News: MahaRERA Rejects Buyback Demand Over Flat Seepage-05-09-2026

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed a homebuyer’s complaint seeking a buyback of his flat near Mumbai and a refund with interest over alleged water seepage, dampness and poor construction. It said a buyback is not a relief it can grant under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and that the evidence did not justify cancelling the transaction.

The buyer had purchased the flat for nearly Rs 30 lakh and accepted possession on June 30, 2021. He alleged persistent dampness and seepage on ceilings and walls, cracks in plaster, poor finishing and inadequate waterproofing. He sought an inspection, repairs and waterproofing, a timeline for resolution, and a buyback with refund of his money and the interest paid to the bank. He said he had raised the matter repeatedly and submitted photographs.

The developer attributed the leakage to problems above the complainant’s flat, including a bathroom leak and rainwater collecting in the balcony. It said inspections and rectification were carried out in both apartments and denied substandard construction or structural defects. It added that the complainant was asked to resolve the matter with the occupant of the flat above but did not act, and did not cooperate in carrying out works during conciliation.

MahaRERA noted that possession was accepted in June 2021 while the first leakage complaint came only in September 2022. The photographs did not establish the cause of the damage, and no inspection report, technical report or expert opinion showed that the problems arose from construction or workmanship defects attributable to the developer. The developer, on the other hand, produced job cards and emails showing rectification work from time to time.

Considering the evidence and the buyer’s continued occupation, the authority held that neither the alleged defects nor circumstances warranting a refund had been sufficiently established. It dismissed the complaint with no order as to costs.

The order stated that the prayer for buy-back "is not within the purview of the reliefs" the authority can grant under the Act, and that no material justified cancellation and refund after acceptance of possession and continued occupation.