Order Complaint No. 104/1 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.104/1 OF 2024
8th Day of July 2025
Quorum:

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

Venkata Naga Sai Gupta Chegu
R/o Flat No.304, Srinilayam,
Nehru Nagar, Khammam-507001.
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Aaditri Housing Private Limited.
through its Promoter, Sri M. Ramakrishna
Plot No. 233, H. No. 8-2-293/82/A/233,
Road No. 36, 3rd Floor, Pravriti Bhavan,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033.
2. Smt. Jakkepalli Sri Lakshmi (agent)
H. No. 10-4-30, Near Sai Baba Temple,
Mamillagudem, Khammam-507001.
3. Sri Jakkepalli Appa Rao (Late)
H. No. 10-4-30, Near Sai Baba Temple,
Mamillagudem, Khammam-507001.
…Respondents

The present matter filed by the Complainants herein came up for hearing
on12.12.2024 before this Authority in the presence of the Complainant in person
along with Counsel for Respondent No.1, Sri MM Venkata Kumar Reddy, Counsel for
Respondent No.2, Smt. S. Anuradha; & Counsel for Respondent No.3, Sri G.
Subhash, however, the impugned complaint has been abated to the extent of
Respondent No.3 herein, Sri Jakkepalli Appa Rao, due to his demise on 21.04.2025.
After hearing the submissions of the remaining parties, this Authority proceeds to
pass the following ORDER:

1

---

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainants under Section 31

of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate
relief(s) against the Respondents.
A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

The Complainant submitted that for 12 years Complainant has been

acquainted with one person Mr Jakkepalli Venkatarama Krishna. Out of such
acquaintance, his son, Sri Jakkepalli Venkat Appa Rao, Respondent No.3 herein,
and his daughter in law, Smt. Jakkepalli Sri Lakshmi, Respondent No.2 herein, who
are working as agents at Respondent No.1 Company had offered for purchase of 2
flats in the Project “AADITRIS EMPIRE” registered with this Authority vide Regn. No.
P01100002772 dated 30.04.2021 having validity up to 30.06.2028.
4.

The Complainant submitted that being in service as a bank manager, the

Complainant and his wife, who is also a bank manager, out of their hard-earned
money, intended to purchase two flats as offered by Respondent No.2 & 3 in the
above-mentioned project. Believing their words, on 31.12.2019, a token payment of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) was paid to Respondent Nos.2 & 3. On the
same day the payment receipts were given to the Complainant by Respondent Nos.2
& 3.
5.

That subsequently, on 25.08.2020, upon the advice of Respondent Nos.2 & 3,

the Complainant and his wife transferred Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only)
directly to Respondent No.1 to their concerned ICICI Bank account no.
007605005991 Vide. RTGS transactions. That further, on subsequent dates till Feb
2021, the Complainant paid nearly fifty lakhs to Respondent No.1 through its
approved agents Respondent Nos.2 & 3 through bank transactions and obtained
receipts and Agreement of Sale dated 14.09.2023 for flat No.A-104 in 1st floor of
Aditri’s Empire from Respondent No.1 Company.
6.

It was submitted that after 21.07.2021, the Complainant and his wife moved

to the USA as Complainants’ children are residing in the USA and stayed there for
about 18 (eighteen) months. That even from the USA, Complainant and his wife have

2

---

The Complainant submitted that after returning from the USA in April 2023,

Complainant approached Respondent Nos.2 & 3 to register the two flats purchased
by them from Respondent No.1 Company, but Respondent Nos.2 & 3 started
dragging the matter on one pretext or the other. When Complainant approached
Respondent No.1 Company and enquired about the payments made, the
Complainant learned that out of the total payments made by the Complainant to an
extent of Rs.1,23,54,980/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty-Three Lakhs Fifty-Four
Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Only) only Rs.44,90,000 (Rupees Forty-Four Lakhs
Ninety Thousand Only) had been received by Respondent No.1 and remaining
amounts had been usurped by the Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
8.

