Order Complaint No. 137 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 137 of 2025
Dated: 30th December 2025
Quorum:

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

Taru Trivedi
Plot no. 112,113 flat no. F4 Charitha Residency,
Mythri Nagar Phase 2,
Madinaguda, Hyderabad 500050
…Complainant
Versus
M/s. Vasavi Realtor LLP,
Rep by its Designated Partner, Vijay Kumar Yerram,
Vasavi Corporate,
H.No.8-2-703/7/1 and 8-2-703/7/1/A,
4th Floor, Vasavi Corporate Building, Amrutha Valley Apartments,
Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500034
…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in presence of Complainant and the Respondent; upon pursuing the material on
record and on hearing arguments of both the parties and having stood over for consideration
till this day, the following order is passed:
ORDER
2.

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.

It was submitted that the Complainant purchased a flat bearing no. W 07 14 09 in the

project “Vasavi Lake City West” in 2021, based on the advertisements, personal interactions
with the marketing team, and the website information of the Respondent, which highlighted

Page 1 of 20

---

It was stated by the Complainant that as per the agreed terms, the Complainant made

100% of the payment towards the flat, believing that the project was on track. The builder, Sri
Vijay Kumar Yerram, had personally assured that the handover would take place by August
2024, and that possession could even be expected before the committed deadline.
5.

It was contended that despite these assurances, the project faced repeated and

unjustified delays and, as of February 2025, remained incomplete. The Respondent allegedly
postponed the handover dates on multiple occasions, provided vague reasons, and failed to
communicate a clear and firm timeline. Having already paid 100% of the consideration, the
Complainant stated that this delay caused uncertainty and financial distress, significantly
impacting plans and investments.
6.

It was further submitted that as of January 2025, the project was only 60% to 70%

completed, with no major work carried out thereafter. Key aspects such as interior finishing,
common amenities, and supporting infrastructure remained incomplete. Despite multiple
follow-ups, the Respondent allegedly failed to provide any roadmap or completion schedule,
leaving the Complainant and other homebuyers frustrated and anxious.
7.

The Complainant alleged that the continued delay in possession constitutes a violation

of the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, as the Respondent failed to deliver the project
within the stipulated timeline without valid justification. By collecting 100% payment upfront
and failing to fulfil contractual obligations, the Respondent has allegedly breached the statutory
requirements. The Complainant stated that the delay has caused financial strain, mental stress,
and emotional distress, and therefore sought intervention of this Authority for urgent directions,
financial compensation, and strict action against the Respondent.
B.

Relief(s) Sought:

8.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

To direct the Respondent to complete the construction and hand over possession of the
flat at the earliest. Seeking immediate action to ensure that the remaining work is
completed within a fixed and enforceable timeframe, failing which strict penalties
should be imposed on the Respondent.

Page 2 of 20

---

To direct the Respondent to pay interest on the total amount paid by the Complainant
from the promised possession date of August 2024 until the actual date of handover, at
the rate prescribed under Section 18 of the Act, 2016.

iii.

To direct the Respondent to pay compensation for the undue stress, inconvenience, and
financial losses incurred as a result of the prolonged delay.

C.

Counter filed by the Respondent:

8.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the complaint is not maintainable either in law

or on facts and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the complainant has not followed
the remedies available under the Agreement for resolution of disputes before approaching this
Hon’ble Authority. Further, no prior legal notice was issued before filing this complaint, which
itself renders the application defective and not maintainable.
9.

It is submitted that the project “Lake City-West” was developed lawfully after obtaining

rights from the landowners under registered documents, covering 43,298.17 sq. yds. While
requisite land conversion permissions and building permissions for construction of multistoried apartments were obtained on 07.02.2020. The project consists of seven towers (cellars
+ ground + 14 upper floors) and a clubhouse (stilt + five upper floors). The project was duly
registered with this Authority vide Registration No. P02500001819 dated 20.03.2020.
10.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the Respondent has obtained permission to

convert the land and secured building permission for construction of multi-storied residential
apartments dated 7th February 2020. The project comprises Towers 1 to 7 with cellars plus
ground and 14 upper floors, and a clubhouse consisting of one stilt plus five upper floors, over
a total land area of 40,869 sq. yds.
11.

