MahaREAT – New Developer of Redevelopment Project & Liability of Allottees of Erstwhile Developer
Judgment dated 22nd April 2026 of Maha REAT in Appeal No. AT006/000000345507 of 2024 in Complaint No.CC006000000251889 of Janak LAxmichand Bhavsar and another Vs. M/s Aditya Developers and others with connected appeals.
The society is the owner of the project land and it has 26 members. The Society had assigned rights to the erstwhile promoter for the redevelopment of its building in 2015.
On 22.8.2017, MahaRERA registration was granted to the said project after the RERA came into in force. The erstwhile promoter had construction slab. In the meanwhile, the erstwhile promoter had created third party rights in the said project of 12 total agreements of sale.
On 20.4.2019, the agreement of the erstwhile promoter was terminated. The High Court confirmed the said termination and permitted the society to complete the remaining construction vide order dated 12.12.2019.
In 2022, the society appointed new promoter.
The new promoter had obtained RERA registration and also demolished the construction earlier made by the erstwhile promoter.
The appellants filed RERA complaint for possession of flats, interest for delay and also for cancellation of new RERA registration of new promoter under Section 15 of the RERA Act.
The society opposed the complaint on the ground that there was no privity of contract with the allottees of erstwhile promoter and the society.
The Authority had dismissed the complaints with liberty to the complainants to approach the High Court in pending arbitration petition of the Society.
REAT held that the society is not promoter and therefore, is not liable for the liability of erstwhile promoter for his allottees. It was further held that the new promoter is also not liable to the appellants – allottees of the erstwhile promoter.
There is no provision in the development agreement in respect of area sharing and revenue sharing arrangement out of the sale component and additional area of the flat of members of the re-habilitation component in no manner can be construed as area sharing arrangement or profit-sharing arrangement with the erstwhile promoter out of the sale component.
From the above, it is clear that the Hon’ble High Court directed the Authority to process the application of the new promoter for change of name of erstwhile promoter of the project in the name of new promoter andlor record fresh registration of the project in the name of new promoter without the liability of the allottees of the erstwhile promoter or cancelling the existing registration of the said erstwhile promoter, The Hon’ble Bombay High Court also directed to dispense with the condition of obtaining 2p’a consent allottees or consent from the erstwhile promoter to change the name of the promoter from erstwhile promoter to the new promote. Therefore, the position of law is very clear that the new promoter can obtain new registration of the project without carrying any liability of the allottees of the erstwhile promoter.