The Complainant submitted that the total receipts and other related

documents, from the beginning which have been given to the Complainant (through
WhatsApp) were fake & fabricated by Respondent No.2 & 3 in the name of
Respondent No.1 Company. The Complainant submitted that he had been cheated
by the agents i.e., Respondent Nos.2 & 3 who created false documents in the name
of Respondent No.1 Company who are liable to register the two flats in the name of
the Complainant as the Complainant has paid the total sale consideration.
B. Relief Sought:
9.

Aggrieved by the actions of the Respondents, the Complainant prayed to take

appropriate action under the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 against the
Respondents alleging mismanagement of funds and seeking possession of the flats
as he has paid the total sale consideration.

C. Counter on behalf of Respondent No.1:
10.

The Respondent No.1 Company filed a detailed reply submitting that the entire

averments of the complaint as well as the documents filed along with the complaint
reveal the Complainant has a grievance against the Respondent No.2 & 3 only and
nothing against the Respondent No.1 Company.

3

---

Respondent No.1 submitted that the Complainant approached this Authority

with unclean hands, only based on private transactions with Respondent No.2 & 3
and this Authority has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters in respect of the
transactions between the private parties.
12.

It was submitted that Respondent No.2 is not an authorized agent of

Respondent No.1 Company but merely an Associate who facilitates client walk-ins.
Upon bringing in clients, an Associate is issued an identification from the Company
and assigned a specific number. The role of the Associate is limited to introducing
clients/customers, and they are neither involved in monetary transactions nor vested
with any authority to collect funds on behalf of the Respondent No.1 Company.
13.

Respondent No.1 further submitted that the relief sought in the complaint,

wherein the Complainant prays for a direction from this Authority to the Agent and
Promoter to hand over possession on the ground that the total sale consideration
has been paid, and alleges mismanagement of funds by the Agent and Respondent
No.1 Company which is contrary to the Complainant’s own undertaking in the
notarized sworn affidavit dated 26.08.2023. In the said affidavit, the Complainant
and his wife have expressly admitted that the Respondent No.1 Company has no
involvement in the alleged misappropriation of funds and that the fraudulent acts
were committed solely by Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
14.

The Respondent No.1 submitted that the documents filed by the Complainant

along with the complaint, i.e., (1) the copy of the complaint given by the Complainant
to the Commissioner of Police, Khammam, dated 28.01.2024 reveals that, each and
every money transaction is between the Complainant and Respondent No.3 (who is
the husband of the Respondent No.2) is a 3rd party and neither he is the Agent nor
Associate of the Respondent No.1 Company.
15.

Second, the Statement of Account from the year 2019 to 2022 of Respondent

No.3 bearing ICICI Bank, A/c. No.249101501377 establishes that the entire
transactions were made between the Complainant and Respondent No.3 and for the
misappropriation of the Complainant's money, the Complainant had already lodged
a criminal complaint against Respondent No.2 & 3. Respondent No.1 submitted that

4

---

It was further submitted that the Complainant and his wife, both retired bank

employees, possess substantial knowledge of financial transactions and the
individuals who may have misled them. That Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are close
relatives and family friends of the Complainant, with prior financial dealings dating
back to 11.06.2020. The Sale Agreement dated 14.09.2023, pertaining to Flat No. A104, explicitly sets forth the dates and details of the bank transactions. It is only
upon receipt of the agreed consideration that the Agreement of Sale was executed. In
accordance with the RERA-approved schedule, possession of the said flat shall be
handed over to the Complainant’s wife, Smt. Lakshmi Kalyani, and a sale deed shall
be duly registered at the time of such handover.
17.

That, whenever the company received the money by way of cash or cheque or

NEFT/RTGS/IMPS, the office automatically issued a GST Receipt in favour of the
beneficiaries. In this case also, Respondent No.1 issued Receipts in favour of the
Complainants’ wife, and completed the Sale Agreement Process and as per the RERA
registration, Respondent No.1 promised to hand over the Flat bearing No.A-104 as
per the timeline.
18.

Respondent No.1 further submitted that the Complainant suppressed a fact.

