Order Complaint No. 157 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.157 OF 2024
23rd June 2025
Quorum:

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

1. Mrs. Deepa Suraj Premi
R/o No.4-2-174/31/32, Urban Oaks-I,
Flat No.403, Dhananjaya Estates,
Kowkoor, Secunderabad,
Medchal-Malkajgiri– 500010

2. Sri Suraj Premi
R/o No.4-2-174/31/32, Urban Oaks-I,
Flat No.403, Dhananjaya Estates,
Kowkoor, Secunderabad,
Medchal-Malkajgiri – 500010

…Complainants
Versus

M/s Mehta & Modi Realty Kowkur LLP
(Through its Authorized representative, Sri Anand S. Mehta)
Office at No.5-4-187/3&4, II floor,
Soham Mansion, M.G. Road,
Secunderabad – 500003

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainants herein came up for hearing on 31.01.2025
before this Authority in the presence of and Complainants in person, and Counsel Sri Manne
Hari Babu & M.A. Lateef appeared on behalf of the Respondent and after hearing the
arguments, this Authority passes the following ORDER:

2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainants 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 Respondent.

Page 1 of 21

---

The Complainants submitted &raised the following issues in the Project:
i.

Complainants submitted that the Respondent had executed the sale deed in favour of
the Complainants on 04.04.2024atSRO Malkangiri vide Document No. 2282/2024 of
the flat bearing No. B-512 in Greenwood Heights bearing Reg. No. P02200001314
having validity upto 21.09.2024. Upon request of possession, Complainants were asked
to join as a member of the "Greenwood Welfare Association" with a condition in the
form that they have to agree to pay the maintenance charges with effect from March
2023 till March 2024. The respondent contention is that a Notice letter dated 29.12.2022
which was sent intimating, that the possession of the flats shall be handed over to from
February 01, 2023 onwards subject to availability of power supply and claim that
Complainants liability to pay maintenance is effective from the date mentioned in said
letter.

ii.

Complainants submitted that the Respondent has intimated them that, Complainants
would be issued a post-dated letter of possession for which, they are required to sign a
letter of confirmation, which contains a clause, asking Complainants to confirm that the
said flat have been duly inspected by them and is completed in all respects. Further,
Complainants are also required to issue a No objection certificate. Within two weeks
from the signing of all the documents, it was promised that the Respondent will
complete the remaining pending works such as sanitary fittings, painting, and finishing
would be completed. Until such time, these works remain on hold as per the company’s
policy.

iii.

The Respondent has formed an Association by the name "Greenwood Welfare
Association" and registered the same under the Telangana Societies Registration Act
on November 16, 2021, with registration number 687/2021 and have also issued rules
and regulations. Further, the aims and objects as per the memorandum of the association
refers to promotion of cultural, charitable, social, sporting etc. Nowhere in the objects,
does it contain any clause, that the association is an owner’s association and is exclusive
for the owners of the flats and is for the maintenance of the project "Greenwood
Heights". That the Respondent has formed this association in 2021 when none of the
flats were complete and the registrations and possession of the units were done after
February 2023 only as per their intimation letter. Complainants submitted that there

Page 2 of 21

---

That the Respondent has collected Rs.31,000/- (Rupees Thirty-One Thousand Only)
towards Manjeera Water charges from the Complainants. That the basis and details for
the same were not provided and their contention is that as per clause 6.4 of the sale
agreement, they are entitled to claim the same from the Complainant on a pro-rata basis.
Complainants further submitted that the provision of amenities relating to water
facilities are the basic requirement of any project and the conditions forms part of the
requirement under which the project is sanctioned. Even if the amount is paid as per the
requirement of the water board, the cost of the same shall form part of the sale
consideration. Further, no details were provided to the Complainants as to how the prorata amount has been calculated. The entire amount of Rs.31,000/- (Rupees Thirty-One
Thousand Only) collected towards the additional water connection charges by the
Respondent is an unfair trade practice and is unlawful and needs to be refunded.

v.

