MahaRERA Rejects Real Estate Agent's Complaint Against Mumbai Developer

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has rejected a complaint filed by a real estate agent against a Mumbai-based developer seeking payment of a 2% brokerage fee. The authority held that disputes related to brokerage and commission are civil matters and cannot be adjudicated under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

The agent alleged that homebuyers purchased an apartment through a third-party referral after initially visiting the developer’s project through him, allegedly to avoid paying the brokerage. The real estate agent claimed he was a registered agent for Arkade Developers’ project ‘Arkade Aura’ in the Santacruz West area of Mumbai and had been accompanying prospective homebuyers for site visits since 2023.

According to the complaint, in September 2025, he shared details and floor plans of a 4 BHK apartment with two homebuyers after earlier discussions for another flat configuration did not materialize. The agent alleged that the homebuyers subsequently concluded the transaction through a third-party referrer, allegedly to avoid paying him 2% brokerage.

The developer, however, denied the allegations and argued that the complainant (real estate agent) had no role in the transaction. The developer contended that the first site visit for the 4 BHK apartment took place on September 17, 2025, along with another referrer, whose referral was recorded in the company’s Member Referral Register. The developer also argued that the complainant neither registered nor tagged the purchasers for the said 4 BHK flat within the prescribed period and did not participate in the negotiations or finalization of the transaction.

MahaRERA, in its order dated May 24, 2026, stated that no written brokerage or commission agreement was executed between the complainant (real estate agent) and the respondent promoter (developer) specifying the brokerage percentage, the entitlement conditions, or the obligations of either party. The complainant mainly relied upon an alleged oral understanding, market practice, and prior interactions with the purchasers.

MahaRERA is of the prima facie view that adjudication of such disputed questions relating to entitlement of brokerage, existence of oral understanding, role of intermediaries, market practice, and alleged loss of commission would require detailed evidence and adjudication of contractual and civil rights between the parties and cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the provisions of the RERA. This means that there are no explicit provisions under RERA to grant such reliefs in favor of the complainant.

According to MahaRERA, the provisions of the RERA mainly regulate the relationship between the promoter and the allottee and also provide for the registration and regulation of real estate agents. The present complaint essentially seeks enforcement of an alleged brokerage claim arising out of a disputed commercial arrangement between the parties, which would more appropriately fall within the jurisdiction of a competent Civil Court/forum.

Rejecting the complaint citing want of merit, MahaRERA concluded the order stating that the complainant (real estate agent) is at liberty to take appropriate steps before the competent Civil Court/forum in accordance with law, if he so desires. Arkade Developers has welcomed the order, stating, “We welcome MahaRERA’s order, which has reaffirmed our position in the matter,” said Amit Jain, Chairman and Managing Director at Arkade Developers.

At Arkade Developers, we remain steadfast in our commitment to transparent, ethical, and process-driven business practices while adhering to all applicable regulatory frameworks. Upholding stakeholder trust has always been central to our operations, and we will continue focusing on delivering high-quality developments with integrity and professionalism, Jain added.

The real estate agent, homebuyers, and the third-party referral who concluded the transaction could not be reached for comment. Legal experts have noted that where real estate agents have entered into a written agreement, MahaRERA could examine whether the real estate agent is entitled to claim brokerage fees.

In this matter, there was no written brokerage or commission agreement executed between the agent and the promoter (developer) specifying the brokerage percentage, conditions for entitlement, or the obligations of either party, and therefore the complaint was rejected, said Trupti Daphtary, an advocate and solicitor based in Mumbai. The order notes that the provisions of RERA provide for the registration and regulation of real estate agents. In my view, where a real estate agent has a written agreement, MahaRERA could, in an appropriate case, examine whether the agent is entitled to claim brokerage fees, which would bring greater clarity to this issue.