Order Complaint No. 109 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 109 of 2024
Dated: 04th June 2025
Quorum:

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

Budi Venkata Ramana
(R/o H.No.11-14-262/C11/2F, 2nd floor upstairs of Jersey Milk Shop, plot no. C-11, Chitra Layout, Beside
RR District court,L.B Nagar, Hyderabad – 500074)

…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Prime Infratech
( Resp by Managing Partner Sri Krothhaplli Vikas, Regd office at Plot no.19, Veda’s Prome House, 3 rd floor,
Jayabheri Enclave,Gachibowli, Hyderabad- 500032)
2. Sri Krothapally Vkas
(Owener of Villa 13, Pirme Alpenai, plot no.547, Vivekanada Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad – 500072)
3. Sri Manne Lingam Mudiraj
(President,R/o Villa 14, Pime Alpenia, Behind SBI Mokilla,Mokilla (V),Shankarparlly(M), Ranga Reddy
District 501203)
4. Dr.Eliabeth Zacharias
(General Secretary, R/o Villa no.21, Pime Alpenia, Behind SBI Mokilla,Mokilla (V),Shankarparlly(M),
Ranga Reddy District 501203)
5. Mrs.Battu Subhashini Treasurer
(W/o Mahender Reddy, R/o Villa no.04, Pime Alpenia, Behind SBI Mokilla,Mokilla (V),Shankarparlly(M),
Ranga Reddy District 501203)
6. Sri Mahendra Reddy
(R/o Villa no.04, Pime Alpenia, Behind SBI Mokilla,Mokilla (V),Shankarparlly(M), Ranga Reddy District
501203)
7. Smt. Anusha Nanadamuri
(W/o Sri Seshagiri Rao,R/o Villa no.21, Pime Alpenia, Behind SBI Mokilla,Mokilla (V),Shankarparlly(M),
Ranga Reddy District 501203)

…Respondents

1 of 16

---

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant 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. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the Complainant, are as follows:
3.

The

Complainant

submits

that

Respondent

No.2,

who

is

the

Managing

Partner/Authorized Signatory of Respondent No.1 Partnership Firm, is also the Allottee/Owner
of Villa No. 13 of "Prime Alpenia", Behind SBI Mokilla. This falls under Sections 2(zk),
2(zk)(vi), and 2(zg) read with Section 69 of the RERA Act 2016. The Complainant asserts that
the Respondents have acted dishonestly and fraudulently by collecting unauthorized funds and
failing to register the association, thereby violating the RERA Act and Telangana State Real
Estate Rules. The Complainant seeks appropriate legal action and relief from this Honourable
Authority
4.

Respondent No.3, representing his wife Smt. Aruna, is a close relative of Sri Manne

Kishtaiah, the former owner of 2-5.5 acres (out of 3-19.5 acres) in Sy.No. 132/AA, Mokila
Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. A Development Agreement-cum-General
Power of Attorney was executed in favor of Respondent No.1 Firm/Promoter for developing
the land for residential villas under the "Prime Alpenia" project.
5.

Respondent No.3/his wife owns Villa No. 14 in "Prime Alpenia" and claims to be the

President of the unregistered "Prime Alpenia Villa Owners Welfare Association". The project is
registered with RERA (Project Registration No. P02400000067) and has an HMDA-approved
layout (Permit No. 000144/LO/Pg/HMDA/2018, dated 16.10.2018).

2 of 16

---

The Complainant purchased Villa No.10, measuring 300 square yards, from Respondent

No.1 & 2 through a Registered Sale Deed No. 8072/2021, dated 22.12.2021, and assessed to
Property Tax. The Villa remained vacant until 31.04.2024 and was first let out on 01.05.2024.
7.

On 18.02.2022, the Complainant paid Rs. 3,41,000/- for corpus fund and maintenance

charges. Despite promises to form a registered society, the Promoter failed to do so.
Consequently, the Complainant refused to pay further maintenance charges to the unregistered
association, leading to harassment and threats from the Respondents. Further submitted that the
villa has been totally vacant till 31.04.2024 and the same was let out with effect from
01.05.2024.
8.

Further on 25.05.2023, the Respondent 1 conveyed meeting of all the owners,

informinmg that he would form the registered society of villa residents, and further asked the
complainat to pay the mainantenance charges of villa for the month of june and july of 2023 to
Repsondent 7 herein, and accordingly paid the same ot Respondent 7 on 11.07.2023 and
10.08.2023. However during the payment of maintenance charges for the month of July 2023,
complainant specifically mentioned to Respondeny 7 orally that inorder to propery ustilisatin of
money and also to ensre probity and transperancy will be paying future maintenance charges
only to the resgistered association of the villa owners.
9.