Complainants submitted that when they gave their acceptance for taking the possession,
after the execution of the sale deed, Complainants were informed that they are also
liable to pay interest on delayed payment of instalments which has been calculated 18%
based as per the clause 9.1 of the sale agreement within 30 days i.e., by25.10.2019 from
the date of the booking. That the Respondent has claimed 20% of the Project cost being
Rs.11,60,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only), when the project was not
yet commenced and was still under excavation stage only and within two months there
was a complete lock down due to COVID the effects of which continued for up to the
end of the calendar year 2020. Although, there was no activity happening at the project
site, the statement shared with Complainants, claims instalment during the pandemic
complete lockdown period also. Further, the basis for the instalment being due on the
dates as claimed with respect to the stages of completion is also not transparent. Further,
the amount of GST payable was never notified to the Complainants and in the interest
statement the Respondent has computed interest on GST amount also. Even till today,
the sanitary fittings and painting and finishing works remain incomplete, however still
demand for the final instalment is made and also included in the interest statement

Page 3 of 21

---

The sale agreement submitted with RERA at the time of project registration and the
format which is actually executed by the respondent is totally devoid of many clauses.
In fact, the actual sale agreement contains many clauses which are absent and does not
form part of the Sale agreement format submitted to this Authority. It was further
submitted that a plain reading of the executed agreement when compared to the RERA
submitted agreement entails that the entire agreement is lopsided and favours the
Respondent only and the same is used as a weapon against the buyers, which makes
them gullible with unjustified demands being levied in the guise of agreed sale
agreement.

vii.

The project has not yet received its occupancy certificate, which signifies that the
project is not yet fully completed. The sale deed was executed on April 04, 2024.
Further, the flat is not yet complete in all aspects as the sanitary fittings and painting
works remain withheld and pending and the same is not fit for occupation in its current
state. Levying of maintenance charges based on the premise that possession letter was
already sent to the Complainants way back in 2023 and that is adequate enough for
charging the maintenance charges is not maintainable. The maintenance charges being
levied for the period even before possession and registration is not justified and the
demand for the same is incorrect and not tenable. Further, the Respondent is coercing
the Complainants to agree to bear the maintenance charges from March 2023, but for
that the pending works and possession shall be withheld is unjustified.

viii.

Sanitary Fittings, painting, finishing works not yet completed: Complainants submitted
that they have already conveyed to the Respondent to take the possession of the flat and
expected the Respondent to complete all the pending works and only after satisfactory
inspection, Complainants will be able to accept the letter of possession and issue NOCs
as required. The Respondent contends that it is the company policy and unless and until
Complainants agree and sign all the required documents, the finishing works shall not
be undertaken. That this stand of the respondent amount to coercion and is an unfair
trade practice and is unjustified.

Page 4 of 21

---

Complainants further submitted that the TDS amount which was deducted and remitted
to the Government account, interest on the same is also calculated as an outstanding
amount. Which is illogical and incorrect.

x.

Further, that as per Rule 15 of the Rules, 2017, the interest rate applicable to the RERA
registered projects is SBI rate plus two percent as applicable for the relevant period and
not the rate of 18% as calculated and claimed by the Respondent.

xi.

It was also submitted that the interest is not calculated correctly. That even till today
the project remains incomplete and the flat is not yet complete in all respects.
Respondent has taken the benefit of pandemic and failed to complete the project which
was scheduled for completion as on November 2021 as per the sale agreement.
However, in spite of delay of more than 2 years from the date of completion, still the
Respondent vehemently demands interest which is unfair.

xii.

The swimming pool promised in their brochures and the actual reality are highly short
of the expectations that the plan of the scheduled flat as agreed as per the Sale agreement
has been modified without the consent of the Complainants and the actual plan as per
the sale deed has been changed for the utility area. As per the sale agreement, there is a
mention of providing a choice of 2 colours for interior painting, when enquired about
the two colours for selection, Complainants were informed that the two colours include
the colour white. As such, only one choice of colour has been offered. The practices
followed by the respondent are deceptive and inherently misleading.

B. Relief sought:
4.

Aggrieved by the actions of the Respondent, Complainants sought for the following

reliefs:
i.

To complete the entire project with all amenities at the earliest and apply for the
occupancy certificate.

ii.

The complainants prayed for peaceful possession of the flat complete with all sanitary
fittings to be given to us at the earliest.

iii.

The flat is not yet complete in all aspects and physical possession is not yet given / taken
over, as such we pray that the maintenance charges be levied from the date of actual
possession only.

iv.

Refund of the arbitrarily collected amount of Rs. 31,000 towards Manjeera Water
Charges.
Page 5 of 21

---

v.

C. Counter on behalf of the Respondent:
5.

Respondent submitted its Counter and countered each argument raised by the

Complainants as under:
i.

With regards to the maintenance charges, Respondent submitted that the same were
agreed to be paid by the Complainants under the agreement clause No.11.4 and also
in the sale deed. As per the agreements and documents, flat/house owners are liable
to pay maintenance charges to the association or to the builder until its formation
towards common amenities like electricity, security, and water, regardless of
occupancy status. These charges are accountable to the owners Association and the
same is not for the benefit of the Respondent. Though the house/flat was completed,
which was informed to the Complainants but they delayed for registration and taking
possession, that does not absolve them to pay the maintenance from the date of
intimation, as they agree under the contracts and the reasons stated above.

ii.

