CCP No.663 of 2023 Contest dt.12.02.2025

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this, the 12th day of FEBRUARY, 2025.
Present:- Sri Syed Lateef-ur Rahman,
Adjudicating Officer.
C.C.P.No.663/2023/TG RERA
Between:
Ms. Neelima Vanguru, aged: 37 yrs, D/o Sri Narayana Reddy
Vanguru, Occ: Private Service, Flat No.1606, Block-C,
Ramkey Towers, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.
and

…Complainan

1) Trendset Jayabheri Projects LLP, Ground floor, 4th Block,
Temple Steps, 184-187 Annasalai, Little Mount, Chennai.
Corporate office at Plot N.1 of Jayabheri Enclave, Gachibowli,
Hyderabad.
2) Dr.K.L.Narayana, aged: 64 yrs, S/o late Sri K.S.Ramachandra Rao, Occ:
Business, 8-2-623/5/1, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
3) Kaza Kavya D/o K.L.Narayana, aged: 32 yrs, H.No.8.2.623/5/1, Road No.10,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
…Respondents.
I.A.No.4 of 2023
in
Complaint No.663 of 2023
Between:
Ms. Neelima Vanguru, D/o Sri Narayana Reddy Vanguru,
Aged about 37 yrs, Occ: Private Service, Flat No.B-1004, 10th Floor,
Block-B, Trendset Jayabheri Elevate, Kondapur village,
Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy, Telangana State.
…Petitioner/Complainant
and
1) Trendset Jayabheri Projects LLP, Ground floor, 4th Block,
Temple Steps, 184-187 Annasalai, Little Mount, Chennai.
Corporate office at Plot N.1 of Jayabheri Enclave, Gachibowli,
Hyderabad.
2) Dr.K.L.Narayana, S/o late Sri K.S.Ramachandra Rao, aged about 64yrs, Occ:
Business, 8-2-623/5/1, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
3) Kaza Kavya D/o K.L.Narayana, aged: 32 yrs, H.No.8-2-623/5/1, Road No.10,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
…Respondents/Respondents.

---

---

ORDER
1(a).

Complaint No.663 of 2023 filed under Section 31 of Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) read with Rule 35 of TS Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) by the
complainant against the Respondents to direct Respondents to pay interest on sale
consideration of Rs.2,41,32,000/- (Rs.Two Crore, Forty One Lakh and Thirty Two thousand
only) from 30.06.2022 i.e., due date for delivery of possession to 06.06.2023 i.e., the date of
issuance of Occupancy Certificate (OC) and also to award compensation of Rs.25,00,000/(Rs.Twenty Five Lakhs only) towards deviation from the specifications as per the Agreement of
Sale and Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony and also to direct Respondents to return the
excess amount charged for the common area as compensation.
1(b).

I.A.No.4 of 2023 filed by the petitioner/Complainant under Order-XI, Rule 16 CPC

to direct the Respondents to produce original letter dt.06.10.2021 (Ex.B1) to send it to an
Expert to compare the signature thereon alleged to be of the petitioner/complainant with her
admitted signatures and for report.
1(c).

I.A.No.5 of 2023 filed by the petitioners/Respondents under Section 71 of the Act

to dismiss the complaint in lemini as “not maintainable”.
1(d).

I.A.No.3 of 2023 filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 45 of Indian

Evidence Act to send the letter dt.-06.10.2021 (Ex.B1) for comparing signature thereon with
the admitted signatures of the petitioner/complainant to an Expert and report.
2.

PLEADINGS IN COMPLAINT No.663 of 2023:
CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

2(a).

The case of the complainant, in brief, as revealed from the complaint is that Respondent

No.1 is a Limited Liability Partnership Firm.

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are Landlords.

Respondent No.1 took the land for development from Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 entered into Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dt.10.02.2016.

---

It is stated that basing on prospectus of Respondent No.1 and promises made by

Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the complainant intended to buy said Flats. The complainant and
Respondent No.2 entered into an Agreement of Sale dt.25.11.2021 (Ex.A1) in respect of Flat
No.1. Respondent No.2 agreed to sell Flat No.1 for a consideration of Rs.2,41,32,000/-. The
complainant paid an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) to Respondent No.2
on the date of Agreement and balance amount was agreed to be paid as per Payment Plan
mentioned in Schedule-C. On 11.04.2022, Respondent No.2 executed a Registered Sale Deed
after receiving entire sale consideration and though as per the Sale Deed symbolic possession
was given to the complainant as on date, the Respondent failed to hand over Flat No.1 in
liveable condition.
2(c).

