Order Complaint No. 1796 of 2023

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 1796 of 2023
Dated this 13th November 2024
Quorum:

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

G. Arundati
(H.06-86/40, Veeraswamy Nagar, Near Ganesh Manapam, Qutbullapur, Medchal – Malkajgiri
…Complainant

Hyd- 500055)
Versus
M/s Swayam Homes represented by Vantala Jangaiah Yadav

(Resp by Managing director Sri V.Jangaiah Yadav, R/o Madhusudhan Apartments, flat no.103104, Street 5, Habsiguda – Hyderabad)
…Respondent
s
This present Complaint came up for hearing on 13.11.2024 before us for hearing in the
presence of Sri Thirupati for the Respondentand none appeared on behalf of Complainant and
upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter reserved over for the consideration till
this date, this Authority passes the present complaint order.
ORDER
2.

The Complainant has filed complaint on hand under Section 31 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "RE(R&D) Act"), read
with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), alleging commission of violation and contravening of
the provisions of the said Act and Rules and sought for the appropriate reliefs against the
Respondent.
3.

The matter was initially listed for hearing on 19.06.2024, on which date none appeared

on behalf of the Complainant. The Respondent, however, was present and submitted a detailed
reply, denying the allegations made by the Complainant. In the absence of representation from
the Complainant, the matter was adjourned and fresh notice was directed to be issued to the
Complainant.

1 of 2

4.

Subsequently, the matter was listed on 24.07.2024, 20.08.2024, 01.11.2024, and

13.11.2024. On each of these dates, the Complainant failed to appear or participate in the
proceedings, despite due service of notice and repeated reminders and messages being sent
through other co-complainants who had jointly filed complaints against the same Respondent
concerning the same real estate project.
5.

Upon careful perusal of the record and having noted the Complainant’s consistent and

unexplained absence from multiple hearings, this Authority is of the considered view that
adequate and reasonable opportunities were extended to the Complainant to appear and
prosecute the matter. The repeated non-appearance and failure to maintain communication
clearly indicate a lack of intent or diligence on the part of the Complainant to pursue the
complaint.
6.

This Authority is mindful of its duty to protect the interest of homebuyers. However, in

the absence of material evidences or representation from the Complainant, no further
adjudication can be carried out. The complaint cannot be kept pending indefinitely, particularly
when the Complainant has failed to prosecute the matter despite sufficient indulgence shown by
the Authority.
7.

In light of the above facts and circumstances, and in the absence of any justified cause

for continued non-appearance, this Authority finds it appropriate to dismiss the complaint for
non-prosecution.
8.

Accordingly, the complaint stands dismissed.

SdSri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdSri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

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

2 of 2