Order Complaint No. 197 of 2025​

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 197 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

Suru Srinivasa Rao
R/o Flat No. 1302, G Block,
Rainbow Vistas Rock Garden,
Green Hills Road, Moosapet,
Hyderabad-500018.
…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 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.

It was submitted that the Complainant had purchased a flat in the project “Vasavi

Lakecity” in October 2020 from one Sri J.V. Chowdary. It was stated that Sri J.V. Chowdary’s
entitlement to the said flat arose from a Registered Deed of Assignment cum Development

Page 1 of 20

---

It was stated that the purchase was made based on representations in advertisements

and on the website of the Respondent, which portrayed the project as a well-planned and timely
development. The transaction was entered into with the expectation that the Respondent would
deliver the flat within the timeframe stipulated in the Development Agreement.
5.

It was further submitted that pursuant to Clause 11.1 of the said Development

Agreement, possession was to be delivered within thirty-six months, with a grace period of six
months, from the date of obtaining revised permissions. As the project received RERA approval
in March 2020, the committed date for the completion and delivery of the flat was established
as September 2023.
6.

It was submitted that the Complainant, relying on the reputation of the Respondent, had

made one hundred percent payment for the flat to the landowner, Sri J.V. Chowdary, and
subsequently had the flat registered in their name under the belief that the project was
progressing on schedule.
7.

It was contended that despite the committed timeframe of September 2023, the project

had faced unjustified delays and, as of February 2025, remained incomplete. It was alleged that
the Respondent had continuously postponed the handover date, providing vague reasons and
false assurances without communicating a clear timeline for completion.
8.

It was further submitted that as of January 2025, the project was only sixty to seventy

percent completed, and no significant work had been carried out since that time. Key
components such as interior furnishing, common amenities, and supporting infrastructure
remained unfinished. It was alleged that despite multiple follow-ups, the Respondent had failed
to provide a clear roadmap or completion schedule.
9.

It was submitted that the continued delay in handing over possession constituted a

serious violation of the provisions of the RERA Act. It was contended that the Respondent had
failed to fulfill its contractual obligations as per the Development Agreement, thereby
breaching RERA guidelines and causing the Complainant significant financial strain, mental
stress, and emotional distress. The complaint was filed to seek urgent intervention, financial
compensation, and strict action against the Respondent.
B. Reliefs Sought

Page 2 of 20

---

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
To direct the Respondent to forthwith complete all pending construction and hand over
possession of the subject flat to the Complainant at the earliest, within a fixed and
enforceable timeframe to be determined by this Honourable Authority, failing which to
impose strict penalties upon the Respondent.

ii.

To direct the Respondent to pay interest on the total amounts paid by the Complainant,
calculated from the promised date of possession in September 2023 until the actual date
of handover, at the rate prescribed under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016.

iii.

To direct the Respondent to pay adequate compensation to the Complainant for the
severe mental distress, financial strain, and disruption to personal and professional life
caused by the Respondent's negligence, false promises, and the inordinate delay in the
completion of the project.

C. Counter filed by the Respondent
11.

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.
12.

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.
13.

It was further submitted that the Complainant was allotted apartment No. E. 2801 on

the 8th Floor of Tower 2, admeasuring 2195 sq. ft., and an undivided share of 55.50 sq. of land
under the Agreement of Sale. The total sale consideration was Rs. 32,92,500/-.
14.

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 31.08.2024, with a grace period of six
months. The said clause explicitly stated that the period of completion would stand extended

Page 3 of 20

---

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.
16.

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.
17.

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.
18.

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.
19.

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
finishing stages. An extension for the project registration had been granted by this Authority

Page 4 of 20

---

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.
21.

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
22.

It was submitted in response to the preliminary objection on maintainability, that the

said objection was not only vague but legally unfounded. The complaint had been filed under
Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which provided an
explicit statutory right to any aggrieved allottee to seek relief. It was stated that the respondent
had signed a legally binding agreement of sale, which stipulated a committed possession date
of 31st August 2023. As the flat remained undelivered, the complaint was well within legal
bounds.
23.

