Order Complaint No. 123 OF 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 123 of 2024
Dated this
Corum:

31st day of January 2025

Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member

Kollepara Veera Venkata Satya Vara Prasad

…Complainant

Versus
M/s Parijatha Homes & Developers Pvt. Ltd.

…Respondent

This present Complaintcame up for hearing on 23.10.2024 before us
for hearing in the presence of Complainant appeared in person and Sri C.
Hanumantha Rao for the Respondent and upon hearing both the arguments
on both sides and the matter reserved over for the consideration till this
date ,this Authority passes the present complaint order.
ORDER
2.

The Complainant has filed complaint on hand 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"), alleging commission of violation and contravening of the provisions
of the said Act and Rules and sought for the appropriate reliefs against the
Respondent.
A.

The

Brief

facts

of

the

case

as

per

allegations/averments

contained in the complaint are as follows:
3.

That he is a bona fide allottee of a flat bearing no.104 in the project

"Parijatha Pride – Block 2," developed by the respondent, M/s Parijatha
Homes and Developers Pvt. Ltd., represented by its director, Mr T. Naresh
Kumar. The complainant asserted that in October 2020, he expressed
1 of 9

interest in purchasing Flat No. 104, located in Block-2 of the said project,
measuring 975 sq. ft., for a total sale consideration of ₹26,00,325. This
transaction was formalized through a Tripartite Agreement executed
between himself, the respondent, and State Bank of India, that is his home
loan provider.
4.

That he made payments totalling to ₹27,50,000 between October 2020

and November 2021 to the respondent, which were duly acknowledged
through receipts issued by the respondent that thereafter the sale deed for
the flat was executed in his favour in April 2021, with the respondent
assuring timely completion of the construction and delivery of possession of
the flat by December 2021.
5.

But, the respondent has failed to hand over possession of the flat

despite multiple reminders and communications and continued to delay in
delivery of possession. That while so meeting of all the members of P.P
Block-II was held on 10/11/23 thatthereafterthe respondent vide letter on
22/11/2023 committed to handover possession by 31/01/2024 and so also
to,compensate him with a monthly rent of ₹7,500 from 28/02/2024 in case
of delay, to comply the obligation but this commitment was also not
honoured.
6.

The complainant contended that the delay in handing over possession

and so also failure of the respondent in compensating him with a monthly
rent of Rs. 7,500 caused severe mental harassment and financial hardship
to him, as he continued to pay EMIs on the home loan without receiving the
property. Hence the Complaint.
B.

Relief(s) Sought for by the Complainant:

7.

Direct the Respondent to complete the Construction, hand over

possession of the flat with a possession letter, and pay the rental amount of
Rs. 7500/—fromJanuary 2022 until the date of delivery of possession.
C.

Interim relief:

2 of 9

8.

Construction shall be completed with all amenities; possession of

property should arranged without any further delay.

D.

Counter on behalf of Respondent:

9.

The respondent in the counter has submitted that the complainant

had been in regular contact with it (Respondent company) to ascertain the
construction status of the residential building, including the complainant’s
flat. It was contended that the building, comprising stilt parking and five
upper floors, was nearly completed, and steps were being taken to obtain an
occupancy certificate from the HMDA authorities.
10.

The respondent further contended that delays were caused by factors

beyond their control, including the COVID-19 pandemic, labour shortages,
and increased material costs. It has asserted that these delays were
unintentional and that the company had made earnest efforts to complete
the construction and secure the necessary approvals.
11.

The respondent has, however, submitted in the reply to the effect that

a registered sale deed for the flat was executed on 17-04-2021,vide
document bearing Reg. number 2788/2021, explicitly stating therein that
possession of the flat had been delivered to the complainant. However, the
complainant could not occupy the flat due to the pending occupancy
certificate. It is also contended that this recital in the sale deed negates the
complainant's claim for a separate possession letter.
12.

Additionally,

the

respondent

highlighted

financial

challenges,

including increased material costs and labour charges, as contributory
factors to the delay. It was contended that awarding any monetary
compensation to the complainant would impose irreparable financial loss on
the respondent.
13.

In conclusion, the respondent prayed to dismiss the complaint and

sought 180 days to deliver the completed flat to the complainant.

3 of 9

14.

Taking into consideration the allegations made by the complainant in

his Complaint and the submissions made by the Respondent in the counter
filed by it, and so also the arguments advanced on both sides, the points
that arise for consideration are as follows:
I. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought?
II. Whether the respondent is in contravention of provisions of section
18(1)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act?
E.

Observation by the authority:

14.

Points

I

and

II

are

being

taken

up

together

for

discussion/consideration for the sake of convenience and to ensure a
comprehensive resolution of the dispute.
15.