Similarly, the complainant and Respondent No.3 entered into an Agreement of Sale on

03.11.2020 (Ex.A3) in respect of Flat No.2. Respondent No.3 agreed to sell Flat No.2 for a sale
consideration of Rs.1,89,55,000/- (Rs.One Crore, Eighty Nine Lakhs and Fifty Five Thousand
only). The complainant paid an amount of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rs.Eighty Lakhs only) to Respondent

---

Later, the complainant paid Rs.50,00,000/- (Rs.Fifty

Lakhs only) on 16.01.2021 and also paid Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.Ten Lakhs only) and Rs.15,00,000/(Rs.Fifteen Lakhs only) towards balance sale consideration.

Thus, the Respondent No.3

received a total sum of Rs.1,55,00,000/- (Rs.One Crore and Fifty Five Lakhs only). It is stated
that since the Project was getting delayed and Respondent No.3 assured the complainant that
she will execute Registered Sale-Deed by honouring Agreement of Sale Dt.03.11.2020 and so
saying Respondent No.3 returned the payment made by the complainant.

Later the

Complainant filed a suit in O.S.No.38 of 2023 on the file of VI Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy
for specific performance.
2(d).

It is pleaded that as per clause 5.1 of respective Agreements, Respondent Nos.2 and 3

agreed to hand over possession of the Flats along with ready and complete common area with
all specifications, amenities and facilities on or before 30.06.2022 and 30.11.2021 respectively.
Clause No.7.1 of both the Agreements envisages that “ready to move in possession” means that
the apartment shall be in a habitable condition and for which Occupancy Certificate and
Completion Certificate has to be issued by the competent authority. However, the Respondents
could get Occupancy Certificate only on 06.06.2023. The Occupancy Certificate revealed that
the Respondents have applied for revised plan without consent of the allottees, which is in
contravention of Section 14 of the Act. As per the update with regard to status of the Project
uploaded on official website of TS RERA, substantial works of the Project are to be completed.
Since there is delay of nearly 12 and 19 months in completing Project in respect of Flat Nos.1
and 2 respectively, the complainant is entitled for compensation as envisaged under Section 18
of the Act.
2(e).

According to the complainant, the respondents did not provide following amenities:
a. The respondents used much inferior, substandard and low grade quality products
for French doors and windows as against the Specifications that the French Doors
and Windows will be of Fenista/Kommerling or equivalent make with tinted glass
and mosquito mesh.
b. The respondents have laid ordinary low grade tiles as against the specifications that
imported Marble Premium Vitrified Tiles of best brand Large Format 800 mm x 800
mm.

---

The complainant has approached the respondents and requested to provide

specifications, amenities and facilities as promised, but in vain. It is stated that an Expert
committee has to be appointed to ascertain the total liveable area and common areas available
in the Project to bring the day light robbery of the respondents from the allottees.
2(g).

Therefore, the complainant prays to award compensation directing the Respondents to

pay interest on Rs.2,41,32,000/- (Rs.Two Crore, Forty One Lakh and Thirty Two Thousand only)
from 30.06.2022 the due date of delivery of possession to 06.06.2023 the date of issuance of
Occupancy Certificate under Section 18 of the Act read with Rule 15 of the Rules in respect of
Flat No.1; and to pay Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Lakhs only) for deviating from the
specifications of the Agreement of Sale (Ex.A1) u/s 18 (3) of the Act and Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.Ten
Lakhs only) towards mental agony.
COUNTER OF RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 3:3(a).

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in their common counter, while admitting about execution of

Agreements of Sale dt.25.11.2021 and 03.11.2020 in respect of Flat Nos.1 and 2 respectively in
favour of the complainant, sale considerations mentioned therein, due date for delivery of
possession of Flat Nos.1 and 2, execution of Registered Sale-Deed dt.11.04.2022 in respect of
Flat No.1 by Respondent No.2 without delivery of possession of the Flat and return of sale
consideration of Rs.1,55,00,000/- (Rs.One Crore and Fifty Five Lakhs only) by Respondent No.3
to the complainant in respect of Flat No.2, contend that the complainant has played fraud on
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and filed O.S.No.38 of 2023 on the file of VI ADJ Kukatpally in respect of
Flat No.2 and the suit was dismissed on rejection of plaint vide order dt,09.8.2023 in I.A.No.663
of 2023. It is stated that this fact was suppressed by the complainant in present complaint.
Further, the complainant did not purchase the Flats from the Promoter within the meaning of

