Order Complaint No. 104 Of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.104 OF 2024
11th day of July, 2024
Corum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member

Sri.Krishna Nilyam Residents

…Complainant

Versus
M/s Mahalaxmi Construction rep by Sri Pabba Siddeshwar
…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for final
hearing on 16.04.2024 before this Authority in the presence of Complainants
present in person and Authorised respresentato Sri Shashank on behalf of the
Respondent and upon hearing the arguments of the party, this Authority
passes the following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the
“RE(R&D) Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking
directions from this Authority to take action against the Respondent.
A. Brief Facts on behalf of the complainant:
3.

Complainants

purchased

the

flats

from

the

Respondent,

M/s

Mahalaxmi Constructions, a registered firm under firm number 426 of 2015,
represented by Managing Partner Sri Pabba Siddeshwar, S/o Pabba Pentaiah,
located at Plot No. 20, Shobhana Colony, West Marredpally, Secunderabad Mobile No. 9849664607, through sale deeds as mentioned above.

1 of 8

2. Mr. Siddeshwar obtained building permission under Building Permission
No.

1/C30/06890/2021

dated

19/05/2021

and

TDR

Permit

No.

2302/GHMC/SEC/2022 BP dated 7/3/2022.
3. The sanction plan for the building permission is enclosed herewith for your
ready reference.
4. Complainants, the flat owners of Krishna Mahalaxmi Nilayam residents,
wish to bring to Authority’s attention that an unauthorized penthouse has
been constructed in our building without proper approvals. According to the
HMDA-approved building plan, only 5 floors with 2 flats each (total 10 flats)
are permitted. The unauthorized penthouse is constructed on the terrace,
causing inconvenience to our terrace rights and to all owners of respective
flats.
5. Additionally, they are facing issues with the quality of construction by M/s
Mahalaxmi

Constructions.

The

following

are

our

concerns

regarding

shortcomings on behalf of the builders:
a. Unauthorized construction of a penthouse for commercial office in our
residential apartment. Requesting RERA to act by demolishing the same
or allotting it as a recreation hall for residents' social events only.
b. Improper sewage pipeline and insufficient drainage passage, leading to
frequent drainage blockages.
c. Improper water plumbing resulting in water from the overhead tank not
reaching the flats until it is half filled, along with frequent pipe choking
due to insufficient pipe diameter.
d. Visible cracks on the building and flat walls due to poor quality of
construction.
e. Rainwater blockage in terrace and parking area due to poor civil work.
f. Parking floor tiles not laid properly.
g. Doors in all flats are of poor quality, making it difficult to open and
close them.

2 of 8

h. The builder has obtained sanction for only half-inch diameter for
Manjeera water supply, which is insufficient for 10 flats. Requesting an
increase in diameter to 1 inch.
i. The existing generator lacks auto mode facility, posing risks during
power failures where residents could get trapped inside building lifts,
facing severe suffocation.
6.

Therefore, we request your office to take immediate action to stop the

illegal construction of the penthouse. Furthermore, we urge you to engage
with the builder to address the grievances raised by the flat owners promptly.

B. Relief(s) Sought:
7.

The complainants have sought for the following relief:
a. Immediate action to stop the illegal construction of the penthouse.
b. Resolution of quality issues raised by flat owners, including sewage,
water plumbing, structural concerns, rainwater blockage, parking floor
tiles, door quality, water supply, and generator facility.
c. Request for RERA to demolish the unauthorized penthouse or allocate it
as a recreation hall exclusively for residents' social events.
d. Coordination with the builder to address the complaints raised by flat
owners.

C. Respondent Reply:

8.

Respondent

categorically

denies

the

allegations

made

by

the

complainants, describing them as false, untrue, baseless, and vindictive. He
emphasizes the need for strict proof to substantiate such serious accusations.
9.

He acknowledges that the complainants purchased flats from M/s.

Mahalaxmi Constructions, a firm run by him. However, he refutes the
allegation of a penthouse being constructed, explaining that the room on the
terrace was built as a shelter for workers during the construction phase. It
was later repurposed as a maintenance office, with no commercial activities

3 of 8

taking place. He asserts that the existence of this room was known to all flat
owners during the purchase, and no objections were raised.
10.

He acknowledges that the complainants purchased flats from M/s.

Mahalaxmi Constructions, a firm run by him. However, he refutes the
allegation of a penthouse being constructed, explaining that the room on the
terrace was built as a shelter for workers during the construction phase. It
was later repurposed as a maintenance office, with no commercial activities
taking place. He asserts that the existence of this room was known to all flat
owners during the purchase, and no objections were raised.
11.

He clarifies that the room on the terrace cannot be classified as a

penthouse for commercial office purposes. It serves as a maintenance office,
fulfilling the builder's commitment to maintaining the building for two years.
He reiterates that this authority is empowered to resolve disputes regarding
construction flaws and asserts that no commercial activities occur in the
maintenance office.

D. Rejoinder by the complainant:
12.

In reply to the stands taken on behalf of respondent, the complainant

filed a rejoinder contending that it is true that the complainant purchased
flats from the Respondent, a registered firm. However, it is a falsehood to
claim that the room on the terrace was constructed for any purpose other
than providing shelter for workers during construction. This room was
subsequently used as a maintenance office, with no commercial activities
conducted therein. The existence of this room was known to all flat owners at
the time of their respective purchases, and no objections were raised then.
13.