It is submitted by the Respondent that after securing all necessary permissions from

competent authorities, the project was duly registered with this Hon’ble Authority vide
Registration No. P02500001819 dated 20 March 2020.
12.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the Applicant was allotted Apartment No. W-

71409 on the 14th floor in Tower No. 7 vide booking dated 23-07-2022, having a total area of
1845 sq. ft. along with permissible parking. The agreement specifies a carpet area of 1124 sq.

Page 3 of 20

---

It is submitted by the Respondent that no alterations could be made to the sanctioned

plan or specifications as set out in Schedules D and E, and the Petitioner has paid an amount
of Rs. 20,80,627/- as per Schedule C, with the remaining payments also stipulated therein.
14.

It is submitted by the Respondent that Clause 5 of the agreement requires the promoter

to abide by the time schedule disclosed at the time of registration. Clause 7.1 emphasizes timely
delivery of possession as the essence of the agreement and provides a commitment date of 31
August 2024 with a six-month grace period, subject to force majeure. Any delay due to force
majeure automatically extends timelines without liability for delay compensation. The delays
in the project fall squarely within force majeure conditions.
15.

It is submitted by the Respondent that as per Clause 7.2, possession shall be offered in

writing after obtaining the occupancy certificate, and the allottee must take possession within
two months. Clause 9 specifies the promoter’s liability in case of default.
16.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the complaint is false and suppresses material

facts, filed with an ulterior motive to derive unlawful gain. While the existence of the
agreement of sale is admitted, the complainant is attempting to mislead this Hon’ble Authority
despite full knowledge of its terms.
17.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the Hon’ble Authority is aware of the nationwide

and global medical emergency caused by COVID-19, declared by WHO in January 2020,
which severely affected all sectors including real estate development.
18.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the nationwide lockdown imposed from March

2020 had a profound impact on construction activities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court extended
limitation timelines in Suo Motu WP No. 3/2020, excluding the period 15.03.2020 to
28.02.2022, demonstrating legally recognized disruption in activities.
19.

It is submitted by the Respondent that Project Lake City West received GHMC sanction

on 07-02-2020, immediately before the outbreak. Migrant labourers—critical to construction—
Page 4 of 20

---

It is submitted by the Respondent that additional unforeseen factors also impacted the

project timeline and were duly communicated to customers.
21.

It is submitted by the Respondent that allegations of repeated delays are baseless. Minor

clerical errors in the agreement of sale cannot be exploited to allege delay. A project of such
magnitude could not have been completed earlier, particularly under force majeure conditions.
22.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the complainant’s allegations are unsupported by

evidence and intended only to harass. The project was validly registered until 07-02-2025 and
further extended to 07-02-2026.
23.

It is submitted by the Respondent that third-party disputes also contributed to delays,

several of which have been disposed of. Regular communications were issued informing
allottees of delays and phase-wise completion.
24.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the claim for interest is untenable since the delay

arose from force majeure conditions recognized under Section 6 of the Act, including natural
calamities such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
25.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the claim for compensation is arbitrary and

unsubstantiated. No evidence of loss, injury, mental agony, or harassment has been produced.
The Respondent has acted diligently and continues to work toward completion.
26.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the Respondent shall deliver the flats on or before

February 2026 in accordance with the extension granted. More than 90% of the work has been
completed, whereas the complainant has paid only 75% of the agreed consideration and
remains in arrears under Schedule C.
27.

It is submitted by the Respondent that once the complainant has accepted COVID-19

as a cause for delay, compensation cannot be sought without exceptional justification, which
is absent. Additional delays also arose due to rocky terrain requiring manual excavation as
blasting was not permitted.