The contention that the Complainant had not availed methods provided in the

agreement was described as wholly misconceived and devoid of any merit. It was submitted
that the statutory jurisdiction of RERA was not ousted by any arbitration or alternative clause
contained in a private agreement. It was further stated that the Complainant had made repeated
attempts to communicate with the Respondent, but these efforts were met with consistent
avoidance tactics and an endless loop of blame-shifting between internal teams, which
effectively stonewalled the Complainant.
24.

The objection regarding the non-issuance of a legal notice was submitted as being

without merit, as there was no such legal mandate under RERA to issue a prior notice.
25.

It was stated that the Respondent's development rights were not in dispute; the issue lay

in the Respondent's failure to deliver possession on time as per contractual obligations.

Page 5 of 20

---

It was submitted that while the project was registered with RERA, the Respondent had

grossly failed to abide by the obligations that accompanied such registration, particularly those
relating to timely possession and transparency. The Respondent's conduct post-registration
showed a blatant disregard for the regulations, and their reply demonstrated a shocking lack of
respect towards the Hon'ble Authority.
27.

It was submitted that as per the RERA framework, the Agreement of Sale was the only

binding document, which included the crucial possession commitment of 31st August 2023.
The Complainant had duly paid the entire sum of ₹32,92,500/- towards the total consideration
and was not in any default. The Complainant, having complied fully, stood entitled to all legal
remedies under Section 18(1) and 19(4) of the RERA Act.
28.

The Respondent's reliance on a RERA extension was described as legally flawed and

misleading. It was submitted that the possession date as agreed between the parties, 31st August
2023, must prevail for assessing delay, irrespective of any regulatory extensions, as per Section
19(2) of the RERA Act. The Respondent's conduct, in now citing a delivery date of February
2026, rendered the contract meaningless.
29.

The Complainant fully acknowledged the payment of ₹32,92,500/-. However, it was

submitted that the Respondent's attempt to divert the discussion toward specifications was
unrelated to the core issue of delay in possession, especially after receiving 100% of the total
sale consideration.
30.

It was submitted that the Respondent had selectively cited clauses from the Agreement

to justify their delay while ignoring their binding obligation. The Respondent had far exceeded
even the six-month grace period. The repeated reference to force majeure was described as
legally untenable and factually inapplicable, as the Agreement of Sale was executed on 22nd
February 2021, well after the nation had emerged from full lockdown. It was argued that force
majeure clauses could not override statutory protections afforded to allottees under Section
18(1) of the RERA Act.
31.

The Respondent's selective quoting of Clause 7.2 was stated to be entirely misplaced,

as the condition precedent of obtaining an occupancy certificate (OC) had not been met. It was
submitted that Clause 9, which dealt with promoter defaults, must now be actively enforced as
the Respondent had unambiguously breached the possession timeline.
Page 6 of 20

---

The Complainant categorically denied the baseless and defamatory allegations of acting

with an "ulterior motive." It was submitted that the Complainant had made full disclosure of
all material facts, including the Agreement for Sale and proof of payments, whereas the
Respondent had repeatedly failed to meet their own promised timelines.
33.

While the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was acknowledged, it was submitted that

the Respondent's reliance on it was misleading, as the Agreement for Sale was executed on
22nd February 2021, with full knowledge of the ongoing pandemic. The delay from 2023 to
2025 could not be blamed on the pandemic and was nothing more than a convenient scapegoat.
34.

It was submitted that the legal provisions and extensions cited by the Respondent

related solely to statutory periods of limitation for filing legal proceedings and had no
applicability whatsoever to the contractual obligations of a real estate developer under the
RERA Act.
35.

The attempt to attribute the delay to labour migration was stated as not being applicable

to the facts, as the Complainant's unit in Tower 2 had been structurally completed more than
18 months prior. The delay post-structural completion reflected a lack of intent and
mismanagement on the part of the builder. It was also stated that there was no documentary
evidence to support the claim that allottees were formally informed of such delays.
36.

