E-Paper
MahaRERA: Bought a shop for retirement income but found no tenants; here’s why the regulator rejected senior citizens’ plea
MahaRERA rejected senior citizens' demand for alternative showroom, stating that an inability to find tenants doesn't entitle them for another shop under RERA
Prefer HTon Google
Senior citizens’ inability to find tenants for a commercial shop does not entitle them to seek an alternative showroom from the developer, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has ruled, rejecting a plea for a replacement unit or compensation.
The MahaRERA order said, "Complainant’s inability to find tenants does not entitle them to seek an alternative showroom, MahaRERA is of the view that there is no provision under RERA, under which such relief can be granted by MahaRERA. Hence, the same stands rejected."
The senior citizens purchased the shop to generate rental income during retirement, but claimed that poor visibility and inadequate access, owing to an incomplete 24-metre-wide Development Plan (DP) road, made it difficult to find tenants.
The case
The case concerns a real estate project where the senior citizens purchased a shop in Wakad, Pune.
According to the complaint, the senior citizen couple purchased the shop through a registered agreement for sale two years ago, intending to generate rental income during retirement. The couple paid over 80% of the total consideration and expected possession by December 2025, along with two dedicated parking spaces and a completed 24-metre-wide Development Plan (DP) road. However, the buyers alleged that the commercial access road remained unopened and the promised parking spaces were not provided, preventing them from taking physical possession of the unit.
The buyers further stated that the developer’s leasing team initially agreed to help find tenants but later informed them that prospective commercial tenants declined to rent the shop due to poor visibility caused by the incomplete road. They alleged that access remained restricted to a narrow, unpaved road obstructed by metal fencing and construction debris, discouraging prospective tenants. The buyers claimed that while commercial premises in an adjacent project had been leased after similar road obstructions were cleared, showrooms in the developer’s project remained unrented.
According to the buyers, they retained the outstanding payment in a fixed deposit (FD) because the shop could not generate the rental income they intended to rely on during retirement. They sought rental compensation from December 2025 until completion of the DP road, a refund with interest, or an equivalent showroom at another location.
Developer's defence
The developer contested the complaint, arguing that the occupation certificate (OC) for the premises had been obtained and that the complainant had failed to pay the outstanding dues and take possession. It also maintained that the land earmarked for the 24-metre-wide DP road had been handed over to the corporation in 2023, and that construction of the public road was the local authority’s responsibility. The developer further contended that the agreement for sale did not promise two parking spaces and that leasing-related claims fell outside MahaRERA’s jurisdiction.
MahaRERA's verdict
The MahaRERA, in its order, held that the construction and opening of the 24-metre-wide public Development Plan (DP) road fell within the competent planning authority's jurisdiction, and that the regulator could not exercise that authority’s powers.
"MahaRERA is of the considered view that the construction of the said road, its implementation and removal of obstructions on land outside the said project fall within the jurisdiction of the competent authority under the applicable laws. However, MahaRERA cannot exercise the said jurisdiction of the concerned competent authority in this complaint," the MahaRERA said in its order.
According to MahaRERA, the Agreement for Sale also provides June 30, 2026, as the date of possession of the said shop to the complainant. Hence, on the date this complaint was filed on May 28, 2026, the agreed date of possession had not yet expired. Hence, this complaint is premature in seeking relief under Section 18 of the RERA on the merits.
MahaRERA concluded that it was not deciding whether access to the shop was adequate, possession had been lawfully offered, or withholding the balance payment was justified, as these matters were subject to the decision of the concerned competent authority.
