Order Complaint No. 196 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 196/2025/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

Alka Singh
(Flat No. 2003, Janapriya Nile Valley,
Road No. 12, PJR Enclave, Madhavapuri Hills,
Madinaguda, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500050)

…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 file by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on
11.07.2025 before this Authority in presence of Complainant in person and Respondents
Counsels Sri D Madhav Rao and M.K.Joy Raj; upon pursuing the material on record and on
hearing arguments of the 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 “RE(R&D)
Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “TG RE(R&D) 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 is submitted that the Complainant purchased a flat in the project “Vasavi Lake City”

in 2021, based on the advertisements, personal interactions with the marketing team, and the
website information of the Respondent, which highlighted the project as a well-planned and
1 of 20

---

It is stated that as per the agreed terms, the Complainant made 90% of the payment

towards the flat, believing that the project was on track. The builder, Sri Vijay Kumar Yerram,
had personally assured that the handover would take place by August 2024, and that
possession could even be expected before the committed deadline.
5.

It is contended that despite these assurances, the project faced repeated and unjustified

delays and, as of February 2025, remained incomplete. The Respondent allegedly postponed
the handover dates on multiple occasions, provided vague reasons, and failed to communicate
a clear and firm timeline. Having already paid 90% of the consideration, the Complainant
stated that this delay caused uncertainty and financial distress, significantly impacting plans
and investments.
6.

It is further submitted that as of January 2025, the project was only 60% to 70%

completed, with no major work carried out thereafter. Key aspects such as interior finishing,
common amenities, and supporting infrastructure remained incomplete. Despite multiple
follow-ups, the Respondent allegedly failed to provide any roadmap or completion schedule,
leaving the Complainant and other homebuyers frustrated and anxious.
7.

The Complainant alleged that the continued delay in possession constitutes a violation

of the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, as the Respondent failed to deliver the project
within the stipulated timeline without valid justification. By collecting 90% payment upfront
and failing to fulfil contractual obligations, the Respondent has allegedly breached the
statutory requirements. The Complainant stated that the delay has caused financial strain,
mental stress, and emotional distress, and therefore sought intervention of this Authority for
urgent directions, financial compensation, and strict action against the Respondent.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
8.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

To direct the Respondent to complete the construction and hand over possession of
the flat at the earliest. Seeking immediate action to ensure that the remaining work is
completed within a fixed and enforceable timeframe, failing which strict penalties
should be imposed on the Respondent.
2 of 20

---

To direct the Respondent to pay interest on the total amount paid by the Complainant
from the promised possession date of August 2024 until the actual date of handover,
at the rate prescribed under Section 18 of the Act, 2016.

iii.

To direct the Respondent to pay compensation for the undue stress, inconvenience,
and financial losses incurred as a result of the prolonged 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 multi-storied 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 06.04.2021, and was allotted an apartment No. E.4209 on the 2nd Floor
of Tower 4, admeasuring 1700 sq. ft., along with parking, for a total consideration of
Rs.1,16,90,000/-. The Agreement of Sale sets out the carpet area, balcony/veranda area,
common area, and undivided share of land. The Complainant has paid Rs.24,54,900/towards the sale consideration, while the balance amount remains payable in accordance with
the agreed payment schedule.
12.

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 31.08.2024, 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. It is submitted that the complainants have not come
3 of 20

---

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.

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.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s preliminary objection on

maintainability is not only vague but legally unfounded. Section 31 of the RE(R&D) Act,
2016, confers an explicit statutory right upon any aggrieved allottee to approach this Hon’ble
Authority for redressal. The Agreement of Sale dated 13.12.2021 clearly stipulates the
committed possession date as 31.08.2024. Till date, the flat remains undelivered. Therefore,
the complaint is well within legal bounds and merits full consideration.
19.

The contention of the Respondent that the Complainant ought to have availed

remedies provided in the Agreement is misconceived. As per Section 31 of the Act, the
Complainant being an aggrieved allottee, has an absolute statutory right to approach the
Hon’ble Authority for redressal of grievances. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Authority cannot be ousted by any arbitration or alternative clause contained in a private
agreement. Also, the Complainant made repeated efforts to communicate with the
Respondent to seek resolution, however these efforts were met with consistent avoidance
tactics citing one or the other reasons.
20.

The objection regarding absence of prior legal notice is equally meritless. The Act

does not mandate issuance of any notice before filing a complaint under Section 31. This
ground is irrelevant and appears to have been raised only to delay proceedings.
21.

It is submitted that while approvals and registration are acknowledged, they do not

absolve the Respondent from the legal obligation of timely execution and handover. Having
permissions does not discharge the responsibility of delivering possession within the
committed timeline. It is further submitted that the Respondent has grossly failed to abide by
the obligations accompanying RERA registration. Instead of honouring the timelines declared
at the time of registration, the Respondent has offered vague and contradictory explanations
for delay, failed to transparently update project status, and has not disclosed realistic
possession timelines.
5 of 20

---

It is submitted that under the RERA framework and standard contractual norms, the

Agreement of Sale dated 13.12.2021, is the only binding document. It is further submitted
that the Complainant has duly paid ₹1,16,90,000/– in line with Schedule-C of the Agreement,
and the balance payment is contractually due only at the time of handover of possession,
which has not yet occurred. Therefore, there is no default on part of the Complainant, and any
suggestion to the contrary is misleading.
23.

