The authority laid down a few critical reasons for rejecting the 2% brokerage commission complaint on May 24, 2026:
-
Lack of Explicit Written Contract: There was no formal, written brokerage agreement executed between the real estate agent and the developer that clearly outlined the commission percentage, entitlement rules, or specific obligations.
-
Civil Court Jurisdiction: MahaRERA specifically noted that tracking oral promises, examining prior buyer interactions, determining the role of third-party intermediaries, and calculating financial loss require a rigorous evaluation of evidence. These are matters of contractual and civil rights, making them civil disputes that must be argued before a competent Civil Court, rather than summary proceedings before a real estate regulator.
-
Scope of the Act: RERA’s provisions focus on registering and regulating agents to protect homebuyers—it does not provide an explicit mechanism or summary relief for agents to settle purely commercial commission disputes with builders.
Is There Ever an Exception?
While this specific case was dismissed, legal experts point out a subtle nuance for the broader real estate industry:
The Written Agreement Caveat: According to legal analysts tracking the order, if an agent has a stamped, legally binding written agreement with a developer specifying brokerage terms for a RERA-registered project, MahaRERA might examine the merits of the case under appropriate circumstances.
However, in the absence of a airtight, written commercial contract, the regulator expects brokers to seek recovery through traditional civil litigation.
