Order Complaint No. 150 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 150/2025/TG RERA
Dated: 2nd September 2025
Quorum:

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

Venumadhav Thota
(R/o Flat No. G5, Ganapathi Nilayam, Sai Keerthi Layout,
Nizampet, Hyderabad – 500090)

…Complainant
Versus
M/s. Vasavi Realtor LLP,
(Rep by its Designated Partner, Yerram Vijay Kumar,
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 file by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on
11.07.2025 before this Authority in presence of Complainant in person and Respondents
Counsels Sri D Madhav Rao and M.K.Joy Raj; upon pursuing the material on record and on
hearing arguments of the 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 “RE(R&D) Act”)
read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “TG RE(R&D) 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 the project Vasavi Lake City (RERA Registration No.

P02500001819) was promoted by the Respondent as a well-planned and timely development.
The Respondent’s Sales and Marketing team assured that the project would be completed by
1 of 20

---

Relying on these assurances, the Complainant booked Flat No. 31309 (09 series), West

Tower-3, 13th Floor on 08.04.2021, by paying a booking amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The
Complainant completed all required payments by 10.07.2021, and executed the Agreement of
Sale on 03.08.2021, wherein possession was promised by August 2023, with a grace period of
six months.
5.

The Complainant has stated that despite these contractual commitments, the project has

faced continuous and unjustified delays. As of January 2025, the overall completion stood at
only 65 to 70 percent, and since then no significant work has been carried out. The Respondent
has been postponing the possession date on multiple occasions without providing any firm or
reliable timeline. Each enquiry by the Complainant has been met with new dates and false
assurances.
6.

It has been submitted that in a customer meeting held on 16.03.2024, the Respondent

stated that the delay was due to the COVID impact and announced that the flats would be
delivered in phases between October 2024 and March 2025. This was followed by the
circulation of Minutes of Meeting on 25.03.2025, which reiterated the phased delivery plan
and unilaterally fixed a compensation amount of Rs.10 per square foot per month. The
Complainant has asserted that this compensation was one-sided, arbitrary, and not acceptable
to the buyers.
7.

Again, on 21.06.2024, the Respondent issued a revised handover schedule promising

overall completion by 31.03.2025, with phase-wise delivery starting from January 2025. A
further meeting was held on 08.09.2024 in which the Respondent again promised adherence to
the revised schedule and assured that compensation would be paid in accordance with RERA
provisions. However, on 07.02.2025, the Respondent issued yet another revised handover
schedule with tower-wise delivery dates but without specifying the overall completion date of
the project.
8.

The Complainant has further stated that he has not received any compensation for the

delay. Despite multiple follow-ups, the builder has failed to provide a clear committed roadmap
or a completion schedule, leaving the complainant and other homebuyers frustrated and
anxious. The lack of visible progress and absence of proper communication have further raised
doubts about whether the builder is genuinely committed to completing the project.
2 of 20

---

It is submitted that the continued delay in possession constitutes a serious violation of

RERA provisions, as the builder has failed to deliver the project within the stipulated timeline
without any valid justification. It is further submitted that this delay has caused significant
financial strain, mental stress and emotional distress to the Complainant.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
10.
i.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
To direct the Respondent to complete the construction and hand over possession of the
flat at the earliest, within a fixed and enforceable timeframe, failing which strict
penalties be imposed.

ii.

To direct the Respondent to pay interest on the total amount paid by the Complainant
from the promised possession date of August 2023 until the actual date of handover
along with interest at the prescribed rate under RERA for the entire delay period.

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:
11.

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 Sale 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.
12.

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.
13.

It is further submitted that the Complainant was allotted an apartment in the project

vide booking dated 08.04.2021, and was allotted an apartment No. W.31309 on the 13th Floor
3 of 20

---

It is submitted that as per Clause 7 of the Agreement, the Respondent was obligated to

hand over possession of the flat and common areas by 31.08.2023, subject to extension in the
event of force majeure. The Agreement itself clearly records that timely delivery is the essence
of the contract but also recognises that the period of completion shall stand extended to the
extent of delay caused by force majeure conditions, during which period the allottee is not
entitled to claim compensation.
15.

It is submitted that the complainants have not come before this Hon’ble Authority with

clean facts but with an ulterior motive to make unlawful gain and that there has been material
suppression of facts of the case with regard to the claim and the relief sought therein.
16.