Page 5 of 20

---

It is submitted by the Respondent that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as

the delays were entirely beyond the Respondent’s control.
29.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the complaint is frivolous, misleading, and

devoid of merit. The Respondent has a consistent record of timely delivery and undertakes to
complete and deliver the project as per the extended timeline.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant:
30.

It is submitted by the Complainant that RERA is required to consider the Date of

Agreement for Sale and not the booking date. The Respondent (Vasavi LLC) has never
proactively communicated any delay or progress in construction to the Complainant, despite
the Complainant’s repeated follow-ups. The project schedule was shared only after persistent
reminders, and even thereafter, the Respondent has failed to adhere to the timelines promised.
31.

It is submitted by the Complainant that the baseless, vague, and defamatory allegations

made by the Respondent are categorically denied. The Respondent’s statements are wholly
unsubstantiated and appear to be a deliberate attempt to malign the Complainant’s lawful
grievance and divert attention from the real issue—the Respondent’s failure to deliver
possession of the allotted unit within the agreed timeline.
32.

It is submitted by the Complainant that as per the Agreement for Sale (AOS), duly

executed by both parties, the agreed possession date was 31st August 2024, a date never
disputed by the Respondent. However, nearly two years have passed since the committed
delivery date, and possession has still not been handed over. The delay is inordinate,
unjustified, and solely attributable to the Respondent.
33.

It is submitted by the Complainant that the allegation that this complaint has been filed

with ulterior motives or to derive unlawful gain is completely false. Approaching this Hon’ble
Authority under Section 31 of the RERA Act is a statutory right of an aggrieved allottee, and
such claims by the Respondent are contemptuous, derogatory, and indicative of disregard for
due process and the law.
34.

It is submitted by the Complainant that full disclosure of all relevant material—

including the AOS, payment proofs, email correspondence, and records of repeated delays—
has been made. In contrast, the Respondent has failed to honour multiple promised possession
Page 6 of 20

---

It is submitted by the Complainant that the Agreement for Sale was executed after the

COVID-19 pandemic period. Therefore, COVID-19 cannot be used as a justification for the
delay in this project. The delays occurred primarily from 2023 onwards, a time during which
no COVID restrictions were in effect.
36.

It is submitted by the Complainant that the entire structure of Tower 7 (West Wing)

was completed nearly 18 months ago, yet no demand letter has been issued since October 2023.
This clearly shows that no further construction work or progress took place during this
extended period, and the Respondent intentionally stalled the project.
37.

It is submitted by the Complainant that the Respondent themselves communicated three

different possession dates:
1. First possession date – August 2024,
2. Second possession date – February 2025,
3. Third possession date – June 2025,
All of which remain unfulfilled. No proactive communication was ever issued to the
Complainant regarding delays or revised timelines.
38.

It is submitted by the Complainant that Section 18 of the RERA Act squarely applies

to this case, as there is a delay of more than two years from the agreed date of possession,
despite the Complainant having already paid 80% of the total consideration to the Respondent.
The promoter is legally obligated to pay interest for every month of delay and compensation
as per law.
39.

It is submitted by the Complainant that the Respondent is acting unlawfully in

demanding the remaining 10% of the amount even before completing the construction and
without issuing any proper demand notice. Such conduct is contrary to the RERA Act, the
Agreement for Sale, and established principles of consumer protection.
40.

It is submitted by the Complainant that the absence of any demand letter after October

2023 itself confirms that construction progress was completely stalled, and therefore the

Page 7 of 20

---

Upon a careful perusal of the record and the submissions advanced by both parties, oral

as well as written, this Authority is of the view that the following issues arise for determination
in the present complaint:
1. Whether the present Complaint is maintainable before this Authority?
2. Whether the Complainants are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
F. Observations of the Authority:
Point 1:
42.

The Respondent has raised an objection as to the maintainability of the present

complaint on the ground that the Complainants failed to first resort to the contractual dispute
resolution mechanism envisaged in the Agreement of Sale, namely an amicable settlement by
mutual discussion, prior to approaching this Authority. The Authority finds this objection
untenable for the following reasons:
43.

