Order Complaint No. 193 of 2025​

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 193/2025/TG RERA
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. Mr. Vijay Dattatray Nyalpelli
2. Mrs. Shruthi Vijay Nyalpelli
( Both R/o Flat 206, Block C, Srilakshmi Shubham Archade,
Chandanagar, near Bikshapathi Enclave,
Hyderabad, Telangana – 500050.)

…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 hearing on 11.07.2025
before this Authority in the presence of the Complainant in person and Respondent Counsels
Sri D Madhav Rao and M.K.J oy Raj; upon pursuing the material on record and on hearing
arguments of both 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 Complainant had entered into an Agreement of Sale with the

Respondent, Vasavi Realtors, in April 2021 for the purchase of Flat No. 3302 in Tower 3 of the
project “Vasavi Lake City - East Wing,” which was registered under RERA No. P02500001821.
1 of 18

---

It was stated that pursuant to the terms of the said Agreement of Sale, the stipulated

date for the handover of possession of the flat was August 2023. It was contended that as of
February 2025, possession had not been delivered, constituting a delay of one and a half years.
5.

It was further submitted that the Complainant had paid a total sum of Rs. 99,50,850/-

(Rupees Ninety-Nine Lakh Fifty Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Only), which amounted to
ninety percent of the total sale consideration. All payments were made within the due dates
specified in the demand letters issued by the Respondent.
6.

It was alleged that the Respondent had repeatedly postponed the handover date without

providing any clear assurances. It was stated that after an initial commitment for February
2025, the date was revised to March 2025, and subsequently, as per a Minutes of Meeting, was
further pushed to June 2025. The Complainant submitted that this latest timeline appeared
unrealistic given the extent of pending work.
7.

It was contended that since September 2023, there had been a lack of significant

progress in construction, with only minor works being carried out. It was submitted that a
substantial amount of work remained incomplete in the building, including the installation of
bathroom fixtures, windows, doors, service lifts, and staircase railings.
8.

It was further stated that electrical and water connections were not yet complete, and

both external and internal painting works were pending. Common amenities, including the
clubhouse and parking facilities, also remained unfinished. The Complainant raised concerns
regarding the quality of the work and noted that the kitchen platform, the cost of which was
included in the sale consideration, was not being installed by the Respondent, with no
information provided regarding reimbursement.
B. Reliefs Sought
9.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

To direct the Respondent to complete all pending works in accordance with the agreedupon quality standards and to hand over possession of the subject flat to the
Complainant at the earliest, within a firm and enforceable timeframe to be determined
by this Honourable Authority.

ii.

To direct the Respondent to pay interest on the total amounts paid by the Complainant,
calculated from the promised date of possession in August 2023 until the actual date of

2 of 18

---

To direct the Respondent to pay adequate compensation to the Complainant for the
severe mental stress and financial hardship suffered as a direct result of the inordinate
delay and the Respondent's failure to adhere to its commitments.

iv.

To direct the Respondent to reimburse the Complainant for the full cost of installing a
kitchen platform of a standard and size comparable to that stipulated in the Agreement
for Sale, as the Respondent has failed to provide the same.

v.

To direct the Respondent to pay specific compensation, estimated at ₹1,00,000/-,
towards the additional school transportation costs for the Complainant's children, a
financial burden incurred due to the Complainant's reasonable reliance on the
Respondent's previously communicated handover date of February 2025.

C. Counter filed by the Respondent
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. 3302 on

the 3rd Floor of Tower 3, admeasuring 1705 sq. ft., and an undivided share of 48 sq. yds. of
land under the Agreement of Sale. The agreement detailed the carpet area, balcony area,
common area, and the undivided share of land. The total sale consideration was Rs.
1,05,30,000/- out of which the Complainant paid Rs. 65,00,000/-.
13.

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 31.08.2023, with a grace period of six
3 of 18

---

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.
18.