It is further stated that COVID-19 is a force majeure event duly recognized under law,

and hence the timelines stood extended. The Respondent contended that the COVID-19
pandemic, subsequent lockdowns, and migration of labourers had severely impacted
construction work. The Respondent further relies on the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020, whereby the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022
was excluded for the purposes of computation of limitation across various statutes. It is
contended that the extension of time for completion of the project was not only factually
justified but also recognised in law.
17.

In addition to COVID-19, the Respondent submits that unforeseen site conditions such

as rocky terrain requiring manual excavation further delayed the project. Owing to restrictions
on blasting due to the residential nature of the surrounding locality, excavation could only be
done manually, which compounded the delay. These challenges were communicated to all
allottees through regular updates and meetings.
18.

The Respondent also submits that certain third-party disputes adversely impacted the

project timelines. These include cases such as RERA Case No. 190/2020, W.P. Nos.
2694/2021, 13898/2022, 33433/2023, W.A. No. 584/2023, SLP Nos. 9694–9695/2023, and
4 of 20

---

It is contended that the project has been executed strictly in accordance with approved

plans and specifications, and any clerical or typographical errors in the Agreement of Sale
cannot be construed to create liability. It is the case of the Respondent that more than 90% of
the project construction is completed and the project is presently in its final finishing stage. An
extension of registration has already been granted by this Authority till 07.02.2026, within
which period the Respondent undertakes to deliver possession of the apartments to all allottees.
Communications have also been issued to purchasers for payment of balance amounts, as
completion is nearing.
20.

With regard to the claims for interest and compensation, the Respondent submits that

in view of the force majeure conditions, no such relief is available to the Complainant under
law. Section 6 of the Act specifically contemplates force majeure events such as natural
calamities and other circumstances beyond the control of the promoter. The Respondent
submits that the COVID-19 pandemic, together with the extraordinary circumstances outlined
above, clearly falls within the scope of force majeure.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant:
21.

It is submitted that the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent regarding

maintainability of the complaint is baseless, vague, and legally untenable. The present
complaint has been filed under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, seeking relief for the unreasonable
delay in delivery of possession of the flat in the registered project bearing RERA No.
P02500001819. As per the Agreement of Sale dated 03.08.2021, the committed possession date
was 31.08.2023. However, even as on the date of filing this complaint i.e., 22.02.2025,
possession has not been handed over and the project remains incomplete at less than 85%. The
Hon’ble Telangana RERA has clear jurisdiction to entertain complaints of this nature, and the
application is legally maintainable in fact and in law. The Respondent’s objection is therefore
baseless and liable to be dismissed.
22.

It is further submitted that all relevant evidence including the Minutes of Meetings and

Form M have already been furnished in support of the complaint. The Complainant has
exhausted all possible means to establish contact with the Respondent, and therefore the
5 of 20

---

It is submitted that there is no dispute regarding the lawful rights obtained by the

Respondent from the landowners, the permissions secured for conversion and building, and the
project registration with this Authority. The Complainant does not dispute these facts.
24.

It is stated that as per the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, the Agreement for Sale is the governing

document. The committed date of possession clearly stated in the Agreement of Sale is
31.08.2023. The booking date only evidences the buyer’s commitment but does not alter the
Respondent’s obligation.
25.

It is further submitted that as per the Agreement of Sale dated 03.08.2021, possession

was committed by 31.08.2023. Even with the 6-month grace period, the Respondent has
exceeded the timeline as of the date of filing this complaint. While construction progress may
have been reported to the authorities, the fact remains that possession has not been delivered
and the project is only about 85% complete. The reference to amenities is irrelevant to the core
issue, namely the delay in handing over possession.
26.

It is submitted that the complainant has paid 90% of the amount, as per Schedule C.

The remaining amount is due only upon registration, which has not happened yet.
27.

It is further submitted that Clause 5 of the Agreement confirms the promoter’s

obligation to abide by the time schedule and Clause 7.1 explicitly states that timely delivery is
the essence of the contract. If the Respondent seeks to rely on COVID-19 as force majeure, the
Agreement of Sale dated 03.08.2021 was executed towards the end of COVID-19 period, when
the Respondent was fully aware of its impact.
28.

