Order Complaint No. 189 of 2025​

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 189 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

Manoj Vaitla
R/o: 9A, Jains Sadguru Heights,
Manjeera Pipeline Road, Madinaguda,
Hafeezpet, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500049
…Complainant
Versus
M/s. Vasavi Realtor LLP,
Rep by its Designated Partner, Vijay Kumar Yerram,
Vasavi Corporate,
H.No.8-2-703/7/1 and 8-2-703/7/1/A,
4th Floor, Vasavi Corporate Building, Amrutha Valley Apartments,
Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500034
…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in presence of Complainant and the Respondent; upon pursuing the material on
record and on hearing arguments of both the parties and having stood over for consideration
till this day, the following order is passed:
ORDER
2.

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

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

The Complainant entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 24.03.2021 with the

Respondent, for purchase of a flat in the project “Vasavi Lake City East,” bearing RERA No:
P0250001821, situated at Hafeezpet, Hyderabad. As per the Agreement of Sale, the agreed date
of possession of the flat was stipulated to be on or before August 2023. The booking was made
Page 1 of 19

---

The Complainant has made all payments demanded by the Respondent in a timely

manner without default. The last demand letter was issued by the Respondent in April 2023,
after which the Complainant had paid 90% of the total consideration. As per the terms of the
Agreement of Sale, the balance 10% was payable at the time of possession, which was due in
August 2023.
5.

Upon expiry of the committed possession date, the Complainant followed up with the

Respondent. In January 2024, the Respondent asked the Complainant to proceed with
registration, assuring that possession would be delivered in February 2024, citing a six-month
grace period beyond the original commitment. However, possession was not handed over.
Subsequently, the Respondent communicated a new possession date of 15th January 2025,
which again was not adhered to.
6.

The Complainant states that despite these delays, the Respondent continued to make

public claims about possession timelines. Notably, a promotional advertisement was published
in the Eenadu newspaper stating that possession would commence in March 2025. This, too,
was not realized. Thereafter, on 7th February 2025, the Respondent conveyed yet another
revised date of 2nd June 2025 for handover. Given the minimal progress observed at the project
site, the Complainant has lost confidence in the Respondent’s ability to meet this deadline.
7.

The Complainant has been consistently following up with the Respondent regarding

delays. Major meetings were held on 8th September 2024 and 23rd November 2024, wherein
Minutes of Meetings were prepared and signed by the Respondent acknowledging buyer
concerns. Despite these, no conclusive commitment or resolution has been provided. The
Complainant further submits that deviations in the flat sizes were also raised with the
Respondent, but no satisfactory response or clarification has been provided.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
8.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

Direct the Respondent to deliver possession of the flat at the earliest, as there has
already been a delay of more than 18 months.

Page 2 of 19

---

Interest for the amount already paid to the Respondent, calculated from the original
promised possession date of August 2023 as per the Agreement of Sale.

iii.

Compensation for the expenses incurred on account of false promises of possession
timelines, including rent paid for alternate accommodation. Compensation is also
sought for the prolonged delay, the mental stress endured, and the continuous effort of
making regular follow-ups with the Respondent over the last 18 months.

C. Counter filed by the Respondent:
9.

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

or on facts and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the complainant has not followed
the remedies available under the Agreement for Sale for resolution of disputes before
approaching this Hon’ble Authority. Further, no prior legal notice was issued before filing this
complaint, which itself renders the application defective and not maintainable.
10.

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

rights from the landowners under registered documents, covering 34,704.37 sq. yds. While
requisite land conversion permissions and building permissions for construction of multistoried apartments were obtained on 07.02.2020. The project consists of six towers (4 cellars
+ ground + 14 upper floors), Tower No. 4, 5, and 6 (3 Cellars + ground + 14 upper floors) and
a clubhouse (stilt + ground + five upper floors). The project was duly registered with this
Authority vide Registration No. P02500001821 dated 20.03.2020.
11.

