Order Complaint No. 187 of 2025​

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 187 of 2025
Dated: 30th December 2025
Quorum:

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

1. Sri Addepalli Sai Prasad
2. Smt. Addepalli Bala Mounika
R/o F.No. 409,
ASBL Lake Side, Chaitanya Enclave,
Khajaguda, Hyderabad.
…Complainant
Versus
M/s. Vasavi Realtor LLP,
Rep by its Designated Partner, Vijay Kumar Yerram & Kandey Ramesh,
Vasavi Corporate,
H.No.8-2-703/7/1 and 8-2-703/7/1/A,
4th Floor, Vasavi Corporate Building, Amrutha Valley Apartments,
Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500034
…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for final hearing on
11.07.2025 before this Authority in presence of Complainant and the Respondent. Upon
pursuing the material on record and on hearing arguments of both the parties and having stood
over for consideration till this day, the following order is passed:
ORDER
2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Section 31 of the Real

Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) read with
Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against the Respondents.
A. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the Complainant, are as follows:
3.

It was submitted that the Complainants, namely Sri Addepalli Sai Prasad and Smt.

Addepalli Bala Mounika, had registered a flat, identified as Unit ET021201, in the project

Page 1 of 20

---

It was stated that in accordance with the Development Agreement governing the said

transaction, the possession of the flat was contractually stipulated to be handed over by August
2023, which included a grace period of six months. It was contended that the Respondent had
failed to deliver possession of the unit within the agreed timeline.
5.

It was further submitted that despite repeated requests and follow-ups initiated by the

Complainants, the Respondent had failed to provide a concrete and definitive timeline for the
completion of the project and the subsequent handover of the unit.
6.

It was alleged that the construction work at the project site had been either stalled or

significantly delayed. The Complainants contended that the Respondent had provided vague
and misleading updates regarding the actual progress of the project and had failed to
communicate the specific reasons for the delay in a transparent and timely manner.
7.

It was further alleged that the Respondent had attempted to revise the possession date

on multiple occasions without providing any valid justification for such extensions. It was also
submitted that the amenities promised as part of the project were not being constructed as per
the initial representations.
8.

It was submitted that the aforesaid delay and the actions of the Respondent had caused

the Complainants significant financial and emotional distress. It was stated that they had
invested their hard-earned money into the project, were burdened with paying substantial
Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs) to banking institutions, and had been deprived of the
timely possession of their home.
B. Reliefs Sought:
9.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:

i.

To direct the Respondent, Vasavi Group, to forthwith complete all pending works and
hand over immediate possession of the flat bearing number ET021201, situated in the
project ‘Vasavi Lake City - East Wing’, to the Complainant.

ii.

To direct the Respondent to complete the entire project within a specific and enforceable
timeline to be determined by this Honourable Authority.

Page 2 of 20

---

To direct the Respondent to pay interest for the period of delay, calculated from the
promised date of possession until the actual date of handover, at such rate as prescribed
under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

iv.

To direct the Respondent to pay adequate compensation to the Complainant for the
financial losses, damages, and mental anguish incurred due to the inordinate delay in the
completion of the project.

v.

To direct the Respondent to provide a clear and detailed account of the compensation to
be paid in lieu of the kitchen platform as previously agreed, and to pay the said amount
to the Complainant.

vi.

To direct the Respondent to pay compensation to the Complainant for the discrepancy
and reduction in room dimensions from the specifications provided in the Agreement
for Sale.

vii.

To impose such penalties upon the Respondent as are deemed appropriate by this
Honourable Authority for the violation of the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016.

viii.

To pass any such other order or orders as this Honourable Authority may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

C. Counter filed by the Respondents
10.

It was submitted by the Respondent that the complaint was not maintainable either in

law or on facts and was liable to be dismissed. The Respondent contended that the Complainant
had failed to follow the remedies available under the Agreement for Sale for the resolution of
disputes before approaching this Hon’ble Authority. It was further submitted that no prior legal
notice was issued before the filing of the complaint, which rendered the application defective.
11.