---

It is contended that the complainant took possession of Flat No.1 under a letter on

16.05.2022 (Ex.B14) to carry out interior works and complainant is estopped from making
present complaint. The application for Occupancy Certificate was made on 22.02.2023 and it
was issued on 06.06.2023. The complaint is filed on 02.08.2023, which is not within reasonable
time from the date of taking possession and as such the complaint is barred by latches.
3(c).The Government has issued orders in exercise of its powers under Disaster Management
Act, 2005 during the pandemic period. TS RERA has also issued fresh Registration in place of
initial registration. The Project was completed during the period of registration and possession
of Flat No.1 was delivered on 16.05.2022 after being satisfied about the completion and
acknowledged by letter Ex.B14.
3(d).

According to the Respondents, brother of the complainant Nikhil Reddy Vanguru S/o

Narayana Reddy approached them in August, 2019 and introduced himself as a builder being
partner of Ishta Homes LLP and expressed his appreciation for their Project and interest to
book a Flat for himself and his sister in their Project. He has initially booked Unit No.A-1904
(floor area 2,730 Sq.Ft.) in Project “Elevate” on 17.08.2019 for a sale consideration of
Rs.2,14,40,475/- (Rs.Two Crore, Fourteen Lakhs, Forty Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy
Five only) including GST and entered into an Agreement of sale on 17.12.2020. He has applied
for Home Loan in Axis Bank, Tarnaka Branch, who insisted for a Tripartite agreement for said
Flat and bank collected originals. Mr.Nikhil Reddy made some payments through bank for said
Flat and got changed standard floor plan and thereafter changed his booking for bigger Flat Unit
No.E-1601 and entered into fresh agreement of sale and Tripartite Agreement in respect of Unit
No.E-1601 and then induced the Promoter to Register the sale deed by giving photo copies of
balance payable, altered the interiors and sent letters with false allegations and after obtaining

---

The same modus operandi was adopted by the complainant, who along with her father

Sri V.Narayana Reddy approached one of the Land owners/R2 and initially choose Flat Unit
No.F-1402 (Flat No.2) admeasuring 2835 Sq.ft. belonging to his daughter – Respondent No.3
and entered into an Agreement of sale on 03.11.2020 and requested for customisation of said
Flat changing standard floor plan. Thereafter, they requested Respondent No.2 to sell a bigger
Flat bearing Unit No.B-1004 (Flat No.1) admeasuring 4095 Sq.ft. belonging to Respondent No.2,
getting the Agreement for Unit No.F-1402 (Flat No.2) cancelled. It is stated that the complainant
herself sent a letter dt.06.10.2021 (Ex.B1) to Respondent No.2 to cancel the agreement
dt.03.11.2020 (Ex.A3) as the complainant wants to take a bigger flat in the Project and to refund
the amount to her Bank account duly acknowledging the same by putting her signature. It is
then stated that Respondent No.2 in good faith accepted the said request and accordingly his
daughter–Respondent No.3 refunded back the consideration amount of Rs.1,55,00,000/(Rs.One Crore and Fifty Five Lakhs only) paid in respect of Flat Unit No.F-1402 (Flat No.2) to the
complainant through RTGS on 02.03.2022 and 06.04.2022, as the transaction under the
agreement was cancelled at her request. But the complainant with dishonest and fraudulent
intention avoided to return the original agreement dt.03.11.2020 (Ex.A3).
3(f)

It is sated that in said circumstances, fresh agreement of sale dt.25.11.2021 (Ex.A1) in

respect of Unit No.B-1004 (Flat No.1) was entered.

Since the family members of the

complainant booked two flats, Respondents 2 and 3 believed the complainant and her family
members and did not suspect them. It is stated that Respondent No.2 executed Sale Deed
dt.11.04.2022 in respect of Flat No.1 without receiving entire consideration payable believing
their promise to pay the same. In addition to consideration of Rs.2,41,32,000/- (Rs.Two Crore,

---

It is stated that the complainant categorically admitted that she was refunded the

amount in respect of Flat No.2 in plaint of O.S.No.38 of 2023. As such, the said suit was
dismissed on allowing the petition filed to reject the plaint.
3(h).