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

vide booking dated 19.02.2021, and was allotted an apartment No. E.6506 on the 5th Floor of
Tower 6, admeasuring 1990 sq. ft., along with parking, for a total consideration of
Rs.1,22,79,800/-. The Agreement of Sale sets out the carpet area, balcony/veranda area,
common area, and undivided share of land. The Complainant has paid Rs.50,00,000/- towards
the sale consideration, while the balance amount remains payable in accordance with the agreed
payment schedule.
11.

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

hand over possession of the flat and common areas by 31.08.2023, subject to extension in the
event of force majeure. The Agreement itself clearly records that timely delivery is the essence
of the contract but also recognises that the period of completion shall stand extended to the

Page 3 of 19

---

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

clean facts but with an ulterior motive to make unlawful gain and that there has been material
suppression of facts of the case with regard to the claim and the relief sought therein.
13.

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

and hence the timelines stood extended. The Respondent contended that the COVID-19
pandemic, subsequent lockdowns, and migration of labourers had severely impacted
construction work. The Respondent further relies on the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020, whereby the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022
was excluded for the purposes of computation of limitation across various statutes. It is
contended that the extension of time for completion of the project was not only factually
justified but also recognised in law.
14.

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

as rocky terrain requiring manual excavation further delayed the project. Owing to restrictions
on blasting due to the residential nature of the surrounding locality, excavation could only be
done manually, which compounded the delay. These challenges were communicated to all
allottees through regular updates and meetings.
15.

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

project timelines. These include cases such as RERA Case No. 190/2020, W.P. Nos.
2694/2021, 13898/2022, 33433/2023, W.A. No. 584/2023, SLP Nos. 9694–9695/2023, and
W.P. No. 26301/2024, some of which are still pending. While most have been resolved, their
pendency at various points of time hindered the smooth progress of the project.
16.

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

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

Page 4 of 19

---

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

in view of the force majeure conditions, no such relief is available to the Complainant under
law. Section 6 of the Act specifically contemplates force majeure events such as natural
calamities and other circumstances beyond the control of the promoter. The Respondent
submits that the COVID-19 pandemic, together with the extraordinary circumstances outlined
above, clearly falls within the scope of force majeure.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant:
18.

It is submitted that the preliminary objection of the Respondent that the application is

not maintainable in law or on facts is wholly misconceived. The complaint is validly instituted
under Section 31 of the RERA Act, and the agreement’s dispute clause does not oust the
jurisdiction of this Authority. Section 79 of the RERA Act clearly provides that civil courts
have no jurisdiction over matters that fall within the purview of this Authority, thereby
reaffirming that this forum is the correct and exclusive authority to deal with such complaints.
The Respondent’s contention that alternate remedies under the agreement must be availed is
equally untenable, as contractual terms cannot override the statutory mandate of the Act.
19.

The further objection that the complaint is not maintainable for want of a legal notice

is equally baseless. There is no statutory requirement under the RERA Act to issue such notice
before invoking jurisdiction. In any event, the complainant has made repeated verbal and
written follow-ups, including mails and meetings, which satisfy the principles of natural justice.
The Respondent’s plea is only a diversionary tactic and deserves to be rejected.
20.

The Complainant does not dispute that the Respondent lawfully obtained development

rights, conversion permission, building permission, and registration of the project. However,
these facts do not absolve the Respondent from the clear contractual obligation of timely
delivery of possession. The Agreement of Sale dated 15.06.2021 records the possession date
as 31 August 2023, with a six-month grace period, and such binding commitment has not been
honored. The Respondent’s own averments on allotment, flat details, and consideration
reaffirm the existence of a concluded contract.

Page 5 of 19

---

The plea of extension of project registration or force majeure cannot come to the rescue

of the Respondent. No formal written communication of such extension was provided to the
complainant at any stage. On the contrary, the Minutes of Meetings dated 08.09.2024 and
23.12.2024 record revised timelines of 15.01.2025 and 07.02.2025, which contradict the claim
of reliance on a 2026 extension. From 20.04.2023, being the date of the last demand letter, until
16.09.2024, enclosing the MoM of 08.09.2024, no communication was made to the
complainant about any revised extension. This is in breach of the Respondent’s duty under
Section 11(4)(b) of the Act.
22.

