MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint on FSI Misuse in Mumbai Redevelopment Project
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed a complaint alleging FSI misuse, illegal construction, and partnership irregularities in the Abhilash Phase II redevelopment project in Mumbai's Suburban region. The authority ruled that it has no jurisdiction to entertain such allegations and that the complainant, Sanjay P Vohra, lacked the necessary standing to file the case.
The order was issued by Member Mahesh Pathak, who noted that the complainant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove he was an allottee under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The authority further stated that the complaint did not involve any cause of action falling within the purview of RERA.
Vohra had filed a complaint seeking the revocation of the project's registration under Section 7 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. He alleged that the promoter, Sanjona Builders, had taken two separate RERA registrations for what he claimed was a single building, continued to show a deceased partner as a promoter, and built illegally over pocket terraces completed in 2016. Additionally, he accused the promoter of misusing fungible FSI that he claimed had been illegally sold by the society.
Vohra also mentioned that his 87-year-old mother was being pressured to waive rent arrears, despite the building having received a partial occupancy certificate in September 2023. He argued that these issues made the entire project 'tainted with fraud, illegality, and violation.'
In response, the promoter, Sanjona Builders, denied all allegations and argued that the complaint was not maintainable. They stated that the complainant had not provided any documents to prove he was an allottee, such as an allotment letter, agreement for sale, or proof of payment. The promoter also pointed out that the flat in question was part of the redevelopment component and was exempt from registration under Section 3(2)(c) of the RERA Act.
The promoter further argued that disputes regarding redevelopment, sale, or use of fungible FSI, or partnership issues must be raised by the housing society before the appropriate civil court, not before MahaRERA. They noted that a partial occupancy certificate had already been granted on September 27, 2023, and that any issues concerning common areas must be raised by the society as a group.
Subsequently, the authority found that the complainant did not file a rejoinder despite being directed to do so. Therefore, the promoter's objections remained undisputed and unchallenged. MahaRERA accepted these objections and confirmed that rehabilitation flats do not fall within the purview of RERA as per Section 3(2)(c).
The authority also stated that it lacks jurisdiction under RERA to adjudicate issues related to the sale or misuse of FSI. Such grievances, if any, must be raised before the appropriate court of law.
Regarding the request to cancel the project's registration, the authority held that the law requires proof of violations. The complainant failed to produce any cogent documentary evidence to show that the respondent had violated any of the terms or conditions stipulated in the RERA. Therefore, the relief sought for revocation was deemed devoid of merit.
The complaint was dismissed as not maintainable and on its merits, with the authority providing liberty to pursue remedies before the appropriate forum.
