Order Complaint No. 190 of 2025​

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 190 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

Thotakura Venkata Balagopal
Flat No. 300, 3rd Floor, Advita Arcade, Plot No. 63,
Road No. 3, Krushi Nagar, Madinaguda,
Miyapur, Hyderabad - 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 states that in mid–2022 he approached the Lake City Project by the

Respondent. At that time, Tower 6 of the East Wing was shown to him, which was about 75%
completed with most civil works finished. The Respondent assured that possession would be
delivered within one year. Relying on these assurances, the Complainant made the required
Page 1 of 20

---

It is submitted that the Complainant has paid 80% of the total consideration amount in

accordance with the demand notices issued by the Respondent, without any delay. However,
during the last two years, very little progress has been observed on the project. Despite repeated
follow–ups with the management and CRM team, both individually and along with other
allottees, the Respondent has not given satisfactory responses.
5.

The Complainant further submits that during the past one year, about three meetings

were held with the Respondent’s management, and in each of them the possession date was
extended by two to three months. These assurances turned out to be false. Finally, on
07.02.2025, the Respondent issued an official communication stating that the possession date
has been further extended to June 2025. The Complainant submits that given the minimal
progress at site, he has lost confidence in the Respondent’s assurances and doubts whether even
the June 2025 deadline will be met.
6.

It is stated that the project is only about 75% complete. Major items remain unfinished

including the clubhouse, elevators, landscaping, electrical works, and bathroom fittings inside
the apartments. The Complainant further submits that due to the prolonged delay, he has been
put to serious hardship and is suffering financial losses as he is simultaneously paying home
loan EMIs and rent for his present accommodation. He is also undergoing constant stress,
expending significant time, effort, and money in following up with the builder.
It is also submitted that the complainant is unable to plan for his children’s education and secure
admission in a nearby school due to uncertainty regarding possession.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
8.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

To direct the Respondent to hand over the flat on or before the current target date of
02.06.2025.

ii.

To direct the Respondent to pay compensation for the undue delay, mental stress, and
financial loss incurred due to the payment of rent at the current residence of the
Complainant.

Page 2 of 20

---

To direct the Respondent to pay interest on the total amount paid by the Complainant
for the duration of delay.

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 03.07.2021, and was allotted an apartment No. E.6910 on the 9th Floor of
Tower 6, admeasuring 1915 sq. ft., along with parking, for a total consideration of
Rs.1,38,00,750/-. The Agreement of Sale sets out the carpet area, balcony/veranda area,
common area, and undivided share of land. The Complainant has paid Rs.28,99,025/- 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
extent of delay caused by force majeure conditions, during which period the allottee is not
entitled to claim compensation.

Page 3 of 20

---

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.
Communications have also been issued to purchasers for payment of balance amounts, as
completion is nearing.

Page 4 of 20

---

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

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

It is submitted that the objection regarding maintainability is baseless, vague, and

legally untenable. The present complaint has been filed strictly under the provisions of the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016, seeking redressal for the inordinate delay in handing over possession of
the flat booked under the registered project bearing RERA No. P02500001821. It is further
submitted that the Agreement of Sale dated 03.06.2022 clearly stipulates the committed date
of possession as August 2024. However, as of the date of filing this complaint on February
2025, possession has not been granted, and the project is not completed. Therefore, the
application is legally maintainable before this Hon’ble Authority, and the preliminary objection
deserves to be rejected outright.
19.

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

Form-M, have already been produced in support of the claim. The Complainant has made
repeated attempts through all possible means to contact the builder, and therefore the objection
regarding alternate remedies has no merit.
20.

It is submitted that RERA does not mandate the issuance of a legal notice as a

precondition for filing a complaint. Moreover, the issue of delay was repeatedly raised during
several in-person meetings organized by the Respondent, where the Respondent themselves
assured new timelines. Therefore, the Respondent was fully aware of the grievance and cannot
now claim otherwise.
21.

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

Respondent from the landowners, the permissions secured for conversion and building, and the
project registration with this Authority. The Complainant does not dispute these facts.
22.

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

document. The committed date of possession clearly stated in the Agreement of Sale is August
Page 5 of 20

---

It is further submitted that as per the Agreement of Sale, possession was committed by

August 2024, and the Respondent has exceeded the timeline of RERA Project end date. While
construction project may have been periodically reported to authorities, the actual possession
remains undelivered and the project is partially completed. The reference to ‘Schedule of
amenities’ is irrelevant to the core issue, which is the failure to deliver possession withing the
promised timeline. It is also submitted that the Complainant has already paid 90% of the
consideration.
25.

the Respondent has neither obtained the Occupancy Certificate from the competent

authority nor made any written offer of possession as of the date of filing this complaint and as
of today, which makes it explicitly clear that the project is incomplete and the Respondent is
in breach of the Agreement as well as its statutory obligations under RERA. The Respondent’s
own reliance on Clauses 7.2 and 9 of the Agreement only reinforces the Complainant’s
entitlement to remedies, as the failure to deliver possession constitutes a clear event of default
by the promoter.
26.