The Authority finds this objection untenable for the following reasons:

The relevant Dispute Resolution clause in the Agreement of Sale is reproduced below for ready
reference:
“33. Dispute Resolution clause in the Agreement of sale executed between the parties,
the said clause stated that all or any disputes arising out ot touching upon or in relation
to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including the interpretation and validity
of the terms thereof and the respective rights and obligations of the Parties, shall be
settled amicably by mutual discussion, falling which the same shall be settled through
adjudication officer appointed under the Act.”
44.

It is clear from the above that the clause only requires the parties to attempt an amicable

settlement by mutual discussion. Such a clause is at best directory and cannot oust or restrict
the statutory jurisdiction of this Authority.
Page 8 of 20

---

It must be noted that Section 79 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 expressly bars the

jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of any matter which this Authority, the Adjudicating
Officer, or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. Likewise, Section 88 clarifies
that the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws.
Thus, the intention of the legislature is that remedies under this beneficial legislation must
remain open to allottees, irrespective of any private clause for amicable settlement.
46. Even in cases where agreements contained arbitration clauses (which is not the case here),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble NCDRC have consistently held that such clauses
cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of consumer fora or statutory authorities constituted under
special enactments.
47. In National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy (2012) 2 SCC 506, the
Supreme Court held that remedies under special statutes are in addition to, and not in derogation
of, other remedies. For ready reference, the relevant extract is reproduced below:
*“49. Support to the above view is also lent by Section 79 of the recently enacted
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short "the Real Estate
Act"). Section 79 of the said Act reads as follows:- ‘79. Bar of jurisdiction - No
civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect
of any matter which the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate
Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall
be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to
be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.’ It can thus,
be seen that the said provision expressly ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court
in respect of any matter which the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, established
under Subsection (1) of Section 20 or the Adjudicating Officer, appointed under
Subsection (1) of Section 71, or the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal established
under Section 43 of the Real Estate Act, is empowered to determine. Hence, in
view of the binding dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Ayyaswamy
(supra), the matters/disputes, which the Authorities under the Real Estate Act
are empowered to decide, are non-arbitrable, notwithstanding an Arbitration
Agreement between the parties to such matters, which, to a large extent, are
similar to the disputes falling for resolution under the Consumer Act. 56.
Consequently, we unhesitatingly reject the arguments on behalf of the Builder

Page 9 of 20

---

Similarly, in Aftab Singh & Ors. v. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. &Ors. (Consumer Case No.

701 of 2015, decided on 13.07.2017), it was held that arbitration clauses in builder-buyer
agreements cannot oust the jurisdiction of consumer fora. The said view was later upheld by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512–23513 of 2017. The relevant para
reads:
“25. This Court in the series of judgments as noticed above considered the provisions
of Consumer Protection Act, L986 os well as Arbitration Act, 1996 and laid down that
complaint under Consumer Protection Act being a special remedy, despite there being
an arbitration agreement the proceedings before Consumer Forum have to go on and
no ercor committed by Consumer Forum on rejecting the application. There is reason
for not interjecting proceedings under Consumer Protection Act on the strength an
arbitration agreement by Act, 1996. The remedy under Consumer Protection Act is a
remedy provided to a consumer when there is a defect in any goods or services. The
complaint means any allegation in writing made by a complainant has also been
explained in Section 2(c) of the Act. The remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is
confined to complaint by consumer as defined under the Act for defect or deficiencies
caused by a service provider, the cheap and a quick remedy has been provided to the
consumer which is the object and purpose of the Act as noticed above."

49.

In the present matter, there is only a clause requiring amicable discussion before

invoking remedies. Such a clause is directory at best, and cannot override or defeat the statutory
right of the Complainant to approach this Authority under the RE(R&D) Act. Accordingly, this
Authority has no hesitation in holding that the Complainant is well within its rights to approach
this forum without being first compelled to pursue an amicable settlement under the
Agreement. The objection of the Respondent as to maintainability is therefore rejected.