The Respondent's statement regarding "various additional factors" was described as

vague, evasive, and devoid of any factual backing. It was submitted that the claim that
"customers were intimated from time to time" was simply untrue in the Complainant's case.
37.

The response by the Respondent, terming the committed possession date in a formally

executed Agreement of Sale as a product of "clerical and typographical mistakes," was
described as both self-incriminating and legally indefensible. It was submitted that this was a
dishonest afterthought and reflected a complete abdication of responsibility.
38.

It was submitted that while certain legal disputes may have arisen, the mere existence

of litigation involving third parties could not be used as a blanket justification for delay. It was
the legal responsibility of the promoter under Section 11(3)(a) of the RERA Act to ensure the
project was free of encumbrances.
39.

The Complainant challenged the Respondent to produce any formal written

communication that proactively disclosed delays. It was submitted that the pattern of repeatedly
outlining and then dishonouring revised timelines reflected a calculated approach to deflect

Page 7 of 20

---

The Complainant submitted that the claim for interest was a non-negotiable and

unconditional statutory right under Section 18(1) of the Act once the builder failed to deliver
possession by the agreed date. The reliance on force majeure due to COVID-19 was wholly
misplaced.
41.

The Respondent's statement regarding compensation was stated to reflect complete

insensitivity to the real and severe consequences faced by the Complainant, which were clearly
laid out in Form M. Specific real-life impacts were cited, including daily travel burdens for
family members and the unplanned financial strain of renting an additional flat.
42.

The Complainant strongly objected to the Respondent's claim that delivery was now

scheduled for February 2026 and that the Complainant had defaulted on payments. It was
asserted that the Complainant had never agreed to any extension and was not in any payment
default, having paid over 83% of the total consideration. It was submitted that the Respondent's
"unconditional undertaking" did not waive their legal liability to pay interest for the period of
delay already accrued.
43.

The response regarding the Complainant agreeing to the delay was described as another

attempt to deflect responsibility using afterthought excuses. It was stated that the Complainant
never agreed to excuse the delay. The new claim about rocky terrain reflected a lack of due
diligence and was an internal project risk, not force majeure.
44.

The Respondent's statement that the Complainant was not entitled to any relief was

described as a sweeping and baseless denial of liability. It was submitted that the Respondent's
generic claim that the delay was "beyond their control" had been repeatedly refuted. The
Complainant had been patient and fulfilled all financial obligations, and the relief sought was
legally justified.
45.

Finally, it was submitted that the Respondent's claim that the complaint was

"preposterous" was baseless and contrary to the record. The Respondent's generic
"undertaking" and claims of a "good name" could not cure the default already committed.
Accordingly, the Complainant respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Authority grant interest for
the delayed period under Section 18(1) and pass any other appropriate directions.

Page 8 of 20

---

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:
36.

This Authority has carefully examined the preliminary objection raised by the

Respondent with regard to the maintainability of the present Complaint.
37.

At the outset, it is noted that although both parties have made reference to and sought

to rely upon a purported Agreement of Sale, the said Agreement has not been placed on record
before this Authority. In the absence of the said document, this Authority is unable to examine,
rely upon, or render any observation on the specific contractual clauses relied upon by the
Respondent to question the maintainability of the Complaint.
38.

Be that as it may, it is an undisputed and admitted position that a registered Sale Deed

has been executed in favour of the Complainant and that the subject flat stands allotted to the
Complainant by the Respondent. The Respondent has neither denied nor disputed the allotment
of the subject unit to the Complainant. There is also no dispute with respect to the identity of
the unit or the existence of a promoter–allottee relationship between the parties. The project in
question is a registered project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016,
and therefore squarely falls within the jurisdiction of this Authority.
39.

The core grievance raised in the present Complaint pertains to the delay in handing over

possession of the allotted unit and the failure of the Respondent to complete construction and
deliver possession in accordance with the statutory and contractual obligations. Such a
grievance clearly falls within the statutory framework of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016. Section 18 of the said Act expressly provides that where an allottee
does not intend to withdraw from the project, the promoter shall be liable to pay interest for
every month of delay till the handing over of possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.