The Respondent’s justification of delay on account of COVID-19 is also unsustainable.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 recognized force
majeure extensions only up to 28.02.2022. The delay in the present case far exceeds that period,
and no evidence has been produced to show how COVID-19 specifically impacted the delivery
of this project unit. Even assuming force majeure applied, the same could not justify delay
continuing well into 2024 and 2025. Reliance on vague factors like labour shortages or blasting
difficulties, raised at this late stage, lacks merit as such issues were never communicated
through formal notices or correspondence. Further, the explanation regarding manual rock
breaking pertains to Vasavi West Lake City Project and not the East project.
23.

The Respondent’s assertion that the possession date recorded in the Agreement was a

clerical or typographical error is wholly untenable. The date of 31 August 2023 is central to
the bargain and cannot be brushed aside. No corrigendum or rectification deed was ever
executed or communicated. Section 11(4)(b) of the RERA Act imposes a duty of disclosure on
the promoter, which has not been met. To now describe the date as a mistake is an afterthought
and constitutes misrepresentation.
24.

The Respondent’s allegations that the complaint is false, baseless, or filed to harass are

denied. The complaint rests on undisputed facts of delay, repeated shifting deadlines, and
documentary evidence including Minutes of Meetings signed by the Respondent. The
complainant has acted in good faith and has only approached this Authority after repeated
assurances went unmet.
25.

The Respondent cannot deny liability for interest and compensation. Section 18(1)(a)

of the RERA Act entitles the allottee to interest for every month of delay beyond the agreed
possession date. Compensation was in fact discussed in the MoM dated 23.11.2024,

Page 6 of 19

---

The Respondent’s reference to third-party litigation and disputes is not a valid defense,

since the complainant was not a party to such proceedings and was never informed of their
impact. Section 11(4)(b) requires the promoter to keep allottees informed of delays, and silence
on such issues is itself a violation. Similarly, the plea that more than 90% work has been
completed is of no avail, as the remaining work has inexplicably taken more than two years
beyond the possession date. Demanding the balance amount without obtaining the occupancy
certificate and without offering possession is premature and illegal.
27.

In light of the above, the complainant submits that the defenses of the Respondent are

contradictory, afterthoughts, and devoid of merit. The complaint is supported by documentary
evidence and falls squarely within the statutory protection under the RERA Act. The
Complainant accordingly prays that this Hon’ble Authority direct the Respondent to deliver
possession with occupancy and completion certificates, award interest and compensation under
Sections 18(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, record the Respondent’s undertaking as binding with
specific milestones, and pass such other orders as are necessary to secure justice.

E. Points for Consideration
30.

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:

Page 7 of 19

---

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

complaint on the ground that the Complainants failed to first resort to the contractual dispute
resolution mechanism envisaged in the Agreement of Sale, namely an amicable settlement by
mutual discussion, prior to approaching this Authority. The Authority finds this objection
untenable for the following reasons:
32.

The Authority finds this objection untenable for the following reasons: The relevant

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

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

settlement by mutual discussion. Such a clause is at best directory and cannot oust or restrict
the statutory jurisdiction of this Authority. Section 79 of the RE(R&D) Act expressly bars the
jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of any matter which this Authority, the Adjudicating
Officer, or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. Likewise, Section 88 clarifies
that the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws.
Thus, the intention of the legislature is that remedies under this beneficial legislation must
remain open to allottees, irrespective of any private clause for amicable settlement.
34.

Even in cases where agreements contained arbitration clauses (which is not the case

here), the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble NCDRC have consistently held that such
clauses cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of consumer fora or statutory authorities
constituted under special enactments.
35.

In National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy (2012) 2 SCC 506, the

Supreme Court held that remedies under special statutes are in addition to, and not in derogation
of, other remedies. For ready reference, the relevant extract is reproduced below:
*“49. Support to the above view is also lent by Section 79 of the recently enacted Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short "the Real Estate Act").
Section 79 of the said Act reads as follows:- ‘79. Bar of jurisdiction - No civil court
shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter
which the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered
by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or
Page 8 of 19

---

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

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

Page 9 of 19

---

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

invoking remedies. Such a clause is directory at best, and cannot override or defeat the statutory
right of the Complainant to approach this Authority under the RE(R&D) Act. Accordingly, this
Authority has no hesitation in holding that the Complainant is well within its rights to approach
this forum without being first compelled to pursue an amicable settlement under the
Agreement. The objection of the Respondent as to maintainability is therefore rejected.
Point No. 2:
38.