The flat was completed prior to Dec, 2022 except final touch ups and finishing touch
of paints. At the time of delivery of the possession of the flat/house, the Respondent
once again make the final touch ups of paints, water connections, electricity
connection and sanitary connections given to avoid rusting or spooling for non- use
of the same. All these arrangements are made to give good look and new look of
house. The allegations that without signing the possession letter, the Respondents are
not inclined to the same is false and baseless.

iii.

That the Association is Registered on 16.11.2021 and having Registration
No.687/2021under Telangana Societies Registration Act for maintenance of the
“Greenwood Heights” & the objects of the Association can be changed by the
Regular Association after taking charge of it. This Registration of the Association is
based on the books and sales agreements, to fulfil other formalities and hand over the
same immediately after handing over the flats to the owners.

iv.

Respondent further submitted that this Manjeera Water connection charges for issue
of water connection is for all flat members which is mentioned in the agreement of
sale at clause 6.4. The said clause also specified that the Taxes like Municipal water
Page 6 of 21

---

The Complainants signed the booking form, wherein it clearly mentioned the
schedule of payments and in case of any delay, they agreed to pay the interest on
delayed payments. Further, in the sale agreement also it was mentioned that in case
of delay in payments, they are liable to pay the interest. With regard to the interest on
GST payments, as per the work progress and GST payment, the Complainants liable
to pay the same, as they failed to do the same, they are liable to pay the interest as
per the contracts entered by them. Further the Complainants from the beginning did
not pay the instalments as per the schedule mentioned in the booking form. Even
though the cancellation letter was issued, the Complainants did not pay the
instalments within the time. That even though the covid-19 is obstructing the
construction work, the Respondent has completed the flat / house within specified
time and intimated the Complainants to take the possession of the house. Even the
Complainants delayed in intimating the modification/alteration in the flat, alleging
due to covid etc. The other changes in timing and permission to make in the flat took
several days by them. Even that the Complainants were due above Rs.5lakhs. Further,
considering the covid-19 situation, the Respondent had given several concessions and
also benefits to the complainants.

vi.

That the copy of the agreement submitted by the Respondent contains clauses
wherein the rights of both parties are identical, along with standard provisions
outlining the respective rights and liabilities of each party in clear terms.

vii.

Respondent further submitted that the flat was completed prior to Dec, 2022 except
final touch ups and finishing touch of paints. At Nov & Dec, 2022, the Complainant
sought for additional works and facilities including both works and the same were
also completed. At the time of delivery of the possession of the flat/house, the
Respondent once again will make the final touch ups of paints, water connections,
electricity connection and sanitary connections given to avoid rusting or spooling for
non-use of the same and should have good and new look for the house on the date of
delivery. Before delivery of the possession, the purchaser can verify and sought final
colour choice, sanitary fittings and other small changes and finishing touch, by
signing other formality documents i.e. possession letter, no due letter, association

Page 7 of 21

---

6.

With respect to other issues raised, Respondent submitted that the swimming pool is

ready, the association to manage it and operate the same. That there is no modification made
without consent of the parties, the Complainants have verified the sale agreement and sale deed
before executing the same. That as per the agreement, two colour choices including white,
which is also colour, they cannot say that the white is not colour. However, if they requested it
could have been provided another colour instead of white but there is no such request from the
Complainants except making false claim.
7.

Respondent further submitted that contrary to the above facts, the Complainants sought

different reliefs and those are:
i.

The Respondent sought for completion of entire project, even though there is no
reference or allegation to that effect. However, the project is completed except small
portion of the project particularly on the part of the purchasers, who failed to pay the
due to respondents for their houses.

ii.

Further, that the possession of the house might have been delivered if the
Complainants completed the formality documents and paid dues, without doing the
same, Complainants sought for delivery of possession, suppressing the real facts, i.e.
they have not submitted the required documents for delivery of houses and
completion of final touches of house before delivery.

Page 8 of 21

---

That the maintenance charges, which the complainants are liable to pay as per the
agreements/contract, is for the maintenance of the project.

iv.

Refund of the Manjeera water charges of Rs.31,000/-, which was paid as per the terms
of the contracts and the same is paid to the concerned water works board and not to
the Respondent.

v.