That, on 26.08.2023, the Complainant and his wife had given an undertaking
affidavit in favor of Respondent No.1 stating that "we have friendly relation with
Venkata Appa Rao and there are financial transactions between us. M/s. Aaditri
Housing Private Limited is not concerned with our financial transactions and
documents viz Receipts, refund note, payment acknowledgments, financial payments
details on Non-Judicial Stamp Paper issued by Venkata Appa Rao", and also in Clause
No.3, it was specifically mentioned that "M/s. Aaditri Housing Private Limited has
refunded for a sum of Rs.3,48,221/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Two
Hundred and Twenty one only)". In Para No.4 of the Affidavit, it was stated that, "we
have settled the matter and we have no grievance against M/s. Aaditri Housing Private
Limited. We have no claim against M/s. Aaditri Housing Private Limited with respect
to the financial transactions with Venkata Appa Rao and documents viz Receipts,
refund note, payment acknowledgments, financial payments details on non-judicial
stamp paper issued by Venkata Appa Rao" as such the complainant committed

5

---

It was also submitted that Respondent Nos.2 & 3, while taking advantage of

their friendly relation with the Complainant and his wife, directly received the money
into their personal bank accounts from the Complainant. That further, Respondent
Nos.2 & 3 created the receipts, refund note, payment acknowledgments with false,
fabricated and forged signatures of the Respondent No.1 Company. Respondent No.1
categorically submitted that Respondent No.1 is not responsible, nor answerable and
neither liable to the money transactions in between the Complainant Respondent
Nos.2 & 3 and also the fraudulent receipts, refund notes, payment acknowledgment
created by Respondent Nos.2 & 3. In view thereof, Respondent No.1 submitted that
the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed against
Respondent No.1.
D. Rejoinder filed by Complainant to the Counter of Respondent No.1:
20.

In response to the counter filed by the Respondent No.1, the Complainant

submitted that the present complaint had been filed alleging mismanagement and
embezzlement of funds and seeking directions from this Authority to direct the
Respondents to hand over possession and register flats Nos. A1504 (PB No. 1222)
and A1413 (PB No. 1223) in the project being promoted by Respondent No.1, for
which the entire sale consideration has been paid by the Complainant.
21.

The Complainant submitted that Respondent No. 2 is an associate of

Respondent No. 1 who is the wife of Respondent No.3. That Respondent No.3 initially
persuaded the Complainant and his wife to purchase flats 1504A and 1413A, each
measuring 1665 sq ft, at Aaditri Empire, Kollur, Hyderabad. Under this inducement,
the Complainant transferred an initial token payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh Only) (in two installments of Rs. 50,000/- each on 31-12-2019 and 01-012020) to Respondent No.3's ICICI Bank account (No. 249101501377) as Respondent
No. 2 lacked a bank account in her own name. This amount was paid from the
Complainant's Union Bank of India account No. 129510100029321.

6

---

The Complainant submitted that Respondent No.1 along with Respondent

Nos.2 & 3 accepted these payments, and receipts were issued, acknowledging
Respondent No. 2's authority to collect payments on behalf of Respondent No.1
Company. The Complainant submitted that contrary to the claims of Respondent No.
1 that the associate only brings clients and does not handle transactions, no public
notice or communication was made to inform the Complainant of this. Furthermore,
no KYC norms were observed, nor were any GPA authorizations obtained to permit
Respondent No. 2 to collect funds on the Complainant's behalf.
23.

The Complainant submitted that Respondent No.1 permitted Respondent

No.2 to collect funds and received those funds even prior to obtaining RERA
registration (RERA permission P01100002772, dated 30-04-2021) which constitutes
a clear violation of Section 3 of the Act, 2016.
24.

Complainant further submitted that subsequently, the Complainant paid Rs.

11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Only) and Rs. 19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen
Lakhs Only) on 25-08-2020 directly to Respondent No.1's ICICI Bank account No.
007605005991 via RTGS. While in the USA, the Complainant transferred an
additional Rs. 65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Five Lakhs Only) to Respondent No.3's
ICICI Bank account, following instructions from Respondent No.2, which was
subsequently transferred to Respondent No.1. The payments of Rs. 9,10,000/(Rupees Nine Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) (for PB No. 1222) and Rs. 3,90,000/(Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Thousand Only) (for PB No. 1223) were made on 11-062020 and 12-06-2020, respectively, to Respondent No. 1. Later, Rs. 3,90,000/(Rupees Three Lakhs and Ninety Thousand Only) were transferred from PB No. 1223
to PB No. 1222 without the Complainant's knowledge.
25.