It was submitted that the project, “Lake City-East,” was developed lawfully after the

Respondent obtained rights from the landowners under registered documents, covering a total
land area of 34,704.37 sq. yds. The requisite permissions for land conversion and for the
construction of multi-storied residential apartments were obtained on 07.02.2020. The project,
consisting of multiple towers and a clubhouse, was duly registered with this Authority vide
Registration No. P02500001821 dated 20.03.2020.
12.

It was further submitted that the Complainant was allotted apartment No. E. 21201 on

the 12th Floor of Tower 2, admeasuring 2195 sq. ft., and an undivided share of 55.50 sq. yds.
Page 3 of 20

---

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

to hand over possession of the apartment on or before 31.08.2024, with a grace period of six
months. The said clause explicitly stated that the period of completion would stand extended
in the event of force majeure conditions, during which the allottee was not entitled to claim any
compensation for the delay.
14.

It was contended that the Complainant had not approached this Hon’ble Authority with

clean hands but with an ulterior motive for unlawful gain, and that there had been a material
suppression of facts. While the existence of the Agreement of Sale was not in dispute, the
Respondent averred that the Complainant made false claims despite being aware of the
contractual terms and circumstances.
15.

The Respondent stated that the project timelines were severely impacted by the

COVID-19 pandemic, which was a force majeure event recognized under law. It was submitted
that following the declaration of a public health emergency in January 2020, a nationwide
lockdown was imposed in India from March 2020. This event led to a mass migration of the
labour force, which was critical to the construction industry in Hyderabad, thereby causing a
significant and unavoidable delay in the project work. All allottees were kept informed of these
developments.
16.

The Respondent further relied on the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu

Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, whereby the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was
excluded for the purposes of computing limitation across all statutes. It was contended that this
legally recognized the extraordinary circumstances and justified the extension of timelines for
project completion.
17.

In addition to the pandemic, the Respondent submitted that the project was delayed by

other unforeseen factors. It was stated that the project site contained rocky terrain which, due
to its location in a residential vicinity, could not be excavated using explosives. The consequent
need for manual rock-breaking compounded the construction delays. Furthermore, the project
was adversely impacted by third-party disputes, including several legal proceedings filed
against the project, such as RERA Case No. 190/2020, W.P. No. 2694/2021, and W.P. No.
26301/2024, which hindered its smooth progress. These challenges were communicated to the
customers in periodic meetings.
Page 4 of 20

---

It was contended that any clerical or typographical errors in the Agreement of Sale,

such as an incorrect possession date mentioned in one instance, could not be exploited to create
liability, especially when the magnitude of the project made such a timeline practically
impossible. The Respondent asserted that the project was over 90% complete and in the final
finishing stages. An extension for the project registration had been granted by this Authority
up to 07.02.2026, and the Respondent gave an undertaking to deliver the apartments within this
extended period.
19.

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

such reliefs were not maintainable in view of the force majeure conditions. It was argued that
the circumstances clearly fell within the definition provided under Section 6 of the Act. The
Respondent maintained that the delay was not due to any deliberate act or default on its part,
and therefore, the Complainant had not established any legal basis for claiming compensation
for mental agony or financial loss.
20.

The Respondent concluded that the complaint was preposterous and without

foundation. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed and the Respondent be allowed to
complete the project and deliver possession to all allottees as per the extended timeline.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant
21.

It was submitted in response to the preliminary objection on maintainability, that the

Respondent's objection was unfounded, vague, and without any legal merit. It was stated that
the Complainant had filed the complaint under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016, seeking relief for the unreasonable delay in delivering possession of the flat. As per
the Sale Deed dated 17th August 2024, the committed possession date was 31st August 2023.
However, as of the date of filing the complaint, i.e., 1st March 2025, possession had still not
been handed over and the project stood at less than 85% complete. It was further submitted that
the Hon'ble Telangana RERA had jurisdiction to entertain such complaints, and therefore, the
objection was baseless and ought to be dismissed.
22.

In response to the contention that the applicant had not availed methods as provided in

the agreement, it was submitted that all relevant evidence, including the Minutes of Meetings
(MOMs) and Form M, had already been submitted in support of the claims. It was further stated
that all possible means to establish contact with the builder had been exhausted.

