​
​
COM NO.CC12502618
BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI
Virtual Hearing held through Video Conference as per Circular No: 49/2025

COMPLAINT NO.: CC12502618

PRASHANT RAHATE​
​
​
​
​
​
…COMPLAINANT
Vs
VEDDANT BUILDCON ​ ​
​
​
…RESPONDENT

MahaRERA Project registration No. P52100026780


INTERIM ORDER

16. 03.2026
(Date of Hearing: 07.01.2026)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, Maha RERA

None for the Complainant
Adv. Umesh Raghuvanshi appeared for the Respondent

1. The present Maintainability Application is filed by the Respondent (Promoter) seeking
dismissal of the above Complaint at the threshold on the ground that the complaint is
premature and filed prior to the accrual of any enforceable cause of action under the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “RERA Act”).
The Respondent’s submissions in the Miscellaneous Application on maintainability of the
Complaint are as under: –

2. The Respondent states that the present complaint was filed on 29.07.2025, whereas the
contractually agreed possession date, including the six-month grace period stipulated in
Clause 9 of the Agreement for Sale, is 30.10.2025.

3. The Respondent further submits that the Agreement for Sale dated 22.02.2022 governs the
contractual relationship between the parties and the Complainant is bound by the possession
clause and extension provisions contained therein. It is contended that the Authority cannot
selectively disregard or rewrite the agreed contractual terms between the parties.

​
​
COM NO.CC12502618

4. The Respondent further submits that the construction activity at the project site was halted
from 13.02.2024 to 31.05.2024 due to a Stop-Work Order issued by the Government Labour
Officer, Pune. According to the Respondent, the said period ought to be excluded from the
computation of delay as it was a circumstance beyond the control of the promoter.

5. The Respondent therefore contends that since the complaint was filed prior to the expiry of
the agreed possession timeline, no default under Section 18 of the RERA Act has arisen on the
date of filing of the complaint and therefore the complaint deserves to be dismissed as
premature.

6. The Complainant has opposed the Maintainability Application by filing a detailed reply on

06. 02.2026 on the MahaRERA website.
The submissions made by the Complainant in the said reply are as follows:

7. The Complainant contends that irrespective of the filing date of the complaint, as on the
date of adjudication before this Authority in February 2026, both the original possession date

30. 04.2025 and the alleged extended possession date 30.10.2025 have already expired.

8. The Complainant further submits that the Stop-Work Order relied upon by the Respondent
was issued as a punitive measure following a fatal accident at the construction site, which
occurred due to the Respondent’s failure to comply with statutory safety obligations.
Therefore, such delay cannot be treated as a circumstance beyond the control of the promoter.

9. The Complainant further submits that several attempts were made by the Complainant to
resolve the dispute through pre-litigation communication and conciliation, however the
Respondent failed to respond or participate in the process in good faith.

10. The Complainant further contends that the project remains far from completion and the
Respondent has not even applied for Occupancy Certificate (O.C.) for the said project.

11. It is further submitted by the Complainant that the Respondent has placed heavy reliance
on the filing date of the complaint to argue that the complaint was premature. However, the
RERA Act is a beneficial and remedial legislation intended to protect the interests of allottees,
and therefore the complaint ought not to be dismissed merely on technical grounds when the
delay in possession has already materialized.

​
​
COM NO.CC12502618

12. The Complainant submits that dismissing the complaint solely on the ground of
prematurity would only compel the Complainant to file a fresh complaint for the same
continuing breach, thereby resulting in unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings and delay in
adjudication.

13. The Complainant further relies upon the

JUDGMENT

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DLF
Home Developers Ltd. v. Capital Greens Flat Buyers Association (2021) 5 SCC 537, wherein it
has been observed that a promoter cannot seek shelter under force majeure provisions where
the delay is attributable to its own negligence or failure to comply with statutory obligations.

14. I have carefully gone through the Maintainability Application filed by the Respondent
and the reply filed by the Complainant along with the documents placed on record.

15. In order to adjudicate the present issue, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section
18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which deals with the liability
of the promoter in case of failure to complete or give possession of an apartment within the
time stipulated in the Agreement for Sale. Section 18 clearly provides that where the
promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment in accordance with
the terms of the agreement for sale, the allottee shall be entitled to seek appropriate relief
including refund, interest or compensation as provided under the Act.

16. The Respondent has raised an objection that the complaint was filed on 29.07.2025, which
according to the Respondent is prior to the expiry of the contractually agreed possession date
including the grace period i.e., 30.10.2025, and therefore no cause of action had arisen on the
date of filing of the complaint.
At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the concept of cause of action under regulatory
legislation such as the RERA Act cannot be interpreted in an overly technical or restrictive
manner, particularly when the alleged breach relates to a continuing failure to deliver
possession of the allotted unit.

17. It is well settled that the provisions of the RERA Act are beneficial and remedial in nature,
enacted with the object of protecting the interests of homebuyers and ensuring timely
completion of real estate projects. Therefore, while interpreting issues relating to
maintainability, the Authority must adopt a purposive interpretation that advances the object
of the statute rather than defeating it on procedural technicalities.

​
​
COM NO.CC12502618

18. In the present case, although the complaint was filed prior to the expiry of the extended
possession date, it is an undisputed fact that as on the date of adjudication before this
Authority, the extended possession date 30.10.2025 has already expired and the Respondent
has admittedly failed to offer possession of the subject unit to the Complainant.

19. If the argument of the Respondent is accepted in a strict technical sense, the complaint
would have to be dismissed as premature only to compel the Complainant to file a fresh
complaint immediately thereafter for the same continuing breach. Such an interpretation
would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary delay, which would be contrary to
the legislative intent of providing a speedy and effective remedy under the RERA Act.

20. The Respondent has further attempted to justify the delay by relying upon the Stop-Work
Order issued by the Labour Authorities, which allegedly halted construction activity from

13. 02.2024 to 31.05.2024.

21. However, it is seen from the material placed on record that the said Stop-Work Order was
issued following a fatal accident at the construction site.
Compliance with labour laws and safety regulations at the construction site forms part of the
statutory obligations of the promoter. Any stoppage of work arising due to breach of such
obligations cannot be treated as a force majeure event or a circumstance beyond the control of
the promoter.

22. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. Capital
Greens Flat Buyers Association (2021) 5 SCC 537 has observed that developers cannot take
shelter under force majeure clauses where the delay is attributable to their own acts,
omissions or failure to comply with statutory obligations.

23. Therefore, the Respondent cannot derive any benefit from the stoppage of construction
which arose as a consequence of its own failure to maintain statutory safety standards at the
project site.

24. Further, the material placed on record indicates that the project has not yet reached the
stage where Occupancy Certificate has been applied for or obtained, which prima facie
suggests that the project remains incomplete.

​
​
COM NO.CC12502618

25. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Authority finds that the objection raised
by the Respondent regarding maintainability of the complaint on the ground of prematurity
is devoid of merit. Hence, I pass the following order: -
O R D E R

1. ​ The Miscellaneous Application filed by the Respondent on the issue of maintainability
is hereby rejected.

2. ​ The complaint bearing No. CC12502618 is held to be maintainable before this
Authority.

3. ​ No order as to costs.

Date:16.03.2026 ​​
Ravindra Deshpande
​
​
Member-II, MahaRERA
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.03.16 17:05:27
+05'30'