Elderly Mumbai homebuyers await justice as MahaRERA property disputes drag on

At 85 Venkataraja Rao is still waiting for his appeal before the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal to be listed His case is one of two involving elderly Mumbai homebuyers whose property disputes have stretched across years of litigationFor Rao and his 78yearold wife Mithra a MahaRERA order directing refunds over two Thane flats did not end the matter For Chandravati Purohit 75 and her 79yearold husband Chattarsingh an interim Tribunal order has brought them closer to getting possession of a home they say they paid for in fullChandravati and Chattarsingh Purohit both in their seventies with the demand draft for R506902 and the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal order directing them to deposit the amountThe cases highlight the cost of prolonged realestate disputes for elderly homebuyers mdash years spent dealing with hearings documents and competing claims while waiting for homes meant to provide security in their later yearsldquoJustice delayed is justice denied For senior citizens years of delayed possession mean losing the very time in which they should have been enjoying their homesrdquo said Advocate Anil DrsquoSouza who represented the Rao and Purohit familiesRs 90L paid possession still disputedrsquoChandravati and Chattarsingh Purohit entered into a registered Agreement for Sale with Ms Parshvanath Construction on June 30 2017 for a flat priced at Rs 90 lakhPromised possession Dec 31 2018Occupation Certificate June 30 2022Amount paid according to the buyers Rs 90 lakhThe couplersquos dispute over possession led to proceedings before MahaRERA including an order dated May 26 2023 concerning delayedpossession interest The buyers maintained that they paid the full consideration while the developer claimed possession had been offered several times during conciliation proceedings in 2021 before MahaRERA in 2022 and through communications in 2024 and 2025 The buyers disputed this said some alleged possession offers were conditionalWhy the order mattersAdvocate Anil DrsquoSouza who represented the Rao and Purohit families in their MahaRERA casesAdvocate Anil DrsquoSouza said the Tribunalrsquos intervention was significant because the Purohits had paid the full consideration and the project had received its Occupation Certificate DrsquoSouza also said the plight of elderly homebuyers caught in prolonged property disputes needs greater attention from the judiciary and government and called for greater accountability from developersVenkataraja Rao 85 Still waiting for his appealRao a Bandra West resident and his wife had invested in properties that later became the subject of litigationTheir complaint before MahaRERA resulted in an order dated May 15 2025 concerning two flats mdash T21804 and T4806 mdash in the Serein Phase 1 project in Thane developed by Ardent Properties Private Limited and Tata Housing Development LimitedVenkataraja RaoMahaRERA directed the promoters to refund the amounts paid for the two flats after the allotments were terminatedBut Rao was unhappy with the order and approached the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal on November 25 2025His appeal is still awaiting listingThe Bengaluru linkThe Rao couple had also booked a flat in the Promont project in Bengaluru including Flat No 903 before shifting their investment to the Thane projectMahaRERA held that it had no jurisdiction over the Bengaluru claim because the project falls under Karnataka RERAFor the two Thane flats however the Authority directed the promoters to refund the amounts paid in accordance with the allotment termsThe Purohits Rs 90 lakh paid possession still disputedChandravati and Chattarsingh Purohit residents of Ghatkopar East entered into a registered Agreement for Sale with Ms Parshvanath Construction on June 30 2017 for a flat priced at Rs 90 lakhbull Promised possession December 31 2018bull Occupation Certificate June 30 2022bull Amount paid according to the buyers R90 lakhThe couplersquos dispute over possession led to proceedings before MahaRERA including an order dated May 26 2023 concerning delayedpossession interestThe buyers maintained that they had paid the full consideration while the developer claimed possession had been offered several times mdash during conciliation proceedings in 2021 before MahaRERA in 2022 and through communications in 2024 and 2025The buyers disputed this and said some of the alleged possession offers were conditionalThe Rs 10 lakh parking disputeOne of the key points of contention was an alleged demand for Rs 10 lakh towards parking along with GST and interestThe buyers argued that these amounts could not be imposed as a condition for handing over possessionTribunal gives route to possessionOn August 5 2026 the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal issued an interim direction requiring the couple to deposit Rs 506902 with its registryThe developer was then directed to hand over possession within four weeks of the depositAugust 11 The couple deposited a demand draft for more than R506902 as directed by the TribunalTheir larger dispute including competing claims over delayed possession and interest remains pendingldquoSince 2013 we have struggled for possession of our own home despite paying nearly Rs 90 lakh We are relieved that the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal has ruled in our favour and after years of legal battle we hope to spend the remaining years of our lives in our dream homerdquo said Chandravati PurohitWhy the order mattersAdvocate Anil DrsquoSouza said the Tribunalrsquos intervention was significant because the couple had paid the full consideration and the project had received its Occupation CertificateHe said prolonged denial of possession runs contrary to the objective of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016 and raises consumerprotection concernsDrsquoSouza also said the plight of elderly homebuyers caught in prolonged property disputes needs greater attention from the judiciary and government and called for greater accountability from developers