Page 10 of 20

---

The Complainant has sought relief on the ground that there has been an inordinate delay

in handing over possession of the subject flat, despite full timely payments of the total sale
consideration, causing significant financial and emotional distress.
It is the case of the Complainant that the Agreement of Sale as executed in the year 2022 clearly
stipulated that possession of the subject flat would be handed over by 31.08.2024, with a grace
period of six months, ending on 28.02.2025. The Respondent has failed to hand over possession
even as of February 2025. Further, although the project was registered with TG RERA up to
February 2025 and later extended until 07.02.2026, the project remains incomplete, with
construction progress stalled at approximately 60-70% as per the Complainant’s submission,
with key aspects such as interior finishing, common amenities, and supporting infrastructure
remaining unfinished. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has issued multiple
revised handover schedules without providing valid justification or a clear roadmap for
completion.
51.

The Complainant further submits that despite assurances made, including a promise to

pay compensation for delay as per RERA guidelines, no such compensation has been provided.
The Respondent, conversely, attributes the delay to the Covid-19 pandemic, claiming force
majeure, citing the nationwide lockdown beginning March 2020, the impact on migrant labour,
and consequential delays. The Respondent further cites rocky terrain at the site, third-party
disputes, and typographical errors in the possession date as additional justifications.
(i) Whether the Covid-19 pandemic can be taken as a valid shield by the Respondent in the
present case?
52.

This Authority finds no merit in such a contention. The Agreement of Sale was

executed in the year 2022, well after the onset and initial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Respondent, being fully aware of the prevailing circumstances, nevertheless executed the
Agreement by specifically assuring completion of the project by August 2024. Having
consciously undertaken such commitment, the Respondent cannot now, with retrospective
justification, rely on Covid-19 as a defense to escape its contractual and statutory obligations.
Such conduct clearly amounts to holding out false assurances with mala fide intent.

Page 11 of 20

---

It is a settled principle that once a promoter has chosen to register a project and enter

into binding contractual commitments with allottees, he does so with full knowledge of the
risks, constraints, and challenges of the market. At the time of entering into the Agreement of
Sale with the present Complainant, the Respondent was already aware of the Covid-related
disruptions, as well as the Government notifications granting moratoriums for project
completion timelines. Despite this knowledge, the Respondent chose to provide a specific
assurance of delivery by August 2024.
54.

This Authority aligns with the observations of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in

Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. [2017 SCC OnLine
Bom 9302], wherein at para 119 it was categorically observed:
"While the proposal is submitted, the Promoter is supposed to be conscious of the
consequences of getting the project registered under RERA. Having sufficient
experience in the open market, the Promoter is expected to have a fair assessment of
the time required for completing the project…".
55.

The above dictum fortifies the principle that the promoter, being structurally at an

advantageous position with respect to project information and market realities, is under a
statutory duty to provide realistic timelines. The framework of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 reinforces this obligation by mandating timely completion and
possession within the period stipulated in the Agreement of Sale.
56.

Therefore, the plea of Covid-19 as a force majeure defence in the present case is wholly

untenable. The Respondent, having executed the Agreement of Sale in the year 2022 with
specific possession timelines, cannot now seek to retrospectively attribute delays to the
pandemic. Accordingly, this Authority holds that the reliance on Covid-19 as a shield stands
rejected.
(ii) Extension of Registration
57.

The Respondent has further contended that, since extensions have been granted by this

Authority, the project timeline now stands extended up to February 2026, and therefore
possession shall be delivered by then. The Complainants, however, have questioned the validity
and effect of such extensions.

Page 12 of 20

---

At the outset, it must be clarified that under the scheme of the RE(R&D) Act:
“An Act to establish the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for regulation and
promotion of the real estate sector and to ensure sale of plot, apartment or
building, as the case may be, or sale of real estate project, in an efficient and
transparent manner and to protect the interest of consumers in the real estate
sector and to establish an adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal
and also to establish the Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals from the decisions,
directions or orders of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and the
adjudicating officer and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

59.

