Naresh Moturam Bhojwani v. Shree Tirupati Greenfield (MahaRERA Complaint No. CC006000000591428, Order dated 19.05.2026)

The present case deals with the maintainability of a complaint under the RERA Act, 2016 where the nature of the transaction itself was disputed. The MahaRERA Authority considered whether a person claiming rights under a Provisional Reservation Letter could be treated as an “allottee” under Section 2(d) of the Act, the applicability of Section 18 in the absence of a registered Agreement for Sale, and whether such disputed questions could be adjudicated in summary proceedings under the RERA Act.

Issues:

The principal issues involved in the present matter were whether the complainant could be regarded as an “allottee” within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the RERA Act despite the Provisional Reservation Letter specifically recording that the allotment was merely a security against a loan; whether relief under Section 18 of the Act could be granted in the absence of a registered Agreement for Sale; whether a person who had already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for recovery of the same amount could simultaneously invoke the jurisdiction of MahaRERA seeking substantially identical reliefs; and whether serious disputed questions regarding the true nature of the transaction could be adjudicated in summary proceedings under the provisions of the RERA Act..

Fact of the Case:

The complainant filed a complaint before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority seeking refund of Rs. 50,00,000/- together with interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act. Alternatively, the complainant prayed for execution of a registered Agreement for Sale and delivery of possession of Flat No.1703 situated in “Marigold Wing-B” of the project “Siddheshwar Gardens”, Thane. Besides the aforesaid reliefs, the complainant also sought initiation of penal proceedings against the promoter for alleged fraudulent conduct, dishonour of refund cheques, de-registration of the project under Section 7 of the RERA Act, compensation for mental harassment, litigation expenses and other consequential reliefs.

According to the complainant, the respondent had issued a Provisional Allotment Letter dated 09.02.2014 in respect of Flat No.1703 having a carpet area of approximately 683 sq.ft. for a total consideration of Rs. 80,00,000/-. Pursuant thereto, the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- towards the consideration of the said flat. It was alleged that despite receipt of substantial consideration, the respondent neither executed a registered Agreement for Sale as mandated under Section 13 of the RERA Act nor completed the project and delivered possession within the stipulated time.

The complainant further contended that repeated legal notices dated 20.08.2022 and 25.06.2024 calling upon the respondent either to execute the Agreement for Sale and hand over possession or refund the amount together with interest remained unanswered. Thereafter, according to the complainant, the respondent acknowledged its liability by issuing several cheques aggregating to Rs.25,00,000/- towards partial refund. However, all the cheques were dishonoured upon presentation, compelling the complainant to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the competent Criminal Court.

The complainant alleged that issuance and dishonour of the cheques constituted an acknowledgment of liability on the part of the respondent. It was further alleged that the respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 19 of the RERA Act by making false representations, failing to execute a registered Agreement for Sale despite receiving substantial consideration, delaying construction of the project and denying the statutory rights available to an allottee under the Act.

The respondent strongly disputed the maintainability of the complaint and contended that the transaction in question was never intended to be a transaction for sale of a flat but was purely a financial arrangement whereby the Provisional Reservation Letter was issued only as collateral security against a loan advanced by the complainant.

Reliance was placed upon Clause 6(3) of the Provisional Reservation Letter, which specifically provided that the allotment was issued merely as security for a loan and that upon repayment of the loan amount the allotment letter would stand cancelled and the complainant would have no rights whatsoever in respect of the flat.

It was further submitted that the complainant had deliberately attempted to convert a loan transaction into a real estate dispute only with a view to circumvent the provisions of the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act and the law of limitation. According to the respondent, the complainant never intended to purchase the flat and therefore could not be treated as an “allottee” within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the RERA Act.

The respondent further contended that the complainant had already invoked the jurisdiction of the criminal court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for recovery of the very same amount allegedly due from the respondent. Therefore, initiation of parallel proceedings before MahaRERA for substantially the same monetary relief amounted to abuse of process of law.

It was also submitted that no registered Agreement for Sale had ever been executed between the parties and consequently the complainant was not entitled to invoke the provisions contained in Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 of the RERA Act.

The MahaRERA Authority observed that the principal issue was whether the transaction between the parties was a genuine sale transaction governed by the provisions of the RERA Act or merely a financial arrangement in the nature of a loan. Although the Provisional Reservation Letter identified a specific flat, recorded the sale consideration and acknowledged receipt of Rs. 50,00,000/-, the Authority noted that Clause 6(3) of the same document expressly provided that the allotment was issued only as security against a loan and that the complainant would have no right in the flat upon repayment of the loan amount. The Authority held that the document must be read as a whole and the complainant could not selectively rely upon clauses favourable to his case while ignoring the stipulation treating the transaction as a loan.

The Authority further observed that no registered Agreement for Sale had ever been executed and that the complainant had remained silent for nearly ten years without taking any steps to enforce the alleged allotment. It also noted that the complainant had already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for recovery of the amount, and therefore simultaneous adjudication of substantially the same monetary claim before MahaRERA was not appropriate.

The Authority held that relief under Section 18 of the RERA Act could be granted only upon establishing a clear promoter-allottee relationship. In the absence of a registered Agreement for Sale, coupled with the express recital in Clause 6(3) of the Provisional Reservation Letter, it was not possible to conclusively hold that the complainant was an “allottee” within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act. Since the dispute involved serious questions regarding the nature of the transaction requiring detailed examination of evidence, the Authority held that such issues could not be adjudicated in summary proceedings under the RERA Act. The allegations of fraud and false declarations under Sections 7, 11 and 12 of the Act were also rejected for want of sufficient material.

Conclusion

The decision of the MahaRERA Authority reiterates that the remedies provided under the RERA are available only where the statutory relationship of promoter and allottee is clearly established. The Authority emphasised that contractual documents must be interpreted in their entirety and that the jurisdiction under the RERA Act cannot be invoked for resolving disputes where the fundamental nature of the transaction itself remains seriously disputed.

The judgment further underscores that summary proceedings under the Act cannot substitute a detailed civil adjudication involving examination of evidence regarding financial arrangements and contractual intentions. By declining to entertain parallel proceedings for substantially the same monetary claim and leaving the parties to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent court, the Authority reaffirmed the principle that the RERA framework is intended to regulate genuine real estate disputes and not disputes where the existence of an allotment itself is uncertain.