With regard to delay in delivery of possession of Flat No.1, the respondents contend that

the allegations are false. According to them, construction was completed in advance in all
aspects and handed over possession of Flat No.1 to the complainant on 16.05.2022, i.e., after one
month 4 days from the date of registration of Sale Deed and the complainant expressed her
satisfaction about the completion by signing a letter dt.16.05.2022 (Ex.B14) accepting the
contents therein. It is stated that if there were any defects or deficiency, the complainant would
not have kept quiet for more than one year two months since then.
3(i).

It is further contended that the complainant cannot include the Flat No.2 in this case as

she herself cancelled the booking and took refund of the entire amount and subsequently the
said Flat was agreed to be sold to a third party under Agreement of Sale dt.08.07.2022.
3(j)

It is further contended that the allegation with regard to Revised Plan without consent

of Allottees is false. The Revised Plan was obtained to construct a floor on Club house only to
provide better amenities. There are no changes in respect of Flat or balcony of the complainant
and the complainant is no way affected. As such, there is no alteration or addition in the

---

With regard to allegation of non providing amenities, it is contended that the UPVC

Windows provided are on par with the quality of brands like Finesta and Kommerling. Tinted
glass and mosquito mesh have been provided by the respondent/developer. The Tiles provided
are of high quality and reputed brand. The complainant removed the tiles later on and relayed
her own tiles which is evident as per security register pertaining to respondent No.1.
Respondent No.1 supplied anti skid tiles. An extra floor is added to the club house to provide all
facilities and amenities with good quality.

A jogging track is available at the podium-level.

Safety grills are not promissed in the specifications. However, grills are provided for the ground
floor flats. It is stated that the respondent/developer was awarded prestigious Gold Garden
award by the Department of Horticulture, Govt. of Telangana. At last, the respondents pray to
dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
REJOINDER BY THE COMPLAINANT:
4(a).

The complainant filed a Rejoinder with permission. In the Rejoinder, the complainant,

while denying the averments made against her in the counter, contends that the respondents
have mislead and misrepresented by pleading false and frivolous contentions. According to her,
she did not receive letters dt.06.10.2021, 14.06.2023, 14.05.2022 and 12.04.2022 filed along
with counter.

According to her, she filed complaint on 02.08.2023 and the order in

I.A.No.663/2023 was passed on 09.08.2023 and as such the question of suppression of alleged
fact does not arise. It is pleaded that the complainant is taking steps against the said order.
4(b).

It is pleaded that Occupancy Certificate was obtained on 06.06.2023 and as such there is

no delay in filing the complaint. The respondents cannot take shelter of any orders of the
Government with regard to Pandemic as both the Agreements dt.25.11.2021 and 03.11.2020 are
after Pandemic. According to clause 7 of the Agreement, “ready to move in possession” shall
mean that the apartment shall be in a habitable condition. Since the said certificate was

---

The complainant in Para 10 of rejoinder contends that she was forced to sign on letter

dt.16.05.2022 (Ex.B14) without making any remarks, otherwise the respondents threatened
that they would not give the Flat for interior works. She further pleads that as she was paying
Rs.58,000/- towards rent, plus Rs.10,000/- towards maintenance, plus EMI towards new Flat of
Rs.1,13,294/-, totalling to Rs.1,81,294/- (Rs.One Lakh, Eighty One Thousand, Two Hundred and
Ninety Four only), she could not protest at the time of taking of flat for interiors.
4(d).

The complainant admits that her brother entered into Agreement of Sale in respect of

Flat No.A-1904 in Project “Elevate” but alleges that the construction done was of substandard
quality. However, the complainant denies the allegations made against her brother and
contends that the respondents are at fault and they tried to extract additional amount from her
brother. She also denies that she adopted the same modus operandi like her brother to cancel
the booking of Flat No.2. According to her, the respondents have created letter dtd.06.10.2021
(Ex.B1) by forging her signature. The respondents never referred said letter dt.06.10.2021 in
said I.A.No.663/2023 and as such, she is taking steps for production of said letter to send to
expert and reserves right to make appropriate applications and criminal complaint against the
respondents.
4(e).

