MahaRERA Dismisses Broker's 2% Commission Claim in Santacruz West Flat Sale

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed a complaint filed by a registered real estate agent, Premji Anandji Rambhia, seeking payment of 2% brokerage and interest from Arkade Developers Limited. The dispute pertains to a flat sale in the Arkade Aura project located in Santacruz West, Mumbai.

In an order pronounced on May 22, 2026, MahaRERA Member-I Mahesh Pathak ruled that the dispute related to an alleged brokerage claim arising from a commercial arrangement between the parties and could not be adjudicated under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

The complaint was filed by Premji Anandji Rambhia against Arkade Developers Private Limited (now Arkade Developers Limited), seeking payment of brokerage in relation to a flat in the project registered under MahaRERA. According to the complainant, he was a registered real estate agent for the project and had been accompanying prospective buyers for site inspections for nearly two years. He claimed that in September 2025, he introduced purchasers Suresh Visaria and Kunal Visaria to a 4 BHK apartment in the project by forwarding the floor plan and discussing the indicative price.

The complainant alleged that the purchasers later completed the transaction through a third-party referrer, identified as Shrikant Prasad, to avoid paying the 2% brokerage due to him. He further contended that the third-party referrer was not a registered real estate agent under RERA and that the brokerage paid to such a person could not defeat his claim.

Arkade Developers denied the allegations and stated that while the complainant had earlier shown the buyers a different flat configuration — a 3 BHK plus 3 BHK combined apartment — he had no role in the eventual purchase of the 4 BHK Flat. The developer submitted that the first site visit for the 4 BHK unit took place on September 17, 2025, with Shrikant Prasad, a member of Vivek Cooperative Housing Society, whose referral was duly recorded in the company’s Member Referral Register. The company argued that the complainant neither registered nor tagged the purchasers for the 4 BHK flat within the prescribed period and did not participate in the negotiations or finalization of the transaction.

After examining the submissions and records, MahaRERA observed that there was no written brokerage or commission agreement executed between the complainant and the developer specifying the brokerage percentage, entitlement conditions, or obligations of either party. “The complainant is mainly relying upon alleged oral understanding, market practice, and prior interactions with the purchasers,” the Authority noted in its order.

MahaRERA further observed that the available record did not establish that the complainant was the “effective and direct cause” for the finalization of the transaction relating to the flat. The Authority also took note that despite directions issued during the hearing, both parties failed to upload their written submissions and the registered agreement for sale executed for the flat, resulting in an incomplete record before the regulator.

In its findings, MahaRERA held that adjudicating issues relating to entitlement of brokerage, oral understandings, role of intermediaries, market practice, and alleged loss of commission would require detailed evidence and determination of contractual and civil rights. “There are no explicit provisions under RERA to grant such reliefs in favor of the complainant,” the order stated.

The Authority further noted that while RERA regulates relationships between promoters and allottees and provides for registration and regulation of real estate agents, the present dispute was essentially a brokerage claim arising from a contested commercial arrangement. Holding that the complainant had failed to establish any contractual entitlement to the claimed 2% brokerage, MahaRERA rejected the complaint.

“The present complaint stands rejected for want of merits. However, the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps before the competent Civil Court/forum in accordance with law, if he so desires,” the order said.