The Complainant submitted that Respondent No.2's role as an associate is

acknowledged by Respondent No. 1. However, Respondent No. 2's denial of liability
is contradictory, as Respondent No.1 accepted payments from them, even prior to
receiving RERA authorization (RERA permission P01100002772 dated 30-04-2021),
in violation of Section 3 of the Act, 2016.
26.

The official receipt dated 03-06-2023 issued by Respondent No.1 includes the

associate identification as IBA 20500, confirming Respondent No. 2's formal
appointment with rights to collect payments for Respondent No.1. No documentation

7

---

Complainant also submitted that Respondent No.1 failed to issue a GST

receipt for the final payment of Rs. 1,47,309/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty-Seven
Thousand Three Hundred and Nine Only) made on 10-07-2023, which is contrary to
RERA regulations. Further, the Complainant submitted that the sale agreement was
signed under pressure from Respondent No.1, who assured the Complainant that
legal action would be taken against Respondent Nos.2 & 3 to recover embezzled
funds. The Complainant signed the agreement on 26-08-2023, trusting this
assurance. Respondent No.1 sent a legal notice on 23-08-2023 to Respondent Nos.2
& 3, demanding repayment of the misappropriated funds, failing which civil and
criminal action would be pursued. However, since signing the agreement,
Respondent No. 1 has failed to disclose any evidence of fraud by Respondent Nos.2
& 3, reflecting their collusion.
28.

Complainant further submitted that after signing the affidavit on 26-08-2023,

there has been no progress update from Respondent No. 1 regarding the project or
registration of the completed property, even though they promoted the project as a
pre-launch offer before obtaining RERA authorization. The Complainant's attempts
to reach out to Respondent No. 1's office have been futile, with no customer grievance
system or responsive communication.
29.

Complainant submitted that at the time of entering into the sale agreement,

Respondent No.1 assured us of immediate legal action against Respondent No.2 and
her husband to recover any misappropriated funds. The legal notice dated 23-082023 issued by Respondent No.1 to Respondent Nos.2 & 3 further confirmed
Respondent No.1's acknowledgment of their wrongdoing. However, no follow-up
actions were taken, indicating potential collusion between the company and
Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

8

---

Respondent No.2, vide its counter affidavit, submitted that the Complainant

has filed the present case with all personal allegations which this Authority has no
jurisdiction to adjudicate. She submitted that the Complainant must have had
transactions with so many people, but Respondent No.2 is no way connected with
those transactions and not in the knowledge of those transactions.
31.

She submitted that the Complainant never transferred any amount to

Respondent No.2’s account and never requested her to pay the instalment amounts
to Respondent No.1 at any point in time. That Respondent No.2 is neither liable nor
responsible for the transactions the Complainant had with Respondent No.1 or any
other entity/person/firm. She submitted that the Complainant is trying to make
Respondent No.2 responsible for the transaction just because the Complainant is a
family friend and trying to take advantage of the transactions, he had with
Respondent No.1 with which she is no way related or connected to. Even Respondent
No.1 specifically stated that "the Associate is just bring the Clients/Customers, we do
not involve them into the money transactions as well as they do not have any right to
collect the money on behalf of the company."
32.

Respondent No.2 submitted that she was never involved in the transactions

between the Complainant and Respondent No.1, as they have no connection to those
dealings. She has no record of whether the Complainant paid the full consideration
to Respondent No.1 or took possession of the flat, as Respondent No.1 does not
provide her with updates. Furthermore, Respondent No.2 asserted that she has no
knowledge of the transactions that took place in other accounts or to whom the
Complainant transferred the money. Respondent No.2 contended that the complaint
is liable to be dismissed, as it has been filed solely to mislead this Authority and
unjustly obtained possession of the property from Respondent No.1 by making
baseless personal allegations. Therefore, she prayed that the complaint be dismissed
in the interest of justice.
F. Rejoinder filed by Complainant to Counter of Respondent No.2:
33.