The paramount objective is twofold: protection of consumer interest, and ensuring

completion of projects in an efficient manner. Denial of extension during the Covid-19
disruption would have resulted in projects being stalled, to the grave prejudice of allottees. It
was in this context that this Authority, balancing the equities, granted extensions in line with
the moratoriums issued by Telangana RERA:
1. 15.03.2020 to 14.09.2020 (Circular No.14 dated 13.05.2020),
2. 15.09.2020 to 15.03.2021 (Order No.15 dated 29.09.2020),
3. 15.03.2021 to 14.09.2021 (Order No.16 dated 01.06.2021).
60.

Accordingly, an aggregate 18 months’ extension was applied across projects to

safeguard larger consumer interest. However, it is equally well settled that such regulatory
extensions cannot dilute the contractual rights of individual allottees under their respective
Agreements of Sale, nor can they displace the statutory rights flowing from Section 18 of the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
61.

In the present matter, it is evident that the Respondent has unilaterally revised

possession timelines to February 2026 due to the extension taken without consultation or
consent of the Complainants. Such unilateral revisions are impermissible. The Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors. [2017
SCC OnLine Bom 9302], while upholding the constitutional validity of RERA, categorically
observed:
Para 119 “The RERA does not contemplate rewriting of contract between the flat
purchaser and the promoter.”

Page 13 of 20

---

The above dicta makes it abundantly clear that any extension granted by the Authority,

or revised timelines uploaded on the TG RERA project registration portal, do not ipso facto
alter or bind the allottees’ contractual rights. The agreed date of possession remains as
stipulated in the Agreement for Sale, and unilateral extensions by the promoter cannot be
foisted upon allottees to their detriment.
63.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the revised possession dates mentioned by the

Respondent, whether while seeking extensions before the Authority or as updated on the
registration portal, cannot be treated as binding on the Complainants.
(iii)

Relief under Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act:

64.

It has been observed by this Authority that the total sale consideration is for an amount

of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only). That, as per the Agreement of Sale the
Complainant has paid an amount of Rs.20,80,627/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Eighty Thousand
Six Hundred And Twenty Seven Only). As per the submissions made by the Complainant
herein, entire sale consideration amount has been duly paid to the Respondent. However it is
observed that as per the payment receipts placed before this Authority that only a sum of Rs.
40,76,627/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Six Hundred And Twenty Seven Only)
has been duly paid by the Complainant herein towards the sale consideration. Further, the
Agreement clearly stipulated possession by 31.08.2024, with a grace period of 6 months to
28.02.2025. Admittedly, possession has not been delivered.
65.

The Respondent’s contention that 90% work is complete and that the Complainants

have paid only a portion of the consideration is wholly unsustainable. As per the Complainants
averments, full agreed sale consideration has been paid. However as has been observed before,
as per the payment receipts placed before this Authority that only a sum of Rs. 40,76,627/(Rupees Forty Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Six Hundred And Twenty Seven Only) has been
duly paid by the Complainant herein towards the sale consideration. Despite receiving such
substantial sums, the Respondent has failed to honour its contractual obligations. It is manifest

Page 14 of 20

---

The Respondent further seeks to shift the burden on the complainant by contending that

the balance amount is unpaid. This plea is untenable. The law does not permit a defaulter to
take advantage of its own breach. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusheshwar
Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar [Civil Appeal No. 7357 of 2000]:
It is settled principle of law that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair
advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is sound
principle that he, who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the
non-performance he has occasioned. To put it differently, "a wrongdoer ought not to
be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong”
67.

In this context, it is pertinent to note that the Agreement of Sale linked the payment

schedule to the progress of construction. While the allottees are indeed bound to adhere to the
agreed payment plan, such obligation arises only when the promoter simultaneously fulfils its
reciprocal obligation of executing construction in line with the assured progress. In the absence
of such progress, the Respondent cannot insist upon further payments as a condition to claim
relief.
68.

Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act is categorical and unconditional. It does not make the

grant of interest contingent upon the quantum of sale consideration paid, nor does it provide
any defence to a defaulting promoter. Once delay in handing over possession is established, an
allottee who elects to remain in the project is entitled to interest for every month of delay,
irrespective of whether part or whole of the consideration has been paid, provided that the
payments already made are in accordance with the Agreement of sale. The Respondent’s plea
that only “partial sale consideration” has been paid and hence interest cannot be granted is
therefore vague, misconceived, and contrary to the express mandate of the statute.
Now, Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act is categorical:
“(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
Page 15 of 20

---

This statutory right of allottee is unqualified and absolute. Attention is drawn to the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 3581-359 of 2022, Civil
Appeal Diary No. 9796/2019, M/s Imperia Structures Limited vs. Anil Patni & Others,
wherein it was held:
"In terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter fails to complete or is unable to
give possession of an apartment by the date specified in the agreement, the promoter
would be liable, on demand, to return the amount received in respect of that apartment
if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project. Such a right of the allottee is 'without
prejudice to any other remedy available to him'. This right is unqualified, and if availed,
the deposited money must be refunded with interest as prescribed. The proviso to
Section 18(1) contemplates that if the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the
project, they are entitled to interest for every month of delay until possession is handed
over. The allottee may proceed under Section 18(1) or the proviso thereto."

Page 16 of 20

---

Similarly, in Civil Appeal Nos. 6745-6749 of 2021, M/s Newtech Promoters and
Developers Private Limited vs. State of UP & Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed:
"Section 18(1) of the Act spells out the consequences if the promoter fails to
complete or is unable to give possession of an 9 of 10 apartment, plot, or
building in terms of the agreement for sale. The allottee/home buyer holds an
unqualified right to seek a refund of the amount with interest as prescribed."

71.

Further, as earlier observed, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors

Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [(2017) SCC Online Bom 9302] clarified that RERA
registration or its extension cannot rewrite the contract between parties. The date assured under
the Agreement of Sale, executed with the allottee’s consent, shall prevail. Thus, the Respondent
is bound by Section 11(4)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, which mandates adherence to the terms of
the Agreement of Sale.
72.

At the same time, if the Complainant has indeed defaulted in adhering to the payment

schedule, the Respondent is not without remedy. Sections 19(6) and 19(7) of the Act confer
upon the promoter a right to claim interest for delayed payments, as per Rule 15 of the
Telangana RE(R&D) Rules, 2017. Nevertheless, such entitlement shall be subject to the
Respondent producing cogent and substantive documents demonstrating both the stage-wise
progress of construction and the corresponding default, and not merely based on unilateral
assertions.
73.

In the present case, this Authority finds the Respondent in clear breach of both statutory

and contractual obligations. The Complainant is therefore entitled to interest at the prescribed
rate for the entire period of delay, i.e., from 01.03.2024 until the actual date of handing over
possession. As regards claims of compensation, this Authority notes that jurisdiction for
adjudicating compensation lies with the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of RE(R&D)
Act with Form ‘N’. The Complainant is at liberty to pursue such remedy separately.
74.

Accordingly, while the Complainant is entitled to relief under Section 18 of the

RE(R&D) Act, 2016 this entitlement is subject to the reciprocal statutory duty of the
Complainant to discharge any outstanding amounts under the payment plan, if not already paid.
Compliance on both sides is essential to ensure balance of obligations and timely delivery.

Page 17 of 20

---

This Authority cannot remain oblivious to the larger pattern of violations. It is noted

with grave concern that more than fifty complaints have already been received against this very
Respondent in respect of the subject project. Such repeated defaults and false assurances strike
at the very root of the confidence that homebuyers are entitled to repose under the protective
framework of the RE(R&D) Act.
76.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the RE(R&D) Act explicitly emphasizes

“greater accountability towards consumers and to inject transparency, efficiency, and discipline
in the real estate sector”. The conduct of the Respondent herein is in gross derogation of that
legislative mandate. If such violations are permitted to persist, the very soul of the Act would
stand diluted and the protection promised to allottees rendered illusory.
Accordingly, this Authority hereby sternly warns the Respondent promoter that any further
default, non-compliance, or failure to deliver possession within the assured statutory timelines
or any fresh grievances brought to notice by allottees shall invite invocation of Section 63 of
the RE(R&D) Act.
77.

