The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has ruled that a homebuyer’s objection to the placement of a lavatory in the north-east corner of a flat, allegedly contrary to Vastu Shastra principles, cannot be used as a valid reason to withhold payment of the balance consideration under a registered agreement for sale.
The authority said its jurisdiction is limited to disputes related to the sale, purchase, construction quality and layout of a unit. Issues involving contractual modifications, design alterations, or ancillary facilities cannot be raised as counterclaims in such proceedings. It directed the homebuyer to pay the outstanding amount within 60 days; otherwise, the developer may terminate the agreement and deduct liquidated damages as per the contract.
Also Read:
The case
The homebuyer purchased an apartment from a Mumbai-based developer in June 2022 for a total consideration of ₹1.34 crore. Out of the total amount, the homebuyer paid over ₹71 lakh to the developer, and the balance of ₹62 lakh was agreed to be paid by the homebuyer to the developer in a scheduled manner.
According to the developer, the homebuyer failed to make payments as agreed upon in various demand letters. Upon receipt of the part occupation certificate, the developer issued a demand notice in November 2022. The developer informed the homebuyers about the OC and called upon them to take possession subject to payment of the balance consideration.
“In view of persistent defaults, the complainant (developer), in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, issued a pre-termination notice dated March 11, 2023, cautioning the respondent (homebuyer) about termination. After repeated demands, the complainant terminated the Agreement and forfeited ₹20.88 lakh as liquidated damages, while expressing willingness to refund over ₹50 lakh,” the developer informed MahaRERA.
Also Read:
Homebuyers’ defence
The homebuyer stated that she is a widowed, retired government officer who lives alone and has no children. She told the authority that she purchased the flat using her lifetime savings for a total consideration of ₹1.34 crore, and executed the agreement for sale on June 24, 2022.
“At the time of purchase and execution of the Agreement, the said flat was not shown to her; instead, another identical flat, was shown. Upon inspecting the identical flat, the homebuyer discovered that a lavatory was located in the north‑east bathroom. Being a religious person who follows Vaastu Shastra, she objected, as Vastu Shastra prohibits a lavatory in the north‑east corner of a house,” the homebuyer submitted to MahaRERA.
According to the homebuyer, a salesperson representing the developer informed her that an earlier prospective purchaser had also declined to purchase the flat due to concerns about its compliance with Vastu Shastra principles.
“In the first week of June 2024, the homebuyer visited her flat, and was shocked to find it occupied by the developer’s project manager. The flat was in a miserable condition, and its structure, including the lavatory, had been altered. Due to her deteriorating health, the homebuyer was unable to monitor the progress of work. Upon inquiry, she learned that the developer had unilaterally cancelled the Agreement without serving any notice, in violation of RERA Regulations,” the homebuyer further submitted.
Also Read:
The homebuyer said that the developer further breached the Agreement by permitting third‑party usage and occupation of the flat without adjudication or disposal of the pending termination application before the RERA Tribunal. By allowing illegal use and occupation of the flat and deriving a benefit, the developer violated the and is liable to pay damages to the homebuyer.
The homebuyer filed a counterclaim against the developer stating that she had sought directions from the developer to accept the balance payment, to change the layout and location of the lavatory, and to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the subject flat.
MahaRERA’s verdict
According to MahaRERA, the Authority was constituted with the primary objective of ensuring transparency in the real estate sector and providing speedy redressal of grievances arising from transactions relating to the sale and purchase of flats/units.
“The respondent (homebuyer), however, is attempting to advance her case by filing a counter claim in a manner similar to proceedings before a civil court. It must be emphasised that this Authority is not vested with the jurisdiction of a civil court to adjudicate substantial, comprehensive, or incidental contractual disputes between the parties,” the May 25, 2026.
“The scope of this Authority is limited to addressing disputes directly connected with the sale, purchase, resale, or workmanship/layout issues pertaining to the flat/units. Matters involving contractual modifications, alterations in layout, or other ancillary facilities fall outside the purview of this forum when raised in the form of a counter claim. If the respondent is genuinely aggrieved by the layout of the flat or any facilities attached thereto, she is always at liberty to institute a separate complaint before this Authority in accordance with RERA Act 2016,” the MahaRERA said in its order.
MahaRERA said the homebuyer deserves one opportunity to pay the balance, particularly given her advanced age and health issues.
MahaRERA granted the homebuyer 60 days to clear the outstanding payment, but clarified that the developer’s contractual and statutory rights remain unaffected. It said that if the buyer fails to pay within the stipulated period, the developer may terminate the agreement and deduct liquidated damages according to the contract.
Also Read:
What legal experts have to say
According to legal experts, the order makes it clear that homebuyers are free to file a separate complaint before MahaRERA if they are aggrieved by the layout of the flat or any attached facilities.
“In case the homebuyer is genuinely aggrieved by the layout of the flat or any attached facilities, the homebuyer is at liberty to institute a separate complaint before MahaRERA in accordance with the provisions of RERA. Such grievances cannot be pursued by way of a counterclaim in the developer’s complaint. Further, it is the statutory duty of the homebuyer to make timely payment of the consideration mentioned in the agreement for sale without seeking exemption on account of age or other personal circumstances,” said Trupti Daphtary, a Mumbai-based solicitor.