Complainant filed a rejoinder to the Counter filed by the Respondent No.2

submitting that Respondent No.2 is an associate to the Respondent No.1 Company.
He submitted that Respondent No.2 had offered the Complainant to purchase two

9

---

The Complainant urged that details mortgage/charge, if any, created on the

land and the project should be disclosed to the Complainant, however the same was
never disclosed to the Complainant. Further, it was submitted that all the documents
pertaining to the above transaction, from the beginning, are fake and Complainant’s
signatures are forged in the presence of the Respondent No.1 promoter team and all
the original payment receipts have been handed over to Respondent Nos.2 & 3 under
acknowledgement. Even the Complainant’s contact details are not there in the
company applications for PB No.1177, 1178, 1222, 1223 and all the signatures are
forged. No KYC ever followed in Respondent No.1 company and no GPA is issued by
the Complainant in favour of Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
G. Counter filed by Respondent No.3:
35.

Subsequent to impleading Respondent No.3, it was submitted on his behalf

that this Authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, as the allegations
pertain to personal financial transactions between individuals and are unconnected
to any regulatory functions or violations under the Act, 2016. He submitted that
Respondent No.3 is neither a promoter nor an agent, nor has he undertaken any
activity falling under the ambit of real estate development or sale as per the Act,
2016.
36.

He submitted that the complaint fails to establish any substantive or direct

allegations linking Respondent No.3 to the alleged misconduct. It does not provide
concrete evidence, documents, or details of transactions that involve me in any
manner under the purview of RERA. Further, that the Complainant, based on the
same transactions and facts, already filed a civil suit which is currently pending
before competent civil court (OS/35/2023 on the File of Special Judge for Trial of
Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act 1989-cum III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Khammam District, Telangana State for Specific Performance of Contract.
37.

It was further submitted that orders were passed dated 03-05-2024 in IA No:

2 of 2023 pending in OS No: 35/23 dated 25th July 2023 granted injunction

10

---

Respondent No.3 further submitted the Complainant has also initiated a

criminal case against this Respondent, however, these allegations are yet to be
substantiated or proven in any competent court of law. Pending adjudication, no
adverse orders can or should be passed against Respondent No.3 based on unproven
allegations. Respondent No.3 further submitted that the Complainant's actions,
including filing multiple complaints on the same subject in various forums,
constitute a blatant abuse of the judicial process and are designed to harass
Respondent No.3.
39.

Respondent

No.3 further

submitted

that

the

Complainant has not

substantiated his claims with documentation or admissible evidence. WhatsApp
chats and unilateral statements cannot establish financial liability, especially in
matters requiring stringent proof. The bank account transfers cited by the
Complainant are already subject to scrutiny in the pending civil suit. Further, the
Complainant has forced Respondent No.3 to sign blank promissory notes, cheques,
and other documents under coercion, which he now attempts to misuse in multiple
litigations.
40.

Respondent No.3 submitted that he acknowledges certain financial dealings

with the Complainant, however, they were private and unrelated to real estate.
Respondent No.3 has consistently expressed willingness to repay legitimate dues
with bank interest, contingent upon my ability to liquidate the property currently
under injunction. He submitted that he has no direct or indirect role in the activities
of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is a business associate of Respondent No.1
and has no financial dealings with the Complainant. Accordingly, he prayed to
dismiss the Complaint.
H. Points for consideration:

11

---

Upon careful examination of the pleadings, documents placed on record, and

the oral and written submissions advanced by the parties, the Authority is of the
view that the following issues arise for determination:
I.

Whether Respondent No.1 has violated the provisions of the RE(R&D)
Act, 2016?

II.

Whether Respondent No.2 is a real estate agent as per Section 2(zm)?
If yes, has she violated any provisions of the Act, 2016?

III.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for? If yes,
to what extent?