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
4 of 18

---

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 regarding maintainability, that

the said objection was baseless, vague, and legally untenable. The complaint had been filed
under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, seeking
redressal for the inordinate delay. It was stated that the Agreement of Sale dated 22nd April
2022 clearly stipulated the committed date of possession as August 2024. As possession had
not been granted by the date of filing the complaint on 14th March 2025, with the project being
only approximately 85% completed, the application was legally maintainable under Section 31
read with Sections 18(1) and 19(4) of the Act.
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 provided in support of the claims, and that all possible
means to establish contact with the builder had been exhausted.
23.

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

submitted that the Complainant had repeatedly contacted the Builder for possession, and each
time a new deadline was given without proper explanation. It was further submitted that under
the RERA Act, a prior legal notice was not a mandatory requirement.
24.

It was submitted that obtaining development rights, permissions for construction,

RERA registration, and entering into the Agreement of Sale were prerequisites and the
complete responsibility of the Respondent and the parties.
5 of 18

---

It was argued that the Authority needed to consider the date of the Agreement and not

the booking date. It was further submitted that the builder had never proactively communicated
delays or progress and had failed to meet even the revised project schedules that were shared
only after multiple follow-ups.
26.

The Respondent's reliance on force majeure was addressed. It was argued that if the

force majeure event was only COVID-19, this did not apply to the Complainant as the
agreement was executed well after the pandemic. It was submitted that the delay in construction
had happened from the end of 2023 onwards, a period when COVID was not in effect. This, it
was contended, could be confirmed by the fact that no demand letter was issued for over a year
after October 2023, indicating that progress had almost stalled.
27.

In response to the clause regarding the procedure for taking possession, it was submitted

that the expectation was for a full Occupancy Certificate only after the completion of the entire
project with all amenities as per the timeline, and therefore, it was not an appropriate point to
discuss at that stage.
28.

The baseless, vague, and defamatory allegations made by the Respondent were

categorically denied and strongly objected to. It was submitted that the Complainant had made
full disclosure of all material facts and that the delay was inordinate and wholly unjustified.
The Respondent's assertion was described as a contemptuous and derogatory attempt to malign
the Complainant's genuine and lawful grievance.
29.

It was reiterated that the force majeure claim based on COVID-19 was inapplicable as

the agreement was executed after the pandemic, and the construction delay occurred from late
2023 onwards, which was confirmed by the lack of demand letters for over a year after October
2023.
30.

It was submitted that the delay had been cumulative and that after each discussion, the

scheduled date of possession had been updated three to four times after the original date of
August 2023 had already lapsed.
31.

It was argued that the builder could not claim a "clerical mistake" as an excuse for the

date specified in the Agreement of Sale, especially since the majority of people had the same
date in their agreements.
32.

It was submitted that sufficient proof had been provided showing how the builder had

violated four different promised possession dates: August 2023, February 2024, February 2025,
and June 2025, and that this evidence had been supported with the Form M application.
6 of 18

---

It was submitted that the Complainant had not been proactively and officially informed

about third-party disputes. It was only when the Complainant came to know about them that
the information was shared. It was argued that it was the promoter's responsibility to resolve
these cases and hand over the property as per the committed date.
34.

It was submitted that the Complainant had never received any proactive communication

about project delays that was duly acknowledged and signed. A challenge was made for the
developer to produce any such document before the Hon'ble RERA court.
35.

It was submitted that as all proofs had been provided showing how the builder had

missed committed handover dates, the decision on interest should be left to the Hon'ble
Authority as per Section 18 of the RERA Act. It was noted that the delay was more than two
years, and 90% of the payment had been made by the Complainant since the booking in March
2021.
36.

It was submitted that as all proofs had been provided, the decision on compensation

should be left to the Hon'ble Authority. It was noted that Form 'N' for compensation would be
filed as per the directions of RERA officials and that claims for mental agony and physical
harassment had already been submitted in the initial filing with Form M.
37.

The RERA extension until February 2026 was fully denied. It was argued that the

promoter was legally obligated to pay for interest and compensation as per RERA rules. It was
submitted that all dues would be paid as soon as the builder completed the entire project, but
before that, the builder was required to pay the interest and compensation. It was contended
that the builder was unlawfully forcing payment of 100% of the amount before project
completion.
38.

