Order Complaint No. 194 of 2025​

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 194 of 2025
Dated: 30th December 2025
Quorum:

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

1.
Rajesh Sricharan Guttula
2.
Mounica S Illa
R/o: Flat No. 302, Primark Anith Ashwini Apartments,
Raghavendra Nagar Colony, Kondapur, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500084
…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 booked Flat No. 30503 (03 series) on the 5th floor of East Wing

Tower 3 in the project “Vasavi Lake City – East,” having RERA Registration No.
P02500001821, developed by the Respondent. The booking was made on 30.09.2020 by
paying a sum of ₹5,00,000/-, and all subsequent payments were completed by 10.11.2020. An
Page 1 of 19

---

The Complainant has complied with all financial obligations under the Agreement of

Sale and has paid 90% of the total sale consideration. Despite this, possession has not been
handed over to the Complainant.
5.

The Complainant submits that as of date, the construction progress of the overall project

stands at approximately 70%, and substantial works including amenities remain incomplete.
After repeated follow-ups by the Complainant and other buyers, the Respondent issued a
revised handover schedule on 21.06.2024, shifting the completion date to 31.03.2025. In a
subsequent customer meeting held on 08.09.2024, the Respondent reiterated the revised
commitment and assured that compensation for delay as per RERA provisions would be paid.
6.

However, on 07.02.2025, another revised tower-wise handover schedule was issued,

shifting the proposed handover to June 2025, without providing any overall project completion
timeline. The Complainant states that despite these repeated delays, no compensation has been
paid, nor has any clarity been provided regarding the quantum or schedule of compensation.
7.

The Complainant has further submitted that he has suffered financial hardship by being

compelled to simultaneously pay home loan EMIs and rent for alternate accommodation, apart
from mental stress, anxiety, and repeated costs incurred in following up with the Respondent.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
8.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

Direct the Respondent to complete the construction and hand over possession of the flat
at the earliest. The remaining work be completed within a fixed and enforceable
timeframe, failing which strict penalties may be imposed on the Respondent.

ii.

Interest on the total amount paid, in accordance with the Act, to be calculated from the
original promised possession date of August 2023 until the actual date of handover.

iii.

Compensation for the mental distress, financial strain, and disruption caused to his
personal and professional life by the Respondent’s repeated delays, false assurances,
and lack of transparency. The Complainant prays that the Respondent be directed to

Page 2 of 19

---

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 26.09.2020, and was allotted an apartment No. E.3503 on the 5th Floor of
Tower 3, admeasuring 1705 sq. ft., along with parking, for a total consideration of
Rs.94,55,850/-. The Agreement of Sale sets out the carpet area, balcony/veranda area, common
area, and undivided share of land. The Complainant has paid Rs.49,64,321/- 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 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.
Communications have also been issued to purchasers for payment of balance amounts, as
completion is nearing.

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.

The preliminary objections raised by the Respondent with respect to maintainability of

the complaint are baseless, vague, and legally untenable. The Complainant has invoked the
provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, seeking redressal for
the inordinate delay in handing over possession of the flat booked in the Respondent’s
registered project, bearing RERA No. P02500001821. The Agreement of Sale executed on
05.12.2020 clearly stipulates the date of possession as 31.08.2023, subject to a six-month grace
period. However, as of the date of filing the complaint on 22.02.2025, possession has not been
granted, and the project remains incomplete. Telangana RERA has jurisdiction to entertain
such complaints by allottees in cases of delay, and therefore the application is legally
maintainable. The contention that remedies under the agreement have not been availed, or that
a legal notice was not issued prior to filing this complaint, is wholly without merit. RERA does
not mandate issuance of legal notice as a precondition, and the delay in possession was raised
repeatedly in several meetings and communications where the Respondent itself revised
timelines on multiple occasions. Hence, the objections raised deserve outright rejection.
19.

The Respondent has not disputed that the project was lawfully sanctioned, permissions

were obtained, and registration was granted. What remains in issue is the Respondent’s
admitted obligation to hand over possession by 31st August 2023, a timeline which has not
been met. The Respondent’s reliance on periodic construction updates, sanction plans, or
schedule of amenities is irrelevant to the Complainant’s core grievance, which is the continued
failure to hand over possession within the agreed timeline.
20.

