In a judgment from the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) regarding a dispute involving M/s. New Sangeeta CHS Ltd., a housing society in Ghatkopar, Mumbai, and *homebuyers (allottees) who purchased flats in its redevelopment project*. The case primarily revolves around *whether the housing society the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) and whether it is liable to fulfill obligations originally assigned to the developer*. Key Points of the Case: 1. Background: The housing society entered into a redevelopment agreement with M/s. Valdariya Construction, granting it development rights. The developer launched the project, selling flats to third-party buyers (the allottees). Due to financial issues, the developer failed to deliver possession on time (promised date: September 30, 2017). The society took over the project after a dispute with the developer and planned to complete it through self-development. 2. Homebuyers' Claims: The allottees paid substantial amounts towards flat purchases. They demanded possession, occupation certificates, and share certificates from the society. They also sought compensation for delays, Rs. 6,000 per day per flat, and an injunction to prevent the society from appointing a new developer. 3. Society’s Defense: The society denied responsibility, claiming it was not a “promoter” under RERA. It argued that the homebuyers should seek compensation only from the developer, not the society. It stated that some sale transactions might be illegal, as some flats were pre-allotted to society members. *Tribunal's Rulings:* 1. *The society is a "Promoter" under RERA:* As the landowner, it caused the project to be constructed, making it liable under Section 2(zk) of RERA. *Since it took over the project after the developer exited*, it inherited the obligations to homebuyers under Section 15 of RERA. *The society must issue share certificates to the buyers and complete the project.* 2. *Liability to Fulfill Agreements:* The tribunal held that agreements made between the developer and allottees remain valid, and the society must respect them. *Citing Section 226 of the Contract Act, 1872, the tribunal ruled that the developer acted as an agent of the society.* The society is now responsible for giving possession of flats with occupation certificates. 3. *Rejection of Society’s Arguments:* The claim that transactions were sham and bogus was dismissed. The argument that the society was unaware of agreements was rejected since it had authorized the developer to sell flats. 4. *Partial Reversal of Penalty:* The Rs. 15 lakh penalty for violating Section 15 of RERA was set aside, as the tribunal found no actual violation. However, *the order directing the society to give possession of flats and recognize the buyers as members was upheld.* *Final Order:* The appeal was partly allowed. The Rs. 15 lakh penalty was revoked. *The society must still complete the project and issue share certificates to homebuyers.* Both parties must bear their own legal costs. *Implications:* This judgment strengthens homebuyers' rights in redevelopment projects by *confirming that housing societies are liable as "promoters"* if they take over incomplete projects from developers. It sets a precedent for self-redevelopment cases where societies inherit obligations towards third-party flat buyers.