I. Observations of the Authority:
42.

Before delving into the substantive issues, this Authority deems it appropriate

to place on record that Respondent No.3, Mr. Jakkepalli Appa Rao, who had been
duly impleaded in these proceedings, passed away on 21.04.2025 due to cardiac
arrest. A memo to that effect was filed by the learned counsel on record on
06.05.2025, seeking abatement of the complaint against the said Respondent. In
view of the said submission, the complaint stands abated as against Respondent
No.3 and is treated accordingly for all further purposes.
Point I
43.

The primary contention of Respondent No.1 is that no claim has been made

by the Complainant against it, and therefore, it bears no liability in the present
matter. In support, Respondent No.1 relies on an affidavit dated 26.08.2023 executed
by the Complainant and his spouse, wherein they categorically stated that
Respondent No.1 had no role in the alleged misappropriation of funds, and that the
acts of fraud were attributable solely to Respondents Nos.2 and 3..
44.

Respondent No.1 further submitted that it had issued a valid GST invoice and

entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 14.09.2023 with the Complainant, which
has been duly accepted. It undertook to hand over possession of the flat as per the
said agreement upon completion of construction.
45.

In rebuttal, the Complainant alleged that all three Respondents had

conspired to defraud him. Although amounts were routed through the bank account
of Respondent No.3 and eventually transferred to Respondent No.1, no concrete
action apart from a legal notice was taken by Respondent No.1 against Respondent
No.2 despite being aware of the alleged misuse of position. It was argued that this
inaction amounts to acquiescence and collusion among the Respondents.

12

---

This Authority notes that an Agreement of Sale dated 14.09.2023 exists

between Respondent No.1 and the Complainant. Respondent No.1, in its affidavit,
has undertaken to hand over possession of the flat in accordance with the said
agreement. Thus, there is a contractual obligation on part of Respondent No.1 to
complete the construction and deliver possession.
47.

Therefore, this Authority finds that Respondent No.1 is liable to perform the

obligations arising from the Agreement of sale dated 14.09.2023 and shall be held
accountable to that extent.
Point II
48.

To ascertain whether Respondent No.2 qualifies as a “real estate agent,”

reference must be made to Section 2(zm) of the said Act, which defines the term as
including any person who introduces or facilitates transactions involving the sale or
purchase of units in a real estate project, for remuneration or commission, by
whatever name called. For ready Ref:
“"real estate agent" means any person, who negotiates or acts on
behalf of one person in a transaction of transfer of his plot,
apartment or building, as the case may be, in a real estate project,
by way of sale, with another person or transfer of plot, apartment
or building, as the case may be, of any other person to him and
receives remuneration or fees or any other charges for his services
whether as commission or otherwise and includes a person who
introduces, through any medium, prospective buyers and sellers
to each other for negotiation for sale or purchase of plot, apartment
or building, as the case may be, and includes property dealers,
brokers, middlemen by whatever name called”
49.

Based on submissions and admissions on record, Respondent No.2 is an

“associate” of Respondent No.1, engaged in introducing potential purchasers and
issued identification credentials by the said company. This clearly brings Respondent
No.2 within the ambit of a “real estate agent” under Section 2(zm) of the Act.
50.

Although Respondents Nos.1 and 2 have claimed that the role of the associate

was limited to introducing clients and not collecting funds, Respondent No.2’s
categorical denial of involvement in financial dealings is inconsistent with the
records. The Complainant has submitted that receipts were issued by Respondent
No.2, impersonating the identity of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 has neither

13

---

If Respondent No.2 was not involved in any transaction, the issuance of such

unauthorised receipts in the name of Respondent No.1 has no plausible justification
and amounts to fraudulent conduct.
52.

Therefore, in view of the above, Respondent No.2 qualifies as a real estate

agent under the said Act and is required to be registered under Section 9(1). A
perusal of the Authority's records reveals no such registration by Respondent No.2.
53.

Furthermore, in violation of Section 10(a), Respondent No.2 has facilitated the

sale of units in a project not registered at the time of transaction. It is noted that
while the project “Aaditri’s Empire” was registered on 30.04.2021, the impugned
transactions were conducted in 2020 well before registration
54.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that Respondent No.2 has violated Section

9(1) for failure to register as a real estate agent and Section 10(a) for promoting an
unregistered project, rendering her liable to penalty under Section 62 of the said Act.
Point III
55.