Despite of lapse of considerable time, the association of allottees of the aforesaid Real

Estate Project namely “Prime Alpenia” was registered either buy promoter or by the 4 th
Respondent, and have not paid the maintenance charges of villa for the month of August 2023
to the Respondent 7.
10.

The Respondent 7 isn’t on clearing the maintenance areras of the villa and during the

course of the communication labeled the complainant as defaulter.
11.

The Complainant sent a legal notice on 07.03.2024 to Respondents No.4 & 7, indicating

willingness to pay maintenance charges to a registered association only. Despite this, the
Respondents continued to harass the Complainant and his tenant, who also faced threats of
utility disconnection. And compleed the complainant to py Rs.76,725/- to Respondent 5.
12.

Section 11(4)(e) of the RERA Act 2016 mandates the Promoter to form an association

or society of allottees. Clause 19 of Annexure of Rule 38 appended to Telangana State Real

3 of 16

---

The Respondents collected significant amounts for the Corpus Fund but did not transfer

the funds to the unregistered association, using the money clandestinely by hand in glove
withother Resppondents
14.

As per HMDA’s final layout approval and conditions in G.O.Ms.No. 168, the roads and

open spaces were to be handed over to the local authority, which is responsible for
maintenance. However, the Respondents have not complied with these requirements.
B. Relief(s) sought:
15.

The Complainant prays for an order directing the Respondents the following:

a. To kindly impose a penalty of not less than double the amount of Rs. 2,43,775/(Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Five only) on
Respondents No. (1) to (7) herein as provided under section 34(1)(g) and section 38(1)
of the RERA Act, 2016 read with Rule 22 of the Telangana State Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (issued in G.O.Ms. No.202, Municipal
Administration and Urban Development (M1) Department, dated 31.07.2017). This
penalty is sought for the respondents' illegal, dishonest, and unauthorized collection of
Rs. 2,43,775/- under the guise of maintenance charges, without registering the
association/society under the Telangana Societies Registration Act No. 35 of 2001 or
the Telangana Cooperative Societies Registration Act No. 7 of 1964. Further, for the
willful disobedience, non-compliance, and blatant violation of the provisions of the
RERA Act, 2016, and the Telangana State Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017, resulting in wrongful gain and causing the complainant significant mental
agony and financial loss. To kindly order the refund of Rs. 2,43,775/- (collected
arbitrarily as maintenance charges without lawful registration and agreement) to the
complainant and to create a sufficient first charge on all the assets and properties of
Respondents as per section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in favor of the
complainant and his heirs.

4 of 16

---

At the outset, it is submitted that the reliefs sought by the complainant are not within the

powers, scope, authority, and jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Authority under Sections 11(4)(a)(e),
18(3), 19(9), read with Section 71 of the RERA Act. These respondents, being builders, are not
amenable nor liable and responsible for the reliefs sought by the complainant. Therefore, at the
outset and threshold, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, not only
against these respondents herein but also against other respondents, as the reliefs being sought
by the complainant relate to the formation of the association and getting it registered, which is
not within the scope and powers as contemplated or envisaged under the Telangana Real Estate
Regulatory Authority Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the RERA Act). Admittedly, the
complainant has been in possession of the villa purchased by him without any complaint
against these respondents herein, either in relation to the construction or any defects or
shortcomings in the construction. Therefore, unnecessarily, to harass these respondents, the
complainant has intentionally and deliberately, despite knowing the scope and ambit of the
powers conferred upon and being exercised by this Authority under the RERA Act, approached
your authority. Hence, the above complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs even
without going into the merits of the complaint allegations. The purpose for which the
complainant approached this Authority is with oblique motives, and therefore, the Hon'ble
Authority may kindly consider the conduct of filing false and vexatious litigation by the
complainant herein.

5 of 16

---

These respondents submit that the project was undertaken as a promoter and completed,

and possession was delivered to the purchasers under respective sale deeds. So far, no
complaint whatsoever has been received in this regard. The complainant has also been given
possession, and it is the responsibility and obligation of the complainant to pay the maintenance
for common areas and facilities. When there is no dispute from the complainant, and it is not
the grievance of the complainant that the promoter has collected maintenance charges from
him, then the charges towards maintenance, which form the basis of the complaint, fall outside
the scope of adjudication, particularly as against these respondents herein.
18.

