20 June,2026 09:21 AM IST | Mumbai | Vinod Kumar Menon
Jangid Annexe project in Jogeshwari East; MahaRERA has allowed 17 buyer complaints against the developer to proceed, rejecting builder’s claim that units were outside its jurisdiction. Pics/Advocate Anil D’Souza
In a significant order that could strengthen buyer protection under RERA, MahaRERA has rejected an attempt by Jangid Homes Pvt Ltd to dismiss 17 complaints filed by purchasers in the delayed Jangid Annexe project at Jogeshwari East.
The builder had argued that the units were industrial in nature and therefore outside MahaRERA's jurisdiction. However, MahaRERA Member-II Ravindra Deshpande held that the complaints are prima facie maintainable, noting that the promoter had consistently represented the project and units as commercial before both purchasers and the regulator.
The ruling clears the way for all 17 complaints to be heard on merits.
The buyers approached MahaRERA under Section 18 of the RERA Act, seeking relief for delayed possession and other grievances.
Jangid Homes challenged the complaints, arguing that:
>> The project was approved as an industrial development
>> Municipal permissions classified it as industrial
>> Industrial projects fall outside RERA
The builder therefore claimed MahaRERA lacked jurisdiction.
The complainants stated:
>> Allotment letters didn't describe units as industrial
>> Agreements for Sale contained no reference to industrial galas
>> Commercial stamp duty/ registration charges paid
>> The project was registered as commercial with MahaRERA
>> All 38 units were disclosed as commercial on the MahaRERA portal
They argued that the promoter could not change the character of the project after accepting money and executing agreements
The Authority noted that:
>> The project was registered as commercial
>> Extension applications were also filed as a commercial project
>> Project disclosures classified the units as commercial
>> Agreements with purchasers did not describe the premises as industrial
MahaRERA observed that the promoter's current stand contradicted its own earlier representations before buyers and the regulator.
The Authority also rejected the builder's argument that the complainants were merely investors, noting that specific units had been allotted and consideration had been received. It held that such issues could only be decided after detailed examination of evidence.
The ruling reinforces that:
>> Builders may be bound by representations made to buyers and regulators
>> MahaRERA records can become crucial evidence
>> Technical jurisdictional objections may fail if documents tell a different story
>> Buyers in stalled projects cannot be denied a hearing at the threshold
Project: Jangid Annexe, Jogeshwari East
Builder: Jangid Homes Pvt Ltd
Complaints: 17
Core dispute: Commercial or industrial units?
MahaRERA ruling: Complaints maintainable
Next step: Hearing on merits
Anil D'Souza, Advocate president, MahaRERA Bar Association and counsel for the complainants
âThe Authority has rightly held that a promoter cannot make one representation to purchasers and MahaRERA at the time of registration and sale, and then take a completely contradictory stand when faced with complaints from allottees. The promoter himself has stated in Clauses 27 and 66 of the Agreement, as well as in the layout plan, that the project is a commercial property. MahaRERA has also acknowledged this fact in its order, and that is the turning point.'