The Respondent’s statement claiming the penthouse was constructed as

a shelter for construction workers and later used as a maintenance office is
false. The complainants assert that this is not a shelter room but a posh
3BHK flat, significantly larger than their own flats, occupying more than 50%
of the terrace space, which is a common area for all flat owners. Due to this

4 of 8

flat's presence, the complainants have lost the common area needed for
conducting any social gatherings on the terrace, as the remaining space is
very small.
14.

Moreover, the person claiming ownership of the flat plans to establish a

corporate office in the penthouse, which is legally objectionable in a
residential complex where traditional families with girl children and
housewives reside.
15.

The allegations levied by the complainants fall well within the ambit of

the Authority. If the Respondent raises contentions about the penthouse as
alleged, the complainants will not fall outside this Authority’s jurisdiction. The
complainants are concerned about the quality of construction, having
purchased their respective flats through loans from financial institutions and
banks.
16.

The issues raised by the complainants are genuine problems faced by

all flat owners. The attached real pictures depict the false ceiling that fell due
to seepage from the bathroom of Flat 101. Despite repeated calls, the builder
has not rectified the issue, resulting in a shabby appearance at the parking
area of Flat 502, where the entire beam has seepage issues.
17.

There are cracks in the compound wall, as well as in the walls of the

flats, including damaged light holders that have not been repaired. There are
major cracks in the false ceiling of the parking area. The builder has failed to
install CCTV cameras on all floors, having only placed one near the lift.
Despite repeated requests to install cameras on each floor, the builder has not
complied and insists that the one near the lift is sufficient. Surprisingly, half
of these cameras are not functioning.
18.

The Respondent mentioned that no cracks were observed at the time of

handover. However, all the cracks and seepage issues developed within 3-6
months of occupation of the flats, indicating the use of low-quality materials
for construction.

5 of 8

E.

Hearing Conducted:

19.

During the hearing, the complainants reiterated the contentions made

in the complaint. They further stated that the respondent has given the
penthouse to the landowner for use, which has resulted in the complainants
facing issues due to restricted access to the terrace.
20.

The complainants also submitted that they are experiencing plumbing

issues that need to be rectified by the builder, as these issues arose within 36 months of taking possession of the units. The structural defects indicate the
quality of the materials used by the builder in constructing the apartment.
21.

In response, the respondent submitted that the penthouse is being used

for office files. The respondent further submitted that the 5th floor was
constructed through TDR, and no permissions were obtained for the
penthouse. The respondent also submitted that the penthouse was built for
maintenance purposes for the residents of the building and was supposed to
be handed over to them for that purpose.
22.

The complainants requested the authority to hand over the penthouse

to them so they can use it as a common area, association room, or
maintenance room, and not allow the respondent to have rights over the said
illegal penthouse.
F.

Point for consideration:

21. Now the Point for determination is whether the complainant is entitled
for the relief(s) sought:
22.

The complainants, in prayer (a), have requested this Authority to halt

the construction of the penthouse constructed by the Respondent. The
complainants have also submitted that they were aware of the unauthorized
construction at the time of purchasing the flat but did not raise any
objections

then.

Furthermore,

during

the

hearing,

the

complainants

submitted that they are willing to take possession of the penthouse and use it
as a maintenance room. However, the Authority is of the view that, since the
structure is unauthorized, the complainants cannot be granted such relief.
6 of 8

The unauthorized penthouse is liable to be demolished, and appropriate
action shall be taken by the local authority. Therefore, the complainants may
approach the local authority to seek further action.
23.

The complainants have raised various structural/workmanship defatcs,

which includes sewage, water plumbing, structural concerns, rainwater
blockage, parking floor tiles, and door quality. Pursuant to Section 14(3) of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, any structural defect or
any other defect in workmanship, quality, or provision of services shall be
rectified by the promoter within a period of five years from the date of
possession of the unit. The Authority observes that the Respondent has
entered into registered sale deeds with all the complainants during the period
from 2022 to 2023, which indicates that the Respondent remains liable for
any structural defects that may arise. Consequently, the Authority directs the
Respondent/builder to rectify all the aforementioned defects raised by the
complainants within 60 days from the date of this order.
24.

With respect to the relief sought to increase the diameter of the

Manjeera water supply to one inch, the Authority lacks jurisdiction over this
matter. The complainants are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for
such relief.
G.

Directions by the Authority:

25.

Therefore, vide this Order, this Authority deems fit to direct the

Respondent Builder to attend structural defects if any, and rectify the
identified defects within 60 days from the date of the receipt of this Order and
subsequently, to submit proof of such rectification upon the completion of the
stipulated time period. These directives are issued in accordance with the
aforementioned findings and are to be implemented promptly by the
Respondent.
26.

In lieu of the above-mentioned directions, the present complaint stands

disposed of. Upon the failure of the Respondent Builder to comply with the
present Order, appropriate action, including imposition of a penalty, will be
taken as per provisions under Section 63 of the Act, 2016.
7 of 8

27.

If aggrieved by this Order, the parties may approach the TS Real Estate

Appellate Tribunal (vide G.O.Ms.No.8, Dt.11-01-2018, the Telangana State
Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal has been designated as TS Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal to manage the affairs under the Act till the regular
Tribunal is established) as per Section 44 of the Act, 2016.

Sd/Sri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

Sd/Sri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson
TG RERA

8 of 8