Respondent further submitted that it is not correct that the project was delayed due to
the fault of the Respondent, but the delay was caused by the purchasers who failed to
pay the consideration amounts as per the schedule mentioned booking form and
contracts. The Complainants also did not pay the amounts within the stipulated time.
They also made the additions and alterations for their flat which caused delay and
moreover they refused to take possession of the flat for a period of 2 years even after
the Respondent gave the notice of intimation to take the possession by clearing the
dues.

8.

In addition to the replies and answers of the Complainants allegations, Respondent

bought the following facts before this Authority:
i.

That this Authority granted permission for the project on 19.10.2019 after satisfying
the title of the property, plans and designs and other required documents submitted
along with the application and requisite fee. Basing on the permission the Respondent
started sales of the houses.

ii.

The Complainants approached the Respondent to purchase a house /flat, after
verifying the documents title and plans and permissions etc physically. After
satisfying the project and its details with documents and property rights, they booked
flat B-512 and also paid booking amount Rs.25,000/- on 25.10.2019.

iii.

As per the booking form, the Complainants agreed to pay the consideration as per the
schedule mentioned therein and in case any delay in payments, they agreed to pay the
interest on the delayed payment. As per the mail correspondence of the Complainants,
they requested time to pay the instalments itself against their agreed terms, which was
replied suitably and as such they paid the amounts with delay, however, the
Respondent did not collect / levied any interest for that delay period.

iv.

The Complainants and Respondent entered into sale agreement dated 11.11.2019.
The Complainants had gone through the entire terms of the agreement and signed the
same and that to they have not raised any objection with this agreement till filing this

Page 9 of 21

---

As per the schedule, the completion has to made by Nov,2021, even there is Covid19 situation the flat was almost completed except minor works though the
Complainants had not made the schedule payments. The project was completed and
informed to the Complainants by letters, but they did not turn up to pay the balance
amounts and postponing the same for one or other reasons, moreover the last payment
was made by the Complainants is on 11.03.2024 which shows that the delay is caused
from the end of the Complainants.

vi.

As the project and its houses are completing, to hand over the maintenance of the
project, the Respondent had registered the house owners in the association with
formal objectives, as the owners of the houses can change the object of the association
etc.

vii.

The Respondent had issued letter to the Complainants to take the possession of the
flat/house, but for the reasons best known they did not come forward to take the same.
As per the terms of the agreement, from the date of possession, the Complainants are
agreed to pay the maintenance. Leisurely they came forward to get the registration of
the flat accordingly, the same was registered on 27.03.2024. The Complainants have
to take possession of the flat by executing letter of possession etc. and other
formalities.

viii.

At the time of execution of the documents for possession or prior to registration they
have not raised any objection with regard to any pending works in the flat. Even
though the entire flat is completed prior to execution of the possession documents.
After completion of the formalities for possession of the property, the Respondent
had again made final touch ups of paints, the functioning of the water connections,
sanitary connections, electricity etc was verified and done to the satisfaction of the
Complainants. As such they not raised any objections at any point of time except
filing this complaint.

ix.

It is not out of place to state that as per the agreements and law, the Complainants are
liable to pay the GST and also liable to pay the Municipal other taxes and
maintenance to the Association from the date of possession or completion of the
house, whichever is earlier.

9.

Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

Page 10 of 21

---

Complainant filed a rejoinder to the Counter filed by the Respondent and submitted as

under:
i.

The Respondent contends that in Clause 11.4 of the agreement of sale provides them
authority to collect monthly maintenance from the purchaser from the date of
intimation of possession. Very well knowing the fact that the project is not completed
in all aspects and even till today occupancy certificate is not received. Further, para
11.4 does not conform to para 7.2 of the draft agreement submitted to the RERA which
clearly defines the procedure of taking possession and the contention of the
Respondent defies common sense and is not justifiable. Further, the contention that
charges are payable to the owner's association and the same is not for the benefit of the
Respondent is only a sham as the association is formed in violation of the para 19 of
the draft agreement filed with this Authority where neither the occupancy certificate
for the project is received nor the minimum total allottees criteria are fulfilled.

ii.

To rebut the claim of the Respondent, Complainants enclosed an email correspondence
which evidences the fact and claim that only after signing the possession letter, the
sanitary fitting work will be initiated.

iii.

As per Para 19 of the draft agreement filed with this Authority, the association of
allottees shall be formed within 2 months from the receipt of the occupancy certificate
and a minimum of 60% of the total allottees in such a project have taken possession.
The Respondent formed an association in 2021 much before the completion of project,
which mainly consists of members who are employees of the Respondent Company.

iv.

