✦ AI Summary
Table of Content
▲
A homebuyer who wanted a developer to take back his flat after repeated complaints of water seepage and dampness has not received the relief he sought from the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA).
The authority dismissed the complaint, saying the buyer had not provided enough evidence to show the problems stemmed from construction or workmanship defects. It also held that ordering a developer to buy back a flat was not a relief available under the RERA Act.
The case involved a flat near Mumbai that the buyer purchased for nearly ₹30 lakh. He took possession of the apartment on June 30, 2021.
Buyer complained of seepage and dampness
According to the complaint, problems emerged in the apartment after possession.
The buyer alleged persistent dampness and water seepage on the walls and ceiling. He also pointed to plaster cracks, poor finishing and inadequate waterproofing.
He said he had repeatedly raised the matter with the developer and submitted photographs showing the affected portions of the flat.
Apart from asking for an inspection and repairs, the buyer wanted the developer to carry out waterproofing within a specified timeframe.
But he went a step further.
He also sought cancellation of the transaction and asked the developer to buy back the flat and refund the amount paid, along with interest on his bank payments and registration-related costs.
Developer blamed leakage from the flat above
The developer disputed the claim that the apartment suffered from construction or structural defects.
Its explanation was that the leakage was connected to issues in the apartment above, including bathroom leakage and rainwater accumulating in the balcony.
The developer told MahaRERA that inspections had been carried out and rectification work had been undertaken.
It also said the buyer had been asked to coordinate with the occupant of the flat above. During conciliation proceedings, the developer alleged that the buyer had not cooperated with the proposed remedial work.
That became important when MahaRERA examined the evidence.
MahaRERA questioned the evidence
The authority noted that the buyer had taken possession in June 2021, while his first complaint regarding leakage was raised in September 2022.
The photographs submitted by the buyer showed dampness and damage, but MahaRERA said they did not establish why the damage had occurred or who was responsible for it.
There was also no inspection report, technical assessment or expert opinion on record linking the seepage and other problems to defective construction or workmanship by the developer.
At the same time, the developer produced job cards and email correspondence showing that repair and rectification work had been attempted at different points.
For MahaRERA, the evidence was therefore not enough to establish a case for cancellation and refund.
Why the buyback request was rejected
The buyer's request for the developer to repurchase the flat was another hurdle. Homebuyers should understand the documents and contractual terms involved in a property transaction before seeking remedies in a dispute. This includes the sale agreement, possession documents and other records connected with the purchase.
MahaRERA said a buyback order was outside the scope of the reliefs it could grant under the RERA Act.
The authority also pointed out that the buyer had already accepted possession and continued to occupy the apartment.
In these circumstances, it found that the material before it did not establish grounds to cancel the transaction and order a refund. The complaint was consequently dismissed, with no order as to costs.
What the ruling means for homebuyers
The case is relevant because complaints about seepage, dampness and waterproofing are common after possession, particularly in apartments exposed to monsoon-related moisture.
But photographs alone may not always establish the cause of a defect. Buyers can also benefit from understanding the MahaRERA guidelines for homebuyers before investing, particularly the documents, approvals and protections that apply to a registered project.
A damp patch on a wall, for example, can result from several sources - a plumbing problem, leakage from another apartment, failed waterproofing or a construction-related defect. Establishing that connection can require a technical inspection.
For a buyer facing a similar problem, keeping a proper record can make a difference.
This includes:
- Photographs and videos showing the damage
- Dates when the problem appeared
- Written complaints to the developer
- Replies received from the maintenance team
- Inspection reports
- Job cards for repair work
- Waterproofing or plumbing records
- Reports from qualified technical experts where necessary
The paper trail can help establish not just that a problem exists, but how long it has existed and what may have caused it.
A buyback is not the same as a defect claim
There is another distinction worth noting.
A buyer may believe that a serious defect makes the entire purchase unacceptable. But that does not automatically mean the regulatory authority can order the developer to repurchase the property.
In this case, MahaRERA dealt with both aspects separately. It found insufficient material to establish that the alleged defects were attributable to the developer, and it also held that the requested buyback was beyond the relief available under the RERA framework.
That makes the ruling narrower than a simple “MahaRERA rejects leakage complaint” headline might suggest.
The authority did not say that water seepage is unimportant. Instead, the buyer's particular claim did not meet the evidentiary threshold required in the case.
What buyers should check after possession
For homebuyers, the practical lesson starts even before moving into the apartment.
A detailed inspection during possession can help identify dampness, cracks, seepage, uneven plaster, drainage problems, and other visible defects. The same due diligence becomes even more important when buying an under-construction property, where buyers should check the project's approvals, RERA registration, specifications and contractual commitments before possession.
Any issue should be reported to the developer in writing rather than relying only on verbal complaints.
If repairs are carried out, buyers should retain the job cards and correspondence. If the problem returns, those records can help demonstrate that the issue was recurring rather than a one-time complaint.
And where the cause of damage is disputed, an independent technical assessment can be more useful than photographs alone.
The larger takeaway
The MahaRERA order shows the importance of evidence in post-possession property disputes.
For a buyer dealing with leakage or dampness, proving the existence of the problem is only one part of the case. Establishing its cause and responsibility can be equally important.
At the same time, buyers should understand the limits of the forum they approach. RERA can provide specific statutory remedies, but it does not automatically have the power to grant every form of relief a homeowner may seek.
In this case, the buyer wanted the developer to take the flat back. MahaRERA declined to do so.
Ans 1. MahaRERA said that buyback was not a relief within its purview under the RERA Act. It also found that the evidence did not establish circumstances warranting cancellation of the transaction and refund after the buyer had accepted possession and continued occupying the flat.
Ans 2. No. The authority did not simply find that the problem did not exist. The issue was whether the buyer had established the cause and responsibility for the damage. Photographs alone were not considered sufficient to link the seepage to construction or workmanship defects attributable to the developer.
Ans 3. The buyer had submitted photographs, but there was no inspection report, technical report or expert opinion establishing that the leakage and other problems resulted from construction or workmanship defects by the developer.
Ans 4. Yes. Section 14(3) provides that when a structural defect or other defect in workmanship, quality or services is brought to the promoter's notice within five years of possession, the promoter is required to rectify it without further charge within 30 days. If the promoter fails to do so, the allottee can seek appropriate compensation.
Ans 5. No. Acceptance of possession does not by itself erase the promoter's statutory obligations concerning defects covered by Section 14(3). However, the buyer still needs to establish the defect and, where responsibility is disputed, provide appropriate evidence connecting it to the promoter.
Ans 6. Report the issue to the developer in writing, preserve photographs and videos, retain repair records and job cards, and consider obtaining a technical inspection where the cause is disputed. A clear record can help establish both the problem and its source.