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

delay in handing over possession of the subject flat, despite timely payments of approximately
90% of the total sale consideration, causing significant financial and emotional distress. It is
the case of the Complainant that the Agreement of Sale executed in the year 2021 clearly
stipulated that possession of the subject flat would be handed over by 31.08.2023, with a grace
period of six months, ending on 28.02.2024. The Respondent has failed to hand over possession
even as of February 2025. Further, although the project was registered with TG RERA up to
February 2025 and later extended until 07.02.2026, the project remains incomplete, with
construction progress stalled at approximately 65-70% as per the Complainant’s submission,
with key aspects such as interior finishing, common amenities, and supporting infrastructure
remaining unfinished. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has issued multiple
revised handover schedules without providing valid justification or a clear roadmap for
completion.
39.

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

pay compensation for delay as per RERA guidelines, no such compensation has been provided.
The Respondent, conversely, attributes the delay to the Covid-19 pandemic, claiming force
majeure, citing the nationwide lockdown beginning March 2020, the impact on migrant labour,
and consequential delays. The Respondent further cites rocky terrain at the site, third-party
disputes, and typographical errors in the possession date as additional justifications.
(i) Whether the Covid-19 pandemic can be taken as a valid shield by the Respondent in the
present case?
40.

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

executed in the year 2021, well after the onset and initial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Respondent, being fully aware of the prevailing circumstances, nevertheless executed the
Agreement by specifically assuring completion of the project by August 2023. Having
Page 10 of 19

---

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

into binding contractual commitments with allottees, he does so with full knowledge of the
risks, constraints, and challenges of the market. At the time of entering into the Agreement of
Sale with the present Complainant, the Respondent was already aware of the Covid-related
disruptions, as well as the Government notifications granting moratoriums for project
completion timelines. Despite this knowledge, the Respondent chose to provide a specific
assurance of delivery by August 2023.
42.

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…".
43.

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

advantageous position with respect to project information and market realities, is under a
statutory duty to provide realistic timelines. The framework of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 reinforces this obligation by mandating timely completion and
possession within the period stipulated in the Agreement of Sale.
44.

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

untenable. The Respondent, having executed the Agreement of Sale in the year 2021 with
specific possession timelines, cannot now seek to retrospectively attribute delays to the
pandemic. Accordingly, this Authority holds that the reliance on Covid-19 as a shield stands
rejected.
(ii) Extension of Registration

Page 11 of 19

---

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.
46.

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

47.

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).
48.

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.
49.

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

possession timelines first to February 2024, and thereafter to February 2026 due to the
extension taken without consultation or consent of the Complainants. Such unilateral revisions
are impermissible. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 of 19

---

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

or revised timelines uploaded on the TG RERA project registration portal, do not ipso facto
alter or bind the allottees’ contractual rights. The agreed date of possession remains as
stipulated in the Agreement for Sale, and unilateral extensions by the promoter cannot be
foisted upon allottees to their detriment.
51.

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:
52.

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

of Rs. 1,22,79,800/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Two Lakh Seventy Nine Thousand And Eight
Hundred Only). That, as per the Agreement of Sale the Complainant has paid an amount of
Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh Only). It is further observed that the complainant has placed
on record the Agreement of Sale indicating payment of ₹50,00,000/- as on 24.02.2021.
However, no receipts or acknowledgments have been produced to substantiate the contention
that 90% of the total sale consideration has been paid. The mere production of a demand letter
issued by the Respondent, calling upon the Complainant to remit an instalment of ₹12,89,379/purportedly towards the flooring stage (90%), cannot be construed as conclusive proof of prior
payments having been duly made. A demand letter, by itself, does not establish that all
preceding instalments or obligations under the payment schedule were discharged. In the
absence of any documentary evidence evidencing actual remittances, this Authority cannot
infer or presume that the Complainant has fulfilled 90% of the payment towards the project.
Further, the Agreement of Sale clearly stipulated possession by 31.08.2023, with a grace period
of 6 months to 28.02.2024. Admittedly, possession has not been delivered.
Page 13 of 19

---

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

have paid only a portion of the consideration is wholly unsustainable. Despite receiving such
substantial sums, the Respondent has failed to honour its contractual obligations. It is manifest
that the Respondent gave false assurances, being fully conscious of the market situation, yet
assuring dates of completion that it had no capacity to honour. More than one year has elapsed
beyond the stipulated date, yet the project is neither complete nor possession handed over.
54.