Page 9 of 20

---

In the present case, the allotment of the unit is admitted, the Sale Deed has been

executed, and the project is a registered project before this Authority. The relief sought by the
Complainant, namely, completion of the project and handing over of possession along with
statutory interest for delay, squarely falls within the ambit of Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act,
2016.
41.

In view of the above, this Authority finds no merit in the objection raised by the

Respondent regarding maintainability. The Complainant cannot be compelled to first pursue
an amicable settlement or contractual remedies when the grievance raised is statutory in nature
and falls directly within the jurisdiction conferred upon this Authority under the RE(R&D) Act.
42.

Accordingly, the objection as to maintainability raised by the Respondent is hereby

rejected.
Point 2:
43.

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 100% of the total
sale consideration, causing significant financial and emotional distress.
44.

It is the case of the Complainant that the Sale Deed for the subject property was

executed on 31.10.2020, pursuant to the Complainant having purchased the property from the
landowner. The landowner, one Shri J.V. Chowdary, had earlier entered into a Registered Deed
of Assignment-cum-Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated
14.06.2019 with the Respondent herein. The Complainant has relied upon this Development
Agreement and has contended that, in terms of Clause 11.1 thereof, the builder-developer had
undertaken to complete the project within 36 months, with a further grace period of six months
from the date of obtaining revised permissions. However, the Complainant cannot be bound by
the terms of the said Development Agreement, as he was not a party to that contract. Further,
the Complainant has not produced before this Authority any copy of the Agreement of Sale
executed between the parties. In the absence of such Agreement of Sale produced before this
Authority stipulating the date of delivery of possession, the valid basis for determining the
possession date is the date of execution of the Sale Deed. It is also noted that the Respondent
has not denied the existence of an Agreement of Sale nor its obligation to deliver possession
within the agreed timeline. Indeed, in the Respondent’s submissions, the Respondent has
referred to 31.08.2023 as the date on or before which possession was to be delivered.

Page 10 of 20

---

It is pertinent to note that the Respondent has failed to hand over possession even as of

February 2025. Further, although the project was registered with TG RERA up to February
2025 and later extended until 07.02.2026, the project remains incomplete, with construction
progress stalled at approximately 65-70% as per the Complainant’s submission, with key
aspects such as interior finishing, common amenities, and supporting infrastructure remaining
unfinished. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has issued multiple revised handover
schedules without providing valid justification or a clear roadmap for completion.
46.

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?
47.

This Authority finds no merit in such a contention. The Sale Deed was executed on

31.10.2020 which was well after the onset and initial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Having
consciously undertaken contractual commitments as per their own submissions, with full
knowledge of the prevailing circumstances, 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.
48.

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 as has been submitted by the 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

Page 11 of 20

---

This Authority aligns with the observations of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in

Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. [2017 SCC OnLine
Bom 9302], wherein at para 119 it was categorically observed:
"While the proposal is submitted, the Promoter is supposed to be conscious of the
consequences of getting the project registered under RERA. Having sufficient
experience in the open market, the Promoter is expected to have a fair assessment of
the time required for completing the project…".
50.

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. However, in the absence of
the Agreement of Sale, the date of execution of the Sale Deed shall be considered as the date
of possession.
51.

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

untenable. The Respondent 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
52.

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.
53.

At the outset, it must be clarified that under the scheme of the RE(R&D) Act:
“An Act to establish the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for regulation and
promotion of the real estate sector and to ensure sale of plot, apartment or
building, as the case may be, or sale of real estate project, in an efficient and
transparent manner and to protect the interest of consumers in the real estate

Page 12 of 20

---

The paramount objective is twofold: protection of consumer interest, and ensuring

completion of projects in an efficient manner. Denial of extension during the Covid-19
disruption would have resulted in projects being stalled, to the grave prejudice of allottees. It
was in this context that this Authority, balancing the equities, granted extensions in line with
the moratoriums issued by Telangana RERA:
1. 15.03.2020 to 14.09.2020 (Circular No.14 dated 13.05.2020),
2. 15.09.2020 to 15.03.2021 (Order No.15 dated 29.09.2020),
3. 15.03.2021 to 14.09.2021 (Order No.16 dated 01.06.2021).
55.