The allegation that the Complainant has approached this Hon’ble Authority with an

ulterior motive or with suppression of facts is completely baseless. The Complainant has come
with clean hands, having placed all relevant documents on record including the Agreement for
Sale, payment proofs, Minutes of Meetings, correspondence and Form-M. It is the Respondent
who has failed to perform its primary obligation of completing the project and handing over
possession within the stipulated time. All communications, MOMs and follow-up efforts have
been duly produced, and the charge of suppression is nothing but a diversionary tactic to escape
liability.
27.

The Respondent has repeatedly cited COVID-19 and force majeure to justify delays.

The Complainant does not dispute that COVID-19 was a global pandemic; however, the
Agreement of Sale was executed in July 2022, at a time when the pandemic had already
subsided. With full awareness of the prevailing circumstances, the Respondent committed to
deliver possession by August 2024. The Respondent cannot now take shelter under COVID19 or labour migration from 2020 to justify default under a contract signed two years later.
Likewise, vague references to “other additional factors” apart from labour issues are unspecific,

Page 6 of 20

---

The further contention that the possession date of 31.08.2024 mentioned in the

Agreement of Sale is a clerical or typographical mistake is wholly untenable. This date appears
multiple times in the contract, including in Clause 7.1, and was the basis on which the
Complainant made substantial payments. If it were truly an error, the Respondent should have
executed a rectification deed or issued a formal addendum, neither of which has been done.
The claim of mistake is clearly an afterthought and cannot erase the binding contractual
obligation voluntarily undertaken by the Respondent.
29.

The Respondent has also sought to rely on RERA registration validity up to February

2026 to claim immunity from liability. This is misconceived, as the project registration timeline
does not override the specific possession date agreed with individual allottees. The contractual
commitment of August 2024 governs the rights of the Complainant, and extension of
registration cannot absolve the Respondent from paying interest for delay. Similarly, reliance
on third-party litigations is misplaced, as the Complainant was not a party to any such disputes
and no evidence has been produced to show that such cases legally restrained construction or
prevented delivery of possession.
30.

General updates or verbal assurances during meetings and communications also cannot

override the Agreement of Sale. While the Complainant acknowledges that certain updates
were given, these do not substitute the binding obligation to hand over possession by August
2024. To this day, the project remains incomplete, no Occupancy Certificate has been obtained,
and no formal offer of possession has been issued. The Complainant has acted in good faith,
paying nearly 90% of the consideration under Schedule C, with the balance being due only at
the time of registration and handover. The Respondent’s claim that the Complainant is in
arrears is false, as payments have been made strictly as per the Agreement.
31.

The attempt to invoke rocky terrain and restrictions on blasting as a reason for delay is

also untenable. Such site conditions are foreseeable and should have been factored into the
project plan before committing to a delivery date. The Complainant was never informed of
such issues at the time of booking or execution of the Agreement, and these cannot now be
used as an afterthought to justify the delay.

Page 7 of 20

---

The blanket assertion that the Complainant is not entitled to any relief is contrary to

Section 18 of RERA, which mandates payment of interest to the allottee for delay in possession.
This right is statutory and not subject to the promoter’s discretion. The Complainant’s claim
for compensation is not arbitrary but arises from genuine hardship, financial strain due to
paying both rent and EMIs, mental stress, and disruption of family planning and stability due
to uncertainty in possession. The Respondent’s claim that it has a good reputation or that it is
making efforts to complete the project cannot override its binding contractual and statutory
obligations.
33.

Accordingly, the Complainant reiterates that the reliefs sought, including interest for

the delay period and appropriate compensation, are lawful, reasonable, and fully justified. The
Respondent’s counter is devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected. The Complainant prays
that this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to grant the reliefs sought in the complaint.
D. 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?
E. Observations of the Authority:
Point 1:
31.