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”
55.

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

schedule to the progress of construction. While the allottees are indeed bound to adhere to the
agreed payment plan, such obligation arises only when the promoter simultaneously fulfils its
reciprocal obligation of executing construction in line with the assured progress. In the absence
of such progress, the Respondent cannot insist upon further payments as a condition to claim
relief.
56.

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

grant of interest contingent upon the quantum of sale consideration paid, nor does it provide
any defence to a defaulting promoter. Once delay in handing over possession is established, an
allottee who elects to remain in the project is entitled to interest for every month of delay,
irrespective of whether part or whole of the consideration has been paid, provided that the
payments already made are in accordance with the Agreement of sale. The Respondent’s plea
that only partial sale consideration has been paid and hence interest cannot be granted is
therefore vague, misconceived, and contrary to the express mandate of the statute.
Now, Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act is categorical:
Page 14 of 19

---

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
Page 15 of 19

---

Similarly, in Civil Appeal Nos. 6745-6749 of 2021, M/s Newtech Promoters and

Developers Private Limited vs. State of UP & Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
"Section 18(1) of the Act spells out the consequences if the promoter fails to complete
or is unable to give possession of an 9 of 10 apartment, plot, or building in terms of the
agreement for sale. The allottee/home buyer holds an unqualified right to seek a refund
of the amount with interest as prescribed."
59.

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

Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [(2017) SCC Online Bom 9302] clarified that RERA
registration or its extension cannot rewrite the contract between parties. The date assured under
the Agreement of Sale, executed with the allottee’s consent, shall prevail. Thus, the Respondent
is bound by Section 11(4)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, which mandates adherence to the terms of
the Agreement of Sale.
60.

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.
61.

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

and contractual obligations. The Complainant is therefore entitled to interest at the prescribed
rate for the entire period of delay, i.e., from 01.03.2024 until the actual date of handing over
possession. As regards claims of compensation, this Authority notes that jurisdiction for
adjudicating compensation lies with the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of RE(R&D)
Act with Form ‘N’. The Complainant is at liberty to pursue such remedy separately.
62.

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

RE(R&D) Act, this entitlement is subject to the reciprocal statutory duty of the Complainant
Page 16 of 19

---

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.
64.

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.
65.

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.
66.

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.
67.

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.
68.

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
Page 17 of 19

---

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:
70.

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

to issue the following directions:
a. The preliminary objection raised by the Respondent regarding the maintainability of
the complaint on account of the Dispute Resolution Clause in the Agreement of Sale
stands rejected. The complaint is maintainable before this Authority.
b. The Respondent’s reliance on the Covid-19 pandemic as a ground of force majeure is
held untenable, since the Agreement of Sale was executed after the subsiding of the
pandemic and with full knowledge of the prevailing circumstances.
c. The extension of registration taken by this Respondent cannot dilute the contractual
rights of the Complainant under the Agreement of Sale. The date of possession as
stipulated in the Agreement shall prevail.
d. The Respondent is held liable for failure to hand over possession of the subject flat by
the agreed date i.e., 28.02.2024 (inclusive of grace period).
e. The Complainants are entitled to interest at the rate of 10.70% per annum (being SBI
MCLR + 2% as per Rule 15 of the TG RE(R&D) Rules, 2017), computed on the
amounts actually paid by the Complainants, with effect from 01.03.2024 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.
f. Insofar as compensation is concerned, the Complainant is at liberty to pursue
appropriate proceedings before the Learned Adjudicating Officer under “Form N”.

Page 18 of 19

---

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.
72.

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

73.

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
74.

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 19 of 19

---