MahaRERA Says It Has No Jurisdiction to Decide FSI Misuse, Rejects Challenge To Mumbai Project

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain allegations of FSI misuse, illegal construction or partnership irregularities in the redevelopment project Abhilash Phase II in Mumbai Suburban region, and dismissed a complaint seeking revocation of its registration after finding that the complainant was not an allottee under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

The order was passed by Member Mahesh Pathak, who recorded that the complainant who was not an allottee had “no locus standi” to file the case and that it “does not involve any cause of action falling within the ambit of RERA”.

The authority also noted that the complainant did not challenge the promoter's stand that flats in the rehabilitation component are exempt from registration and outside its jurisdiction.

The case arose from a complaint filed by Sanjay P Vohra. He sought revocation of the project's registration under Section 7 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 for the project Abhilash Phase II (P51800033199), located in Kurla taluka, Mumbai Suburban. He alleged that the promoter, Sanjona Builders, had taken two separate RERA registrations for what he claimed was one building, continued to show a deceased partner as a promoter, built illegally over pocket terraces completed in 2016, and used fungible FSI that he claimed had been illegally sold by the society.

He also said his 87-year-old mother was being pressured to waive rent arrears even though the building had received a part occupancy certificate in September 2023. He argued that these issues made the entire project "tainted with fraud, illegality, and violation”.

The promoter denied all allegations and first argued that the complaint was not maintainable. It said the complainant had not shown any document to prove he was an allottee, such as an allotment letter, agreement for sale or proof of payment. It said the flat concerned was part of the redevelopment component and was exempt from registration under Section 3(2)(c).

It also said disputes about redevelopment, sale or use of fungible FSI, or partnership issues must be raised by the housing society before the proper civil court, not before MahaRERA. The promoter further pointed out that a part occupancy certificate had already been granted on September 27, 2023, and that issues about common areas, if any, must be raised by the society as a group.

Subsequently, the authority said the complainant did not file a rejoinder despite being directed to, and therefore the promoter's objections “remains undisputed and unchallenged”.

It accepted those objections and found that rehabilitation flats do not fall within the purview of RERA as per Section 3(2)(c). It also said it had no authority to deal with alleged wrongdoing involving fungible FSI.

It said “MahaRERA is of the view that it 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 proper court of law.”

On the request to cancel the project's registration, the authority held that the law requires proof of violations and stated that the complainant has not produced any cogent documentary evidence to show that the respondent has violated any of the terms or conditions stipulated in the RERA and hence, the relief sought for revocation is devoid of any merits.

It dismissed the complaint as not maintainable and also on merits, while giving liberty to pursue remedies before the appropriate forum.