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:

Page 8 of 20

---

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

settlement by mutual discussion. Such a clause is at best directory and cannot oust or restrict
the statutory jurisdiction of this Authority. 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
other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power
conferred by or under this Act.’ It can thus, be seen that the said provision expressly
ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of any matter which the Real Estate
Regulatory Authority, established under Subsection (1) of Section 20 or the
Adjudicating Officer, appointed under Subsection (1) of Section 71, or the Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal established under Section 43 of the Real Estate Act, is empowered
to determine. Hence, in view of the binding dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.
Page 9 of 20

---

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

701 of 2015, decided on 13.07.2017), it was held that arbitration clauses in builder-buyer
agreements cannot oust the jurisdiction of consumer fora. The said view was later upheld by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512–23513 of 2017. The relevant para
reads:
“25. This Court in the series of judgments as noticed above considered the provisions
of Consumer Protection Act, L986 os well as Arbitration Act, 1996 and laid down that
complaint under Consumer Protection Act being a special remedy, despite there being
an arbitration agreement the proceedings before Consumer Forum have to go on and
no ercor committed by Consumer Forum on rejecting the application. There is reason
for not interjecting proceedings under Consumer Protection Act on the strength an
arbitration agreement by Act, 1996. The remedy under Consumer Protection Act is a
remedy provided to a consumer when there is a defect in any goods or services. The
complaint means any allegation in writing made by a complainant has also been
explained in Section 2(c) of the Act. The remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is
confined to complaint by consumer as defined under the Act for defect or deficiencies
caused by a service provider, the cheap and a quick remedy has been provided to the
consumer which is the object and purpose of the Act as noticed above."
37.

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.

Page 10 of 20

---

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 dated 03.07.2022 clearly stipulated
that possession of the subject flat would be handed over by 31.08.2024, with a grace period of
six months, ending on 28.02.2025. 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 February 2026, the project remains incomplete, with construction
progress stalled at approximately 75% 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 July 2022, 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 2024. Having
consciously undertaken such commitment, the Respondent cannot now, with retrospective
justification, rely on Covid-19 as a defense to escape its contractual and statutory obligations.
Such conduct clearly amounts to holding out false assurances with mala fide intent.
41.

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
Page 11 of 20

---

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 July 2022 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
45.

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
Page 12 of 20

---

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 to February 2026 due to the extension taken without consultation or
consent of the Complainants. Such unilateral revisions are impermissible. The Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors. [2017
SCC OnLine Bom 9302], while upholding the constitutional validity of RERA, categorically
observed:
Para 119 “The RERA does not contemplate rewriting of contract between the flat
purchaser and the promoter.”
Para 256 of this Judgment further clarifies that “by giving opportunity to the promoter
to prescribe fresh timeline under Section 4(2)(l)(C), he is not absolved of the liability
under the agreement for sale”
50.

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
Page 13 of 20

---

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. 1,38,00,750/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Eight Lakh Seven Hundred And Fifty Only).
That, as per the Agreement of Sale the Complainant has paid an amount of Rs.28,99,025/(Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand And Twenty Five Only). However it is
observed that as per the payment receipts placed before this Authority that a sum of Rs.
1,30,41,709/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Lakh Forty One Thousand Seven Hundred And Nine
Only) has been duly paid by the Complainant herein towards the sale consideration. Further,
the Agreement clearly stipulated possession by 31.08.2024, with a grace period of 6 months to
28.02.2025. Admittedly, possession has not been delivered.
53.

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

have paid only a portion of the consideration is wholly unsustainable. The Complainants have
already paid over 60% of the agreed consideration as per their averments. Despite receiving
such substantial sums, the Respondent has failed to honour its contractual obligations. It is
manifest that the Respondent gave false assurances, being fully conscious of the market
situation, yet assuring dates of completion that it had no capacity to honour. More than one
year has elapsed beyond the stipulated date, yet the project is neither complete nor possession
handed over.
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
Page 14 of 20

---

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.
57.

Now, Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act is categorical:
“(1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment,
plot or building,—
(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly
completed by the date specified therein; or
(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or
revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable
on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project,
without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him
in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such
rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as
provided under this Act:
Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall
be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the
possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.
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."
59.

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."
60.

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
Page 16 of 20

---

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.
62.

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 01.03.2025 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.
63.

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

RE(R&D) Act, this entitlement is subject to the reciprocal statutory duty of the Complainant
to discharge any outstanding amounts under the payment plan, if not already paid. Compliance
on both sides is essential to ensure balance of obligations and timely delivery.
64.

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.
65.

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

Page 17 of 20

---

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.
67.

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.
68.

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.
69.

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.
70.

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:
71.

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

to issue the following directions:

Page 18 of 20

---

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

pending against this Respondent in the same project, this Authority sternly warns the
Respondent that any further delay, non-compliance, or grievance brought to notice by allottees
shall invite section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act.
Page 19 of 20

---

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

74.

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
75.

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

---