As per Para 1.2(ii), 1.2(iii) and 1.2 (iv) the total consideration includes taxes and water
connection charges are the responsibility of the Respondent. Further, it is required that
the promoter intimates and provide details of the taxes paid or demanded together with
dates from which such taxes are imposed. The collection of manjeera water connection
charges which is nothing but a tax is the liability of the Respondent and without
providing the details of the taxes paid and the method of apportionment, the levy is not
justified and needs to be refunded. This is not water charges as to be payable as claimed
by the respondent.

v.

The Interest amount was intimated to the Complainants only after they completed the
registration process, which signifies that all the payments have been duly made. An

Page 11 of 21

---

Further, it is contented that GST payments were not remitted. All the intimations sent
mention only about the instalment due and the GST amount was never notified to the
Complainants. Now the claim for interest is made which was intimated to the
Complainants only when they went for the registration is not justified.

vii.

Sale Agreement Format: A duly attested draft sale agreement filed with this Authority
by the Respondent is attached which evidences Complainants’ contention that the
agreements clauses are not as inclined as notified under Rule 38 of the Rules, 2017.

11.

Complainants further submitted that they paid the entire sale consideration along with

GST and charges and the sale deed was executed on April 04, 2024. The Respondent withheld
the finishing works and shared the interest calculation which is contrary to the provisions of
the Act, 2016 and the Rules, 2017 and asking Complainants to sign the NOC and possession
letter without completing the sanitary fitting and other works.

12.

Accordingly, Complainants prayed for the following:
a. The complainants prayed for peaceful possession of the flat complete with all
sanitary fittings to be given to us at the earliest.
b. The flat is not yet complete in all aspects and physical possession is not yet
given / taken over, as such we pray that the maintenance charges be levied
from the date of actual possession only.
c. Refund of the arbitrarily collected amount of Rs. 31,000 towards Manjeera
Water Charges.
d. The project is delayed beyond two years and still neither the project is
complete nor the flat is complete in all aspects i.e. sanitary fittings etc. Further,
the interest calculation is done incorrectly, as such the complainants prayed
that the illegally interest demand to be quashed.

Page 12 of 21

---

This Authority has considered the contentions raised by the parties along with the

documents filed by them, and thereafter, following points sprout for deliberation:
I.

Whether the Respondent has violated Rule 38 of the Rules, 2017 by not adhering
to the format of the Agreement of Sale as stipulated in the annexure to the said
Rule? If yes, is the Respondent liable for penalty?

II.

Whether the Complainants are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

Point I
14.

This Authority has perused the Agreement of Sale dated 11.11.2019 executed by the

Respondent in favor of the ComplainantNo.1 and has also perused the draft Agreement of Sale
uploaded by the Respondent on the project website of the registration before this Authority.
On the face of it, it can be seen that draft agreement of sale uploaded by the Respondent on the
website is entirely different from the agreement of sale dated 11.11.2019 which, primarily a
violation of Rule 38 which mandates promoters to execute the same format as provided in the
Annexure to Rule 38. Now, the promoter, i.e., the Respondent herein has uploaded, verbatim,
the same draft agreement of sale on the website as that of the Annexure to Rule 38 but has
executed a completely different agreement of sale with the Complainant No.1, which is
impermissible. The entire point and purpose of the provision of Rule 38 is to ensure uniformity
in the process of entering into agreements of sale with the allottees by the promoters which
protects and balances the rights and liabilities of both the allottees and promoters. But this very
act on part of the Respondent promoter in changing the format and executing a completely
different agreement of sale, even though some terms may be similar, is impermissible and
deplorable.

15.

Further, In the said agreement, the actual sale agreement differs from the draft agreement

submitted to RERA at the time of registration, lacking essential clauses and principles of
transparency. Buyers are misled into facing unjust demands from the respondent. Promised
amenities, like the swimming pool, are not provided, and changes to the flat layout were made
without consent. Additionally, the choice of interior paint colours is deceptive, offering only
white. Moreover, by Clause 7.2 of the agreement, maintenance charges are payable only upon
receipt of the occupancy certificate; however, any demands for such charges before the
issuance of the occupancy certificate are unjustified and in violation of the agreed terms.

