BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Virtual Hearing held through video conference as per
MahaRERA Circular No.: 27/2020
COMPLAINT NO: CC006000000251910
URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE TRUSTEES LTD.
& URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE VENTURE CAPITAL FUND …COMPLAINANTS

VS

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD. …RESPONDENT NO.1

MONEY MAGNUM NEST PRIVATE LTD. …RESPONDENT NO. 2

MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51900046424

Order
(Wrongly listed)
December 21, 2022
(Date of hearing – 13.12.2022 – matter was reserved for order)

Coram: Shri. Ajoy Mehta, Chairperson, MahaRERA

Advocate Vikramjit Garewal for the Complainant
Advocate Yogendra Singh for the Respondents

The captioned complaint was wrongly listed before this Authority on

13.12.2022 and in view thereof it is clarified that the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by
this Authority in the captioned complaint remains valid and subsisting.

Digitally signed by AJOY

AJOY MEHTA MEHTA

Date: 2022.12.21 13:41:35
+05'30'

(Ajoy Mehta)
Chairperson, MahaRERA

Page 1 of 1
 BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA
REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI
Physical Hearing @3.30pm
COMPLAINT NO: CC006000000251910
URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE TRUSTEES LTD.
& URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE VENTURE CAPITAL FUND …COMPLAINANTS

VS

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD. …RESPONDENT NO.1

MONEY MAGNUM NEST PRIVATE LTD. …RESPONDENT NO. 2

MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51900046424

Order
September 05, 2022
(Date of hearing – 22.08.2022 – matter was reserved for order)

Coram: Shri. Ajoy Mehta, Chairperson, MahaRERA

Advocate Mayur Khandaparkar for the Complainant
Advocate Nimay Dave a/w Advocate Alya Khan for the Respondent No. 1
Advocate Archana S. Giri for the Respondent No. 2

1. The Respondent No. 1 is the Promoter/Developer within the meaning of Section

2 (zk) of the said Act. The Respondent is registered as the Promoter of the Project
namely “LODHA MAHALAKSHMI - SIGNET” under section 5 of the said Act
bearing MAHARERA Project Registration No. P51900046424 (hereinafter
referred to as the “said Project”).

2. The Complainants are seeking the following reliefs:

Quote
a. That this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to revoke the registration of Project No.
P51900046424 granted to the Respondents.
b. That this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to levy penalty on the Respondents under
section 60 of the said Act for making deliberate false and incorrect statements and
contravening with section 4 of the said Act.
c. That this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to levy penalty on the Respondents under
section 59 of the said Act for contravening the provisions of s. 3 and marketing a
nonregistered project.

Page 1 of 9
 d. That this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to levy penalty on the Respondents under
section 61 of the said Act for making false and incorrect statements in advertisements
made by the Respondents made by the Respondents, persons claiming through or
under them as well as Real Estate Agents, in contravention to the RERA
Registration of Project No. P51900046424.
e. That this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to levy penalty and suo moto take appropriate
civil and criminal action on the Respondents, its directors as well as all the persons
who are in charge of, responsible to the company for the conduct of, the business of
the company in terms of section 69 of the said Act, for giving fraudulent documents
to the MahaRERA and getting the RERA Project Registered bearing No.
P51900046424, in contravening the provisions of the said Act.
f. That this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to take suo moto action against the various
Real Estate Agents advertising the non-registered residential project of the
Respondents and the said Project, and penalise them under section 62 of the said
Act.
g. That this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to pass an order of permanent injunction
restraining the Respondents by themselves as well as persons claiming, through or
under them as well as Real Estate Agents from making any advertisements as
understood by section 2(b) of the said Act or marketing or creating any third party
rights in respect of the said Project, the Residential Project and the said Property.
h. That this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to pass an order directing the Respondents
from permanently pulling down and/or withdrawing all advertisements and
marketing material made/published by the Respondents, persons claiming through
or under them as well as Real Estate Agents engaged by them in respect of the said
Residential Project as well as the said Project for which RERA Registration bearing
No. P51900046424 has been granted.
i. The Respondent be directed to pay the Costs of this Complaint as well as all ancillary
charges including legal expenses, etc.
j. Any further relief be kindly granted, which this Hon’ble Authority deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and for such further and consequent
reliefs that this Hon’ble Authority deems fit.
Unquote

