No Power To Order Eviction: MahaRERA Dismisses Builder's Complaint
Pranav B Prem
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has held that it lacks the jurisdiction to grant reliefs relating to the recovery of possession or eviction of homebuyers, observing that such remedies fall exclusively within the domain of competent civil courts. The ruling came while dismissing a complaint filed by Raajyam Realty LLP, promoter of the Amity Apartments project in Bandra, who had sought cancellation of the sale agreement, forfeiture of amounts paid by the purchasers and permission to take back possession of the flat.
The complaint was filed in respect of Flat No. 5A, which had been booked under a registered agreement for sale executed on July 8, 2019 for a total consideration of ₹1.20 crore. The promoter submitted that the allottees had already paid ₹1.06 crore but failed to clear the remaining ₹14 lakh and GST in spite of repeated demands. The promoter further contended that the homebuyers were granted only limited fit-out access in 2019, but they went on to occupy the premises as residents without authority, which according to the promoter amounted to illegal possession and a breach of contractual terms. The complainant also asserted that the agreement permitted forfeiture of amounts and justified the claim to deduct sums towards alleged illegal trespass
The homebuyers opposed the claim and argued that the promoter had not fulfilled its obligation to hand over lawful possession. They pointed out that the occupation certificate issued in March 2022 was not a full and final certificate, but only a conditional one subject to compliance with pending statutory requirements including those under Section 270A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act relating to water supply. They submitted that their obligation to pay the balance amount would arise only after lawful possession was tendered, and that deficiencies in the project continued to exist. The respondents also highlighted that they had already initiated consumer proceedings before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging deficiency of service
While examining the record, MahaRERA Chairperson Manoj Saunik observed that the occupation certificate produced by the promoter “is a conditional occupation certificate… pertaining to certification of adequate water supply. Therefore, it cannot be construed as a final and complete occupation certificate.” The Authority also recorded that issues concerning possession and alleged defaults were already pending consideration before the consumer forum. Most significantly, the order stated that “the recovery of possession, and eviction of the respondents, are beyond the scope of MahaRERA's jurisdiction. The reliefs sought necessarily involve adjudication of proprietary and possessory rights, which fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of a competent civil court”
On this basis, MahaRERA concluded that the key reliefs prayed for by the promoter could not be granted under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Since the complaint predominantly sought orders enabling cancellation of the agreement, forfeiture of amounts and directions facilitating the builder’s recovery of the flat, the Authority held that such remedies do not fall within its statutory mandate. The complaint was accordingly dismissed, while clarifying that the promoter was at liberty to seek remedies before the competent civil court for recovery of possession or eviction if so advised
Ultimately, MahaRERA dismissed the complaint filed by Raajyam Realty LLP and refrained from granting any of the reliefs sought. No order as to costs was passed by the Authority.
Appearance
For Complainant: Advocate Vikramjit Garewal
For Respondents: Advocate Akshay Doctor
Cause Title: Raajyam Realty LLP v. Radhika Ganatra & Rishabh Gopesh Mastaram
Case No: CC006000000591010
Coram: Chairperson Manoj Saunik