The Respondent has attempted to justify the delay by invoking force majeure,

particularly COVID-19 and its impact on labour migration. The Complainant respectfully
submits that this argument is untenable in the present case. The Agreement of Sale was
executed on 05.12.2020, well after the first wave of the pandemic and after nationwide

Page 5 of 19

---

The Respondent’s allegation that the date of possession mentioned in the Agreement of

Sale was a clerical error is wholly denied. The commitment of 31st August 2023 appears
multiple times in the agreement and is the very basis on which the Complainant proceeded to
make substantial payments. If indeed it were a mistake, no rectification deed or addendum was
ever executed. The attempt to now claim “error” is nothing but an afterthought. Similarly, the
reliance on RERA registration extensions up to 2026 is irrelevant to individual contractual
commitments. Project registration validity pertains to the project as a whole, but does not
extend or override specific contractual timelines agreed with allottees.
22.

The Respondent has also cited certain litigations as reasons for delay. However, these

were never disclosed contemporaneously, nor was timely notice given to the Complainant. The
fact remains that the committed possession date lapsed on 31st August 2023, with a grace
period expiring in February 2024, much before these explanations were ever communicated.
The Respondent’s post-facto justifications cannot undo the contractual breach.
23.

The Respondent further asserts that the Complainant is not entitled to interest or

compensation. This contention is wholly contrary to law. Section 18 of RERA provides a
statutory right to interest when possession is delayed beyond the agreed period. The
Complainant has paid 90% of the total sale consideration, continues to bear the burden of EMIs
and rent, and has complied fully with the obligations under the agreement. The Respondent has
failed to deliver possession even 18 months after the promised date. The denial of interest is,
therefore, against both the letter and spirit of RERA.
24.

As regards compensation, the Complainant has not made arbitrary claims but has

detailed the real and personal hardships caused by the delay, including financial strain, repeated
follow-ups, and continued uncertainty. These hardships are documented in communications,
Minutes of Meetings, and Form M already filed before this Hon’ble Authority. The

Page 6 of 19

---

Finally, the Respondent’s generalized assertions that the complaint is false, motivated,

or intended to harass, are baseless and denied in toto. The Complainant has approached this
Hon’ble Authority with clean hands, relying on documentary evidence, and seeking only lawful
remedies under the Agreement of Sale and RERA. The Respondent’s reputation, or claimed
efforts to expedite construction, cannot negate contractual obligations or deprive the
Complainant of lawful relief.
26.

In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that all objections raised by the

Respondent be rejected, and the Complainant’s entitlement to timely possession, statutory
interest for the delay, and compensation for the hardships suffered be recognized and enforced
by this Hon’ble Authority.
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:

Page 7 of 19

---

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
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."
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

Page 9 of 19

---

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 dated 05.12.2020 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 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

on 05.12.2020, 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
consciously undertaken such commitment, the Respondent cannot now, with retrospective

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 December 2020 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

Page 11 of 19

---

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 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

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. 94,55,850/- (Rupees Ninety Four Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Eight Hundred And Fifty
Only). That, as per the Agreement of Sale the Complainant has paid an amount of Rs.
49,64,321/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Three Hundred And Twenty One
Only). However it is observed that as per the payment receipts placed before this Authority that
a sum of Rs. 89,35,778/- (Rupees Eighty Nine Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Seven Hundred And
Seventy Eight Only) has been duly paid by the Complainant herein towards the sale
consideration. Further, 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.
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 substantial sum of the agreed consideration as per their averments. Despite
receiving such substantial sums, the Respondent has failed to honour its contractual

Page 13 of 19

---

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.
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,—

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,

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."
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
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.
61.

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 01.03.2024 until the actual date of handing over
possession. As regards claims of compensation, this Authority notes that jurisdiction for
adjudicating compensation lies with the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of RE(R&D)
Act with Form ‘N’. The Complainant is at liberty to pursue such remedy separately.

Page 16 of 19

---

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, 2016.
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
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.
66.

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

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:
71.

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, 2016.
73.

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 19 of 19

---