Ajmera Downtown

• The good part is real: the developer owns the land outright (a 2016 sale deed, the property card and mutation entry all in its name), which is a stronger footing than the leasehold or government land most redevelopments sit on.
• Title is certified clear and marketable, subject to the rights of the existing tenants.

• The concern is disclosure.
• The registered sale agreement warrants that there is no pending litigation - yet the very title report bound into it records a tenant's City Civil suit from 2019 still open, awaiting final orders on consent terms filed in 2021.
• The developer's advocates also state plainly that they did not search the High Court, City Civil Court or Small Causes Court, and their 40-year search stops at 2021.

• A single named tenant litigant, on a scheme rehousing 121 tenant families, is by default someone contesting eligibility, rehousing area or possession.
• The released 2019 mortgage is clean, but the 'no encumbrance' position since is entirely self-declared - there is no CERSAI charge search, and five years of registered charges are unsearched.
• None of the suit papers - plaint, order or consent terms - are in the file.

• This is the fact that decides the property.
• The tower is genuinely approved to its full height and the commencement certificate is live to 2027, so the risk is not whether it can be built - it is whether it gets finished on the terms sold.

• The certificates tell the story: the structure is about 96% up, but only 49.8% of the budgeted cost has been spent, the plumbing is at zero, the external works at zero and the services around 30%, and roughly six months moved the structure a fraction of a percent.
• About a sixth of the flats have sold in four years, the builder is a single-project company, and the 2026 sale agreement still commits to end-2027 possession without ever revising it.

• And the rehab clock is already blown: the MBRRB approval required the 121-tenant rehabilitation within 36 months of the commencement certificate - about April 2025 - and explicitly gates the sale building's final occupation certificate on those tenants being settled.
• That deadline has lapsed by well over a year, so the rehab sequencing, not just the build, now stands between buyers and their keys.

The RERA page is a poor guide here and the filings are unusually thin: only a superseded 2020 municipal-approval ground and stilt sheet is on the portal - no current sanctioned set, no section, no habitable floor plate - so the governing 2022 sanction cannot be obtained from RERA at all.

On top of the thinness it is stale on the fields that matter, and reconciled against the documents it loses on every one: litigation shows 'No' against a pending suit; rehab units show '0' against 121; two different sold-counts are live; allotted parking shows 0; and four commencement-certificate revalidations out to 2027 were never uploaded, so the portal reads as though the permission lapsed in 2025.

• The brochure's hero is a sweeping Marine Drive and cricket-ground seafront panorama captioned 'Actual View' - a claim this interior Bhuleshwar plot, ringed by buildings on all four sides, cannot support without floor-by-floor proof.
• The amenity images are at least honestly marked artist's impressions.

What the marketing leaves out is the substance: that 121 existing tenant families are rehoused inside the same tower, that a tenant's suit is pending, that every car is parked by machine with a retrieval queue, and that the recognisable 'Ajmera' name on the hoarding is a brand - the company you actually sign with is a single-project entity. 'Downtown' is aspirational shorthand for a congested wholesale-market address.

• The building rises far above the low two-to-five-storey bazaar around it.
• The east and west arcs - the tower's main apartment orientation - read as largely clear, which is favourable; the north and south abut neighbours at the boundary.

• Upper west/south-west floors may catch a distant Marine Drive / Arabian Sea glimpse across a kilometre-and-a-half of built city, but the brochure's 'mesmerizing sea views all around' overreaches from an interior plot.
• Which floor each arc clears is best fixed from the massing model once the neighbours' heights are set; being out of the mapped view corridor, this stays a field-verified read rather than an engine seal.

The available floor plate (from the registered agreement, not a stamped sanction) shows a compact, double-loaded plate of eight small homes around a narrow central lift lobby - the kind of efficient planning small island-city units are built on, drafted at roughly 68-72% carpet efficiency.

• This can't be sealed.
• The current sanctioned plan set is missing from the file, and the plate available carries no sanction stamp, scale or date, so the efficiency, the kitchen ventilation and the common-area treatment are all provisional until those drawings are produced.

• On the evidence available there is no restricted-common-area problem: the flats share a common lift lobby that is not sold as exclusive, the agreement conveys carpet only, all the 'other charges' heads are nil, and no separate deck or exclusive area is sold.
• The rehab-reserved lobby and lift are a rehab allocation, not something charged to a sale buyer.

