RERA Registration Revocation Not A Panacea For Non-Compliance With Project Completion Orders: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the liberty granted to homebuyers to seek revocation of a project's registration does not foreclose their right to execute an order directing completion of the project through other modes available in law.

Justice N.J. Jamadar delivered the ruling while allowing appeals filed by several allottees of the stalled "Shri Vallabh Residency" project in Kandivali (West), Mumbai.

The court set aside a Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) order refusing to permit part of a proposed amendment to the allottees' execution applications. The amendment sought completion of the project either by the allottees or through another agency appointed by the tribunal at the developer's cost.

The court observed, "If the revocation of registration was to be provided as a panacea for the disobedience of the orders passed by the Authorities under the RERA 2016, the Parliament would not have made multiple provisions for enforcement of the orders passed by the Authorities under the Act."

The dispute concerns the "Shri Vallabh Residency" project being developed by Swadhinta Builders LLP at Kandivali (West), Mumbai. In the representative appeal, Rajan Chandiramani was allotted a flat in October 2010 for about ₹49 lakh. He claimed to have paid ₹7.5 lakh towards the purchase price.

Claiming there had been an inordinate delay in completing the project and that the developer had failed to execute an agreement for sale, Chandiramani and other allottees approached the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA).

In March 2020, MahaRERA declined to issue directions under Section 13 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 because the developer had not obtained a commencement certificate. It, however, observed that the allottees' rights would remain protected. It added that the promoter would be required to fulfil its statutory obligations whenever the project commenced.

The allottees challenged that order before MahaREAT. In June 2022, the tribunal partly allowed their appeals. It directed Swadhinta Builders LLP to execute agreements for sale within 30 days. It also directed the developer to complete the project within 12 months after obtaining the necessary approvals. The tribunal further directed payment of interest to the allottees until possession.

The tribunal also granted liberty to the allottees to take appropriate action under Sections 7 and 35 of the RERA Act and claim compensation in accordance with law if the developer failed to comply with its directions.

The developer did not comply with those directions. The allottees therefore initiated execution proceedings before MahaREAT. In June 2024, the tribunal issued recovery warrants against the developer. It also imposed a penalty of ₹5,000 per day until the agreements for sale were executed.

The allottees later sought to amend their execution applications. They requested that the tribunal permit the stalled project to be completed either by themselves or through another agency appointed by the tribunal at the developer's cost.

MahaREAT rejected that part of the proposed amendment in July 2025. It held that the allottees had been given liberty to seek revocation of the project's registration and that such a course would enable the Authority to take further steps to complete the project while protecting the interests of all allottees. This led the allottees to approach the High Court.

Before the High Court, the allottees argued that the tribunal had wrongly examined the merits of the proposed amendment. They submitted that the amendment merely sought an additional mode of executing the tribunal's earlier order.

Swadhinta Builders LLP argued that the proposed amendment would enlarge the scope of the earlier order. It also contended that the allottees ought to seek revocation of the project's registration instead.

The High Court accepted the allottees' contention. It held that MahaREAT had erred by examining the merits of the proposed amendment at the amendment stage. The proposed amendment, the court held, merely sought another mode of assistance in executing the tribunal's earlier order. It was also consistent with the powers available to an executing court.

The court further observed, "The allottee would be required to again approach the Authority after having obtained an order from the Appellate Tribunal and commence a fresh proceeding before the Authority, with all the travails and vicissitudes of the fortunes in litigation, first before the Authority and then in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. If such an interpretation is adopted, the allottee would be left in the lurch despite being armed with an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and that would frustrate the very object of RERA, 2016."

Allowing the appeals, the court set aside MahaREAT's July 2025 order. It permitted the amendments to the execution applications and requested the tribunal to decide the execution proceedings expeditiously on their own merits and in accordance with law.

For Appellants (Rajan Chandiramani, Jagruti Parikh & Anr., Priyanka Waghela, Srichand Makhija and Jayesh Jagdish Thakkar): Advocates Jay Chhabria, Tvishi Pant and Aditya Shete, instructed by Keystone Partners.

For Respondent (Swadhinta Builders LLP): Advocates Rubin Vakil, Abir P. (through VC) and Kartik Joshi, instructed by Wadia Ghandy and Co.