Page 13 of 21

---

In the considered opinion of this Authority, the conduct of the Respondent Promoter

constitutes a clear act of misrepresentation, inasmuch as the Respondent has sought to create
an impression that the agreement for sale being executed with the allottees is identical to the
draft agreement uploaded on the project website, in compliance with the statutory
requirements. However, upon examination, it is evident that a different agreement for sale one
that materially deviates from the format prescribed under the Annexure to Rule 38 of the
applicable Rules is being executed in practice as is evidenced from the agreement of sale dated
11.11.2019. Such conduct not only contravenes Rule 38 but also amounts to furnishing false
information and deliberate suppression of material facts. Accordingly, the Respondent
Promoter is held liable for penalty under Section 60 of the Act, 2016 for wilful
misrepresentation and for providing false and misleading information to the Authority and the
allottees, thereby violating the statutory obligations cast upon them.

17.

Therefore, Point I is answered as above and the Respondent is liable for penalty under

Section 60 of the Act, 2016.
Point II
18.

Before going into the reliefs as prayed for, let us examine the issues raised by the

Complainants:
i.

Maintenance Charges: Complainants submitted that the Respondent sought for
maintenance charges with effect from date of intimation of possession of the subject
flat which is impermissible. On the contrary, Respondent relied upon Clause 11.4 of
the agreement of sale dated 11.11.2019 executed by the Respondent in favour of the
Complainant which stipulates that “that from the intimation as to possession or
completion of the scheduled flat or date of receipt of possession of the flat, whichever
is earlier, the purchaser shall be responsible for payment of all taxes, levies, rates,
dues, duties, charges, expenses etc that may be payable with respect to the schedule flat
including municipal taxes water and electricity charges either assessed or charged
individually or collectively and such other taxes, monthly maintenance charges payable
to the owners association etc payable to the government or other local bodies or any
other concerned body or authority etc. The vendor shall be entitled to recover such
dues if any from the purchaser” and submitted that Complainants already agreed to
make payment as per this Clause and they cannot turn back from the same. However,
it has already been held in Point I above, that the Respondent, on its whims and fancies

Page 14 of 21

---

Upon examining the draft agreement of sale under Annexure to Rule 38 regarding
payment of maintenance, it can be seen at Clause 7.2 as under:
“7.2Procedure for taking possession- The Promoter, upon obtaining the occupancy
certificate* from the competent authority shall offer in writing the possession of the
[Apartment/Plot], to the Allottee who has paid all the amounts in terms of this
Agreement to be taken within two months from the date of issue of occupancy
certificate. If the allottee fails to take delivery within the time specified in the notice, he
shall be liable for payment of all ongoings including maintenance charges from the
date of notice. [Provided that, in the absence of local law, the conveyance deed in
favour of the allottee shall be carried out by the promoter within 3 months from the
date of issue of occupancy certificate]. The Promoter agrees and undertakes to
indemnify the Allottee in case of failure of fulfilment of any of the provisions,
formalities, documentation on part of the Promoter. The promoter shall not be liable
for any defect or deficiency occasioned on account of any act or omission on the part
of the allottee or any authority or third party on whom the promoter has no control.
The Allottee, after taking possession, agree(s) to pay the maintenance charges as
determined by the Promoter/association of allottees. The promoter shall hand over the
occupancy certificate of the apartment/plot, as the case may be, to the allottee at the
time of conveyance of the same.”

iii.

A bare perusal of the above goes to show that only upon receipt of the occupancy
certificate, can the promoter offer in writing the possession of the flat, to the Allottee
who has paid all the amounts in terms of this Agreement to be taken within two months
from the date of issue of occupancy certificate. In the event of the allottee failing to
take possession, then allottee is liable to pay maintenance charges from the date of
receipt of the said notice of offering possession. In the facts of the present case,
admittedly, as on the date of issuance of notice to pay maintenance, the Respondent did
not obtain occupancy certificate for the Project, in such circumstances, in accordance

Page 15 of 21

---

Even though Section 19(16) casts obligation on the allottee to “make necessary
payments in the manner and within the time as specified in the said agreement for sale
and shall pay at the proper time and place, the share of the registration charges,
municipal taxes, water and electricity charges, maintenance charges, ground rent, and
other charges, if any”, the same would entail to be in accordance with the provisions
of the Act, 2016 read with Rules, 2017 and therefore, Respondent’s argument that
Complainant has already agreed to pay by virtue of Clause 11.4 in the agreement of
sale dated 11.11.2019 stands vitiated, and therefore, Complainant is to pay maintenance
only from the receipt of the occupancy certificate.

v.