3. The following roznama was passed by this Authority on 22.08.2022:

“The Complainant begins stating that he has just served an additional affidavit. The
Complainant is before this Authority seeking an interim order to restrain the Respondent
/ Promoter from going further with the project as registered with RERA. The
Complainant points out to certain clauses and states that these would qualify for
revocation of the registration and till such time a final decision on the
same is taken, they should be restrained.

The Respondent / Promoter avers that the Complainant is neither an allottee nor an
association of allottees nor another stake holder which would qualify as an aggrieved
Party. The Promoter therefore questions the very locus standi of the Complainant and
seeks dismissal of the complaint on ground of maintainability.

Page 2 of 9
 The Complainant points to section 31 referring to who an aggrieved Party is, further also
to section 7 wherein Authority could take up matter suo-moto. The Complainant also
points out to the implications of an advertisement. The Complainant states that he is
before the Hon’ble High Bombay Court and the matter before the RERA regarding
registration could adversely affect the outcome of his matter pending before the Hon’ble
High Bombay Court. The Complainant has also brought on records the judgments to
show who an aggrieved Party could be.

The Respondent / Promoter avers that to permit interpretation of the definition of

advertisement to anyone at large could lead to anyone coming up and seeking redressal
for grievances. The Respondent also points to certain orders of the erstwhile Chairman
of MahaRERA and also Tamil Nadu RERA stating that RERA does not have jurisdiction
to entertain PIL. The orders are also pointed out to indicate who an aggrieved person
would be. The Promoter states that the reliefs that is available to the Complainant as far
as the money decree is concerned is only with the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and he
cannot use that grievance to prevent the third-party sale. The Promoter avers before the
Authority that as per the letter dated 14.07.2022, they have already requested the Project
No. P51900046424 in this matter be kept in abeyance. They also further aver that they
would not be making any sales for gains in this Project registration no.

The mater has not been heard on merits. The matter is reserved for orders only on the
specific issue of maintainability.”

4. The brief issues of the captioned complaint are as follows:

a. The complaint has been filed by the Complainants on 13.07.2022.
b. That Complainant No.2 is the trustee of Complainant No. 1 company.
c. That the Respondent No. 1 is a builder / developer and a part of Lodha
Developers Group and also a group company of Everest Developers/Everest
Group (now known as Terraform).
d. That the Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the property on which the said
Project is to be constructed.
e. Further, Respondents vide an alleged agreement dated 01.10.2021 agreed to
develop the said Project on joint development basis. However, the said Project
is registered in the name of Respondent No. 1.
f. That (1) Mr. Kishor N. Shah, (2) Mr. Vimal K. Shah and (3) Mr. Nainesh K
Shah, the Promoters of the of Everest Group along with the Complainants and
other investors formed a company namely Vengas Realtors Pvt. Ltd., a Special
Purpose Vehicle (SPV), wherein the Promoters on one hand and the

Page 3 of 9
 Complainants plus other investors on the other hand had equal profit-sharing
ratio (i.e. 50:50).
g. That it was agreed between the Complainants and the Promoters of Everest
Group that Vengas Realtors Pvt. Ltd. would jointly develop the said Property
with one Everest Fincap Pvt. Ltd. (which is now known as Money Magnum Nest
Pvt. Ltd.; i.e. the Respondent No. 2 herein), a company wholly owned and
controlled by the Promoters of Everest Group.
h. That disputes and differences arose between the Promoters of Everest Group
and the Complainants along with other investors against which the
Complainants filed arbitration proceedings against the Promoters of the
Respondent No. 2 and award was also passed dated 30.06.2022.
i. That the Respondent No. 1 has hidden material facts and provided false and
incorrect statements and/or supressed various other critical information on
the MahaRERA project registration webpage while seeking registration.
j. That the Complainants fall within the ambit of section 31 as the section is
inclusive and not exhaustive. The Complainants are “aggrieved persons” in
relation to the registration of the said Project, as the said Project is the subject
matter of execution proceedings filed by the Complainants before the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court for the award dated 30.06.2022.
k. That the provisions of section 7 of RERA provides that this Authority on
receipt of a complaint or suo moto revoke the registration of a real estate
project for violating and providing false advisements.

