MahaRERA Orders Flat Allotment For Homebuyer After Developer Resells Booked Units Without Agreement

Mumbai: The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), in its order dated July 22, ruled in favor of complainant Rajendra Jain, who was denied possession of his booked flat. The authority directed the developer to allot another flat of similar specifications to Jain and to execute a registered agreement for sale.

MahaRERA rules in favour of Rajendra Jain, directs developer to allot similar flat

“In view of the matter, MahaRERA is of the prima facie opinion that the developer is liable to honor the allotment made in favor of the complainant. The respondent(developer), having received substantial payments from the complainant between 2011 and 2016, failed to execute a registered agreement for sale, either under MOFA or RERA. Moreover, despite reselling the flats, the developer did not refund the complainant’s money. The developer has failed to justify receiving more than twenty percent of the total consideration without executing a registered agreement for sale, despite issuing an allotment letter dated January 18, 2011. Therefore, MahaRERA is of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to relief under Section 13 of RERA,” the order stated.

Developer resold both originally allotted flats without executing agreement

However, since both originally allotted flats (A-801 and A-804) have already been sold to third parties, MahaRERA held that it cannot direct execution of a sale agreement for those units. On examining the sold/unsold inventory uploaded by the developer on the MahaRERA portal as of March 31, 2024, it appeared that certain flats remained unsold.

The respondent had not uploaded any updated inventory on the portal. As a result, MahaRERA relied on the available inventory to grant relief under Section 13 of RERA. Consequently, the authority directed the respondent to allot another flat of similar specifications to the complainant and execute a registered agreement for sale accordingly.

The dispute pertains to the “Platinum Park” project. Rajendra Jain had sought MahaRERA’s directions for the execution and registration of an agreement for sale for Flat A-804 (or an equivalent unit), possession of the flat, and interest for the delay.

Complainant paid 78% of total flat cost without receiving possession

The complaint, filed on March 31, 2023, alleged that he had booked a 3 BHK flat (A-801) in 2010 with a payment of Rs 1,00,000. The project was originally scheduled for possession in 2014, but construction saw negligible progress.

The allotment was later shifted to Flat A-804 on June 27, 2015, after which Jain made a further payment of Rs 18,00,000 on August 5, 2015 — bringing the total payment to approximately 78% of the total consideration.

However, the complainant later discovered that both flats A-801 and A-804 had been listed as sold to third parties on the MahaRERA website, suggesting fraudulent intent on the part of the developer.

Developer claims complaint invalid due to difference in allottee name

The respondents(developers) denied the allegations, primarily arguing that the complaint was not maintainable because the initial allotment had been made in the name of “Rajendra S. Jain HUF,” while the present complaint was filed by Rajendra Jain in his individual capacity.

They claimed the allotment was cancelled in 2015 due to non-payment and cited a pending civil suit by the complainant seeking similar reliefs, arguing that it rendered the MahaRERA complaint non-maintainable. The respondents also denied receiving a cash payment of Rs 50,00,000.

Shreeji Developers contended that the allotment letter dated January 18, 2011, was issued to Rajendra S. Jain HUF, and that the current complaint filed by Rajendra Jain individually was not maintainable.

They argued that no authorization from the HUF or declaration of representation was submitted. On this ground alone, they sought dismissal of the complaint with costs.

According to the developers, in 2011, Rajendra S. Jain HUF approached them to invest in the project, and Flat A-801 (875.76 sq. ft. carpet area) was allotted for Rs 1,77,00,000. An amount of Rs 88,00,000 was paid, with the remaining Rs 89,00,000 due by 2014 — which was allegedly not paid.

On oral request, the allotment was shifted to Flat A-804 (1052.71 sq. ft.), with an increased price of Rs 50,00,000, which the HUF allegedly agreed to pay.

MahaRERA Dismisses Redevelopment Complaint Against Shreedham; Advocate Anil D’Souza’s Jurisdiction Argument Upheld

A cancellation letter dated June 20, 2015, and a fresh allotment letter dated June 27, 2015, were issued, requiring full payment within seven days — which was not made. The cancellation was accepted and never challenged by the HUF, the developer claimed.

In the absence of a valid promoter-allottee relationship, the developer argued, RERA provisions do not apply, and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.