MahaRERA Imposes ₹10 Lakh Penalty On Developers For Failing To Allot Flat [Read Order]

Pune: The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), Pune, has imposed a lumpsum penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 on two developers for failing to comply with an order directing them to allot a flat and execute an Agreement for Sale in favour of two homebuyers, and has directed issue of recovery warrants against them for the accrued interest and costs.

Adjudicating Officer Shri R.K. Malabade passed the order on a non-compliance application filed by against Sai Enterprises (Respondent No. 1) and Super Construction (Respondent No. 2), in respect of the project registered as MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51800015798, known as Sethia Imperial Avenue (earlier Sun Gates). The matter was heard in hybrid mode.

By the final order dated 31.10.2025 of the Member II of MahaRERA, the respondents had been directed to allot a flat admeasuring 795 sq. ft. carpet area and execute a registered Agreement for Sale in favour of the complainants within 45 days, on receipt of any balance consideration under the allotment letter dated 29.05.2010. They were also directed, jointly and severally, to pay simple interest at the rate prescribed under Rule 18 on Rs. 17,49,000 paid by the complainants, from 24.06.2012 until handing over of possession, and Respondent No. 1 was directed to pay Rs. 20,000 as costs.

The complainants' counsel submitted that the complainants had booked Flat No. B07 in Wing B of the project then known as Sun Gates from Respondent No. 2 for Rs. 43,72,500, paying 40% of the price, that possession was due by 23.06.2012, and that Respondent No. 2, by a letter dated 23.03.2018, expressed its inability to carry out construction and asked them to seek a refund from Respondent No. 1, which the complainants refused. It was argued that the respondents did not allot the flat within 45 days and, as in the case of Sangeeta Panjabi in the same project, claimed that all flats were sold, which the complainants alleged was done after the final order to defeat their claim. They sought appointment of a fit person to execute the agreement, payment of interest and penalty under Section 63 of the Act.

Respondent No. 1 contended that the complainants were seeking to enforce a right arising from a transaction with a different developer, concerning a different project, that it had no privity of contract and had received no money from them, that it had only purchased FSI and was constructing another building on a different portion of the land, and that no flat of the claimed description existed in the sanctioned project. It relied on the MahaREAT decision in Maniben Patel v. Tirupati Developers to argue that, where no matching flat exists, a person cannot be considered an allottee. Respondent No. 2 submitted that an architect's certificate dated 19.01.2026 showed the corresponding carpet area to be about 480 sq. ft., with 795 sq. ft. referable to saleable area, that a review application had been filed, and that execution should be deferred until its adjudication.

The Adjudicating Officer noted that it was not disputed that Respondent No. 2 is the owner-cum-developer and Respondent No. 1 acquired development rights for valuable consideration, that the complainants had paid Rs. 17,49,000 against the price, and that, according to the respondents, no 795 sq. ft. flat exists and all flats in the project are sold. Taking note of the submission that the Appellate Tribunal had observed on 27.04.2026, in the Sangeeta Panjabi matter in the same project, that the developer had sold units to defeat the claim of the decree-holder, the officer observed that since all flats were sold and none was allotted to the complainants, a fit person could not be appointed under Circular No. 50 of MahaRERA. It held that there was nonetheless non-compliance of the final order, including non-payment of interest.

The respondents were accordingly directed to pay a lumpsum penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 under Section 63 within two months to be deposited with the office of MahaRERA, failing which a recovery warrant is to be issued under Section 40(1) of the Act. A recovery warrant was also directed to be issued, addressed to the concerned District Collector, for recovery of the accrued interest on Rs. 17,49,000 from 24.06.2012 and costs of Rs. 20,000 as per the final order, to be paid to the complainants. The District Collector was directed to submit a compliance report, and the non-compliance application was disposed of.

Appearances:

For the Complainants: Adv. Manish Gala.

For Respondent No. 1: Adv. Abir Patel.

For Respondent No. 2: Adv. Vinod Talreja.

Case Title: Madhu Alvani & Anr. vs. Sai Enterprises & Anr., Complaint No. CC006000000079000/APPL/NC/3 (MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51800015798)

[Read Order]