Page 5 of 20

---

The objection regarding the non-issuance of a legal notice was addressed. It was

submitted that under the RERA Act, there was no mandatory requirement for an allottee to first
issue a legal notice. It was also stated that previous communications, such as MOMs, which
showed repeated follow-ups, were usually sufficient evidence that further notice would be
futile, especially where there was an evident breach of the Agreement of Sale.
24.

The Respondent's statements regarding the lawful development rights for the project

and the RERA registration (No. PO2500001821) were noted as not being in dispute. However,
regarding the total land area for the project, it was submitted that the figure mentioned by the
Respondent was incorrect and the actual area was 34704.37 sq. yds.
25.

In response to the details of the flat allotment, it was submitted that as per the RERA

Act, the Sale Deed was the primary document. It was pointed out that the committed date of
possession, as stated in the Development Agreement, was 36 months plus a 6-month grace
period from the date of 7th February 2020.
26.

It was submitted that the builder had never proactively informed the complainants about

delays or the progress of the project, despite continuous efforts to stay in touch. The project
schedule, it was stated, was shared only after repeated follow-ups and even then, the builder
had failed to adhere to it.
27.

The statement that there were to be no alterations to the sanctioned plan was noted as

not being in dispute.
28.

Regarding the Respondent's reliance on Clauses 5 and 7 of the Agreement, it was

submitted that this was misconceived and contrary to the RERA Act. It was argued that while
Clause 7.1 itself stated that timely delivery was the essence of the Agreement, the Respondent's
claim that a force majeure clause allowed for an automatic extension did not override the
statutory right to compensation. It was further submitted that the Respondent had failed to
prove any genuine force majeure event and that routine construction hurdles did not qualify.
The Complainant had made all payments as per the agreement, and the same standard applied
to the Promoter.
29.

The Respondent's reliance on Clause 7.2 and Clause 9 was described as entirely

misplaced. It was submitted that Clause 7.2 was predicated on the Promoter first obtaining the
Occupancy Certificate (OC), which was an undisputed fact had not been obtained. It was
argued that Clause 9, which dealt with promoter defaults, was squarely applicable as the

Page 6 of 20

---

The allegation that the complaint was filed with an ulterior motive was denied in toto.

It was submitted that the Complainant had approached the Hon'ble Authority with clean hands,
placing all material facts and documents on record. It was contended that the vague allegation
of 'material suppression' was an attempt by the Respondent to deflect from their own breach of
contractual and statutory obligations.
31.

It was not disputed that COVID-19 was a global health emergency. However, it was

submitted that the Sale Deed was executed after the onset of the pandemic, with the Promoter
having full awareness of the prevailing circumstances when committing to a possession date
of 31st August 2023. It was also pointed out that in prior meetings, the Respondent had cited
funding constraints and legal issues as reasons for the delay, not the pandemic.
32.

The Respondent's reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's extension of limitation

periods was described as misconceived and irrelevant. It was argued that those orders had no
bearing on the contractual obligation to complete a project on time, especially when the Sale
Deed was executed with full knowledge of the COVID-19 situation and the Respondent had
previously attributed the delay to other factors like funding constraints.
33.

The attempt to justify the delay by citing the migration of labourers during the pandemic

was stated to be misplaced and factually unsustainable. It was submitted that the Respondent
was fully aware of the pandemic's onset and associated risks when executing the Sale Deed and
committing to a possession date. It was argued that the Respondent failed to produce any
specific evidence of steps taken to mitigate the impact. Furthermore, the Respondent's own
communications had primarily cited funding challenges and legal issues as reasons for the
delay.
34.

The Respondent's vague reference to 'various additional factors' was described as

wholly unspecific and unsupported by evidence. It was submitted that no formal written notices
or revised timelines had been provided to justify the delay. It was contended that the general
statement that delays were 'intimated to all customers' was misleading.
35.

