MahaRERA: It Cannot Stop Tenants or Guests From Using Society Clubhouses

On 14 July 2026, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) ruled that it does not have the legal authority to direct a developer to stop tenants or guests from using a housing society's common amenities, such as a clubhouse. The order came in a complaint filed by a housing society near Mumbai against its developer.

What the dispute was about

The society's agreement for sale stated that clubhouse usage rights were non-transferable, meaning only flat owners — not tenants or outside guests — were meant to have access. The society alleged the developer let tenants and non-residents use the clubhouse anyway, and it sought compensation and a direction restraining this practice. The developer countered that tenants are legitimate residents under their lease agreements and are entitled to use the clubhouse, and that guests may enter on payment of guest charges, consistent with practice in other gated communities.

Why MahaRERA declined to act

MahaRERA held that this dispute falls outside its jurisdiction under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Authority observed that while the society wanted an order restraining the developer from allowing tenants and outsiders to use the clubhouse, RERA does not empower MahaRERA to pass such a direction or award compensation on that basis. It reiterated that questions about restricting common-amenity access for tenants or guests are beyond its statutory powers.

What this means for housing societies

• MahaRERA is not the forum for disputes over who may use clubhouses, gyms, or other common amenities — such disputes are civil or contractual in nature.
• Societies wanting to restrict tenant or guest access to amenities should rely on their own bye-laws and society resolutions, not on RERA complaints against the developer.
• Clauses in the agreement for sale describing amenity rights as 'non-transferable' may not be enforceable through MahaRERA even when clearly worded; enforcement would need to go through a civil court or the Co-operative Court.
• Committees drafting or amending bye-laws on amenity access should specify usage rules, guest charges, and enforcement mechanisms internally rather than assuming a regulator will step in.

Societies currently facing similar disputes with a developer over amenity access should reassess whether a MahaRERA complaint is the right route, and consider civil remedies or a bye-law-based resolution at the society level instead.