It is submitted that Clause 7.2 requires that possession be formally offered after

obtaining the Occupancy Certificate. As of the complaint date, no Occupancy Certificate has
been secured, nor any written offer made. The Respondent is in continuing breach of Clause
7.1, as the extended timeline even accounting for grace and force majeure has expired. Clause
9 further defines promoter default, which clearly applies in the present case.
6 of 20

---

It is further submitted that the allegation that the complaint is filed with ulterior motive

is baseless and unfounded. The Complainant has approached this Hon’ble Authority with clean
hands, placing all material documents including the Agreement for Sale, payment proofs, and
Minutes of Meetings. The Respondent has failed to fulfil the fundamental obligation to deliver
possession on time. The vague allegation of suppression is therefore denied in toto.
30.

It is submitted that while COVID-19 was a public health emergency, the Agreement of

Sale was executed after the pandemic began, with full awareness of its consequences. Despite
this, the Respondent committed to a specific possession date. Therefore, COVID-19 cannot
now be used as an excuse for indefinite delay, beyond the six months’ extension permissible.
It is also submitted that the Respondent’s reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s extension
of limitation periods is misconceived and irrelevant in the present matter. The Respondent
never cited the pandemic in earlier communications and instead attributed delay to funding and
legal disputes. Hence, the present reliance on this point is irrelevant and ought to be rejected.
31.

It is further submitted that the vague reference to “additional factors” affecting

construction is unsupported by any evidence. No documentary proof has been produced
showing specific reasons for delay or revised timelines. Mere verbal assurances in meetings
cannot substitute statutory obligations under RERA. The Respondent themselves cited funding
and legal issues during meetings, not unidentified “other factors.” Accordingly, the vague plea
of additional reasons must be rejected.
32.

It is submitted that the Respondent’s attempt to treat the possession date of 31.08.2023

as a “clerical or typographical error” is wholly untenable. This date appears consistently in the
Agreement of Sale, including in Clause 7.1, and reflects a deliberate contractual commitment.
If there was indeed an error, the Respondent ought to have executed a rectification deed or
amendment, which was never done.
33.

It is further submitted that the suggestion that the complaint is baseless and intended to

harass the builder is denied. The complaint rests squarely on documentary evidence, including
the Agreement of Sale and payment proofs. The extension of the project’s RERA registration
until 2026 does not override the Respondent’s individual contractual obligations to deliver
possession by 31st August 2023. RERA registration timelines relate to the life of the project,
not specific contractual delivery dates.
7 of 20

---

It is submitted that the reference to third-party disputes is also not a valid justification.

The Respondent only disclosed such disputes belatedly in January 2025, long after the
committed possession date and the grace period had expired. The Respondent failed to notify
the Complainant in a timely manner or to obtain specific extensions based on these disputes.
Hence, reliance on such proceedings cannot absolve them of liability for delay.
35.

It is further submitted that while the Respondent communicated certain updates during

meetings and general correspondence, such informal updates cannot override the binding
possession date in the Agreement of Sale. As of the date of filing the complaint, no Occupancy
Certificate has been issued and possession has not been offered. Interest for delay is a statutory
entitlement under Section 18 of RERA.
36.

It is submitted that the denial of interest on the ground of force majeure is contrary to

law. The Respondent voluntarily executed the Agreement during the pandemic period,
committing to a timeline with knowledge of prevailing conditions. Having failed to deliver
within that timeframe, the Respondent is liable to pay interest for delay as mandated by law.
37.

It is further submitted that compensation for hardship and inconvenience is also

justified in addition to statutory interest. The delay has caused real disruption in financial
planning, and stability for the Complainant. These are genuine consequences of the
Respondent’s breach and not arbitrary claims.
38.

It is submitted that the Respondent’s assurance that the project will be completed by

February 2026 does not mitigate their liability. The Complainant has already paid 90% of the
flat cost as per the payment schedule in Schedule-C of the Agreement, and the remaining
amount is due only at the time of registration, which has not yet occurred. As of the date of
filing this complaint on 22.02.2025, no formal demand or offer of possession has been made.
Therefore, statutory interest for delay remains payable until actual possession is handed over.
39.

It is further submitted that the new explanation regarding rocky terrain and excavation

challenges is also untenable. This was never cited earlier in any communications with allottees
and cannot now be raised as an unforeseen obstacle. Site conditions are the developer’s
responsibility and are expected to be considered before committing delivery timelines. Hence,
this belated justification deserves no consideration.