5. The brief submissions of the Respondent No. 1 are as follows:

a. That the captioned complaint in its entirety and its maintainability, does not
have cause of action and locus standi.
b. The Respondent No. 1 submits that the Complainants are neither “association
of allottees” nor a “voluntary consumer association” nor are they consumers.
c. That while applying for registration of the said Project, there was a data mix-
up between two different projects of Respondent No. 1, and it was a clerical
error which occurred due to upgradation in MahaRERA website. However,

Page 4 of 9
 The Respondent No. 1 suo moto when realized, address a letter dated
14.07.2022 to keep the registration in abeyance.
d. The Respondent No. 1 submits that since the registration has been kept in
abeyance the Respondent No. 1 has not accepted any bookings in relation to
the said Project.
e. That the Complainants have certain disputes/claims against the shareholders
of the Respondent No. 2 in relation to 13 different properties and that
Respondent No. 1 is not connected with the said dispute and hence is not
getting into any details regarding the same.
f. That the Complainants have made false, baseless and malafide allegations.
g. That the Complainants are not “aggrieved persons” under section 31 of the said
Act as they are neither “association of allottees” nor “voluntary consumer
association” nor are they consumers. Moreover, the purpose and object of the
said Act is “to protect the interest of the consumers in the real estate project.”
h. That the Complainants have failed to represent as to how they can be
considered as consumers or association of allottees or voluntary consumer
association by any stretch of imagination and hence the captioned complaint
be dismissed the Complainants have no locus standi in the said Project.

6. That the Respondent No.2 has not filed any submissions till date but was
represented by a lawyer on the hearing dated 22.08.2022.

7. From the above facts and submissions, the preliminary issue that requires
consideration is Whether the Complainants have any locus in the present complaint
and thus, whether the complaint is maintainable?

8. In answer to the issue above, the following observations are noteworthy for the
complaint mentioned herein:
a. It is pertinent to note that this order is related to the limited issue of
maintainability and the merits of the case are not dealt with. The preliminary

Page 5 of 9
 issue that needs to be ascertained is whether the complaints fall under the
definition of aggrieved person.

b. Thus, in this regard it would be necessary to quote the relevant section 31 and
section 2(zg) of the RERA:
“Section 31 Filing of complaints with the Authority or the adjudicating office:
(1) Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating
officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this
Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder, against any promoter, allottee or
real estate agent, as the case may be.
Explanation—For the purpose of this sub-section “person” shall include the
association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any
law for the time being in force.

(2) The form, manner and fees for filing complaint under sub-section (1) shall be such
as may be prescribed.”

“Section 2 (zg) “Person” includes,—

(i) an individual;
(ii) a Hindu undivided family;
(iii) a company;
(iv) a firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932) or the Limited Liability
Partnership Act, 2008 (6 of 2009), as the case may be;
(v) a competent authority;
(vi) an association of persons or a body of individuals whether incorporated or not;
(vii) a co-operative society registered under any law relating to co-operative societies;
(viii) any such other entity as the appropriate Government may, by notification,
specify in this behalf;”

c. The issue that needs to be dealt with to decide maintainability would thus be
the interpretation of the word “aggrieved person” as mentioned in section 31
of the said Act. Section 31 while enumerating the category of persons who
could file a complaint has specifically stated the term “aggrieved person”. If
the intent of the legislation was to make available the option of making a
complaint open to all and everyone then section 31 of the said Act would have
used only the term “person” and not “aggrieved person”. Here prefixing the
word aggrieved which is an adjective to the word person which is a common
noun has clearly limited the pool of persons who have the privilege of filing a
complaint before MahaRERA. Clearly thus, the term “aggrieved” is important

