━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA
REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI
Hearing held through Hybrid Mode

COMPLAINT NO. CC12601261

POOJA TIWARI
…COMPLAINANT/S
VS

PNK SPACE DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD
…RESPONDENT/S


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51700010406

Order
(Maintainability)

July 17, 2026
(Date of hearing- 08.07.2026)


Coram: Manoj Saunik, Chairperson, MahaRERA

Sunil Tiwari present for the complainant.
Adv. Manish Mehta present for the respondent.

1. The complainant is the homebuyer/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”) and
the respondent i.e. PNK Space Development Pvt Ltd is the promoter/developer within
the meaning of section 2(zk) of the Act. The respondent is registered as the promoter
of the project namely “TIARA HILLS PHASE I BLDG NO 3, 5 AND 2” under section
5 of the Act bearing
MAHARERA Project Registration No. P51700010406
(hereinafter
referred to as the “Project”).

2. As per the MahaRERA Project Registration webpage, the Proposed Completion Date
(PCD) of the project is 30.12.2025 and the Revised Proposed Completion Date (RPCD)
is 30.12.2026. There is no occupancy certificate on record.

3. The complaint was heard by this Authority on 08.07.2026 wherein the following
roznama was recorded: (listed at Sr.No.24)

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

“A. Heard both parties on the issue of maintainability. The records of the Authority, including
the project web portal, were perused. It is observed that M/s. Sej Laxmi Developers is reflected
as the promoter/landowner on the project web portal. The contention of the complainant that
the project web portal is not aligned with the project details is not tenable. Accordingly, the
application challenging the maintainability of the complaint is dismissed. A detailed order
shall follow. B. The complainant's application seeking impleadment of M/s. Sej Laxmi
Developers as Respondent No. 2 is allowed. The Registry is directed to implead M/s. Sej Laxmi
Developers as Respondent No. 2 and issue notice accordingly. C. Respondent No. 1, M/s.
P.N.K. Space, and Respondent No. 2, M/s. Sej Laxmi Developers, are directed to file their
replies on or before 24.07.2026. D. The matter is adjourned to 05.08.2026.”

4. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 18 of the Act
seeking interest for delayed possession and compensation on account of the alleged
delay in handing over possession of the subject flat. The respondent has filed a
maintainability application contending that the complaint is not maintainable on the
ground of non-joinder of a necessary party, namely M/s. Sej Laxmi Developers, who is
stated to be the landowner/co-promoter as reflected on the project web portal.
Accordingly, the Authority deemed it appropriate to first decide the issue of
maintainability before proceeding with the merits of the complaint.

5. The brief submissions of the respondent on the issue of maintainability are as follows:
a. That M/s. Sej Laxmi Developers is the landowner/co-promoter and the entity which
allotted the subject flat to the complainant.
b. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the respondent, as no
agreement for sale or allotment document has been executed by the respondent.
c. M/s. Sej Laxmi Developers is a necessary party for complete and effective
adjudication of the dispute and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for
non-joinder of a necessary party.

6. The brief submissions of the complainant on the issue of maintainability are as follows:
a. The respondent is a promoter of the registered project and cannot avoid its statutory
obligations under the provisions of the Act.
b. The objection regarding non-joinder is merely technical and cannot defeat the
complainant's substantive rights.

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

c. Without prejudice to the above contentions, the complainant has filed an
application seeking impleadment of M/s. Sej Laxmi Developers as respondent no.
2, if the Authority considers its presence necessary for adjudication of the complaint.

7. Before moving ahead, the following observations are noteworthy:
a. The Authority has heard both parties on the issue of maintainability and perused
the records of the Authority, including the project web portal.
b. Upon perusal of the project web portal, it is observed that M/s. Sej Laxmi
Developers is also reflected as the promoter/landowner of the subject project.
c. The complainant has filed an application dated 15.07.2026 seeking impleadment of
M/s. Sej Laxmi Developers as respondent no. 2.

8. From the facts, submissions and observations, the issue that needs to be considered is:
“Whether the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable for non-joinder
of M/s. Sej Laxmi Developers? “

9. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by both parties and the records of the
Authority, including the project web portal, it is observed that M/s. Sej Laxmi
Developers is reflected as the promoter/landowner of the subject project. The
Authority is of the view that the presence of the said entity would facilitate complete
and effective adjudication of the dispute. However, non-joinder of a necessary party is
a curable defect and, by itself, does not warrant dismissal of the complaint at the
threshold.

10. Since the complainant has already sought impleadment of M/s. Sej Laxmi Developers
and the respondent has also, in the alternative, prayed for such impleadment, the ends
of justice would be met by permitting the complainant to implead the said entity
instead of dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the issue framed in paragraph 8 is
answered in the negative.

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


FINAL ORDER

11. Therefore, after considering the material placed on record, the facts of the case and the
submissions made by the parties, the Authority passes the following order:
a. The maintainability application filed by the respondent is dismissed.
b. The complainant's application seeking impleadment of M/s. Sej Laxmi
Developers as Respondent No. 2 is allowed.
c.
The MahaRERA IT Department is directed to implead M/s. Sej Laxmi
Developers as respondent no. 2 in the present complaint and issue notice
accordingly.
d. The complainant is directed to serve a copy of the complaint along with the next
date of hearing to the Respondent No. 2 and file an affidavit of service for the
same.
e. Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are directed to file their respective
replies on or before 24.07.2026, and the matter is adjourned to 05.08.2026.
f.
No order as to costs.


Manoj Saunik


Chairperson, MahaRERA


MANOJ
SAUNIK
Digitally signed
by MANOJ
SAUNIK
Date: 2026.07.17
16:51:10 +05'30'