It is further submitted that the transfer of the corpus fund is to the association and not to

individuals. It is also submitted that it is not the case of the complainant that the
respondent/promoter is refusing to transfer the corpus fund. Admittedly, even according to the
complainant, such an association is yet to be registered. In such an event, the complainant
cannot have any grievance about the transfer or dispute over the corpus fund. Therefore, the
above complaint relating to the association or corpus fund is untenable and is strongly denied
by these respondents. Hence, no relief can be sought against these respondents, nor can any
adjudication be made by this Authority in this regard.
19.

It is submitted that the WhatsApp messages relate to the association and have nothing to

do with these respondents as promoters. They pertain to the internal affairs among the
purchasers of the villas, who appear to have formed an association and are looking after the
maintenance. Therefore, these respondents are totally unconnected to the above transactions
and WhatsApp messages and group, as elaborated extensively by the complainant in all the
paragraphs up to 26. It is further submitted that the collection of an amount of Rs. 2,43,775/towards payment of maintenance is not pertaining to these respondents. Admittedly, the
amounts were paid by the complainant to the representatives of the maintenance association
only. Therefore, the respondents are in no way concerned with the alleged complaint relating to
the payment towards maintenance charges. The complainant may be put to strict proof against
the claim made by him against these respondents, and the maintainability of the complaint for
the reliefs sought against these respondents is merely an extraction of provisions of the RERA
Act, which does not vest any rights in the complainant to institute the complaint against these
respondents. Therefore, the jurisdictional issue has to be decided even prior to entertaining and
adjudicating the complaint by this Hon'ble Authority.

6 of 16

---

These respondents respectfully submit that no relief, much less the reliefs sought by the

complainant, can be granted by the Hon'ble Authority fastening liability against these
respondents. Therefore, there are absolutely no merits in the above complaint, and the
complaint is not maintainable under law or on facts. The same is liable to be dismissed in
limine in the interest of justice and equity.
21.

It is submitted that the respondents are the purchasers and residents of Prime Alpenia

Villas, and they themselves, along with other residents, joined together to look after the
maintenance and upkeep of the premises by providing facilities and amenities and also for the
common maintenance of the said facilities. Therefore, with the consent and concurrence of the
residents, these respondents have taken up the responsibility to look after the maintenance and
accounts for receipts and payments, collecting and providing the facilities. The same has been
accepted by all, including the complainant, as he did not raise any objection, nor has he
volunteered to take up the responsibility for common maintenance. Therefore, the WhatsApp
group was formed with the intention of interaction among the residents and owners of the villas
and to share and communicate among themselves. Accordingly, they have formulated a
procedure and are in the process of registering the association with the respective authority. In
the meanwhile, the members have volunteered for common maintenance of the villas, as many
of them have occupied and are utilizing the same. The maintenance charges were fixed, and all
the members have been paying the maintenance charges, including the complainant. Hence, the
complainant cannot have any grievance relating to the payment. He is fully aware that the
registration of the association of the owners is in process, and therefore, there cannot be any
grievance from the complainant. Since the association was formed and is being registered in
due course, the complaint cannot raise any dispute or demand for any deposit or refund or for
payment of any compensation. The amount was paid towards maintenance charges. The
complainant cannot claim that maintenance charges should be collected only from the date of
lease; the same applies from the date of handing over possession, and all have to share the
common expenditure for common facilities. Being the owner of the villa, the complainant is
bound to pay maintenance charges. Therefore, it is strongly denied and disputed by these
respondents that the complainant can avoid paying the maintenance charges for common
maintenance and still approach the Hon'ble Authority without any right or entitlement to lodge
a complaint against these respondents herein.

7 of 16

---

It is submitted that the accounts are being maintained for the total collection, but the

complainant never bothered to inspect and verify them. Instead, he approached the Hon'ble
Authority, which is not vested with any rights or jurisdiction to entertain this complaint or
adjudicate the grievance relating to the formation of the association by the owners. Therefore,
the above complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine.
22.

These respondents strongly deny and dispute the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Authority to

entertain and adjudicate the complaint. The complainant may be called upon to satisfy the
Hon'ble Authority regarding the maintainability of the complaint against these respondents and
for the reliefs sought in the above complaint.
23.

