MahaRERA Says It Has No Power To Order Eviction Or Possession Recovery, Dismisses Builder's Complaint

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has held that it cannot order the recovery of possession or eviction of homebuyers, ruling that such reliefs lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of civil courts.

The authority dismissed a complaint by Raajyam Realty LLP. The promoter had sought cancellation of the sale agreement, forfeiture of the money paid and permission to take back possession of the flat in its Amity Apartments project in Bandra.

The order was passed by MahaRERA Chairperson Manoj Saunik, who observed 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"

Raajyam Realty had told the authority that the allottees of flat 5A had paid Rs 1.06 crore out of the total consideration of Rs 1.2 crore but failed to clear the remaining Rs 14 lakh and GST despite repeated demands. The promoter said the homebuyers were only permitted fit-out access in 2019 but went on to reside there without permission, amounting to unauthorized possession and breach of contract.

The homebuyers contested this, arguing that the occupation certificate issued in March 2022 was only conditional and therefore did not amount to lawful possession being offered. They said their obligation to pay the balance amount arose only once valid possession was tendered and pointed to deficiencies in the project, including inadequate water supply and incomplete amenities. They also highlighted that they had already initiated consumer proceedings alleging deficiency in service.

While assessing the dispute, MahaRERA noted that the occupation certificate on record “ is a conditional occupation certificate, expressly subject to compliance with the pending stipulations contained in letter of intent, intimation of approval and section 270A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, pertaining to certification of adequate water supply. Therefore, it cannot be construed as a final and complete occupation certificate.”

It further recorded that several claims raised by the promoter, including those connected to possession and the alleged defaults by the homebuyers, were already pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Holding that the key reliefs sought fell outside its mandate, the authority dismissed the complaint and said the promoter was free to approach a civil court for remedies.

Click Here To Read/Download Order