The Complainant submitted that the allegation of repeated delays was supported by

ample evidence, including the Sale Deed. The Respondent's assertion that the possession date
was a 'clerical or typographical error' was described as an afterthought with no legal basis,
amounting to sheer negligence. It was argued that the magnitude of the project was fully known
Page 7 of 20

---

The Respondent's reference to third-party disputes was described as vague and

unsubstantiated. It was submitted that the Respondent had not provided any concrete details on
how these cases directly prevented construction. It was argued that no evidence was furnished
showing any legal restraint orders that halted the project, and at no point did the Respondent
serve any formal written notice explaining that these disputes would impact the promised
possession date.
37.

It was submitted that the Respondent's claim of having sent general communications

did not dilute or override the binding contractual obligation under the Sale Deed. The
communications were described as vague and did not provide any clear revised timeline for
possession. It was contended that it was entirely reasonable and lawful for the Complainant,
who had fulfilled all payment obligations, to claim interest and compensation for the delay.
38.

The Respondent's assertion that no interest could be claimed was stated to be factually

and legally untenable. It was submitted that under the RERA Act, an allottee had an explicit
statutory right to claim interest for any delay. The Respondent's reliance on Section 6 (Force
Majeure) was misconceived, as the Sale Deed was executed after the outbreak of COVID-19,
and the Respondent had not demonstrated concrete steps to resume or expedite construction
post-lockdown.
39.

It was submitted that the Respondent's claim that the demand for compensation was

arbitrary was wholly misleading. It was argued that the inordinate delay had caused substantial
mental stress and financial hardship, which were well-recognized heads of compensation under
RERA, and the claim was proportionate to the loss suffered.
40.

The Respondent's statement that they would deliver the flats by February 2026 was

submitted as not absolving them of liability for the delay beyond the originally agreed
possession date of 31st August 2023. It was argued that a RERA extension of registration did
not override the specific contractual possession date. The demand for balance payments was
described as premature when the Respondent had failed to deliver possession.
41.

The assertion that the Complainant had 'agreed' to the reasons for delay was described

as wholly misconceived and not supported by any legally valid consent. It was submitted that
merely attending meetings could not be equated with a legal waiver. The argument about rocky

Page 8 of 20

---

The Complainant denied the averments that they were not entitled to any relief. It was

submitted that the Appellant had failed to substantiate its claim that the causes for delay were
genuinely beyond its control. It was argued that the reasons cited were self-induced and could
have been reasonably foreseen and mitigated.
43.

The Respondent's claim that the complaint was 'preposterous' was described as baseless

and contrary to the record. It was submitted that the grievance was fully supported by
documentary evidence. The Respondent's generic 'undertaking' was stated as not curing the
default already committed, and their claim of a 'good name' was irrelevant to the facts of the
present complaint. It was prayed that the Respondent's request for dismissal be rejected
outright.
E. Points for Consideration
44.

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:
45.

This Authority has carefully examined the preliminary objection raised by the

Respondent with regard to the maintainability of the present Complaint.
46.

At the outset, it is noted that although both parties have made reference to and sought

to rely upon a purported Agreement of Sale, the said Agreement has not been placed on record
before this Authority. In the absence of the said document, this Authority is unable to examine,
rely upon, or render any observation on the specific contractual clauses relied upon by the
Respondent to question the maintainability of the Complaint.
47.

Be that as it may, it is an undisputed and admitted position that a registered Sale Deed

has been executed in favour of the Complainant and that the subject flat stands allotted to the
Page 9 of 20

---

The core grievance raised in the present Complaint pertains to the delay in handing over

possession of the allotted unit and the failure of the Respondent to complete construction and
deliver possession in accordance with the statutory and contractual obligations. Such a
grievance clearly falls within the statutory framework of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016. Section 18 of the said Act expressly provides that where an allottee
does not intend to withdraw from the project, the promoter shall be liable to pay interest for
every month of delay till the handing over of possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.
49.

In the present case, the allotment of the unit is admitted, the Sale Deed has been

executed, and the project is a registered project before this Authority. The relief sought by the
Complainant, namely, completion of the project and handing over of possession along with
statutory interest for delay, squarely falls within the ambit of Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act,
2016.
50.

In view of the above, this Authority finds no merit in the objection raised by the

Respondent regarding maintainability. The Complainant cannot be compelled to first pursue
an amicable settlement or contractual remedies when the grievance raised is statutory in nature
and falls directly within the jurisdiction conferred upon this Authority under the RE(R&D) Act.
51.

