The Order He Ignored
On 10 January 2025 MahaRERA allowed allottee Nair's complaint against agent Prakash, directing him to refund ₹2.5 lakh of commission and pay ₹25,000 in costs within 30 days, with interest at 9% p.a. thereafter. The order was served on Prakash on 15 January 2025. He neither paid nor appealed, telling Nair that 'the Authority cannot enforce anything against an agent; you will have to file a civil suit'. On 20 June 2025 Nair returns to the Authority with an application saying the order is unenforced. The same week Prakash's agent registration, granted in November 2020, comes up for renewal and he files for it.
1. Could Prakash have appealed? Can he still? Is his claim about enforcement correct?
Read the worked answer
The appeal window was 60 days from the order (Section 44), that is, to about 11 March 2025. The Appellate Tribunal may condone delay for sufficient cause for a further 60 days, taking the outer edge to roughly 10 May 2025. It is now 20 June 2025: no appeal lies. A writ petition under Article 226 is theoretically available but courts do not use it to revive a lapsed statutory appeal.
His claim that MahaRERA 'cannot enforce against an agent' is wrong. An order not appealed becomes final and binding, and the Authority retains the power to enforce its own directions. His refusal to comply is a fresh contravention, independent of what he thinks of the original order.
Note the asymmetry: paying ₹2.75 lakh in January 2025 would have ended the matter. Interest at 9% and penalty exposure have since accumulated on a small principal, and the non-compliance now sits on his registration file.
2. How does Nair actually recover the money?
Read the worked answer
Two parallel routes, both open to Nair:
- Recovery as arrears of land revenue - Section 40. Where a person fails to pay an amount directed by the Authority or the Tribunal, the amount is recoverable through the Collector as arrears of land revenue. Nair's application of 20 June 2025 should be framed as an execution/recovery application asking the Authority to issue the requisite certificate or requisition under Section 40.
- Penalty for non-compliance with the Authority's order, in addition to the amount itself. This is pressure layered on recovery, not a substitute for it, and in a persistent case it can escalate to prosecution.
A civil suit is not the answer and is likely barred - Section 79 excludes civil court jurisdiction over matters the Authority is empowered to decide.
Practical points: ask for a compliance date and the Section 40 certificate in the same application; keep the service proof of the 15 January 2025 order; and compute the recoverable sum as ₹2.75 lakh plus 9% interest running from expiry of the 30-day period in mid-February 2025.
3. What should Prakash expect on his renewal application, and what advice would you give him?
Read the worked answer
Expect a show-cause on the renewal file, and separate cancellation proceedings. Non-compliance with MahaRERA's orders is a recognised ground for refusing or cancelling registration under Section 9 read with the conditions of registration.
Two traps to flag:
- The deeming provision, Section 9(3): if the Authority does not decide an application within 30 days, registration is deemed granted. That is a genuine risk for the regulator and a temptation for Prakash to argue he is deemed renewed. It does not help him: a deemed grant does not extinguish an unpaid, enforceable order, and Section 40 recovery can proceed against a registered agent whatever the source of the registration.
- Filing is not a stay. Nothing about the renewal application suspends the January order.
Advice: pay, or seek a reasoned instalment order, before the renewal is considered; produce proof of payment with the renewal file; stop telling clients that the Authority has no enforcement power, because that statement, repeated on record, is itself relevant to fitness to hold a registration.