News: Alternate Bathroom Fittings Not RERA Violation: MahaRERA-19-08-2026

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed a complaint by homebuyers who alleged that a developer installed bathroom sanitary fittings of a brand other than the one promised. It held that replacing specified fittings with equivalent alternatives does not breach statutory norms unless the substitutes are shown to be inferior or to materially change the agreed specifications.

The complaint was against Raunak Corporation over a flat in Kalyan near Mumbai. The buyers had executed a registered agreement for sale in October 2019 for a total consideration of Rs 31.69 lakh, and sought directions to install fittings of the promised brand.

They said the agreement stipulated premium-brand sanitary fittings, but the developer fitted another brand without their prior consent, allegedly violating Section 14(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. That provision bars developers from making material additions or alterations to sanctioned plans, layout specifications or agreed fixtures and fittings without the allottee’s prior consent.

The developer argued that the change was a minor, permissible variation involving a brand of equivalent or superior quality, and not a material alteration. It told the authority that the alleged deficiencies were minor, rectifiable snag-list items and not structural defects or deficiencies in service.

Section 14 requires a developer to build according to the plans and specifications approved by the authorities. Once these are shared with the buyer, major changes need the buyer’s prior consent. Only minor changes required by the buyer or recommended by an authorised architect or engineer are permitted.

In its order, MahaRERA said the dispute was confined to the brand of sanitary fittings and involved no structural alteration, layout modification or reduction in carpet area. The buyers had placed no material on record to show that the installed fittings were inferior or that the substitution materially affected the apartment.

The authority also noted that the complainants had accepted possession after inspection and that the deficiencies they pointed out were minor finishing items. In the absence of any material alteration attracting Section 14, it said, no violation of Section 14(2) was made out.