MUMBAI: The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has temporarily halted the MahaRERA chairperson’s order from September 2025 regarding a complaint from a flat buyer concerning the failure of promoters to deliver possession of a property in Mulund. The tribunal noted that the issuance of two variations of the order on September 9 and 10, 2025, both digitally signed by the chairperson, necessitates a thorough investigation by the authority.
Following an appeal against MahaRERA chairperson Manoj Saunik’s order dated September 10, 2025, which revoked two previous orders made by the MahaRERA adjudicating officer, the tribunal stated that while MahaRERA possesses the inherent power to fulfill the ends of justice, such power cannot be exercised if remedies are provided under the statute. Under the RERA Act, 2016, an aggrieved party has the right to appeal to the appellate forum, thereby limiting the authority from using its inherent power to re-evaluate the matter. The tribunal found that there was no evidence suggesting the adjudicating officer had misused the legal process, making the contested order appear unsustainable.
MREAT also pointed out that the order from the MahaRERA chairperson was issued without giving the parties a chance to be heard.
Home buyer Pramod Ashtekar and his wife, represented by advocate Nilesh Gala, purchased a flat in Nirmal Lifestyle’s ACE and Matchpoint project in Mulund for over Rs 1 crore in 2013. After Ricardo Construction took over the project from Nirmal Lifestyle, the home buyers, who had been promised possession by December 2015, raised their concerns with MahaRERA due to non-delivery. In February 2019, the complainants and Nirmal Lifestyle reached a settlement and filed consent terms. However, the complainants later claimed the terms were violated and approached MahaRERA for non-compliance.
Ricardo Constructions, which had taken over the project, did not comply with the consent terms and denied any liability. Following a non-compliance application filed by the complainants with the adjudicating officer in March 2024, recovery warrants against Ricardo were issued. However, Ricardo challenged the adjudicating officer’s decision from November 14, 2024, leading to a modification of the recovery amount on March 5, 2025.
Subsequently, Ricardo submitted another application, which prompted the adjudicating officer to state that the execution proceedings initiated by the complainants could not proceed due to the MahaRERA chairperson’s order dated September 10, 2025, which nullified the earlier orders issued by the adjudicating officer.
MREAT affirmed that the adjudicating officer had the authority to manage the non-compliance complaint, and that Ricardo’s liability was established through a substantiated order.