The Complainants submits that the Respondent’s reliance on the RERA registration

extension while disregarding the binding commitment under the Agreement of Sale is legally
untenable. The possession date of 31.08.2024, as expressly agreed in the Agreement of Sale,
must prevail for assessing delay, irrespective of any subsequent extensions granted by the
Hon’ble Authority. Submitting progress updates or securing regulatory extensions does not
absolve the Respondent from its contractual obligations.
24.

It is submitted that Section 19(2) of the Act clearly entitles the allottee to claim

possession of the apartment in accordance with the Agreement of Sale, while Section 19(1)
mandates that the promoter keep the allottee informed of progress with full transparency. In
this case, the Respondent delayed the project by nearly two years, offering only shifting
verbal assurances, and now seeks to defer possession to February 2026, rendering the
agreement meaningless if such conduct were permitted. This constitutes breach of trust and
circumvention of RERA’s buyer-protection framework.
25.

The Respondent’s reference to specifications under Schedules D and E is irrelevant,

as the dispute is not about alterations but about delay in possession. The Complainant has
already paid ₹1,16,90,000/–, with the balance contractually linked to possession. There is no
default in payment. Despite receiving over 90% of the price, the Respondent failed to hand
over possession within the agreed timeline, violating Clause 7.1 and attracting consequences
under Section 18 of the Act.
26.

It is submitted that the Respondent selectively relies on Clauses 5 and 7.1 of the

Agreement while ignoring the clear obligation to hand over possession by 31.08.2024. Even
after the six-month grace period, possession has not been offered. As of February 2025, the
Complainant remains without possession, well beyond any permissible extension. The plea of
force majeure is untenable since the AOS was executed on 13.12.2021, after the pandemic
impact was well known. The Respondent cannot retroactively invoke COVID-19 to avoid
liability. Moreover, force majeure cannot override Section 18(1) of the Act, which entitles the
allottee to interest for delay. The Respondent has also failed to produce any evidence of
6 of 20

---

It is submitted that the Respondent’s reliance on Clause 7.2 regarding procedure for

possession is misplaced when the fundamental precondition of obtaining Occupancy
Certificate has not been fulfilled. No OC has been secured or offered to the Complainant.
Accordingly, Clause 9 on promoter defaults squarely applies. Having breached the possession
timeline under Clause 7.1, the Respondent stands in default.
28.

At the outset, the Complainant categorically denies and strongly objects to the

baseless and defamatory allegations of suppression and ulterior motives. The Agreement of
Sale clearly fixes possession as 31.08.2024, yet despite lapse of nearly two years, possession
has not been delivered. Approaching this Authority is a statutory right of the Complainant.
The Complainant has placed on record the Agreement, proof of payments, meeting minutes,
and correspondence, while the Respondent has repeatedly failed to meet timelines. Their
present attempt to defer possession to February 2026 only reinforces the continued breach.
29.

While the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is acknowledged, reliance on it to

justify prolonged delay is untenable. The AOS was executed on 13.12.2021, well after
lockdowns were lifted and construction activity had resumed. The Respondent, with full
knowledge of circumstances, nevertheless committed to hand over possession by 31.08.2024.
The real delay occurred between 2023 and 2025, long after normalcy returned.
30.

It is submitted that the Respondent’s reliance on Supreme Court orders in Suo Motu

W.P. No. 3 of 2020 is irrelevant. Those orders relate only to exclusion of limitation periods
under certain statutes and have no bearing on contractual obligations under RERA. The AOS
was executed after the COVID relaxation period, and the possession date of 31.08.2024 was
agreed with full awareness of circumstances. General judicial extensions cannot override the
specific rights of an allottee under RERA. This defence is diversionary and must be rejected.
31.

It is submitted that the Respondent’s attempt to attribute delay to labour migration is

also misplaced. The Complainant’s unit in Tower 4 of the East Wing was structurally
complete more than 18 months ago, yet no further progress was made. Delays postcompletion cannot be explained by labour shortages. No documentary evidence has been
produced to show timely communication of such impediments.
32.

It is submitted that the Respondent’s vague claim of “various additional factors” and

“cascading effects” is evasive and unsupported by evidence. Despite asserting that 90% work
is complete, no possession has been offered, no demand notes have been issued, and no
7 of 20

---

It is submitted that the Respondent’s attempt to dismiss the possession date in the

Agreement of Sale as a “clerical mistake” is indefensible. A registered agreement executed
by both parties cannot be retrospectively termed an error. Such a claim reflects
misrepresentation and abdication of responsibility. If the Respondent committed to an
unrealistic timeline, that itself amounts to misrepresentation at the time of booking. Repeated
invocation of force majeure does not cure this breach. The conduct amounts to deliberate
default, and the Respondent must be held liable.
34.

