BEFORE THE

     MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
                                      MUMBAI
                   COMPLAINT NO: CC005000000000343
 Madhuri Hansraj Patil                             ... Complainant.
       Versus
 l.Sadanand Hajare & SPH
   Agro Farms & Estate Pvt.Ltd.
 2.Shubham Vijaykumar Jain
 3.Virendra Omprakash Agarwal
 (Tulip Homes,Pune)                                ... Respondents.
 MahaRERA Regn: P52100004304

                                     Coram: Shri B.D. Kapadnis, Hon ble
                                     Member & Adjudicating Officer.

Complainant: Represented by Adv. Mr.Avinash J. Pawar.
Respondent No.2: Represented by Adv.Abir P.,Wadia Gandy & Co.


                                     Final Order
                             26thDecernber 2017.


       The complainant has filed the complaint to complain that the
respondents while registering their project have provided incorrect
building details. According to her, they have mentioned that 187
flats/shops have been booked. This information is false. Respondents have
furnished the incorrect/false information to create false evidence and to
buster the sales of their project.




2.    The complainant has filed the complaint as she has the grievance
that the respondents have not correctly uploaded the information
regarding the flats sold in their project while registering their project. The
1,
    complainant has also filed application for amendment of the complaint, to
    insert prayers namely to call upon the respondents to produce booking
    details, registered title deeds, to check index two copies and revoke
    registration certifica te etc.

    3.     The respondents have filed application for dismissal of the
    complaint on the ground that complainant does not come within the
    definition of'aggrieved person' and therefore, she does not have locus
    standi to file the complaint. Special Suit No.403 of 201,6 is pending between
    the parties before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Thane which involves
    the dispute regarding the land on which the project is erected and
    therefore, this authority does not have jurisdiction to entertain this dispute

4.         Heard the leamed Advocates for the parties. I have perused the
papers. They disclose that Civil Suit No. 403 o12016 has been filed by the
complainant & Others against the respondents & Others for partition of
Survey No. 110/1, 25/3, 110/4, 112/4, 110/3 of village Ghodbundar,
Taluka & District Thane and for restraining the respondents from creating
third party interest in respect of the said property. The respondents have
mentioned about this Suit in column of pending litigation related to their
proiect. The matter is before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) which is
competent to decide the matter. Hence, this authority has no jurisdiction
to decide the issue of title relating to the property lying between the parties.

4.        The complainant wants that the respondents should produce the
documents showing that 187 plots/shops have been booked and furnish
other information mentioned in amendment application. I find that she
wants to collect the evidence for her suit through this authority which
amounts to abuse of process of law. It is not permissible.

5.        Section 31 of RERA empowers any aggrieved person to file
complaint before this authority, even though the term "aggrieved person,,

2
could not be restricted only to the promoter, allottee or the registered
agent, I find that in facts and circumstances of the case the complaint does

not come under the definition of 'aggrieved person' and therefore, she has
no locus standi to file this complaint. Hence the following order.

                                 ORDER

                   The complaint is dismissed.




Mumbai.
Date:26.12.2017.                              ( B.D. Kapadnis )
                                        Member & Adjudicating Officer,
                                          MahaRERA, Mumbai.




3