BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA
             REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI
                         Hearing held through Hybrid mode

                      1. COMPLAINT NO.: CC12600687 (Sr. No. 75)
GANGA DNYANESH PATIL                                            …COMPLAINANT/S

                                          VS

SHANTPRABHA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING                                 …RESPONDENT/S
SOCIETY LIMITED

                                          a/w

                      2. COMPLAINT NO.: CC12600727 (Sr. No. 76)
DNYANESH SATISH PATIL                                           …COMPLAINANT/S

                                          VS

SHANTPRABHA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING                                 …RESPONDENT/S
SOCIETY LIMITED


          MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51800052544

                                    Interim Order
                                    May 20th, 2026
                             (Date of Hearing: 18.05.2026)

              Coram: Manoj Saunik, Chairperson, MahaRERA
Advocate Umang Thakkar i/b Advocate Disha Shah appeared for the Complainants
                            at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2.
Advocate Amit Maurya i/b LIM LEGIT appeared for the Respondents at Sr. Nos. 1
                                   and 2.


1.   During the course of the hearing, it was noted that the captioned complaints
     were filed by two members of the same family and have been listed as per
     seniority. The learned counsel for the complainants at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 further
     submitted that miscellaneous applications had been filed in the captioned
     complaints seeking directions to restrain the respondent-promoter from creating
     any third-party rights in respect of the disputed flats.

                                       Page 1 of 2
2.   Upon perusal of the documents placed on record and hearing the learned
     advocate for the complainants, it is apparent that there is a possibility of third-
     party rights being created unless the respondent-promoter is restrained, which
     is also reflected in the respondent’s own communications with the complainants.
3.   In light of the above, the Authority finds it necessary to restrain the respondent-
     promoter from creating any third-party rights in the flats in question.
4.   It is further noted that the complainant at Sr. No. 2 has filed a single complaint
     for two flats which is not as per prescribed rules under RERA for filing of
     complaint. However, in the interest of natural justice and for the purpose of
     conserving the time and resources of the Authority, the complainant is directed
     to deposit with MahaRERA Rs. 5000/- towards court fees pertaining to the
     remaining one unit in dispute. The proof of deposit of a total amount of Rs.
     5,000/- shall be filed or uploaded on record in the complaint login on the
     MahaRERA portal by 25.05.2026.
5.   Therefore, the respondent-promoter is hereby restrained from creating any
     third-party rights in respect of the three flats covered under the aforesaid two
     miscellaneous applications.                                                Digitally signed
                                                                     MANOJ bySAUNIK
                                                                               MANOJ

                                                                     SAUNIK Date: 2026.05.20
                                                                            17:42:44 +05'30'

                                                                      Manoj Saunik
                                                            Chairperson, MahaRERA




                                      Page 2 of 2