Order Complaint No. 109 of 2020

BEFORE THE
TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD
COMPLAINT NO.109/2020/TSRERA
Date of decision: 08.09.2023
Human Rights and Consumer Protection Cell Trust

…. Complainant

Versus
M/s Elite BHEL Employees Mutually
Aided Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & (3) Ors.

…. Respondents

Quorum:

Dr.N.Satyanarayana, Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri. Laxmi Naryana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
Sri. K. Srinivas Rao, , Hon’ble Member

Appearance:

Complainant: Indraja Thakur, rep of Human Rights
and Consumer Protection Cell Trust
Respondent: Venketeshwara Rao, rep of M/s Elite BHEL
Employees Mutually Aided Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd. & (3) Ors.
ORDER

The present complaint has been filed under section 31 of the Real
Estate (Regulation and 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”), the
following matters are considered,
1.

The aforementioned complaint, formally submitted in Form M,
pertains to a situation, wherein considerable members/consumers of the
1st Respondent housing society have approached the Complainants
seeking

legal

advice

regarding

the

venture

undertaken

by

the

Respondents. Each consumer paid approximately Rs. 7-8 Lakhs to the
Respondents. The Complainants conducted a preliminary investigation
into the allegations made by the consumers of the 1st Respondent. Due
1 of 4

to unsatisfactory replies from the 1st Respondent, several doubts were
raised by the consumers of the 1st Respondent, including:
a. The MOU dated 22.02.2018 is set to lapse on 19th March 2020 due to
a violation of Article 5, which states that "the society shall execute the
registered sale deed within 60 days, with an additional 30-day grace
period, failing which the Society shall forfeit the advance amount of
Rs. 7.00 Crores paid to the Landowners/Contractors on the date of
executing this MOU."
b. EC records from the registration department reveal that no sale deed
has been executed by the landowners in favor of the 1st Respondent,
despite the 1st Respondent receiving about Rs. 15 crores from
approximately 225 consumers and paying it to the landowners.
c. Not a single Agreement of Sale has been executed between the 1st
Respondent and the Land Owners, even after receiving an amount of
15 crores from the Housing Society.
d. As per the MOU, two model houses should have been constructed by
the Respondent construction company, which they have not done to
date.
e. The venture has not been registered under TS RERA.
f. All the records of the 1st Respondent that should have been open to
consumers have been concealed by the President of the 1st
Respondent.
g. The

1st

Respondent

has

refused

to

acknowledge

written

representations from Members/Consumers.
h. The Respondents have been threatening Members/Consumers that
they will unilaterally cancel the project if the Members/Consumers do
not comply with their illegal demands.
B. Prayer:
2.

To direct the Respondents to immediately comply with all the
mandatory provisions of the RERA Act, 2016, and TS RERA Rules, 2017.

3.

To safeguard the interests of the consumer/members of the 1st
Respondent by ensuring the project is executed on time and that

2 of 4

Members/Consumers are not subjected to any loss or the project is not
cancelled or scrapped.
C. Hearing Conducted
4.

A hearing took place on 01.08.2023, during which the Ld. Counsel was
afforded an opportunity to furnish an authorization or Vakalatnama by
the next hearing date. Consequently, the matter was scheduled for
further proceedings on 08.09.2023.

5.

In the course of the hearing held on 08.09.2023, the Ld. Counsel
representing the Trust asserted that the Complainants had concurrently
filed another complaint under file no. 572/2022 in Form M before the
Authority, albeit with a different Counsel. Furthermore, the Ld. Counsel,
Ms. Indrija Thakur, failed to submit a vakalatnama or any form of
authorized representation to this Authority.

D. Directions of the Authority
6. Based on the information provided, the Authority has ascertained that
the present Complaint does not meet the criteria for classification as an
"aggrieved person," as prescribed by the provisions of the 2016 Act. This
determination is grounded in the fact that the Complainant does not fit
within any of the designated categories outlined in the Act, which
encompass being an allottee, an association of allottees, or a voluntary
association. The Complainant, in this instance, has been unable to
furnish the Authority with any evidentiary support or an authorization
letter demonstrating her qualification as an aggrieved person in
accordance with the definition articulated in Section 31 of the RERA Act.
Section 31 is reproduced herein for reference:
31. (1) Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the
adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention
of the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder
against any promoter allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be.

3 of 4

Explanation. —For the purpose of this sub-section “person” shall include
the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association
registered under any law for the time being in force.
7. So, in the view of the provisions of the Act quoted above, due to lack of
locus standi of the complainant to submit the current application under
Section 31 of the RERA Act, the present complaint is dismissed.
8. 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 Telanagana
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) within 60 days from the receipt of this
Order.

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

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

Sd/Dr.N.Satyanarayana, Hon’ble Chairperson
TS RERA

4 of 4