MahaRERA, January 5, 2026 : The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed a complaint filed by members of a Pune housing society against their redevelopment project developer, holding that disputes arising from the rehabilitation component of redevelopment projects fall outside the scope of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). The Authority clarified that original society members who receive flats in lieu of their existing premises cannot be treated as “allottees” under RERA, and therefore their grievances are not maintainable before MahaRERA.
The complaint was decided by Mahesh Pathak, Member–I, MahaRERA, in Complaint No. CC12502725, titled Girish Shrikant Lad & Anr. v. Ashwamedh Spaces Private Limited, by a final order pronounced on 5 January 2026.
The complainants, Girish Shrikant Lad and Tarang Girish Lad, were original members and occupants of a flat in Ratnaprabha Co-operative Housing Society, Pune. The society undertook redevelopment through the respondent developer, Ashwamedh Spaces Private Limited. In January 2021, the complainants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and an individual arrangement with the developer, under which they were assured a new flat admeasuring 1,456 sq. ft. in the redeveloped project. Later, citing design constraints, it was agreed that they would receive two flats with an additional area of 280 sq. ft. against payment of additional consideration.
According to the complainants, they handed over possession of their existing flat and shifted to rented accommodation, but the developer subsequently altered the agreed allotment. They alleged that the additional area was reduced, different flats were re-allotted, and one of the flats was illegally sold to a third party. On these grounds, they approached MahaRERA seeking restoration of the flats, a declaration that the sale to the third party was null and void, restraint on creation of third-party rights, compensation, interest, and penalties under RERA.
The developer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the complaint itself was not maintainable. It contended that the complainants were part of the rehabilitation component of a redevelopment project and not purchasers or “allottees” as defined under Section 2(d) of RERA. Their rights, the developer argued, flowed from Development Agreements and MoUs executed as society members, not from any registered agreement for sale involving a definite sale consideration. It was further submitted that the dispute involved complex civil and title issues, suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties such as the housing society and the third-party purchaser, and was also covered by an arbitration clause in the Development Agreement.
After examining the rival submissions and the record, MahaRERA upheld the objection on maintainability. The Authority noted that the complainants had participated in the redevelopment project as original members of the housing society and were entitled to a flat in the rehabilitation component under the Development Agreement. They had not paid any sale consideration for the allotment of the rehabilitation flat so as to qualify as “allottees” under RERA.
MahaRERA reiterated that it is well settled that the rehabilitation component of redevelopment projects does not fall within the scope of RERA in view of Section 3(2)(c) of the Act. It observed that the Authority has consistently declined jurisdiction in cases where disputes arise out of Development Agreements concerning the rights of original members or tenants. The order also noted that even if maintainability were assumed, the reliefs sought such as cancellation of a sale deed, restoration and re-allotment of flats, and restraint on third-party rights involve adjudication of civil rights and title disputes. Such issues, MahaRERA held, cannot be decided in the summary proceedings contemplated under RERA, especially when necessary parties have not been properly impleaded.
In view of these findings, MahaRERA concluded that the complaint did not disclose a cause of action maintainable under RERA and dismissed it accordingly. However, the Authority granted liberty to the complainants to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent civil forum in accordance with law.
Case Reference : Appearances: Amit Ghorpade (Representative) for the complainants and Adv. Dhawal Vidawns for the respondent; Cause Title: Girish Shrikant Lad & Anr. v. Ashwamedh Spaces Private Limited; Complaint No.: CC12502725; Coram: Mahesh Pathak, Hon’ble Member–I, MahaRERA.