Absence Of Certificate Under Rule 4 Of MahaRERA Rules Does Not Bar Maintainability Of Execution Application Before Civil Court: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court has held that the certificate contemplated under Rule 4 of the MahaRERA Rules, 2017, is not mandatory in an execution application, and the object of this Rule is to ensure that the directions for handing over possession are executed by the civil court within whose jurisdiction the project is situated.
Justice Gauri Godse was hearing a challenge to a civil court's order rejecting the petitioner's application for execution of a MahaRERA order granting possession of a real estate unit. The execution application had been returned on the ground that it was not accompanied by the certificate as contemplated under Rule 4 of the MahaRERA Rules, 2017.
The Respondent contended that when the particular procedure as prescribed in the statute is to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the prescribed manner, and non-compliance with issuing the necessary certificate, as contemplated under Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules, would not confer any jurisdiction on the civil court to implement the order.
Rejecting the argument, the Court held:
“… the object of this Rule is to ensure that the directions for handing over possession are executed by the civil court within whose jurisdiction the project is situated. Thus, this is a beneficial Rule to implement the orders passed under the provisions of RERA. In the present case, the absence of a certificate cannot be interpreted as an impediment to maintaining an execution application before the civil court for executing the order of possession.”
The Court noted the doctrine of substantial compliance, emphasising that the procedure is a handmaiden to justice, and should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice.
The Court observed that the absence of a formal Rule 4 certificate would not defeat an otherwise maintainable execution proceeding, where the division bench had issued directions to execute the order in an expeditious manner.
Exemplary Cost
The Court remarked that such act of keeping the execution proceedings pending and depriving the purchasers-original complainants of possession in spite of the order passed by the RERA Authority amounts to defeating the true spirit and object of the RERA, which is for the benefit of the purchasers who are deprived of getting possession in spite of the agreed terms and conditions for handing over possession on a particular date. Hence, the Court imposed exemplary costs on the developer. It observed:
“… the conduct on the part of the developer in keeping the petition pending and seeking interim protection… by suppressing the correct facts before the coordinate bench warrants imposition of costs for making misleading and incorrect statements.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order of the District Judge, and directed the Executing Court to proceed with the execution of the MahaRERA order in accordance with law.
Case Title: Seema Sureshchandra Mehata & Anr. v. Marvel Realtors & Developers Limited & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 1195 OF 2025]