This Authority shall not hesitate to take the strictest view in future, for the Act was

enacted not as a mere regulatory framework but as a beneficial legislation to protect innocent
homebuyers from the very malaise exemplified by the conduct of this Respondent.
The Respondent is hereby directed to complete the project and hand over possession to the
Complainants within the stipulated period. It is further clarified that if the Complainants have
defaulted in making payments as per the agreed schedule, the Respondent shall be entitled
under Section 19(6) of the Act to claim interest on such delayed payments, provided that it
substantiates such claim with credible documentary evidence of both construction progress and
corresponding default.
78.

In the event the Complainants have defaulted in making payments as per the agreed

schedule, the Respondent shall be entitled, under Section 19(6) of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016, to claim interest on such delayed payments in accordance with
Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.
Nevertheless, such entitlement shall be subject to the Respondent producing cogent and
substantive documents demonstrating both the stage-wise progress of construction and the
corresponding default, and not merely based on unilateral assertions.

Page 18 of 20

---

The Complainants are, in turn, directed to discharge any balance amounts due under

the agreed payment schedule, if not already paid. Mutual compliance is essential to ensure
timely completion and delivery of the project.
G. Directions of the Authority:
80.

In view of the findings and observations recorded hereinabove, this Authority proceeds

to issue the following directions:
a. The preliminary objection raised by the Respondent regarding the maintainability of
the complaint on account of the Dispute Resolution Clause in the Agreement of Sale
stands rejected. The complaint is maintainable before this Authority.
b. The Respondent’s reliance on the Covid-19 pandemic as a ground of force majeure is
held untenable, since the Agreement of Sale was executed after the subsiding of the
pandemic and with full knowledge of the prevailing circumstances.
c. The extension of registration taken by this Respondent cannot dilute the contractual
rights of the Complainant under the Agreement of Sale. The date of possession as
stipulated in the Agreement shall prevail.
d. The Respondent is held liable for failure to hand over possession of the subject flat by
the agreed date i.e., 28.02.2025 (inclusive of grace period).
e. The Complainants are entitled to interest at the rate of 10.70% per annum (being SBI
MCLR + 2% as per Rule 15 of the TG RE(R&D) Rules, 2017), computed on the
amounts actually paid by the Complainants, with effect from 01.03.2025 until actual
handing over of lawful possession. The exact computation shall be subject to
verification of such payments by the Respondent at the stage of effecting payment. The
Respondent shall pay the arrears accrued up to the date of this Order within sixty (60)
days, and shall thereafter continue to pay the accruing interest on a monthly basis, on
or before the 10th day of each succeeding month, until possession is delivered.
f. Insofar as compensation is concerned, the Complainant is at liberty to pursue
appropriate proceedings before the Learned Adjudicating Officer under “Form N”.
g. The Respondent is hereby directed to complete the project forthwith and hand over
possession to the Complainants within the statutory timelines.
h. The Complainants are directed to pay the balance consideration strictly in accordance
with the agreed payment schedule. In the event of any default in adhering to such
schedule, the Respondent shall be at liberty to claim interest on the delayed amounts,
as provided under Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Page 19 of 20

---

Having regard to the repeated defaults and the large number of complaints already

pending against this Respondent in the same project, this Authority sternly warns the
Respondent that any further delay, non-compliance, or grievance brought to notice by allottees
shall invite section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act.
82.

The Complaint is accordingly allowed in part, in terms of the above directions.

83.

Failure to comply with above said directions by the Respondent shall attract penalty in

accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016
84.

As a result, the Complaint is disposed of accordingly. 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

Page 20 of 20

---