🏛️ MahaRERA Dismisses Omkar & ERA Promoter's Review – HC’s Conditional Relief in Longest Possession Battle

April 12, 2025

A Deep Dive into the Legal Crossroads of RERA Enforcement and Constitutional Remedies

I. Introduction

The ongoing legal battle between homebuyers and Era Realtors Pvt. Ltd., the promoter of a residential project in Mumbai, has thrown the spotlight on a growing trend: promoters bypassing statutory appellate procedures under RERA by invoking writ jurisdiction before High Courts. While the Bombay High Court has shown sensitivity to both constitutional rights and the sanctity of specialized tribunals, the MahaRERA authority has reaffirmed its regulatory teeth, rejecting technical dilutions and enforcing monetary penalties rigorously.

II. Key Developments in the Legal Saga

1. MahaRERA’s Firm Stand – Order Dated 19.03.2025

In a decisive order, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) dismissed the review application filed by Era Realtors. The promoter had sought to reduce or nullify the accruing interest liability, contending that a “bare shell OC” (Occupancy Certificate) sufficed to limit their obligations.

However, the Authority firmly held:

- Interest liability continues until full and valid OC is granted, in keeping with the original allotment agreement and MahaRERA’s binding orders.

- The concept of a “bare shell OC” was rejected, holding that partial or incomplete compliance cannot extinguish the promoter’s liability.

- The execution warrant for ₹2.82 crore, issued earlier to enforce the interest and compensation, was upheld without modification.

2. Promoter’s Controversial Legal Maneuver – Writ Petition Filed

In a surprising and controversial move, Era Realtors did not prefer an appeal before the RERA Appellate Tribunal, which would have required a mandatory pre-deposit of 30% of the penalty amount as per Section 43(5) of the RERA Act.

Instead, the promoter filed Writ Petition No. 8720 of 2024 before the Bombay High Court on 24.06.2024, seeking a stay on the execution proceedings.

III. Judicial Developments Before the High Court

1. Scrutiny by Bombay High Court – Order Dated 24.06.2024

At the preliminary hearing, the Hon’ble Court:

- Raised maintainability concerns, relying on the landmark Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil judgment, which cautions against casual invocation of writ jurisdiction when alternative statutory remedies exist.

- Despite the challenge, the Court granted conditional interim relief, subject to the promoter handing over physical possession of Flat D-1006 by 02.07.2024 to the aggrieved allottees.

This conditional order struck a careful balance: it granted temporary relief while protecting the buyers’ fundamental right to possession.

2. Possession Under Duress – Order Dated 12.07.2024

The allottees, after a long-drawn legal struggle, finally received possession of the flat on 12.07.2024, albeit under contentious circumstances.

Key points from the order:

- Keys handed over to allottees as per High Court direction.

- Allottees undertook to pay ₹50.62 lakhs, a disputed balance amount, within six weeks—without prejudice to their ongoing claims.

- The stay on execution was extended until MahaRERA decided the promoter’s application for condonation of delay in complying with its orders.

IV. Critical Analysis of Legal Strategy

A. Jurisdictional Bypass Attempt

The case reflects a growing tendency among developers to bypass the RERA Appellate Tribunal by filing writ petitions directly before the High Court. This raises serious legal concerns:

- Forum Shopping: The promoter circumvented Section 43(5), which mandates depositing 30% of the penalty before filing an appeal.

- Undermining RERA: Such tactics dilute the specialized and consumer-friendly mechanism established under the RERA regime.

B. High Court’s Balancing Act

The Bombay High Court showed measured restraint, neither dismissing the writ outright nor giving blanket protection to the promoter.

- Possession first, protection later: Relief was conditional upon immediate possession handover.

- Maintainability left open: The Court refrained from conclusively ruling on whether the writ was maintainable, thereby allowing the legal process to play out.

This approach signals a judicial effort to safeguard homebuyers’ rights without closing the doors to constitutional remedies.

C. Unresolved Issues

Despite the possession handover, several legal questions remain:

- Interest Liability: Continues till full OC, as per MahaRERA’s consistent findings.

- Maintainability of the Writ: Still pending detailed adjudication per Paragraphs 22-23 of Shalini Shyam Shetty.

- Execution Stay: Merely a temporary reprieve—it does not nullify the promoter’s financial obligations.

V. Industry-Wide Implications

For Promoters:

- Writ petitions cannot be a backdoor escape from RERA’s penalty and compliance regime.

- Delays in possession carry heavy costs—including interest at MCLR + 2%.

For Homebuyers:

- Dual leverage exists: pursue both possession and financial compensation under RERA.

- Must insist on complete OC—partial compliance doesn’t end the promoter’s liability.

For Judiciary:

- Highlights the need for clearer guidelines on when constitutional writs can override the statutory appellate route under RERA.

- Courts must balance Article 226 remedies with the efficacy of specialized dispute resolution bodies.

VI. Chronology of Key Orders

Date	Forum	Key Action
12.02.2021	MahaRERA	Interest liability imposed
07.02.2024	MahaRERA	Execution warrant issued
24.06.2024	Bombay HC	Conditional stay granted
02.07.2024	Deadline	Promoter to handover possession
12.07.2024	Bombay HC	Possession confirmed, interim order extended
19.03.2025	MahaRERA	Review application dismissed

VII. Conclusion

The clash between Era Realtors and the homebuyers reflects a larger legal debate about the boundaries of constitutional remedies when statutory mechanisms like RERA exist. While the High Court provided conditional relief, MahaRERA has reinforced the regulatory discipline necessary to ensure timely delivery and compliance in real estate transactions. This case may serve as a precedent-setting moment, deterring promoters from indulging in tactical litigation while empowering homebuyers to assert their rights through both possession and compensation claims.

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in