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, 2016.
56.

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

possession timelines to February 2026 due to the extension taken without consultation or
consent of the Complainants. Such unilateral revisions are impermissible. The Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors. [2017
SCC OnLine Bom 9302], while upholding the constitutional validity of RERA, categorically
observed:
Para 119 “The RERA does not contemplate rewriting of contract between the flat
purchaser and the promoter.”
Para 256 of this Judgment further clarifies that “by giving opportunity to the promoter
to prescribe fresh timeline under Section 4(2)(l)(C), he is not absolved of the liability
under the agreement for sale”
57.

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. Since the Agreement for Sale is not produced
Page 13 of 20

---

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the revised possession dates mentioned by the

Respondent, whether while seeking extensions before the Authority or as updated on the
registration portal, cannot be treated as binding on the Complainants.

iii)Relief under Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act:
59.

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

of Rs. 32,92,500/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakh Ninety Two Thousand Five Hundred Only). That,
as per the Sale deed the Complainant has duly paid the entire sale consideration amount as has
been acknowledged in the executed Sale Deed as well. Further, as has already been established,
the scheduled property should have been delivered by the date of execution of the Sale Deed
i.e. 31.10.2020. Admittedly, possession has not been delivered.
60.

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 100% of the agreed consideration as per their averments. Despite receiving such
substantial sums, the Respondent has failed to honour its contractual obligations. It is manifest
that the Respondent gave false assurances, being fully conscious of the market situation, yet
assuring dates of completion that it had no capacity to honour. More than one year has elapsed
beyond the stipulated date, yet the project is neither complete nor possession handed over.
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.
61.

As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar

[Civil Appeal No. 7357 of 2000]:
“It is settled principle of law that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair
advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is sound
principle that he, who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the

Page 14 of 20

---

In this context, it is pertinent to note that the 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.
63.

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.
64.

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
Page 15 of 20

---

This statutory right of allottee is unqualified and absolute. Attention is drawn to the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 3581-359 of 2022, Civil
Appeal Diary No. 9796/2019, M/s Imperia Structures Limited vs. Anil Patni & Others,
wherein it was held:
"In terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter fails to complete or is unable to
give possession of an apartment by the date specified in the agreement, the promoter
would be liable, on demand, to return the amount received in respect of that apartment
if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project. Such a right of the allottee is 'without
prejudice to any other remedy available to him'. This right is unqualified, and if availed,
the deposited money must be refunded with interest as prescribed. The proviso to
Section 18(1) contemplates that if the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the
project, they are entitled to interest for every month of delay until possession is handed
over. The allottee may proceed under Section 18(1) or the proviso thereto."
66.

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."

67.

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, should be considered. Thus, the
Respondent is bound by Section 11(4)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act. However, in the present

Page 16 of 20

---

At the same time, if the Complainant has indeed defaulted in adhering to the payment

schedule, the Respondent is not without remedy. Sections 19(6) and 19(7) of the Act confer
upon the promoter a right to claim interest for delayed payments, as per Rule 15 of the
Telangana RE(R&D) Rules, 2017. Nevertheless, such entitlement shall be subject to the
Respondent producing cogent and substantive documents demonstrating both the stage-wise
progress of construction and the corresponding default, and not merely based on unilateral
assertions.
69.

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 31.10.2020 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.
70.

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.
71.

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.

Page 17 of 20

---

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.
73.

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.
74.

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.
75.

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.
76.

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.
77.

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.

Page 18 of 20

---

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 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.
c. The extension of registration taken by this Respondent cannot dilute the contractual
rights of the Complainant. The date of possession shall be the date of execution of the
Sale Deed.
d. The Respondent is held liable for failure to hand over possession of the subject flat by
the stipulated date i.e., 31.10.2020.
e. The Complainants are entitled to interest at the rate of 10.7% 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 01.11.2020 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.

Page 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.
80.

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

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.
81.

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

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

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

Page 20 of 20

---