In Girish Lad & Anr. vs Ashwamedh Spaces Pvt. Ltd., MahaRERA examined whether disputes arising from the rehabilitation component of a redevelopment project can be adjudicated under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

By its order dated 05-01-2026, MahaRERA dismissed the complaint at the threshold, holding that the complainants were not “allottees” under RERA and that the dispute did not arise from a registered agreement for sale.

Parties to the Case

• Complainants: Girish Shrikant Lad & Tarang Girish Lad
• Respondent: Ashwamedh Spaces Pvt. Ltd.
• Project Type: Redevelopment project (rehabilitation component)
• Authority: Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA)

Facts of the Case

• The complainants were original members of a co-operative housing society undergoing redevelopment.
• Under the redevelopment arrangement, they vacated their old premises and were promised rehabilitated flats in the new building along with additional area.
• The complainants alleged that:
  • The developer unilaterally changed the flat allotment,
  • Reduced the additional area promised,
  • Failed to pay agreed transit rent, and
  • Sold one of the flats to a third-party purchaser without consent.
• On these grounds, they approached MahaRERA seeking:
  • Restoration of the promised flats,
  • Cancellation of the third-party sale,
  • Compensation and penalties under RERA.

Key Legal Issue

Whether disputes arising from the rehabilitation component of a redevelopment project—without a registered agreement for sale—are maintainable under RERA.

Arguments by the Developer

The respondent developer challenged the complaint primarily on maintainability, contending that:

• The complainants were not allottees under Section 2(d) of RERA.
• There was no registered agreement for sale and no sale consideration paid for the additional area.
• The dispute arose purely out of a development / redevelopment agreement, not a RERA-governed sale transaction.
• The complaint involved third-party rights, title issues, and civil disputes, which cannot be decided in summary RERA proceedings.

Findings of MahaRERA

MahaRERA upheld the preliminary objection and made the following crucial observations:

1. Rehabilitation Component Is Outside RERA

RERA applies primarily to sale transactions between promoters and allottees.
Rehabilitation of original society members under redevelopment schemes does not amount to a sale unless supported by a registered agreement for sale and consideration.

2. Complainants Were Not “Allottees” Under RERA

The Authority noted that:

• No registered agreement for sale existed, and
• The complainants did not fall within the statutory definition of an allottee under RERA.

3. Title and Third-Party Sale Disputes Are Not for RERA

Issues relating to:

• Validity of third-party sales,
• Ownership and title, and
• Contractual interpretation of redevelopment agreements
  require detailed civil adjudication, which is beyond RERA’s summary jurisdiction.

Final Order

• The complaint was dismissed as not maintainable under RERA.
• MahaRERA clarified that the complainants are at liberty to approach the appropriate civil forum for redressal of their grievances.

Legal Significance of This Order

This order reinforces a consistent legal position that:

• RERA is not a universal forum for all real estate disputes.
• Its jurisdiction is limited to disputes arising from registered sale transactions involving recognised allottees.
• Redevelopment and rehabilitation disputes are contractual and civil in nature, unless they meet RERA’s statutory thresholds.

Where Should Such Redevelopment Disputes Be Filed?

Disputes like the one in this case should ordinarily be taken to:

• Civil Courts
  • For declaration of rights, title, cancellation of third-party sales, and enforcement of redevelopment agreements.
• Arbitration
  • Where the development or redevelopment agreement contains an arbitration clause.
• Consumer Forums (in limited situations)
  • Where deficiency of service can be independently established.

RERA is not the correct forum for adjudicating rehabilitation or redevelopment disputes lacking a registered sale agreement.

What Types of Cases Should Be Filed Under RERA?

RERA complaints are appropriate where:

• There is a registered real estate project,
• A registered agreement for sale exists,
• The complainant qualifies as an allottee, and
• The grievance relates to:
  • Delay in possession,
  • Refund of amounts paid,
  • Interest or compensation,
  • Misrepresentation or violations under RERA.

To Sum Up

The MahaRERA order in Girish Lad & Anr. vs Ashwamedh Spaces Pvt. Ltd. serves as a clear reminder that forum selection is critical in real estate disputes.
While RERA offers swift remedies for sale-related grievances, redevelopment and rehabilitation disputes must be pursued before civil courts or arbitral tribunals, not before RERA.

