Maharashtra Tribunal Stays MahaRERA Order, Demands Probe into Altered Documents
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has issued an interim order staying a directive from the MahaRERA chairperson concerning a home buyer's complaint over delayed possession of a property in Mulund. In a significant development, the tribunal also highlighted the issuance of two distinct versions of the order on September 9 and 10, 2025, which contained altered content in several paragraphs, despite both being digitally signed by the chairperson. MREAT has emphasized that this discrepancy warrants a comprehensive investigation by the authority to ensure transparency and integrity in the regulatory process.
Background of the Case and Tribunal's Observations
The tribunal's order was passed in response to an appeal against a decision made by MahaRERA chairperson Manoj Saunik on September 10, 2025. This decision had recalled and set aside two earlier orders issued by a MahaRERA adjudicating officer. MREAT noted that while MahaRERA possesses inherent powers to achieve justice, these powers cannot be invoked when alternative remedies are available under the statute. Specifically, the RERA Act of 2016 provides a provision for appeals, allowing aggrieved parties to approach the appellate forum. Therefore, the authority cannot utilize inherent powers to rehear a matter on its merits without proper justification.
Furthermore, the tribunal stated that no case had been made out to demonstrate that the adjudicating officer had abused the legal process. As a result, the impugned order by the MahaRERA chairperson appeared prima facie unsustainable. MREAT also observed that this order was passed without granting the involved parties an opportunity for a hearing, raising concerns about procedural fairness.
Details of the Home Buyer's Dispute
The case involves home buyers Pramod Ashtekar and his wife, who were represented by advocate Nilesh Gala. They purchased a flat in Nirmal Lifestyle's ACE and Matchpoint project at Mulund in 2013, with a value exceeding Rs 1 crore. The possession was initially promised by December 2015, but delays prompted the buyers to approach MahaRERA due to the promoter's failure to hand over the property. Subsequently, Ricardo Construction took over the project from Nirmal Lifestyle.
In February 2019, the complainants and Nirmal Lifestyle settled the matter and filed consent terms. However, the complainants later alleged that these terms were breached, leading them to move MahaRERA for non-compliance. Ricardo Constructions, which had assumed control of the project, failed to pay the amounts as per the consent terms and denied liability.
Legal Proceedings and Tribunal's Ruling
After the complainants filed a non-compliance application before the adjudicating officer in March 2024, the officer directed the issuance of a recovery warrant against Ricardo. Ricardo challenged the order dated November 14, 2024, which led the officer to modify the recovery amount in an order on March 5, 2025. Ricardo then filed another application, resulting in the adjudicating officer stating that execution proceedings against Ricardo could not proceed due to the MahaRERA chairperson's order on September 10, 2025, which set aside the earlier orders from November 14, 2024, and March 5, 2025.
MREAT held that the adjudicating officer had jurisdiction to entertain the non-compliance complaint and that Ricardo's liability was determined through a reasoned order. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and ensuring that regulatory actions are conducted with due process and accountability.