Complainants submitted that it is improper that the Respondent sought for a no
objection certificate without having completed all the sanitary fittings, painting &
finishing works in the flat and that it was promised on their behest to complete it within
2 weeks from the issuance of the no objection from the Complainant. To this,
Respondent submitted that the subject flat was completed prior to Dec, 2022 except
final touch ups and finishing touch of paints and that at the time of delivery of the
possession of the flat, the Respondent shall, once again make the final touch ups of
paints, water connections, electricity connection and sanitary connections given to
avoid rusting or spoiling for non-use of the same. Respondent further submitted that
before delivery of the possession, the purchaser has to submit the documents being
possession letter, no due letter, association membership joining letter etc, that however,
the same were not executed by the Complainants. In this regard, this Authority is of the
considered view that only after giving possession of the flat physically and completion
of the relevant works in the flat, can the promoter seek for the documents being
possession letter, no due letter, association membership joining letter, as they are a
subsequent action. No person with a sane mind would submit something that has not
been provided to him by the promoter stating that it has been duly provided only to its
detriment. Therefore, the practice adopted by the Respondent of collecting documents
prior to the actual handing over of physical possession of the flat, along with completion
of final works, is impermissible and ought not to be continued. The proper course of

Page 16 of 21

---

Complainants submitted that the Respondent has formed an Association by the name
"Greenwood Welfare Association" and registered the same under the Telangana
Societies Registration Act on November 16, 2021, with registration number 687/2021
with the aims and objects as per the memorandum of the association refers to promotion
of cultural, charitable, social, sporting etc and not in relation to the welfare of the
owners in the project. To this, Respondent submitted the same was created for the ease
of joining each allottee in the association and that subsequently, the owners/members
of the association could change the objects of the society so formed.

vii.

Complainants also raised an issue that Clause 19 of the draft Agreement of Sale under
Annexure to Rule 38 stipulates that the “promoter shall submit an application to the
Registrar for registration of the Association of Allottees as a society under the A.P.
Societies Registration Act, 2001 (as applicable to the state of Telangana), within two
months from the date on which the occupation certificate in respect of such project is
issued and a minimum of sixty per cent of the total Allottees in such a project have taken
possession and the Promoter has received the full consideration from such allottees.
All the Allottees on payment of full consideration shall become members of such
Association of Allottees formed by the Promoter.” That however, Respondent has
formed the said association in 2021 in violation of the said provision.

viii.

In this regard, this Authority opines that Respondent, in terms of the above quoted
provision, has to form the association within two months from the date on which the
occupation certificate in respect of such project is issued and a minimum of sixty per
cent of the total Allottees in such a project have taken possession and the Promoter has
received the full consideration from such Allottees. Further, with respect to formation
of association under the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001, it is brought to the
attention of the Respondent promoter that vide Judgment dated 05.03.2013 in W.P.
No.3319 of 2013, the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad held
that objectives of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 does not include
maintenance of the apartments but the objectives of the Telangana Co-Operative
Societies Act, 1964 has objectives which include maintenance of apartments/gated
communities for the welfare of the allottees and thereby held that associations formed
Page 17 of 21

---

Complainants submitted that Respondent unlawfully made the Complainants to pay
Rs.31,000/- (Rupees Thirty-One Thousand Only) towards Manjeera Water charges
which is impermissible as the said charges should be part of the total sale consideration
and cannot be charged over and above the total sale consideration. Respondent stated
that it is statutory fees to be paid to the concerned water board which has to be collected
from the allottees. In this regard, the Authority holds that Clause 8(2)(vii) of the draft
agreement under Annexure to Rule 38 categorically Creates a liability on the
Complainants to “Pay to the Promoter within fifteen days of demand by the Promoter,
his share of security deposit demanded by the concerned local authority or Government
for giving water, electricity or any other service connection to the building in which the
Apartment is situated.” In view of the same, Complainants are entitled to pay the said
charges, and because they have already paid, they are not entitled to refund of the same
which are statutory charges to be paid by the promoter to the concerned water board.

x.

Complainants submitted that they were informed to pay interest on delayed payment of
instalments which has been calculated 18% based as per the clause 9.1 of the sale
agreement within 30 days i.e., by 25.10.2019 from the date of the booking. They added
that the delay on payments occurred on account of the fact that within two months of
the commencement of the project, there was a complete lock down due to COVID-19,
the effects of which continued for up to the end of the calendar year 2020. Although,
there was no activity happening at the project site, the statement shared with
Complainants, claims instalment during the pandemic complete lockdown period also.
Further, the basis for the instalment being due on the dates as claimed with respect to
the stages of completion is also not transparent.

xi.