Verified Real Estate – Legal Guidance You Can Rely On

Verified Real Estate assists consumers by providing clear, practical, and legally sound guidance to help them identify the correct forum for their real estate disputes. Through expert-led insights and case-based explanations, it enables homebuyers, landowners, and society members to understand whether their grievance falls under RERA, civil courts, arbitration, or other legal remedies, ensuring informed decisions before initiating legal action.

The redevelopment of Goregaon Pearl Co-operative Housing Society (CHS) in Mumbai, initiated in the late 2000s (around 2008), has become a textbook example of how redevelopment projects can collapse when a builder defaults. What began as a plan to upgrade aging buildings gradually turned into nearly a decade of delays, unfinished towers, and prolonged litigation that stretched into the mid-to-late 2010s.

By 2016–2018, construction had stalled completely, leading the society to terminate the developer and approach arbitration and the Bombay High Court. The dispute did not end there—outside flat buyers continued litigation before consumer courts, resulting in key rulings by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) between 2021 and 2023.

This case highlights a harsh legal reality repeatedly affirmed by courts:
in redevelopment projects, society members come first — not free-sale buyers.

Goregaon Pearl Society Redevelopment Case

1. What was the project?

• Goregaon Pearl Co-operative Housing Society (Mumbai) decided to redevelop its old building.
• A builder/developer was appointed to:
  • Rehouse existing society members in new flats.
  • Construct two towers – Tower A and Tower B.
  • Sell extra flats (free-sale flats) to outsiders to fund the project.

2. What did the builder promise?

• Complete both towers within a fixed time.
• Hand over new flats to society members.
• Deliver sold flats to outside buyers who paid money.
• Follow approvals, timelines, and payment schedules.

3. What actually happened?

• Tower A:
  • Construction started but was never fully completed.
  • Delays kept piling up for years.
• Tower B:
  • Construction stopped at RCC stage (only concrete skeleton).
  • No finishing, no possession.
• Despite incomplete work, the builder sold several flats to outside buyers and collected money.

4. When did the society lose patience?

• Years passed with no proper progress.
• Builder failed deadlines repeatedly.
• Cheques given by the builder to the society bounced.
• Society realised:
  • Members were suffering.
  • Project funds were mismanaged.
  • Completion by the same builder was unlikely.

5. What did the society do?

• Terminated the developer.
• Cancelled his Power of Attorney.
• Went to court and arbitration seeking:
  • Right to complete the project through another builder.
  • Protection from further interference.

6. What did the Bombay High Court / Arbitrator decide?

• Courts and arbitrator allowed the society to take control.
• Society was permitted to:
  • Appoint a new developer.
  • Complete the unfinished towers.
  • Stop the old builder from interfering.

👉 Key point:
Courts clearly recognised that the builder had failed and the society’s priority was rehousing its members, not protecting the defaulting developer.

7. What happened to the outside flat buyers?

This is where it gets serious.

• Many outside buyers had paid money to the builder.
• But:
  • They never got possession.
  • The builder lost rights over the project after termination.
  • Flats were ultimately allotted to society members as part of rehabilitation.

8. What did consumer courts (NCDRC) say?

• Buyers approached consumer courts.
• The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held that:
  • Buyers cannot get possession because the builder had no surviving rights.
  • The society was not bound to give flats to buyers.
  • Buyers are entitled only to refund of money with interest, not flats.

👉 In short:

If a redevelopment builder fails and loses control, outside buyers lose the flat — they only get money back.

Why This Case Matters for Property Buyers

The Goregaon Pearl case exposes the structural risks of redevelopment purchases:

• Buyers do not get ownership rights until lawful possession
• Builder permissions can be terminated
• Courts will not displace society members to protect speculative buyers
• Recovery is usually limited to money — not property

For buyers, redevelopment flats may appear cheaper, but legally they are high-risk investments.

Key Takeaways for Buyers

• Never treat redevelopment flats like ready or under-construction projects
• Verify the redevelopment agreement, society resolutions, and approvals
• Understand that society rights override buyer interests
• Use professional verification tools before investing

Platforms like Verified.RealEstate help buyers assess redevelopment risks through document checks, project status verification, and legal due-diligence before money changes hands.

ABBREVIATIONS (Full Forms)
CHS – Co-operative Housing Society
RCC – Reinforced Cement Concrete
POA – Power of Attorney
NCDRC – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission