MahaRERA Says It Cannot Adjudicate FSI Misuse Allegations; Rejects Challenge To Mumbai Project
Pranav B Prem
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has held that it does not have jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to alleged misuse or sale of FSI, illegal construction, or partnership irregularities in redevelopment matters, and has dismissed a complaint seeking revocation of the registration of the Mumbai project Abhilash Phase II. The authority also found that the complainant did not qualify as an allottee under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and therefore lacked locus to invoke Section 7 of the Act. The order was issued by Member Mahesh Pathak, who recorded that the complaint did not involve any cause of action falling within the ambit of RERA.
Background
The complaint was filed by Sanjay P. Vohra, who sought revocation of the project registration under Section 7 of the Act for the redevelopment project Abhilash Phase II (Registration No. P51800033199) situated in Kurla, Mumbai Suburban. He alleged that the promoter Sanjona Builders had taken two separate project registrations for what he considered one building, continued to show a deceased partner as promoter on the MahaRERA portal, constructed illegally over pocket terraces completed in 2016, and utilised fungible FSI that he alleged had been illegally sold by the society. The complainant also alleged that his 87-year-old mother was being pressured to waive arrears of rent even though a part occupancy certificate was issued in September 2023. He referred to the project as being “tainted with fraud, illegality and violation” and sought cancellation of its registration.
Promoter’s Objections
Sanjona Builders denied all allegations and argued that the complaint was not maintainable. It maintained that the complainant failed to prove that he was an allottee, since no agreement for sale, allotment letter, or proof of payment was furnished. It further submitted that the flat concerned was part of the rehabilitation component and therefore exempt from registration under Section 3(2)(c). It also argued that alleged disputes relating to redevelopment, FSI, partnership issues or common areas could only be raised by the society before the competent civil authority, not before MahaRERA.
Findings of MahaRERA
MahaRERA noted that despite being granted time, the complainant did not file a rejoinder, leaving the objections of the promoter “undisputed and unchallenged.” The authority recorded that:
The complainant is not an allottee and has not produced any evidence of sale or payment.
The flat concerned falls under the redevelopment component, which is outside MahaRERA’s jurisdiction as per Section 3(2)(c).
Disputes regarding alleged illegal construction can only be raised by the housing society, not an individual in their personal capacity.
Even assuming the complaint was maintainable, MahaRERA found that the grievances primarily pertained to alleged sale and misuse of FSI, which does not fall within its jurisdiction. It held: “MahaRERA lacks jurisdiction under the RERA to adjudicate issues relating to the sale or misuse of FSI. Such grievances, if any, must be raised before the competent court of law.” On the request to revoke the project registration, MahaRERA held that no cogent documentary proof had been produced to show that the promoter violated any provision of Section 7 of the RERA, nor any order of violation issued by a competent authority.
Finding that the complaint did not fall within the scope of RERA and that no violations under Section 7 had been established, MahaRERA dismissed the complaint both on maintainability and on merits. However, it granted the complainant liberty to pursue remedies before the appropriate forum under applicable law.
Cause Title: Sanjay P. Vohra v. Sanjona Builders
Case No: CC12502735
Coram: Member Mahesh Pathak