The complainant cannot seek the same or similar reliefs by filing two complaints for the

same cause of action and grievance. Two complaints cannot be maintainable, and therefore,
both are liable to be dismissed in limine. The scope and powers under Section 71 of the RERA
Act cannot be invoked by the complainant without making out a case to entertain the complaint
against these respondents. Therefore, on this ground alone, the complaint is liable to be
dismissed in limine with exemplary costs.
24.

It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Authority may be pleased to dismiss the

complaint and may pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Authority may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice.
D. Respondent 2-7 Reply:
25.

At the outset, it is submitted that the reliefs sought by the complainant are not under

Section 11(4)(a), (e), 18(3), 19(9), read with Section 71 of the RERA Act, and these
respondents, being an association, are not amenable to or liable and responsible for the reliefs
sought by the complainant. Therefore, at the outset and threshold, the complaint is liable to be
dismissed as not maintainable, not only as against these respondents herein but also against
other respondents, as the reliefs which are being sought by the complainant relate to the
formation of the association and getting it registered, which is not within the scope and powers
as contemplated or envisaged under the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act, 2016
(which is hereinafter referred to as the RERA Act). Admittedly, the complainant has been in
possession of the villa which was purchased by him, without any complaint as against the
respondent Nos. 1 & 2, either in the construction or any defects or shortcomings of the
8 of 16

---

These respondents submit that the project was undertaken by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and

completed the same, and possession was delivered to the purchasers under respective sale
deeds, and so far, no complaint whatsoever is received in this regard. So also, the complainant
was also given possession, and it is the responsibility and obligation of the complainant to pay
the maintenance for common areas and facilities. When there is no dispute from the
complainant also, it is not the grievance of the complainant that the promoter has collected
maintenance charges from the complainant, and whatever the charges towards maintenance, of
which the above complaint was filed, is outside the scope for adjudication and particularly as
against these respondents herein.
27.

These respondents respectfully submit that no relief, much less the reliefs sought by the

complainant, can be granted by the Hon'ble Authority, fastening the liability against these
respondents, and therefore, there are absolutely no merits in the above complaint, and the
complaint is not maintainable under law or on facts, and therefore, the same is liable to be
dismissed in limine in the interest of justice and equity.
28.

It is submitted that the respondents are the purchasers and residents of Prime Alpenia

Villas, and they themselves, along with other residents, joined together to look after the
maintenance and upkeeping of the premises, by providing the facilities and amenities and also
for common maintenance of the said facilities. Therefore, with the consent and concurrence of
the residents, these respondents have taken up the responsibility to look after the maintenance
and accounts for the receipts and payments, and collecting and providing the facilities, and the
same has been accepted by all, including the complainant, as he did not raise any objection, nor
has he volunteered to take up the task of responsibility for common maintenance. Therefore,
the WhatsApp group is with an intention to have interaction among the residents and owners of
the villas, and to share and communicate among themselves. Therefore, they have formulated
the procedure and are also under the process of registration of the association with the
9 of 16

---

It is submitted that the accounts are being maintained for the total collections, but the

complainant never bothered to inspect and verify, but approached the Authority, which is not
vested with any rights or jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and also to adjudicate and
determine the grievance relating to the formation of the association by the owners. Therefore,
the above complaint itself is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine.
30.

These respondents strongly deny and dispute the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Authority

to entertain the complaint and to adjudicate the same, and the complainant may be called upon
to satisfy the Hon'ble Authority about the maintainability of the complaint as against these
respondents for the reliefs sought for in the above complaint.
31.

The complainant cannot seek same and similar reliefs by filing two complaints for the

same cause of action with the same grievance, and two complaints cannot be maintainable.
Therefore, both are liable to be dismissed in limine. The scope and powers under Section 71 of
the RERA Act cannot be invoked by the complainant without making out any case to entertain
the complaint against these respondents herein. Therefore, on that ground itself, the complaint
is liable to be dismissed in limine with exemplary costs.
10 of 16

---

It is therefore prayed that the Authority may be pleased to dismiss the complaint and

may pass such other order or orders as this Authority may be pleased deems fit and proper in
the interest of Justice.
E. Rejoinder:
33.

The Complainant denies the contentions of Respondents No. 1 and 2 in Para No. (1) of

their counter, asserting that their claims regarding lack of jurisdiction under the RERA Act are
false and untenable. The functions and duties of Promoters, as per Sections 11, 18, and 19 of
the RERA Act, include responsibilities toward the formation of an Association under Section
19(9). As per Rule 2(1)(b) of RERA Rules 2017, an Association is a legal collective of
allottees.
34.

