Section 7 MOFA – Interpretation of Informed Consent for Layout Changes
Judgment dated 7.9.2026 of Maha REAT in Appeal No.AT006000000345557 of 2024 of Parshvadhara Complex ABCD Cooperative Housing Society Vs. M/s. Parshwanath Developers and others in Complaint No.CC00600000020890 of 2022 of with connected matter.
judgment can be cited as a strong authority against promoters attempting to introduce additional wings/buildings by relying solely on standard consent clauses in pre-RERA agreements. It is particularly relevant in disputes involving additional FSI, TDR loading, reduction of open spaces, amenity areas, and post-occupancy layout changes.
RERA protections continue to operate alongside MOFA in Maharashtra
The project lay out was sanctioned on 12.3.2012, consisting of A, B ad C wings. It was revised on 4.4.2015 with addition of D wing.
Thus E wing / building was not shown in the said 2015 plan to the purchasers when the pre-RERA agreements for sale were executed.
On 29.1.2019, the promoter uploaded the occupancy certificates of B, C and D buildings and on 7.10.2022 for A building. Thus, the project was completed in October, 2022.
The society learnt that on 2.7.2021, the promoter had unilaterally amended sanctioned plans for new E building without inforing the Society and taking advantage of new DCPR Rules. As a result, the open areas, common spaces, recreational garden spaces of the project were taken away in violation of Section 14 of the RERA Act.
On 24.1.2022, the society sent legal notice objecting to the additional construction and thereafter, filed the complaint.
The Tribunal HELD tha the promoters were not entitled to construct E building as per 2021 plan without valid and informed consent of the allottees and thus, violated Sections 7 of MOFA and 14 of the RERA Act 2016.
Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regu/ation of the Promotion of Construction Etc), Rules 1964
whether consent given in the clauses of agreement would be a valid or informed consent for the purposes of section 7 of the MOFA.
The word “consent’ in the context of the section does not mean implied consent such as by conduct or acguiescence or circumstance that might be consent. Consent in this section is to be understood to mean as positive consent to specifrc items of work or alteration to be carried out or patticular additional structure to be built by a promoter.
A blanket consent or authority obtained by a promoter at the time of entering into an agreement for sale or at the time of handing over possession is not the consent contemplated by section 7(1)(i) or (ii) for such a blanket consent or authority would sew up or nullify these provisions
It is, thus, clear that it is a consistent view’ of this Courd that the consent as contemplated under section 7(1) of the MOFA has to be an informed consent which is to be obtained upon a full disclosure by the developer of the entire project and that a blanket consent or authority obtained by the promoter at the time of entering into agreement of sale would not be a consent contemplated under the provisions of the MOFA. f
Bare perusal of the recitals and clauses of the agreements for sale clearly reveal that the consent given by the flat purchasers is not informed consent. The promoters have not made disclosure of the entire project particularly building “E”. There is no disclosure how much TDR the promoters will be utilized, there are no particulars disclosed about in case the promoters have used any FSI of any other land or property by way of floating floor, space index etc. which are mandatorily required to be disclosed. In view of this we are of the considered view that the blanket consent in the said clauses of the agreements would not be informed consent as contemplated under section 7(l) of the MOFA or under section 14 of RERA.