Page 6 of 9
 and is the essence of section 31. Hence to file a complaint the person has to be
aggrieved and must have a grievance for which he seeks reliefs before RERA.

d. The grievance must be such that it falls within the grievances which are
enumerated in the said Act and for which the said Act provides reliefs as well.
While it is admitted that a person could have many grievances however this
Act has been specifically drafted for dealing with grievances relating to the
interest of consumers of the real estate projects. The said Act specifically
provides for an adjudicatory mechanism for speedy dispute redressal in the
interest of consumers. It would be important here to examine the statement of
objects and reasons of the said Act. The statement of objects and reasons of the
said Act are reproduced hereinbelow for ease of reference:
Statement and Objects of the said Act:
“An Act to establish the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for regulation and
promotion of the real estate sector and to ensure sale of plot, apartment or building,
as the case may be, or sale of real estate project, in an efficient and transparent manner
and to protect the interest of consumers in the real estate sector and to establish an
adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal and also to establish the
Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals from the decisions, directions or orders of the Real
Estate Regulatory Authority and the adjudicating officer and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.”
The plain reading of the same makes it clear that one has to be aggrieved about
an issue relating to the project for which a remedy has been made available in
the said Act and thus, it is only an aggrieved person who can make a
complaint before this Authority.

e. In this particular case the Complainants admittedly have a grievance.

However, on perusal of the grievance it is fundamentally related to the
specific performance of a contract between the Complainants and one of the
Respondents. This contract over which the Complainants have grievance is by
no stretch of imagination be said to have created the relationship of a buyer
and seller of a real estate project. The Complainants here are not allottees nor
have they pleaded so. The grievance of the Complainants is being settled in
civil courts in view of its nature and does not fall within the jurisdiction of
RERA. This Authority is constrained to observe that the Complainants have

Page 7 of 9
 tried to camouflage and dress the complaint up so as to make it fall within the
purview of RERA. This Authority observes that the Complainants are neither
Allottees nor an association of persons and nor are they able to prove in any
manner as to how they are aggrieved for which reliefs are available under the
said Act.

f. Further, section 2(zg) which defines the term “person” cannot be seen in
isolation. The word aggrieved and person are shrinked packed and one word
cannot be read in isolation of the other and a convenient interpretation cannot
be drawn. The said Act has been formulated fundamentally to provide reliefs
to individuals basically the home buyers who invest their life savings. The
said Act is definitely not a vehicle for arm chair public interest litigations.
Thus, the issue at para No.7 herein above is answered in negative.

9. In view of the above observations the captioned complaint is dismissed on the

preliminary issue dealt hereinabove. The Complainants have no locus standi and
thus the complaint is not maintainable under RERA.

10. Having dismissed the complaint on the issue of maintainability this Authority
views that the issues raised by the Complainants warrants a fresh look at the
registration. The registration granted needs to be reviewed in view of the issues
raised in this complaint. This process of review will be conducted as a suo motu
exercise as a part of the regulatory oversight function of this Authority. It is
hereby directed that the Secretary, MahaRERA will call for all documents
relating to the registration and examine the same afresh. This will be done as a
suo motu regulatory exercise. The Secretary shall submit a report on the
compliances that have been done or not done for obtaining the said Project
registration. The Secretary, MahaRERA shall also suggest remedies and the way
forward if any. The report of the Secretary, MahaRERA shall be submitted to this
Authority within 30 days from the date of this order. Till the final decision of this
report of the Secretary, MahaRERA is not given by this Authority the said Project

Page 8 of 9
registration shall be kept in abeyance and the Respondent shall not advertise,
market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite person/s to purchase in any manner
any apartment in the said Project. No order as to cost.

AJOY MEHTA Digitally signed by AJOY MEHTA

Date: 2022.09.05 12:21:08 +05'30'

(Ajoy Mehta)
Chairperson, MahaRERA

Page 9 of 9