Accordingly, the objection as to maintainability raised by the Respondent is hereby

rejected.
Point No. 2:
52.

The Complainants have sought relief on the ground that there has been an inordinate

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

It is the case of the Complainants that the Sale Deed for the subject property was

executed on 17.08.2024 pursuant to the Complainants having purchased the property from the
landowner. The landowner, one Shri. Mahanti Kalyan Chakravarthy, had earlier entered into a
Page 10 of 20

---

It is the Complainants contention that as per the Agreement of Sale, the possession of

the scheduled property was to be handed over in August 2023 with six months grace period.
However, in the absence of any such Agreement of Sale being placed on record, this Authority
is constrained to consider only the date of execution of the Sale Deed i.e. 17.08.2024 as the
date of delivery of possession for the purpose of computation of interest payable by the
Respondent to the Complainants herein. It is pertinent to note that 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 85% as per the Complainants
submission, with key aspects such as interior finishing, common amenities, and supporting
infrastructure remaining unfinished. The Complainants submit that the Respondent has issued
multiple revised handover schedules without providing valid justification or a clear roadmap
for completion.
55.

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

pay compensation for delay as per RERA guidelines, no such compensation has been provided.
The Respondent, conversely, attributes the delay to the Covid-19 pandemic, claiming force
majeure, citing the nationwide lockdown beginning March 2020, the impact on migrant labour,
and consequential delays. The Respondent further cites rocky terrain at the site, third-party
disputes, and typographical errors in the possession date as additional justifications.
56.

The Complainants submit that the Respondent has repeatedly given false assurances of

completion, while allottees continue to suffer. 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
Page 11 of 20

---

This Authority finds no merit in such a contention. The Sale Deed was executed on

17.08.2024, well after the onset and subsiding of the Covid-19 pandemic. In view of the
Respondent’s own submissions acknowledging the existence of contractual obligations
towards the Complainant and having entered into such commitments with full knowledge of
the prevailing circumstances, the Respondent cannot now, with retrospective justification, rely
on Covid-19 as a defence to avoid its contractual and statutory obligations. Such conduct
clearly amounts to holding out false assurances with mala fide intent.
58.

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.
59.

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

Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. [2017 SCC OnLine
Bom 9302], wherein at para 119 it was categorically observed:
"While the proposal is submitted, the Promoter is supposed to be conscious of the
consequences of getting the project registered under RERA. Having sufficient
experience in the open market, the Promoter is expected to have a fair assessment of
the time required for completing the project…".
60.

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 stipulated period.
61.

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

untenable. The Respondent 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.
Page 12 of 20

---

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.
63.

At the outset, it must be clarified that under the scheme of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
“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.”

64.

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

completion of projects in an efficient manner. Denial of extension during the Covid-19
disruption would have resulted in projects being stalled, to the grave prejudice of allottees. It
was in this context that this Authority, balancing the equities, granted extensions in line with
the moratoriums issued by Telangana RERA:
1. 15.03.2020 to 14.09.2020 (Circular No.14 dated 13.05.2020),
2. 15.09.2020 to 15.03.2021 (Order No.15 dated 29.09.2020),
3. 15.03.2021 to 14.09.2021 (Order No.16 dated 01.06.2021).
65.

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

safeguard larger consumer interest. However, it is equally well settled that such regulatory
extensions cannot dilute the contractual rights of individual allottees under their respective
Agreements of Sale, nor can they displace the statutory rights flowing from Section 18 of the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
66.

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

possession timelines to February 2026 due to the extension taken without consultation or
consent of the Complainants. Such unilateral revisions are impermissible. The Hon’ble
Page 13 of 20

---

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

or revised timelines uploaded on the TG RERA project registration portal, do not ipso facto
alter or bind the allottees’ contractual rights. The agreed date of possession remains as has been
established by this Authority i.e. 17.08.2024 taking into account the date of execution of the
Sale Deed, and unilateral extensions by the promoter cannot be foisted upon allottees to their
detriment.
68.

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:
69.