8 of 20

---

It is further submitted that the Respondent’s characterization of the complaint as

“preposterous” is strongly objected to. The Complainant has approached this Hon’ble
Authority lawfully, seeking only statutory and contractual relief for delay. The reputation or
claimed efforts of the Respondent cannot override the Complainant’s rights.
41.

In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Authority

may be pleased to direct the Respondent to hand over the possession of the booked unit along
with the amenities promised, and to pay interest for the delay in handing over of the possession.

E. Points for Consideration:
42.

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:
43.

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.
44.

The Authority finds this objection untenable for the following reasons:

45.

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.

9 of 20

---

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.
47

Section 79 of the RE(R&D) Act 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.
48.

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.
49.

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 and
hold that an Arbitration Clause in the afore-stated kind of Agreements between the
Complainants and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer
Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.”*

10 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."

51.

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.
Point No. 2: Delay in Possession
52.

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

in handing over possession of the subject flat, despite timely payments of approximately 90%
of the total sale consideration, causing significant financial and emotional distress.
53.

It is the case of the Complainant that the Agreement of Sale dated 03.08.2021 clearly

stipulated that possession of the subject flat would be handed over by 31.08.2023, with a grace
period of six months, ending on 29.02.2024. 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 65-70% as per the Complainant’s submission,
with key aspects such as interior finishing, common amenities, and supporting infrastructure
11 of 20

---

The Complainant further submits that during a customer interaction meeting on

16.03.2024, the Respondent attributed the delay to the Covid-19 impact and promised phased
delivery between October 2024 and March 2025. Minutes of the meeting circulated on
25.03.2024 unilaterally fixed a compensation amount of Rs.10 per square foot per month,
which the Complainant deemed arbitrary and unacceptable. In a subsequent meeting on
08.09.2024, the Respondent assured adherence to the revised schedule and compliance with
RERA compensation provisions, but no compensation has been paid. 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?
55.

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

on 03.08.2021, 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 2023. 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.
56.

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 2023.
57.

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:
12 of 20

---

58.

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.
59.

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 August 2021 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.
(i) Extension of Registration
60.

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.
61.

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.”

62.

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),
13 of 20

---

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.
64.

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

possession timelines first to February 2024, and thereafter 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."
Para 256 of this Judgment further clarifies that
“by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh timeline under Section
4(2)(l)(C), he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for sale”

65.

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.
66.

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:
67.

It is noted that there is a discrepancy in the amounts paid as averred by the parties. The

Complainant states that they have paid more than 90% of the total consideration of
₹1,00,02,000/-, while the Respondent avers that only ₹22,40,000/- has been paid. The
compaliannt has placed payment receipts ofan maount of Rs.94,51,890/-, paid diligently and
without default. In the absence of contradictory documentary evidence from the Respondent
and based on the material on record, including payment receipts submitted by the Complainant,
this Authority proceeds on the basis that substantial payments have been made by the
Complainant, and accepts their averment of having paid the aforementioned amount for the
14 of 20

---

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

have paid only a portion of the consideration is wholly unsustainable. The Complainants have
already paid over 90% of the agreed consideration as per their averments. Despite receiving
such substantial sums, the Respondent has failed to honour its contractual obligations. It is
manifest that the Respondent gave false assurances, being fully conscious of the market
situation, yet assuring dates of completion that it had no capacity to honour. More than one
year has elapsed beyond the stipulated date, yet the project is neither complete nor possession
handed over.
69.

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.

70.

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.
71.

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
15 of 20

---

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
(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 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.
(2) The promoter shall compensate the allottees in case of any loss caused to
him due to defective title of the land, on which the project is being developed or
has been developed, in the manner as provided under this Act, and the claim for
compensation under this subsection shall not be barred by limitation provided
under any law for the time being in force.
(3) If the promoter fails to discharge any other obligations imposed on him under
this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder or in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the agreement for sale, he shall be liable to pay such
compensation to the allottees, in the manner as provided under this Act.

73.

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."

74.
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:

16 of 20

---

75.

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.
76.

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.
77.

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..
78.

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

RE(R&D) Act, 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.
79.

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.
17 of 20

---

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.
81.

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.
82.

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.
83.

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.
84.

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.
85.

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:
86.

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

to issue the following directions:
18 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

19 of 20

---

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

89.

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
90.

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

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

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

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

20 of 20

---