Dark Mode
Image
Logo
Superficial Repairs Don’t Satisfy Defect Liability, MahaRERA Directs Godrej 24 Developer To Permanently Fix Seepage Within 30 Days

Superficial Repairs Don’t Satisfy Defect Liability, MahaRERA Directs Godrej 24 Developer To Permanently Fix Seepage Within 30 Days

Pranav B Prem


The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has directed the developer of the Godrej 24 housing project at Hinjavadi, Pune, to permanently rectify seepage and structural defects in a flat within 30 days, failing which penal action will be initiated under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The direction was issued while deciding four separate complaints filed by homebuyers against the project promoter, Pearlite Real Properties Private Limited.

 

Also Read: Order VII Rule 11 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Reject RERA Complaints Disclosing Prima Facie Cause Of Action: HP RERA

 

The order dated 2 January 2026 was passed by Mahesh Pathak, Member–I, MahaRERA. The Authority examined four complaints concerning different grievances, including parking allotment, refund claims, common amenities, and structural defects, and granted relief only in the complaint relating to persistent seepage inside a residential flat.

 

The successful complaint pertained to a homebuyer who had taken possession of his flat in August 2022. Soon after taking possession, the complainant began experiencing serious seepage in the living room of the flat. The issue was repeatedly brought to the notice of the developer within the defect liability period prescribed under Section 14(3) of RERA. Although the promoter undertook repairs on multiple occasions, including removal of wet putty and repainting, the seepage continued to recur. The complainant contended that the measures adopted were superficial and failed to address the root cause of the defect.

 

After examining the material on record, MahaRERA observed that the repeated recurrence of seepage clearly demonstrated that the underlying cause had not been effectively addressed by the developer. The Authority held that mere cosmetic repairs do not amount to compliance with the statutory obligation cast upon promoters under Section 14(3) of RERA. It recorded that where a structural defect persists despite repeated complaints, the promoter’s responsibility continues until permanent rectification is carried out.

 

Accordingly, MahaRERA directed the promoter to permanently rectify the seepage and structural defects in the complainant’s flat at its own cost within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. The Authority further warned that if the developer failed to comply with this direction, appropriate penal action would be initiated under Section 63 of RERA upon intimation by the complainant.

 

The remaining three complaints were dismissed. In one such complaint, the homebuyer sought a direction to provide independent covered car parking as allegedly promised under the agreement for sale. MahaRERA noted that the complainant had accepted tensile parking along with a credit note of ₹2 lakh issued by the developer and had taken possession of both the flat and the parking space in 2022. Raising the issue after more than two years, the Authority held, appeared to be an afterthought and did not merit interference.

 

Another complaint sought refund with interest on the ground that a school promised as part of the project was never constructed and that excess amounts were charged for common areas. MahaRERA rejected this claim, observing that the complaint was filed nearly five years after the project received its occupancy certificate. It further held that a school constitutes a common amenity and an individual allottee cannot seek such group-level reliefs in his individual capacity under RERA.

 

Also Read: Karnataka RERA Orders Casagrande Garden City to Refund ₹52.74 Lakh for Inflated GST, Unfair Trade Practices

 

The fourth complaint was also dismissed on the ground that the complainant had ceased to be an allottee after the flat was auctioned in proceedings initiated by the lender under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. MahaRERA held that once the allottee loses title and interest in the property, no relief can be granted under RERA.  With these findings, MahaRERA partly allowed only the complaint relating to seepage and structural defects and dismissed the remaining three complaints. All four complaints were accordingly disposed of, with clear directions to the developer to permanently resolve the seepage issue within the stipulated time frame.

 

 

Cause Title: Pranveer Singh Sengar v. Pearlite Real Properties Private Limited and other connected matters

Case No: CC12401237, CC12500423, CC12501161, CC12502913

Coram: Mahesh Pathak, Member–I, MahaRERA

Tags

Comment / Reply From

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!