This stays provisional until the sanctioned floor plate confirms there are no exclusive-use enclosed areas carved out of the common space.

• The one registered first sale from the developer works out to about Rs.50,700 per square foot on carpet, roughly 2.2 times the government ready-reckoner.
• Because it is a developer first sale, it reflects the builder's own realised terms.

• Good views but a less-premium address: it trades below the roughly Rs.65,000-75,000 per square foot band of the nearest premium comparable (One Marina), an appropriate discount rather than an inflated price.
• On a thin-comparable market the cash component - never in the documents - is the one number that could still change the picture.

• This is a single, very dense tower on a tiny plot (~2,473 square metres) with its floor-space ratio fully used at 4.75 and only 286 square metres of open recreation space.
• The density is inherent to the scheme.

• The distinctive part is the mix and how it is stacked: the 121 existing cessed-building tenements are rehoused inside the sale tower itself - the 21 commercial tenants in shops at the base (floors 1-2) and again at floors 45/46, and roughly 100 residential tenant families in a band mid-tower - sharing the structure, lobby, lift core, amenities and society.
• Because the RERA record counts only the 254 sale units ('rehab units: 0'), the registered number is not the whole building, and anything worked out per-unit off it will be understated.

• Bhuleshwar/Kalbadevi is one of the densest wholesale and retail bazaar districts of the old island city: narrow lanes, wall-to-wall commercial frontage, heavy daytime footfall and goods traffic, and very little open space.
• It is field-confirmed as very congested at peak hours.

• It is an established, stable neighbourhood rather than a changing one - it will not deteriorate, but it will not open up either.
• The base-of-tower reality - market hours, loading, noise - is part of daily life here.

The 11am weekday drive to the nearest arterial or coastal-road entry is about 10 minutes - moderate, and reasonable given the congested bazaar approaches around the plot.

• On the marketing typical-floor plan most kitchens sit on the building perimeter with service-slab ledges, which suggests an exterior air path rather than an internal duct.
• But the sanctioned plate is missing, so this is a likely pass to confirm rather than a sealed one.

• Across the realistic range of lift speeds and car sizes, the passenger lifts serving the sale homes model to a Grade B wait (roughly half a minute at peak) on 55 floors, helped by the fire lifts also carrying residents.
• On the busiest small-unit floors it slips toward Grade C, but at this price point lift performance is not a material concern.

This is provisional - the lift schedule and a section aren't in the file - and it assumes one of the five cars stays reserved for the rehab floors, as the agreement specifies.

• The municipal approval carries no adverse water count; it ties water adequacy to a Hydraulic-Engineer 'adequacy of water supply' certificate to be obtained before occupation, alongside overhead-tank and rain-water-harvesting conditions.
• A standard standing pre-occupation condition, not yet obtained - no shortfall is shown in the file.

• There is no self-park level and no ramp: cars go into two automated parking towers, retrieved by lift, plus a handful of stacker bays in the stilt.
• On a narrow tower carrying about 375 households the system saturates at rush hour, meaning a real wait to get your car out when everyone leaves at once.
• The municipal approval itself carries an indemnity against the parking machinery failing.

• No visitor parking and no two-wheeler parking at all.
• No sign of a private-bay EV charger provision on a mechanised stack.
• On the credit side, the bay is allotted to the flat in the agreement (not just licensed), and none of it sits on a habitable floor.
• Ask how many car lifts serve each tower, the peak retrieval time and whether large SUVs are excluded.

Rexray's database will, over time, be enriched with the attention to detail and quality ethos of each builder. For now, below is the checklist you should verify with the builder before you decide.

• The community a buyer joins is a genuine mix of strata for the long term.
• The sale homes are small (~620 sq ft) at roughly Rs.3 crore - an HNI/investor profile - in the same tower as ~100 rehoused original tenant families and 21 shopkeepers from the old cessed building, who receive their homes and shops free of cost.

• Commercial rehab units sit at the base and again at floors 45/46, with a residential-rehab band mid-tower and a dedicated rehab lift/lobby giving some separation.
• The society, structure, amenities and parking are shared, so how amenities are shared and who controls maintenance and governance over the long term is a real question - characteristic of a cessed-building (33(7)) redevelopment.