The Complainant has sought the registration and handover of two flats for

which a cumulative amount of ₹1,23,54,980/- has been paid. Of this, ₹44,90,000/was admittedly received by Respondent No.1, the remaining amount was paid to
Respondents Nos.2 and 3..
56.

As regards Flat No. 104-A, covered under the Agreement of sale dated

14.09.2023, Respondent No.1 has undertaken to hand over possession upon
completion of construction. The Complainant has raised a concern that the said flat
is presently mortgaged to a third-party institution, thereby impeding its immediate
registration. However, a perusal of the Agreement of Sale dated 14.09.2023 clearly
reveals that the Complainant was aware of the mortgage status of the said unit at
the time of execution of the agreement. Notwithstanding such knowledge, the
Complainant proceeded to enter into the said agreement with Respondent No.1. In
this backdrop, the Authority finds no merit in the Complainant’s assertion that the
flat must be registered immediately, as the stipulated completion timeline under the
sanctioned plan is until 19.03.2027, reckoned from the approval date of 19.03.2021.
Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to seek premature registration before the
flat is released from encumbrance and the project reaches completion in accordance
with law.

14

---

Nevertheless, this Authority directs Respondent No.1 to ensure that, upon the

release of mortgage, the subject Flat No. 104-A shall be duly registered in favour of
the Complainant. Further, Respondent No.1 is under an obligation to complete the
construction and deliver possession of the said flat within the sanctioned project
timeline.
58.

With respect to the second flat, the Complainant has submitted certain bank

statements indicating payment of substantial sums to Respondent No.3. While the
fact of payment is not denied by Respondent No.3, there exists no contemporaneous
document such as an agreement, receipt, or written undertaking that evidences a
definitive nexus between the said payments and the purchase of a specific flat in the
project being developed by Respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 has categorically
stated that the said payments were made in the context of personal and friendly
relations, and not in connection with any flat transaction. In the absence of any
documentary proof establishing a legally enforceable link between the transaction
and the project, this Authority finds no basis to issue any direction for registration
or refund in respect of the second flat.
59.

In the absence of cogent documentary evidence establishing a nexus between

the payment, the project, and Respondent No.1, this Authority cannot grant any
relief regarding the second flat.
60.

It is further observed from the record that Respondent No.1 accepted

substantial

payments

from

the

Complainant

₹9,10,000/-

on

11.06.2020,

₹11,00,000/- and ₹19,00,000/- on 25.08.2020 well before the project was registered
on 30.04.2021. This constitutes a violation of Section 3 of the said Act, which
prohibits any marketing, booking, or receipt of advances prior to registration.
61.

However, the Authority notes that this violation has already been adjudicated

in Complaint No. CC 43/2024, where a penalty of ₹2,00,000/- was imposed on
Respondent No.1, which has since been duly paid on 27.08.2024 (Transaction ID:
BARBR5202408270078887). Therefore, no further penalty is warranted on this
count.
62.

Based on the above discussion, the Authority concludes that the Complainant

is entitled to possession and registration of Flat No. 104-A in accordance with the
Agreement of Sale dated 14.09.2023. However, no relief can be granted in respect of
the second flat.

15

---

In exercise of powers conferred under Sections 37 and 38 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and in light of the foregoing discussion,
this Authority issues the following directions:
i.

The Respondent No.2 is directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 6,17,749/- for
violating Sections 9(1) & 10(a) in accordance with Section 62 of the Act, 2016,
payable within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order. The said amount
shall be remitted in favor of TG RERA FUND through a Demand Draft or online
payment

to

A/c

No.

50100595798191,

HDFC

Bank,

IFSC

Code:

HDFC0007036; and
ii.

Respondent No.1 is directed to complete the construction of the project
“Aaditri’s Empire,” including Flat No. A-104, within the sanctioned timeline,
and to register the said flat in favour of the Complainant upon release of the
mortgage, in accordance with Section 17 of the RE(R&D) Act

iii.

Non-compliance of the afore-mentioned directions of the Authority shall
attract penalty under Sections 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.

64.

In light of the above, present complaint is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon'ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon'ble Member,
TG RERA

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

16

---