The complainant further contends that the transaction in respect of Flat No1. is

independent of the earlier Agreement of Sale dt.03.11.2020. The complainant has paid all the
amounts. In fact, the amounts collected by Respondent No.2 towards GST is liable to be
returned to the complainant with interest. Therefore, the complainant prays to allow her
complaint with exemplary costs.
5.

PLEADING OF I.A.No.4 of 2023;

---

PLEADING OF I.A.No.5 of 2023
This petition has been filed by the respondents u/s 71 of Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act to dismiss the complaint as “not maintainable”. In support of this petition,
the respondents have filed affidavit of Respondent No.2 pleading same ground as raised in their
counter. The complainant has filed a counter to this petition taking same stand as pleaded in
her complaint and Rejoinder. A reference to the pleadings of both parties has been made supra.
It is, therefore, not necessary to refer them again and the petition can be straightaway
considered.
7.

PLEADINGS OF I.A.No.3 of 2023
This petition has been filed under Section 45 of Evidence Act by the complainant to send

the letter dt.06.10.2021 (Ex.B1) for comparing the alleged signature thereon with the admitted
signatures of the complainant and for report. The complainant filed her Affidavit in support of
this petition pleading same facts as raised in her complaint and rejoinder. The respondents
have filed a counter affidavit of Respondent No.2 in reply taking the same grounds as raised by
them in their counter. A reference to the pleadings advanced by both parties has been made
supra and as such, it is not necessary to repeat them again and the petition can be decided
straightaway.

---

The complainant and respondents did not choose to adduce oral evidence.

The

complainant in support of her case got marked Exs.A1 to A14, whereas the respondents relied
on Exs.B1 to B.16. All the documents, except Exs.A6, A7 and B1, have been marked with
consent. Exs.A6 and A7 have been marked subject to objection raised by the learned Counsel for
the respondents that those documents are not relevant for the subject matter, and Ex.B1 has
been marked subject to objection by the learned Counsel for complainant that she did not give
the letter Ex.B1 and the alleged signature on it is forged and that she filed a petition to direct the
respondents to produce original of Ex.B1. While marking said documents with objection, it was
observed that the said objections will be considered at the time of disposal of the case.
ARGUMENTS:
9.

Heard learned Counsel for both parties, as both sides conceded to hear IAs and

complaint together and pass orders. Learned Counsel for the complainant has also filed written
arguments.
POINTS FRAMED FOR DECISION:
10.

On the basis of pleadings in complaint and Interlocutory Applications, the Points that

arise for determination are :
1) Whether IA No.4 of 2023 under Order XI Rule 6 CPC to direct Respondents to produce
original letter dt.06.10.2021 to send it to the Expert deserves to be allowed?
2) Whether the complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable?
3) Whether IA No.4 of 2023 to send letter dt.06.10.2021 has merits and
be allowed?

deserves to

4) Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount

11.

POINT Nos.1 to 4:

---

The admitted facts are that Respondent No.1 is a developer and Respondent Nos.2 and 3

are Landlords. Respondent No.1 took land from Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for development
under a Development Agreement. Respondent No.1 agreed to develop a Multi-storied
Apartment complex under the name and style of Trendset Jayabheri Elevate. Pursuant to said
development agreement, a Supplementary Agreement was entered into on 09.02.2018. As per
this Supplementary Agreement, Flat Nos.1 and 2, i.e., Flat No.B-1004 and Flat No.F-1402 fell to
the shares of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively. The complainant and Respondent No.2
entered into an Agreement of Sale dt.25.11.2021 (Ex.A1) in respect of Flat No.1, i.e., Flat No.B1004, which is subject matter of this complaint. As per the Agreement of Sale Ex.A1, Respondent
No.2 agreed to sell Flat No.1 for a consideration of Rs.2,41,32,000/- and as per Clause 5.1 of
Ex.A1, Respondent No.2 agreed that timely delivery of possession of Flat to the complainant is
the essence of agreement and assured to hand over Flat along with ready and complete common
area with specification, amenities and facilities of the Project on or before 30.06.2022. Further,
as per Clause7.1 of the Agreement Ex.A1, “ready to move in possession” shall mean that the
Apartment shall be in a habitable condition for which Occupancy Certificate and Completion
Certificate, as the case may be, has to be issued by the competent authority.
13(a). The complainant has filed present case on more than one ground. It is the prime plea of
the complainant that as per Agreement of Sale Ex.A1, the possession of Flat No.1 was to be
handed over on or before 30.06.2022. She further pleaded that Respondent No.2 has executed
Registered Sale Deed dt.11.04.2022 Ex.A2 on payment of entire sale consideration with only
symbolic possession of the Flat, as the respondent failed to hand over the Flat in liveable

