MahaRERA Rejects Buyback Plea Over Leakage in Mumbai Region Flat
Mumbai, Maharashtra | September 5, 2026: The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has rejected a homebuyer's plea seeking buyback of his flat and a refund with interest after alleging persistent water seepage, dampness, cracks and poor finishing in the apartment near Mumbai.
The Authority said the buyer had not provided sufficient technical evidence to establish that the problems were caused by construction or workmanship defects. It also held that a request for compulsory buyback was outside the reliefs MahaRERA can grant under the RERA Act.
Homebuyer Purchased Flat for Nearly ₹30 Lakh
The complainant had purchased the flat for around ₹30 lakh and accepted possession on June 30, 2021.
He later alleged persistent dampness and water seepage on the walls and ceilings, along with plaster cracks, inadequate waterproofing and poor finishing. The buyer sought inspection, repairs and waterproofing, besides asking the developer to buy back the apartment and refund the amount paid, including interest on the bank loan and registration charges.
MahaRERA Questions Evidence Behind Construction Defect Claim
MahaRERA noted that the buyer's first leakage complaint was raised in September 2022, more than a year after possession was accepted.
The photographs submitted by the buyer showed water-affected portions but, according to the Authority, did not establish the cause of the damage or prove that it resulted from a construction defect attributable to the developer.
No independent inspection report, technical assessment or expert opinion was submitted to establish the alleged workmanship or construction deficiencies.
Developer Blamed Leakage on Flat Above
The developer disputed the allegations of poor construction and structural defects. It said the leakage was linked to issues in the apartment above, including bathroom leakage and rainwater accumulation on the balcony.
According to the developer, inspections were carried out and rectification work was undertaken. It also submitted job cards and email communications to MahaRERA as evidence of repair efforts.
The developer further claimed that the buyer was asked to coordinate with the occupant of the upper-floor apartment and that he did not fully cooperate during conciliation and proposed rectification work.
Buyback Request Falls Outside MahaRERA's Reliefs
A key part of the ruling concerned the buyer's demand that the developer repurchase the flat.
MahaRERA held that buyback of the apartment was not within the scope of reliefs that the Authority could grant under the RERA Act.
The Authority also found no sufficient basis to cancel the transaction and order a refund after the buyer had accepted possession and continued to occupy the property.
Repairs and Documentation Matter in Property Defect Disputes
The order highlights the importance of technical evidence when homeowners allege construction-related defects.
Photographs can document visible damage, but establishing whether seepage resulted from structural or workmanship defects may require an inspection or technical assessment. At the same time, developers' repair records, job cards and correspondence can become relevant when determining whether complaints were addressed.
What This Means for Mumbai Region Homebuyers
The ruling does not mean that water seepage or construction defects cannot lead to remedies under RERA. Rather, in this particular case, MahaRERA found that the cause of the reported problems and grounds for cancellation and refund had not been sufficiently established.
For buyers facing similar issues, maintaining written complaints, photographs, inspection reports, repair records and technical assessments can be important when seeking regulatory relief.
MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Without Costs
After considering the material submitted by both sides, MahaRERA dismissed the complaint and made no order as to costs.
The decision reinforces two important points for property buyers: construction-defect claims need supporting evidence, while cancellation and refund after possession require circumstances that are legally sufficient under the applicable RERA framework.