It was stated that the reason of COVID was irrelevant as the agreement of sale was from

after the COVID period. It was reiterated that the delay happened from the end of 2023
onwards. Regarding the rocky site, it was argued that it was the builder's responsibility to deal
with this and honour the date in the agreement.
39.

It was submitted that whenever a demand letter was issued, the Complainant had

completed their responsibility by disbursing the requested amount before the due date. It was
argued that the entire burden of project delivery lay with the builder, irrespective of the reasons
for the delay, and that the builder had not fulfilled their responsibilities.
E. Points for Consideration:

7 of 18

---

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:
41.

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:
42.

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.

43.

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.
44.

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.
45.

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
8 of 18

---

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. Ayyaswamy (supra), the
matters/disputes, which the Authorities under the Real Estate Act are empowered to
decide, are non-arbitrable, notwithstanding an Arbitration Agreement between the
parties to such matters, which, to a large extent, are similar to the disputes falling for
resolution under the Consumer Act.
56. Consequently, we unhesitatingly reject the arguments on behalf of the
Builder and hold that an Arbitration Clause in the afore-stated kind of Agreements
between the Complainants and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of
a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the
Arbitration Act.”*

47.

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

9 of 18

---

48.

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: Delay in Possession
49.

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

in handing over of possession of the subject flat.
50.

It is the case of the Complainants that the Agreement of Sale on 19th June 2021,

executed between the parties, 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 on date. Further, although the project
was registered with TG RERA up to February 2025 and later extended until February 2026, the
project remains incomplete.
51.

The Complainant submits 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.
(i) Whether the Covid-19 pandemic, third-party litigations, or rocky site conditions can be
taken as a valid shield by the Respondent in the present case?
52.

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

admittedly executed on 19th June 2021, much after the onset and near subsiding of the Covid19 pandemic. The Respondent, being fully aware of the prevailing global circumstances,
nevertheless executed the Agreement by specifically assuring completion of the project by
10 of 18

---

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 with the grace period of 6 months, i.e 28.02.2024.
54.

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…".

55.

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.
56.

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 August 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
57.

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

11 of 18

---

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.”

59.

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 notifications issued by the 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).
60.

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.
61.

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. 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

12 of 18

---

62.

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.
63.

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:
64.

As per the receipts submitted by the Complainants, they have paid about ₹99,50,850/-

out of the total sale consideration of ₹1,05,30,000/-, stating that they have diligently and
without default paid the amount to the Respondent. The Agreement clearly stipulated
possession by 31.08.2023, with a grace period of 6 months to 28.02.2024. Admittedly,
possession has not been delivered till date.
65.

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 a year has elapsed beyond the grace period, yet the project is neither
complete nor has possession been handed over.
66.

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.

67.

Therefore, the contention that the complainant has not paid the total balance is rejected.

A promoter in default cannot compel an allottee to keep paying indefinitely, especially when
13 of 18

---

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.
(2) The promoter shall compensate the allottees in case of any loss caused to
him due to defective title of the land, on which the project is being developed or
has been developed, in the manner as provided under this Act, and the claim for
compensation under this subsection shall not be barred by limitation provided
under any law for the time being in force.
(3) If the promoter fails to discharge any other obligations imposed on him under
this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder or in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the agreement for sale, he shall be liable to pay such
compensation to the allottees, in the manner as provided under this Act.

69.

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."

70.
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:

14 of 18

---

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.
72.

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.
73.

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..
74.

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.
75.

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

15 of 18

---

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.
77.

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.
78.

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.
79.

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.
80.

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.
81.

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:
16 of 18

---

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”.
g. The Respondent is hereby directed to complete the project forthwith and hand over
possession to the Complainants within the statutory timelines.
h. The Complainants are directed to pay the balance consideration strictly in accordance
with the agreed payment schedule. In the event of any default in adhering to such
schedule, the Respondent shall be at liberty to claim interest on the delayed amounts,
as provided under Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017. However, such claim shall be substantiated by valid documentary evidence
demonstrating that the default is aligned with the actual stage-wise progress of
construction, and not merely on the basis of unilateral assertions.

17 of 18

---

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.
84.

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

85.

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
86.

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

Sd/Sri. K. Srinivas 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

18 of 18

---