---

Therefore, she claimed interest for delay from the due date of delivery of

possession i.e., 30.06.2022 to 06.06.20203, i.e. the date of issue of Occupancy Certificate as
compensation.
13(b). On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the complainant has signed
letter dt.16.05.2022 (Ex.B14) accepting and acknowledging that the builder has completed
construction in compliance of all the terms and conditions and further undertaking that she
would bide by the terms and conditions specified by the builder and then took possession of
Flat No.1 on the same day for license to carry out interiors and made alterations of her own
beyond recognition. According to them, they completed the Flat in advance in all aspects and
handed over to the complainant on said date, which is after one month 4 days from the date of
registration of Sale Deed and the complainant has expressed her satisfaction. They further
pleaded that if the contentions of the complainant regarding defects and deficiencies are
correct, she would not have kept quiet till 2 years since then to file a complaint. After filing of
such counter by the respondents, the complainant, with the leave of the Authority, filed
Rejoinder, wherein she took a plea that the complainant had to take certain works as the
respondents failed to fulfill their promises and commitments made in the prospects and
agreement of sale and also provided sub-standard 2nd grade material. She then pleads that she
was forced to sign without making any remarks on the letter dt.16.05.2022 (Ex.B14), otherwise
the respondents threatened that they would not give Flat for interior works.
13(c). It is pertinent to note that the complainant has approached this authority for award of
compensation mainly on the ground of delay in delivery of possession of Flat. The pleadings of

---

She did not plead about the letter Ex.B14 for taking

possession of Flat and also about delivery of possession of Flat in her pleadings. She also did not
plead in her complaint that her signature was obtained under threat as pleaded in first sentence
of Para 21 of the rejoinder. It is not her case that when her signature was obtained under threat
on the letter Ex.B14, she has either agitated or gave any complaint to any Authority. A perusal
of Ex.B14 shows that the complainant has declared in the contents that the construction of the
Apartment is complete in all aspects as per terms and condition of Booking/Agreement of
Sale/Sale Deed and the specifications agreed to thereof.
14(a). Learned Counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that the very next sentence
in Ex.B14 after said declaration by the complainant shows that Respondent No.1 has also
declared in the letter that occupation can only take place after receiving Occupancy Certificate
from GHMC. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel that delivery of possession
under the letter Ex.B14 is of no help to the respondents, especially when the occupation has to
take place after receiving Occupancy Certificate and Occupancy Certificate is obtained by the
respondents on 06.06.2023. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondents contended
that firstly the complainant has suppressed the said material fact. Secondly, she having taken
possession of Flat under Ex.B14 letter did not reveal about such letter in her pleading and now
she took plea in her rejoinder that her signature was obtained on Ex.B14 under threat, which is
not acceptable. Therefore, learned Counsel submitted that the present complaint has to be
dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts and approaching the Authority with
unclean hands.
14(b). It is true, as argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant, the letter Ex.B14
contains the declaration by respondent No.1 with regard to occupation of Flat only after
receiving Occupancy Certificate from the GHMC. But, at the same time, as argued by the learned

---

---

---

As such, it is necessary to refer the said decision relied on by the learned

Counsel for the complainant.
15(g). In said Experion Developers Pvt.Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & others, Their Lordships of the
Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, after considering the provisions of the Act and
Rules with regard to powers of the Authority and Adjudicating Officer elaborately, observed in
Para Nos.60, 61, 63, 64, 66 and 67 as under:
“60. On a collective reading of Sections 71 and 72 of the Act, the legislative
intent becomes explicit. This is to limit the scope of the adjudicatory powers
of the AO to determining compensation or interest in the event of violation of

---

---

15(h). Admittedly, in said Batch of cases before Hon’ble Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana
High Court, the amended Rules 28 and 29 of Haryana Amendment Rules, 2019 were also
challenged, which relate to filing of complaint with Authority and enquiry etc (Rule 28) and
filing of complaint with Adjudicating Officer and inquiry etc (Rule 29). There are similar Rules
in Telangana State to that of said Amended Rules in Haryana. I have gone carefully through the
said judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Their Lordships of the Division Bench,
while considering the powers of the Authority and Adjudicating Officer, observed and held as
noted supra, which supports the contentions raised on behalf of the complainant. In these
circumstances and there being no decision of Hon’be Telangana High Court on the issue or
taking any different view to that of the view rendered in said decision and in view of various

