Mumbai: The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT), in an interim order, has stayed MahaRERA chairperson’s Sept 2025 order on a flat buyer’s complaint over the promoters’ failure to hand over possession of the property in Mulund. The tribunal also stated the issuance of two versions of the order on Sept 9 and 10, 2025, “by altering contents in a few paragraphs”, both digitally signed by the chairperson, warrants full investigation by the authority.The tribunal’s order was passed following an appeal against the order passed by MahaRERA chairperson Manoj Saunik on Sept 10, 2025, which recalled and set aside two orders passed by the MahaRERA adjudicating officer.The tribunal stated while MahaRERA can invoke the inherent power to meet the ends of justice, the same cannot be invoked if there are remedies available under the statute. Besides, there is a provision of appeal under the RERA Act, 2016, for an aggrieved person to approach the appellate forum, it said. Therefore, the authority cannot use the inherent power to hear the matter again on merits. Nowhere, a case has been made out that the adjudicating officer had abused the process of law, hence, the impugned order prima facie appeared unsustainable, the tribunal said. MREAT also observed the MahaRERA chairperson’s impugned order was passed without granting the parties an opportunity for hearing.Home buyer Pramod Ashtekar and his wife, represented by advocate Nilesh Gala, purchased a flat in Nirmal Lifestyle’s ACE and Matchpoint project at Mulund worth over Rs 1 crore in 2013. Subsequently, Ricardo Construction took over the project from Nirmal Lifestyle. The home buyers, promised possession by Dec 2015, moved MahaRERA, aggrieved by the promoter’s failure to hand over possession. The complainants and Nirmal Lifestyle settled the matter and filed consent terms in Feb 2019. Later, the complainant alleged the consent terms were breached after a while, and moved MahaRERA for “non-compliance”.Subsequently, Ricardo Constructions, which took over the project, failed to pay the amounts as per the consent terms executed with Nirmal Lifestyle and denied its liability. After the complainants filed a non-compliance application before the adjudicating officer in March 2024, the officer passed directions for issuance of a recovery warrant against Ricardo. However, Ricardo challenged the Nov 14, 2024, passed by the adjudicating officer, which led the officer to modify the amount to be recovered in its order on March 5, 2025.Thereafter, Ricardo filed another application, following which the adjudicating officer stated the execution proceedings initiated by the complainant against Ricardo cannot proceed in view of an order passed by MahaRERA chairperson on Sept 10, 2025, setting aside orders passed by the adjudicating officer on Nov 14, 2024, and March 5, 2025. MREAT held the adjudicating officer had jurisdiction to entertain the non-compliance complaint and Ricardo’s liability was determined through a reasoned order.
