahaRERA is of the view that the complainants
have filed these complaints seeking substantive reliefs under sections 13
and 18 of the RERA towards execution of the registered agreements for sale
and for interest on account of the delay in handing over possession of the
said flats to them. Hence, the said claims sought by the complainants are
substantive claims, which cannot be decided by the MahaRERA at such a
preliminary stage without adjudicating these complaints on merits by
granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to both the parties to establish
their case. Moreso, the fact that the complainants have been issued the said
allotment letters and they have paid certain amount to it towards the said
booking, has not been denied by the respondent promoter , although it has
raised merely a technical issue that the same was issued by a partnership
firm. Meaning thereby that by virtue of the said allotment letters, the
complainants have proved their locus standi as the allottees in the said
project. Hence, their claim cannot be thrown out at such a preliminary stage
merely because they have not paid the requisite amount of 10% and 20% as
per RERA and MOFA respectively. Hence, the MahaRERA is of the view
that the said issues raised by the respondent promoter at point nos. (ii) and


Complaint No. CC006000000396812
& 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 17 of 18
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

(iii) stands rejected being a substantive issue and the same need to decided
by the MahaRERA on merits.
e) In addition to this, the MahaRERA has also noticed that during the course
of hearing, both the parties have also raised another issue that there is
stamp of completion of the said project in December 2022, which has been
signed by one Mr. Kirit Mehta, who was one of the partners of the
respondent promoter, when it was a partnership firm. However, the
respondent promoter is now disputing the said stamp and the date of
possession mentioned vide the said stamp, claiming that the complainants
themselves got the same stamped and the signatures do not match.
However, admittedly, the said document has not been submitted on record
of MahaRERA by either party along with their respective submissions filed
on record of MahaRERA, although the same is a crucial document to
ascertain the violation of section 18 of the RERA claimed by these
complainants in their respective complaints.

20. In view of the above, the MahaRERA feels that there is no substance in the
aforesaid maintainability issues raised by the respondent promoter at point
nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) mentioned above. Hence, the same stand rejected.

21. It is further directed that by virtue of the allotment letter issued by the
respondent promoter, these complaints are held as maintainable under the
provisions of section 31 of the RERA. Needless to state here that these
complaints need to be heard and decided on their own merits including the
issue of delay in filing these complaints by the complainants.

22. In view of the above, the following order is passed:
a) The application filed by the respondent promoter raising the issue of
maintainability stands rejected.
b) The issue of maintainability raised by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 stands


Complaint No. CC006000000396812
& 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 18 of 18
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

disposed of in view of the observations made in the aforesaid para-no.
19(a).
c) The respondent promoter is directed to file its reply to these complaints on
the substantive issue raised by the complainants under sections 13 and 18
of the RERA within a period of 2 weeks from the date of this

INTERIM ORDER

.
The complainants may file their rejoinder within a further period of 2
weeks.
d) The Registry of this Bench is directed to list these complaints for final
arguments on 29-05-2025.
e) Both the parties are directed to complete the pleadings before the next date
of hearing without fail.


(Mahesh Pathak)
Member – 1/MahaRERA