---

---

Some favourable consideration could have been given for the

complainant, provided the case as pleaded by her was, prima facie, acceptable. The case of the
complainant, in view of discussion made supra, is not acceptable. It being so and the said
document being not related to Flat No.1, which is subject matter of this complaint, I am of the
considered view that the said I.A.No.4 of 2023 has no merits and is liable to be dismissed. It is
made clear that similar I.A. was filed by the complainant in Form-M complaint vide Complaint
No.664/2023 and since it was not numbered and disposed off on merits for the reasons
recorded by the Authority in Para 48 of the order, I have considered said I.A and the same are
disposed off. Since I.A.No.4 of 2023 has no merits, I.A.No.3 of 2023 to send the document to the
Expert is also liable to be dismissed.
17(a). Now coming to the claim of the complainant for compensation, the complainant has
prayed to grant compensation under four Heads: viz., (1) to direct respondents to pay interest
on Rs.2,41,32,000/-, which is the sale price of Flat No.1, from 30.06.2022 due date of delivery of
possession to 06.06.2023 the date of issuance of Occupancy Certificate, from the respondents,
(2) to direct respondents to pay Rs.25,00,000/- for deviating from the specifications of
agreement of sale and the prospectus; and (3) to direct respondents to pay Rs.10,00,000/-

---

vs State of UP & others etc” vide Civil Appeal No(s).6745 to 6749 of 2021 vide
order dated: 11-11-2021, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 86 held as
under:
“From the scheme of the Act of which a detailed reference has been made and
taking note of power of adjudication delineated with the regulatory authority and
adjudicating officer, what finally culls out is that although the Act indicates the
distinct expressions like ‘refund’, ‘interest’, and ‘compensation’, a conjoint reading
of Sections 18 and 19 clearly manifests that when it comes to refund of the
amount, and interest on the refund amount, or directing payment of interest for
delayed delivery of possession, or penalty and interest thereon, it is the regulatory
authority which has the power to examine and determine the outcome of a
complaint. At the same time, when it comes to a question of seeking the relief of
adjudging compensation and interest thereon under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19,
the adjudicating officer exclusively has the power to determine, keeping in view
the collective reading of Section 71 read with Section 72 of the Act. If the
adjudication under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 other than compensation as
envisaged, if extended to the adjudicating officer as prayed that, in our view, may
intend to expand the ambit and scope of the powers and functions of the
adjudicating officer under Section 71 and that would be against the mandate of
the Act, 2016.”
17(c). From the said categorical pronouncement by Hon’ble Supreme Court, I have no
hesitation to hold that the complainant is not entitled to claim interest for the period of delay in
delivery of possession as compensation before the Adjudicating Officer and it is only the Real
Estate Regulatory Authority which has jurisdiction to grant interest for the delay in delivery of
possession of Flat.
17(d). As far as the claim of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) towards
compensation for deviating from the specifications of the Agreement of Sale and prospectus is

---

As such, it is very difficult to accept the contention of the complainant

regarding Ex.A5. It is settled law that any proof adduced without any pleading relating to such
proof is of no help to the party. With regard to claim of compensation under other Heads also,
the complainant is not entitled, inasmuch as the complainant has failed to make out a specific
case by advancing pleading on those aspects to hold that she is entitled for compensation under
such heads.
CONCLUSION ON POINT Nos.1 to 4:
18.

For all the foregoing reasons, the conclusion that emerges on Point Nos.1 to 4 is that the

complaint falls within the jurisdiction of this Authority and is maintainable; that the application
in I.A.No.4 of 2023 to direct the respondents to produce the original letter of Ex.B1
dt.06.10.2021 to send to Expert has no merits and consequently, I.A.No.3 of 2023 to send the
said letter to the Expert to compare alleged signature of complainant with her admitted
signatures and for report, has also no merits and both the applications are liable to be
dismissed; and that the complainant has failed to prove that she is entitled for award of
compensation. Accordingly, Point No.2 on the question of maintainability of the complaint is
answered in favour of the complainant and against the respondents; and Point Nos.1, 3 and 4
are answered against the complainant and in favour of the respondents.
19.

