Washroom Vastu Dispute? Payment Still Due, Says MahaRERA

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, which allegedly violates 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 stated that its jurisdiction is confined to disputes involving the sale, purchase, building quality, and layout of a unit. Contractual adjustments, design changes, and ancillary facilities cannot be used as counterclaims in such actions. It required the homebuyer to pay the unpaid balance within 60 days; otherwise, the developer may terminate the agreement and deduct liquidated damages in accordance with the contract.

The case

In June 2022, a Mumbai-based developer sold the homebuyer an apartment for ₹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 the payments agreed upon in successive demand letters. In November 2022, the developer sent out a demand notice after receiving the part occupation certificate. The developer alerted purchasers about the OC and requested that they pay the outstanding consideration before taking possession.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. The complainant terminated the Agreement and forfeited ₹20.88 lakh as liquidated damages, despite expressing willingness to return over ₹50 lakh, as stated by the developer to MahaRERA.

Homebuyers’ Defence

The buyer indicated that she is a widower, retired government officer who lives alone and does not have any children. She told the authority that she purchased the flat using her lifetime savings for ₹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 investigating the comparable flat, the homebuyer noticed a lavatory positioned in the northeast 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.

The homebuyer was informed by a salesperson representing the developer that an earlier prospective purchaser declined to acquire the unit due to concerns regarding compliance with Vastu Shastra principles.In the first week of June 2024, the homebuyer went to her flat and was surprised to discover 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 discovered that the developer had unilaterally cancelled the Agreement without providing any notice, in violation of RERA Regulations,” the homebuyer added.

The homebuyer alleged that the developer violated the Agreement by allowing third-party usage and occupation of the flat without resolving the ongoing termination application before the RERA Tribunal. The developer breached the RERA Regulations by enabling unauthorized use and occupation of the flat while benefiting from it, and he is responsible to pay damages to the homebuyer.

The homebuyer filed a complaint against the developer, claiming that she had requested instructions from the developer to take the balance payment, adjust the layout and location of the lavatory, and deliver tranquil and vacant possession of the subject property.

MahaRERA’s verdict

MahaRERA aims to promote openness in the real estate sector and quickly resolve concerns related to flat and unit sales and purchases.The respondent (homebuyer) is attempting to advance her case by filing a counterclaim in a way similar to civil court proceedings. 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 MahaRERA said in its order dated 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. When presented as a counter claim, matters concerning contractual revisions, layout changes, or other auxiliary amenities are outside the scope of this forum. If the respondent is really dissatisfied with the layout of the flat or any facilities related to it, she is always free to file a separate complaint with this Authority in accordance with the RERA Act 2016,” MahaRERA stated in its ruling.

MahaRERA said the homebuyer deserves one opportunity to pay the balance, particularly given her advanced age and health issues.

MahaRERA gave the homebuyer 60 days to settle the unpaid balance, but stated that the developer’s contractual and statutory rights were undisturbed. It said that if the buyer fails to pay within the specified period, the developer may terminate the agreement and deduct liquidated damages in accordance with the contract.

What Legal Experts 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 as 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.