Section 36 empowers this Authority to impose penalties for contraventions by

Promoters, and Section 61 authorizes penalties for violations. Additionally, Section 34(f)
mandates compliance with obligations under the Act, and Section 79 bars civil court
jurisdiction in real estate matters. The Complainant submits that Respondents are bound by
these provisions.
35.

Despite obligations under Sections 11(4)(e), 19(9), and Rule 2(1)(b), Respondents failed

to register an Association or form an agreement with the local authority. Instead, they collected
maintenance charges and corpus funds in their individual capacities, amounting to Rs.
3,41,000/- from the Complainant, and approximately Rs. 37,51,000/- from all Villa owners.
These funds have not been transferred to an Association, violating mandatory provisions.
36.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh (2021) clarified the jurisdiction of RERA authorities to address complaints
against Promoters and ensure compliance. Hence, the contention of Respondents regarding
jurisdiction is baseless.
37.

The Complainant further refutes the claim that they filed the complaint with oblique

motives, emphasizing that Respondents’ failure to fulfill statutory obligations has caused legal
injury to the Complainant. The actions of Respondents No. 1 & 2, in collusion with
Respondents No. 3 to 7, are detrimental to the interests of Villa owners and violate RERA

11 of 16

---

In reply to the averments made by Respondents No. 1 & 2 in Para No. (10) of their

counter, the Complainant denies all the contentions and averments made therein, except those
specifically admitted herein.
39.

It is specifically denied that the Complainant has filed two complaints for the same

cause of action or grievance. The Complainant reiterates that the two complaints, namely “CC
No. 109/2024/TG RERA” and “CCP No. 10/2024/TG RERA,” are distinct in nature and pertain
to different legal remedies as provided under the RERA Act.
1.

The complaint “CC No. 109/2024/TG RERA” seeks imposition of penalties on the
Respondents under Sections 34(f), 34(g), and 38(1) of the RERA Act, 2016 read with
Rule 22 of the TG RERA Rules, 2017.

2.

The complaint “CCP No. 10/2024/TG RERA” seeks compensation for damages as
provided under Section 18(3) of the RERA Act, 2016.

40.

It is pertinent to note that the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Newtech

Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) has categorically held that
claims for compensation and claims for penalties are distinct and must be pursued separately
before the competent authorities under the RERA framework. Hence, the contention of the
Respondents that filing these complaints constitutes duplication or abuse of process is
misconceived, baseless, and liable to be rejected.
41.

In reply to the averments made by Respondents No. 1 & 2 in Para No. (11) of their

counter, the Complainant denies all the contentions and averments made therein, except those
specifically admitted.
42.

It is submitted that the Respondents' contention questioning the jurisdiction of this

Honourable Authority is untenable and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the statutory
framework of the RERA Act, 2016.
1.

Section 31 of the RERA Act empowers this Honourable Authority to entertain
complaints relating to contraventions or violations of provisions of the Act or Rules.

12 of 16

---

Section 79 of the Act specifically bars civil courts from exercising jurisdiction over
disputes that fall within the scope of the RERA framework.

43.

The Complainant submits that the present complaint has been filed in accordance with

the provisions of the RERA Act, 2016 and is therefore maintainable. The Honourable Supreme
Court in Manish Kumar vs. Union of India (2021) has further clarified that the RERA Act is a
special legislation with overriding provisions (Section 89) and is meant to provide speedy and
effective remedies to aggrieved persons.
44.

In view of the above, the denial of jurisdiction by the Respondents is not only legally

unsustainable but also an attempt to evade their statutory obligations.
F. Observations of the Authority:
45.

At the threshold, the Respondents have questioned the maintainability of the present

complaint before this Authority. Hence, it is imperative for this Authority to first determine
whether the issues raised herein fall within the jurisdiction conferred under the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 .
46.

The primary grievance of the Complainant pertains to the failure of Respondent No.1,

the Promoter, to facilitate the formation of a registered association of allottees, as mandated
under the Act. The Authority notes that Section 11(4)(e) of the Act imposes a statutory
obligation on the promoter to "enable the formation of an association or society or cooperative society, as the case may be, of the allottees, or a federation of the same, under the
applicable laws."
47.

