Society Members Can File RERA Complaint Against Developer Despite Not Being Allottees: MahaREAT

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has held that members of a cooperative housing society forming part of a larger layout can maintain a complaint against a developer even if they are not allottees in the newly registered phase of the project.

A Bench comprising Members Shri Shriram R. Jagtap and Dr. Rajagopal Devara set aside the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) order, which had dismissed the complaint as not maintainable, and held that such members fall within the expression “any aggrieved person” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

The Tribunal recorded:

“Section 31 makes it clear that any aggrieved person may file complaint with the Authority for violation or contravention of the provisions of RERA Act. The appellants/complainants being members of the housing society within the larger layout developed in different phases are aggrieved persons and therefore the complaint is maintainable.”

Sandeep Kolge, Arvind Kapoor, and Mohan Menon, the appellants in the case, are members of Ashok Astoria Row House Town Home Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. The larger layout, developed by Peninsula Land Limited under the name “Ashok Astoria,” received its completion certificate in May 2017. Subsequently, the developer launched a new project titled “Serenity Ashok Astoria” within the same master layout, obtaining RERA registration on 2 March 2022.

The appellants approached MahaRERA under Section 31, seeking revocation of registration under Section 7. They alleged that the developer had revised the original sanctioned layout by increasing the Floor Space Index (FSI) and introducing multistoried structures “never part of original sanctioned plan in 2011,” without obtaining their No Objection Certificate.

However, in an order dated 5 December 2022, MahaRERA dismissed the complaint, holding that the appellants were not allottees in “Serenity Ashok Astoria” and therefore lacked locus to maintain the complaint. Aggrieved, they appealed before the Appellate Tribunal.

The appellants contended that the revised layout increased FSI and altered the overall scheme of development, affecting the entire layout and its residents. They argued that, as stakeholders within the larger project, they were “aggrieved persons” entitled to seek revocation of registration.

The developer, Peninsula Land Limited, argued that the appellants were neither allottees nor purchasers in the registered project and had no standing to question its registration. It also submitted that a civil suit was pending before the Nashik Civil Court.

The Tribunal noted that the appellants, as members of a cooperative housing society within the larger layout developed in phases, had rights and interests in the land. It held that Section 31 permits “any aggrieved person” to file a complaint for violation of the Act and that MahaRERA erred in dismissing the complaint as “not maintainable.”

The Bench further observed that the relief sought (revocation of registration due to alleged defaults by the developer) was within the rights of the residents as stakeholders in the layout.

It remarked that the Authority had rejected the complaint merely on a technical ground, without adjudicating the substantive issues under Sections 31 and 7 of the Act, and held that this was “a fit case to remand the complaint to the learned Authority for deciding afresh.”

Partly allowing the appeal, the Tribunal concluded that the order was unsustainable and set it aside. It remanded the case to the MahaRERA and directed it to adjudicate the matter afresh and expedite disposal, preferably within six months.

For Appellants: Advocate Vishal Saxena

For Respondent: Advocate Hetal Jobanputra