As is evident from the documents and submissions from both parties

before this Authority, the facts which are not in dispute and admitted facts
are that an agreement of sale was executed for Flat No. 104 in Block-2 of the
project “Parijatha Pride – Block-2.” The respondent had undertaken to
complete the flat and hand over possession by December 2021.
16. While so the main facts/aspects which are in disputes in between the
parties are about delivery of the possession of the flat and payment of
compensation.
17.

On the above said disputed aspects, the contentions of the

complainant are that the respondent has failed to deliver physical
possession of the flat to him as agreed in the tripartite agreement and as
also the subsequent undertaking given by it in the letter dated 22/11/2023
after a meeting held on 10/11/2023 as so also that the respondent has
failed to pay compensation in the form of rent of Rs. 7,500 /- per month as
agreed to be paid by it. while so the Respondent, on the aspect of delivery of
possession in one berth in para no 3 of its reply, contends that possession of
the flat, as per the sale deed, was already delivered to the complainant and if
the same is to be believed to be true, then there would have been no
necessity for the respondent to issue the letter dated 22.11.2023,
4 of 9

undertaking to deliver possession of the flat by completing all the works by
03.04.2024. and so also to pray this authority in para no.5 of its reply dated
23/10/2024 to direct it(Respondent) to deliver the possession of the flat in
180 days. Given the material available on record before this Authority, it is
evident that there is no proof/evidence, documentary or otherwise, to
establish that the respondent had actually handover/delivered physical
possession of the flat to the complainant, in terms of sale deed or as assured
in its letter dated 22/11/2023 with all assured works completed.
17.

Thus, in all probability, the inference that can be drawn is that the

possession mentioned in the sale deed was merely symbolic and that same
might have been mentioned solely for the purpose of getting sale deed
registered but the same was not actual physical possession. On the other
hand, the fact that remains is that the respondent has not delivered
possession of the flat to the complainant as agreed upon by it(Respondent)
and that the respondent continued to delay delivery of physical possession
of the flat to the Complainant and as also demonstrates its(Respondent)
inability to adhere to previously agreed deadlines.
18.

The delay in handing over possession, as contended by the

complainant, should have deliberately caused serious financial and mental
hardship to the Complainant, who is servicing a home loan without enjoying
the benefits of occupancy of the flat.
19.

The respondent’s contentions regarding disruptions caused by the

COVID-19 pandemic, labour shortages, and increased material costs, even if
are taken into consideration, these factors however, do not exonerate it from
fulfilling its obligations under the agreement, nor do they negate the
requirement to comply with Section 18(1)(a) of the Act, which reads as
hereunder:
(1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give
possession of an apartment, plot or building,—
(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as
the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or
(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on
account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this
Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the

5 of 9

allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the
project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to
return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment,
plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as
may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the
manner as provided under this Act:
Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw
from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for
every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at
such rate as may be prescribed.

21.

Thus, as per section 18(1) of the said Act, the promoter is liable if they

fail to deliver possession as per the agreement or within the stipulated
timeline. If the allottee withdraws from the project, the promoter must
refund the amount received with prescribed interest and compensation. But,
if the allottee chooses to remain, the promoter must pay monthly interest for
the delay until possession is handed over. This liability ensures the
protection of allottee rights and compels the promoter to fulfil their
obligations promptly, regardless of the cause of delay.
22.

Onthe aspects mentioned in the foregoing para, in M/s Imperia

Structures Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 3581-3590 of 2020]
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:
"25. In terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter fails to
complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment duly
completed by the date specified in the agreement, the promoter
would be liable, on demand, to return the amount received by him in
respect of that apartment if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the
project. Such right of an allottee is specifically made 'without
prejudice to any other remedy available to him.' The right so given to
the allottee is unqualified, and if availed, the money deposited by the
allottee has to be refunded with interest at such rate as may be
prescribed. The proviso to Section 18(1) contemplates a situation
where the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the Project. In
that case he is entitled to and must be paid interest for every month
of delay till the handing over of the possession. It is upto the allottee
to proceed either under Section 18(1) or under proviso to Section
18(1)."

6 of 9

23.

Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court while explaining the scope of right of

allottee under Section 18 of RERA inM/s Newtech Promoters [Civil Appeal
N0s.5745, 6749 and 6750 to6757 of 2021) has held in paragraph 25 as
under"The unqualified right of the allottee to seek a refund referred to
under Section 18(1)(a) and Section 19(4) of the Act is not
dependent on any contingencies or stipulations thereof. It appears
that the legislature has consciously provided this right of refund
on demand as an unconditional absolute right to the allottee, if the
promoter fails to give possession of the apartment, plot, or
building within the time stipulated under the terms of the
agreement regardless of unforeseen events or stay orders of the
Court/ Tribunal, which is in either way not attributable to the
allottee/home buyer, the promoter is under an obligation to refund
the amount on demand with interest at the rate prescribed by the
State Government including compensation in the manner provided
under the Act with the proviso that if the allottee does not wish to
withdraw from the project, he shall be entitled for interest for the
period of delay till handling over possession at the rate
prescribed"

24.

Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed

in the aforementioned paragraphs, and having due regard to the provisions
of Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act, as well as the interpretations provided by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the provisions of Section 18(1)(a) of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, it is evident that the
Respondent is liable for failing to complete and hand over possession of the
allotted unit/flat by the date specified in the tripartite agreement and so also
in terms of the letter dated 22-11-2023.Furthermore, while the respondent’s
reliance on factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, labor shortages, and
inflated material costs may be understandable, but it is pertinent to note
that the respondent, being fully aware of these challenges, nonetheless
proceeded to execute the Sale Deed, entered into a tripartite agreement and
also issued the letter dated 22/11/2023.
25.

In this context, the interesting point that has to be taken note is that

the Respondent falsely represented to the Complainant that the unit would
be handed over shortly. Furthermore, the Respondent made contradictory
submissions to this Authority on the one hand, asserting that the unit was
7 of 9

already

over

in

accordance with

the

Sale

Deed

but blaming

the

Complainant's refusal to take possession on the non-issuance of the
Occupation Certificate and on the other hand, acknowledging that the
project remained incomplete due to pandemic-related delays.
26.

Such inconsistent and misleading representations indicate an attempt

by the respondent to mislead the Authority on the aspect of handing over of
the possession of the flat to the complainant. The Authority notes that the
Respondent has undertaken in the letter dated 23/11/2023 to the effect
that it would deliver possession of the flat by completing all the works by
03/04/2024 after executing the Sale Deed on 17th April 2021, despite being
aware of the prevailing circumstances at that time caused by the pandemic.
Additionally, the Respondent failed to seek an extension under Section 6 of
the RE(R&D) Act, which could have provided relief if the delay was genuinely
attributable to “force majeure”.
27.

From the record, it is apparent that the Complainant continued to

bear the financial burden of EMIs without being able to occupy the flat. The
Complainant’s request for relief in the form of a monthly rent of ₹7,500 from
January 2022 until the handing over of possession is supported by the
Respondent’s own commitment, albeit unfulfilled, to mitigate the hardship
caused by continued delayed delivery of the flat to him.
28.

Although the Respondent executed a sale deed on 17.04.2021, bearing

document No. 2788/2021, the fact that remains is that the Respondent has
not delivered the flat by completing all the agreed works as undertaken by it
till today and on the other hand it will be clear that it is continuing to delay
possession, consequently the complainant has been continuously suffering
due to non-delivery of the flat and so also due to pendency of occupancy
certificate and incomplete finishing works.
29.

In the light of the above facts and observations made, this Authority is

of the considered view that since the respondent has failed to deliver
physical possession of the flat to the Complainant on the promised date and
continued to delay the delivery of possession, which constitutes a breach of
8 of 9

its obligations under the act and hence it is held that the Respondent is
liable to be proceeded against for contravention of Section 18(1)(a) of the
RE(R&D) Act.
F. Directions of the authority:
30.

Based on the facts submitted, evidence on record, and the findings

given thereon by us as discussed herein above, this Authority holds that the
complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed by him, and the same is
allowed in his favour, and the Respondent is hereby directed as follows:
i.

The Respondent shall complete the remaining construction work of
Flat No. 104, Block-2, in the project “Parijatha Pride,” and hand over
possession of the same to the Complainant within 90 days from the
date of receipt of this order.

ii.

In accordance with Section 18(1)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, the
authority deems it fit to direct the respondent to pay the
complainant interest for every month of delay, starting from 1st
January 2022 until the date of handing over of possession. The rate
of interest shall be calculated at the rate prescribed under the TG
RE(R&D) Rule 2017, i.e., MCLR of SBI plus two per cent, i.e.11%
(9.0 + 2) per annum calculated from the date of receipt of each
payment until the date of repayment.

iii.

The Respondent shall, at its own cost, take all necessary steps to
procure the Occupancy Certificate from the competent authority. A
copy where of shall be provided to the Complainant at the time of
handing over of the possession.

iv.

Failure to comply with above said directions by the Respondent shall
attract penalty in accordance with Section 63 of the said Act, 2016.

31.

As a result, the complaint is disposed of accordingly. No order as to

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

SdSri. Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

9 of 9