The Respondent has contended that the Complainants are liable to pay interest for the
delay in making payments as stipulated in the Agreement of Sale dated 11.11.2019. The
Complainants, on the other hand, submit that there was a substantial delay in
completing the project, and that the delay in payment, if any, was a consequence of the
Page 18 of 21

---

This Authority is of the considered view that a party seeking to enforce contractual
terms must first demonstrate its own compliance with those very terms. The reciprocal
obligations are central to such agreements, and any default on one side disentitles the
other from demanding strict performance.

xiii.

Reliance has been placed on Clause 18(VII) of the said agreement (Annexure A, Page
16), which provides that the balance amount of ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only)
was to be paid by the Complainants upon completion of the unit, whereas date of
completion being 10.10.2021 and corroborated by the submissions and material on
record, clearly indicates that the payment of the balance amount of ₹2,00,000/- was
contingent upon completion of the unit. The Respondent himself has admitted that
certain works, such as final paint touch-ups, provision of water connection, electricity
connection, and sanitary arrangements were pending. These works are not peripheral
or cosmetic but go to the very root of making the unit habitable and fit for occupation.
In absence of these essential amenities, the unit cannot be said to be in a condition ready
for possession or completed.

xiv.

The possession implies more than the mere handing over of keys. It denotes the delivery
of a fully completed, habitable unit in accordance with the terms of the agreement and
applicable building norms. The possession is not deemed complete until all essential
services and connections are in place.

xv.

Therefore, this Authority finds it highly untenable for the Respondent to levy interest
on the Complainants for delay in payment, when the Respondent himself failed to fulfil
the precondition of completing the unit as required under the Agreement of Sale or as
assured date as per Agreement of sale. A party cannot approbate and reprobate the
Respondent cannot first admit that completion has not been achieved and
simultaneously claim interest on an amount that becomes due only uponcompletion.

xvi.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the imposition of interest on the Complainants
for the alleged delay in payment is unjustified and not tenable. The Respondent’s own
failure to deliver a fully complete and habitable unit disentitles him from enforcing the

Page 19 of 21

---

Complainant also raised the issue with respect to the amount of GST payable which
was never notified to the Complainants and that in the interest statement the Respondent
has computed interest on GST amount also. Respondent submitted that Complainants
are entitled to pay GST as per provisions of the Act, 2016. Authority, in this regard,
holds that Respondent has to charge GST on the total sale consideration in lumpsum or
on each instalment or as agreed between the parties. No GST is applicable on the
interest on delayed payments as the same is not part of the sale consideration but the
statutory right of the promoter. Therefore, Respondent shall be directed not to collect
GST on interest on delayed payments and that GST is applicable to be paid only on the
total sale consideration whether in lumpsum or in instalments to be agreed between the
parties.

xviii.

Complainants further submitted that the TDS amount, which was deducted and remitted
to the Government account, interest on the same was also calculated as an outstanding
amount which is unjustified. Respondent did to avert to the same, however, it is opined
that no interest on TDS amount can be charged.

xix.

Complainants also raised issue with respect to provision of swimming pool in the
amenities, whereas, the Respondent submitted that it is ready for use and operation by
the association so formed.

19.

In view of the above, Point II is answered accordingly.

F. Directions of the Authority:
20.

In accordance with the discussions made above, vide its powers under Section 37 &38

of the Act, 2016, this Authority issues the following directions:

i.

The Respondent is directed to pay a penalty of ₹10,99,992/- (Rupees Ten Lakh NinetyNine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Two only) for contravention of Section 60 of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, on account of having furnished
false information and made misrepresentations under the Form B affidavit, as well as
for executing an agreement of sale different from the one uploaded on the webpage of
the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG RERA). The said penalty shall be

Page 20 of 21

---

It is clarified that, in accordance with Clause 7.2 of the agreement of sale as prescribed
under Rule 38 and Annexure ‘A’ of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017, the Complainants shall be liable to pay maintenance
charges as soon the unit is completed;

iii.

The Respondent is further directed to complete all remaining final works pertaining to
the subject unit/project and hand over physical possession to the Complainant(s).

iv.

In view of the directive issued by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 3319 of 2013,
the Respondent is directed to dissolve the previously constituted association and initiate
the formation of a new association strictly in accordance with the provisions of the
Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964;

v.

The Respondent is also directed to refrain from collecting Goods and Services Tax
(GST) on interest amounts levied on delayed payments. It is clarified that GST is
applicable only on the total sale consideration whether paid in lump sum or in agreed
instalments between the parties, and not on interest charged due to delay in payment.

21.

Parties are hereby informed that non-adherence to the directions of the Authority shall

attract penalties under Sections 63 & 68 of the Act, 2016.

22.

In view of the above directions, complaint stands disposed of. 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 21 of 21

---