It is observed as per the records furnished before this Authority that the entire sale

consideration is for an amount of Rs. 54,87,500/- (Rupees Fifty Four Lakh Eighty Seven
Thousand Five Hundred Only) which has been duly paid by the Complainant as per the
executed Sale Deed produced before this Authority. Further, as has already been established,
the scheduled property should have been delivered by the date of execution of the Sale Deed
i.e. 17.08.2024. Admittedly, possession has not been delivered within the stipulated date.
70.

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 100% of the agreed consideration. 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

Page 14 of 20

---

The Respondent further seeks to shift the burden on the Complainant by contending

that the balance amount is unpaid. This plea is untenable. The law does not permit a defaulter
to take advantage of its own breach. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusheshwar
Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar [Civil Appeal No. 7357 of 2000]:
“It is settled principle of law that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair
advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is sound
principle that he, who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the
non-performance he has occasioned. To put it differently, "a wrongdoer ought not to
be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong.”
72.

In this context, 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.
73.

Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 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.
74.

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,
Page 15 of 20

---

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

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 3581-359 of 2022, Civil
Appeal Diary No. 9796/2019, M/s Imperia Structures Limited vs. Anil Patni & Others,
wherein it was held:
"In terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter fails to complete or is
unable to give possession of an apartment by the date specified in the
agreement, the promoter would be liable, on demand, to return the amount
received in respect of that apartment if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the
project. Such a right of the allottee is 'without prejudice to any other remedy
available to him'. This right is unqualified, and if availed, the deposited money
must be refunded with interest as prescribed. The proviso to Section 18(1)
contemplates that if the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project,
they are entitled to interest for every month of delay until possession is handed
over. The allottee may proceed under Section 18(1) or the proviso thereto."
76.

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:
Page 16 of 20

---

77.

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 prevails and the Respondent is
bound by Section 11(4)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. However, in the present Complaint, no
copy of Agreement of Sale has been produced before this Authority and, consequently, no
possession date is available on record. In such circumstances, the only valid ascertainable date
for determining delivery of possession is the date of execution of the Sale Deed. Once the Sale
Deed was executed, the scheduled property should have been handed over to the Complainant.
Accordingly, for the purposes of assessing delay and computing the interest payable, the date
of execution of the Sale Deed shall be treated as the date on which possession ought to have
been delivered.

78.

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.
79.

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 18.08.2024 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.
Page 17 of 20

---

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

RE(R&D) Act, 2016 this entitlement is subject to the reciprocal statutory duty of the
Complainant to discharge any outstanding amounts under the payment plan, if not already paid.
Compliance on both sides is essential to ensure balance of obligations and timely delivery.
81.

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, 2016.
82.

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.
83.

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, 2016.
84.

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.
85.

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.

Page 18 of 20

---

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.
87.

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:
88.

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

to issue the following directions:
a) The preliminary objection raised by the Respondent regarding the maintainability of
the Complaint stands rejected. The Complaint is maintainable before this Authority.
b) The Respondent’s reliance on the Covid-19 pandemic as a ground of force majeure is
held untenable.
c) The extension of registration taken by this Respondent cannot dilute the contractual
rights of the Complainant. The date of possession shall be the date of execution of the
Sale Deed.
d) The Respondent is held liable for failure to hand over possession of the subject flat by
the stipulated date i.e., 17.08.2024.
e) The Complainants are entitled to interest at the rate of 10.7% per annum (being SBI
MCLR + 2% as per Rule 15 of the TG RE(R&D) Rules, 2017), computed on the
amounts actually paid by the Complainants, with effect from 18.08.2024 until actual
handing over of lawful possession. The exact computation shall be subject to
verification of such payments by the Respondent at the stage of effecting payment. The
Respondent shall pay the arrears accrued up to the date of this Order within sixty (60)
days, and shall thereafter continue to pay the accruing interest on a monthly basis, on
or before the 10th day of each succeeding month, until possession is delivered.
Page 19 of 20

---

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

pending against this Respondent in the same project, this Authority sternly warns the
Respondent that any further delay, non-compliance, or grievance brought to notice by allottees
shall invite section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
90.

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

91.

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.
92.

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

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

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

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

Page 20 of 20

---