December 2, 2025: Advocate Shirish V. Deshpande, Chairman of the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, has clarified widespread confusion surrounding the recent MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) judgment involving 19 homebuyers and Anamika CHSL. Addressing a reader’s concern that the Tribunal’s decision might undermine homebuyer confidence in redevelopment, Deshpande explained that the case was incorrectly portrayed in print and social media.
He noted that although the appeal filed by the homebuyers was dismissed, the appeal was not about their rights to the flats but specifically against the fresh project registration granted to Anamika Society after it terminated Aditya Developers. “While it is true that the homebuyers’ appeal was dismissed, their appeal specifically challenged the registration granted to the society by MahaRERA to complete the unfinished work,” he said.
The redevelopment began with Anamika Society’s development agreement with Aditya Developers in March 2011, with possession set for July 2015. After delays and breaches, the society terminated the developer—an action later upheld by the Bombay High Court. The society then sought to complete the project through a contractor and obtained new registration from MahaRERA. During the same period, both the society and the 19 buyers filed complaints seeking revocation of the developer’s registration. When an interim MahaRERA order directing both parties to meet did not materialise, the buyers challenged the new registration.
Deshpande emphasised that while dismissing the appeal, MREAT firmly highlighted MahaRERA’s statutory obligations. The judgment states that “once the project is registered with the authority, it falls within the exclusive domain of the regulatory authority, and the regulatory authority cannot remain a silent spectator. It is statutorily obligated to protect the interests of homebuyers.”
On the society’s defence of “no privity of contract,” the Tribunal criticised the stance as a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation, stressing that bona fide homebuyers cannot be abandoned simply because they lack a direct contract with the society. It also reiterated that under section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, allottees can enforce agreements for sale against whoever replaces the original developer.
The judgment urges MahaRERA to impose safeguards while granting registrations to societies, plug procedural gaps, and revisit its Standard Operating Procedure to prevent misuse. Deshpande noted that the Tribunal’s directions could bring long-needed clarity and consistency to redevelopment matters, offering renewed hope to homebuyers caught in stalled or disputed projects.
Source: The Free Press Journal