Failure to discharge this obligation constitutes a contravention of the promoter’s duties

under the Act. Such failure directly impairs the rights and interests of allottees and falls
squarely within the jurisdiction of this Authority. Therefore, the complaint, insofar as it relates
to the promoter’s default in enabling the formation of an association, is clearly maintainable
before this Authority.
48.

The Authority now turns to the secondary issues raised by the Complainant, particularly

concerning the legitimacy and conduct of Respondents No.3 to 7, who are stated to be
managing the affairs of the project jointly with other owners of the Villas.

13 of 16

---

The Complainant contends that he is being compelled to pay maintenance charges to

these Respondents despite the fact that they do not constitute a registered association. In
response, Respondents No.3 to 7 has submitted that they are allottees who have voluntarily
undertaken the responsibility of maintaining the common areas and have initiated the process of
registering the association already. They assert that maintenance charges are being collected
pursuant to a collective decision of all the allottees of the concerned project to ensure proper
upkeep of the project premises.
50.

The Authority, however, is constrained to observe that the RE(R&D Act, 2016 does not

empower this Authority to adjudicate internal disputes between allottees or between residents
and an unregistered managing group. Its jurisdiction under the RE(R&D Act extends only to
issues concerning the obligations of the promoter, including but not limited to failure to form
an association and non-handover of common areas, as per Section 17(1) of the RE(R&D Act.
51.

Internal disagreements between allottees or residents regarding day-to-day affairs,

election disputes, financial management of associations, or maintenance billing disputes are
matters that do not fall within the statutory mandate of this Authority. Such disputes are civil in
nature and are appropriately to be dealt with before other competent forums, such as the Cooperative Societies Registrar or Civil Courts.
52.

It is also brought on record that the Complainant has already approached the office of

the Registrar, Telangana Co-operation Department, on 15.10.2024, with respect to these very
issues. That being so, the matter is already sub judice before the appropriate authority.
53.

That being said, it is essential to underscore that in the event any act or omission by an

informal resident group or a registered association directly violates or obstructs the provisions
of the RE(R&D) Act, particularly where the rights of allottees or obligations of the promoter
under the Act are being prejudiced, this Authority shall not shy away from exercising its
jurisdiction under the Act to the extent necessary. Such intervention would be in furtherance of
the legislative intent underlying the enactment of the RE(R&D) Act namely, the promotion of
transparency, accountability, and protection of consumer interests in the real estate sector.
54.

This Authority reiterates that both the promoter and the allottees are bound by the

statutory framework of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. The promoter, in particular, cannot abdicate
its statutory responsibility to enable the formation of an association by merely asserting that a
14 of 16

---

Such a submission does not absolve the promoter of its statutory duty to formally enable

the structure for the formation of an association of allottees, as envisaged under Section
11(4)(e) of the RE(R&D) Act. The obligation under the said provision is not contingent on the
voluntary conduct of the allottees; rather, it is a positive legal duty cast upon the promoter to
initiate and facilitate the formation of a registered association under applicable law.
56.

Further, once the association is duly constituted, the promoter is also obligated, in

accordance with Section 17(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, to hand over the common areas to such
association. These statutory mandates are neither discretionary nor optional and must be
complied with in letter and spirit.
57.

Accordingly, Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to take immediate and effective steps

to facilitate the formation of a registered association of allottees in compliance with Section
11(4)(e) of the RE(R&D) Act.
58.

Further the Complainant, being an allottee of the project, cannot evade liability for

payment of maintenance charges merely on the ground that his unit remains vacant. As per
Section 19(6) of the RE(R&D) Act, an allottee is under a statutory duty to pay "interest, if any,
on such charges for the maintenance of the real estate project, as specified by the promoter or
the association of allottees, as the case may be.
59.

Thus, the Complainant is legally obligated to pay maintenance charges during the

period of possession, irrespective of it being kept vacant.
G. Directions of the Authority:
60.
Based on the facts submitted, evidence on record, and the findings given thereon by us
as discussed herein above, this Authority directs the following:
a. Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to take all necessary steps to enable and facilitate
the registration of the association of allottees, in accordance with Section 11(4)(e) of the
Act and applicable local laws, within a period of 45 days from the date of this Order.

15 of 16

---

61.

The complaint stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

SdSri. K. Srinivasa Rao
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdSri. Laxminaryana Jannu
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdDr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.)
Hon’ble Chairperson
TG RERA

16 of 16

---