MahaRERA Holds Common Facility Disputes Must Be Pursued Through Society, Rejects Individual Claims

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) on 11 June, held that individual allottees cannot pursue disputes relating to common amenities, maintenance charges and collective facilities once a co-operative housing society is formed, and must raise such issues through the society under Section 19(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Member Mahesh Pathak dismissed a complaint filed by 19 allottees of Sanvo Resorts Pvt. Ltd.'s “Marathon Nexzone Zenith-2” project, holding that the dispute became not maintainable once the society came into existence and possession had already been handed over. He observed:

“Once the society is formed, issues relating to common amenities, common facilities, common charges and the collective rights of allottees are required to be raised through the society as the said society is entitled to seek possession of such common areas as per the provisions of Section 19(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.”

The dispute arose from the “Marathon Nexzone Zenith-2” project at Panvel, where Vinod Parasharam Atpadkar and 18 other allottees took possession in December 2019 after the project received its Occupation Certificate on 17 September 2019.

The allottees claimed that Phase-I purchasers initially understood the clubhouse to be a Phase-I amenity, but the developer later treated it as a common facility for Phase-I, II and III residents. They also challenged a Rs. 10,000 transfer fee, varying clubhouse membership charges and maintenance charges allegedly collected despite incomplete handover of the clubhouse.

They filed the complaint before MahaRERA on 6 September 2025 under Section 31 of the Act, seeking refund of charges and directions on clubhouse-related issues.

Sanvo Resorts objected to maintainability, stating that a co-operative housing society had already been registered on 2 February 2019 and that possession had been handed over in December 2019, which required the society—not individual purchasers—to raise disputes concerning common facilities. The developer also informed MahaRERA that an earlier identical complaint had already been dismissed for non-prosecution on 2 June 2025.

MahaRERA accepted the objection and held that the complainants had taken possession and that a registered society already existed at the time of filing. It further held that the issues raised related to clubhouse management, maintenance charges and other common facilities, which affected all allottees collectively, and therefore required adjudication through the society.

Member Mahesh Pathak observed that, “the complainants are seeking directions regarding the use and management of the clubhouse, refund of charges allegedly collected from various allottees, regulation of maintenance charges and other issues regarding the common facilities. Such issues are common in nature and are directly connected with the rights and interests of all allottees of the said project. Therefore, these issues cannot be adjudicated at the instance of a few individual allottees without involving the said society representing all the allottees of the said project.”

Accordingly, MahaRERA dismissed the complaint as not maintainable and clarified that the society remains free to pursue remedies available under law.

Appearances for complainants (Vinod Parasharam Atpadkar & Ors.): Advocate Geeta Chaudhary.

Appearances for respondent (Sanvo Resorts Pvt. Ltd.): Advocate Prasanna Tare.