It is submitted that the Respondent’s reference to third-party disputes is also

untenable. It was the promoter’s duty under Section 11(3)(a) to ensure the project was free of
encumbrances. Litigation risks cannot be used to justify delay. No formal disclosure of such
disputes was made to the Complainant at the relevant time. Buyers cannot be penalized for
the promoter’s lapses in legal due diligence. These explanations are post-facto and cannot
excuse breach of the Agreement of Sale.
35.

It is submitted that the Respondent’s claim of informing allottees through

communications or meetings is unsubstantiated. In reality, minutes were shared only after
repeated demands and merely recorded shifting timelines, none of which were honoured.
Such conduct reflects a pattern of deflection, not transparency.
36.

The Complainants submit that they seek interest for the delay in possession, not

refund of the amount paid. This claim is well within the statutory framework of Section 18(1)
of the Act, which mandates interest for every month of delay until possession is handed over.
The Respondent’s dismissal of the claim for compensation shows insensitivity to the real
hardship faced by the Complainant’s family. The delay forced additional commuting, rental
arrangements, and financial strain, apart from causing mental agony and distress.
37.

The Respondent’s assertion that possession will be given in February 2026 and that

the Complainant is in arrears is false. The Complainant never consented to extend possession
beyond 31.08.2024, and any RERA extension does not override the Agreement of Sale.
Payment of ₹1,16,90,000/-, has already been made, with the balance payable only at
handover. The claim of arrears is misleading. The undertaking to complete by February 2026
does not erase liability for delay already accrued since September 2024.
8 of 20

---

The Respondent’s reference to site conditions such as rocky site and blasting

restrictions is an afterthought. Any experienced developer is expected to assess site
conditions before committing timelines.
39.

It is submitted that the blanket denial of liability by the Respondent is untenable. The

Respondent

cannot

escape

responsibility

by

vague

references

to uncontrollable

circumstances, particularly when no force majeure notice was ever issued and no evidence of
genuine impediments has been produced. The Complainant’s tower was structurally complete
long ago, yet possession has not been offered. The Respondent is in clear breach of the
Agreement of Sale and the Act.
40.

The sweeping denial of the complaint as false is equally unsustainable. The AOS

dated 13.12.2021 fixes the possession date as 31.08.2024, which has not been honoured. The
Complainant has complied with all obligations, whereas the Respondent continues to rely on
vague defences. Relief under Section 18(1) of the Act is not only legally justified but
necessary to uphold accountability. The Authority is therefore respectfully urged to direct
payment of statutory interest for the delay and pass such other orders as deemed fit in the
interest of justice.
E. Points for Consideration:
40.

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.
42.

The Authority finds this objection untenable for the following reasons:

9 of 20

---

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.

44.

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.
45.

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.
46.

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.
47.

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 Sub-section (1) of Section 71, or the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal established

10 of 20

---

48.

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."

49.

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.

11 of 20

---

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

delay in handing over of possession of the subject flat.
51.

It is the case of the Complainants that the Agreement of Sale in the year 2022,

executed between the parties, clearly stipulated that possession of the subject flat would be
handed over by August 2024, with a grace period of six months, ending on February 2025.
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
07.02.2026, the project remains incomplete.
52.

The Complainants submit that the Respondent has repeatedly given false assurances

of completion, while allottees continue to suffer. The Respondent, conversely, attributes the
delay to the Covid-19 pandemic, claiming force majeure, citing the nationwide lockdown
beginning March 2020, the impact on migrant labour, and consequential delays. The
Respondent further 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?
53.

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

admittedly executed in the year 2024, 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
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.
54.

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.

12 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…".

56.

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.
57.

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

wholly untenable. The Respondent, having executed in 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
58.

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.
59.

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.”

60.

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

13 of 20

---

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
“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”

63.

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.
64.

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:
65.

It is noted that there exists a discrepancy in the amounts paid as averred by the parties.

The Complainants contend that they have paid approximately 90% of the total sale
consideration, amounting to ₹1,16,90,000/-, diligently and without default. The Respondent,
14 of 20

---

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 90% 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
months has elapsed beyond the stipulated date, yet the project is neither complete nor
possession handed over.
67.

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.

15 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.
69.

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.
70.

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.

16 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."

72.
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."

73.

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.
74.

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.
75.

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

17 of 20

---

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.
77.

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.
78.

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.
79.

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.
80.

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.
81.

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,

18 of 20

---

In the event the Complainants have defaulted in making payments as per the agreed

schedule, the Respondent shall be entitled, under Section 19(6) of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016, to claim interest on such delayed payments in accordance with
Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.
Nevertheless, such entitlement shall be subject to the Respondent producing cogent and
substantive documents demonstrating both the stage-wise progress of construction and the
corresponding default, and not merely based on unilateral assertions.
83.

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:
84.

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., 28.02.2025 (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 01.03.2025 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
19 of 20

---

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

already pending against this Respondent in the same project, this Authority sternly warns
the Respondent that any further delay, non-compliance, or grievance brought to notice by
allottees shall invite section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act.
86.

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

87.

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
88.

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 NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

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

20 of 20

---