In the result, in view of findings on Point Nos.1 to 4 as recorded in Para 18 above, the

complaint is dismissed. However, having regard to peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 12th day of
FEBRUARY, 2025

Sd/ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.

---

Dt.25.11.2021

Ex.A-2

Dt.11.04.2022

Ex..A-3

Dt.03.11.2020

Ex.A-4

Dated Nil.

Copy of Agreement of Sale in between Dr.K.L.Narayana
and Ms.Neelima Vanguru.
Copy of Sale-Deed vide Doc.No.5886/2022 of Joint SubRegistrar, Ranga Reddy District.
Copy of Agreement of Sale in between Mrs.Kaza Kavya
and Ms.Neelima Vanguru.
Prospectus of Respondent Company.

Ex.A-5

Dated: Nil

Quotation of Fenesta and Veka.

Ex.A-6
Ex.A-7
Ex.A-8

Dt.17.12.2020
Dt.3103.2021
Dt.09.09.2023

Ex.A-9

Dated: NIL

Ex.A-10

Dt.17.03.2022

Ex.A-11

Dt.09.04.2022

Ex.A-12

Dt.07.06.2023

Ex.A-13

Dt.05.09.2024

Ex.A-14

11.10.2023

Agreement of Sale. (marked subject to objection)
Agreement of Sale. (marked subject to objection(
Hand over letter issued by Trendset Jayabheri
Projects LLP
Two (2) blank signed cheques issued by the
complainant.
Copy of Cheques of HDFC Bank issued for Rs.1 Crore
only.
Copy of Cheques of HDFC Bank issued for Rs.1 Crore
only.
Copy of petition filed under Or.VII Rule 11(a) r/w
Sec.151 CPC by Ms.Kaza Kavya against Mr.Neelima
Vanguru on the file of VI Adldl.Dist.Judge, Ranga Reddy
District.
Copy of order passed in Complaint No.664/2023 by
RERA Authority.
E-mail with (10 page enclosures)
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS
(By consent, except Ex.B1)

Ex.B-1

Dt.06.10.2021

Ex.B-2

Dt.14.06.2023

Ex..B-3
Ex.B-4
Ex.B-5

Dt.14.06.2023
Dt.09.05.2017
Dt.14.05.2022

Ex.B-6
Ex.B-7
Ex.B-8

06.06.2023
Dt.12.04.2022
…

Ex.B-9

Dt….

Copy of letter of Ms.Neelima to Dr.K.L.Narayana.
(MARKED SUBJECT TO OBJECTION)
Copy of letter of Dr.K.L.Narayana to Trendset layabheri
Project LLP.
Copy of letter of Dr.K.L.Narayana to Mr.Neelima.
Copy of building permission Order.
Coy of letter of Dr.K.L.Narayana to Ms.Neelima and
Project incharge of M/s.Trendset Jayabheri Projects
LLP
Copy of Occupancy Certificate order issued by GHMC.
Letter addressed by Dr.K.L.Narayana to Ms.Neelima.
Copies of two (2) cheques issued in favour of
Ms.Neelima.
Copy of Bank Statement of Kaza Kavya.

---

Ex.B-10

Dt.01.06.2021

Ex.B-11

Dt.13.02.2023

Ex.B-12

Dt.09.08.2023

Ex.B-13

Dt.25.11.2021

Ex.B-14

Dt.16.05.2022

Ex.B-15

Dated: NIL

Ex.B-16

12.03.2019

Copy of Order No.16, dt.01.06.2021 issued by TS RERA
extending timeline.
Copy of plaint filed in O.S.No.38/2023 on the file of VI
ADJ Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.
Copy of order in I.A.No.663/2023 in O.S.No.38 of 2023
on the file of VI ADJ Ranga Reddy District at
Kukatpally.
Copy of Agreement of Sale in between Dr.KL Narayana
and Ms.Neelima Vanguru.
Copy of Hand over letter issued by Trendset Jayabheri
Projects LLP to Ms.Vanguru Neelima.
Copy of complaint file under Form ‘M’ by Mr.Neelima
against Trendset Jayabheri Projects LLP & others on
the file of RERA Hyderabad.
Registration Certificate of Project issued by RERA.
Sd/ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.

Cc.

---