Order Complaint No. 198 of 2025​

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 198/2025/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

Vishal Mahankali
Ashwin Kotagiri
(H.no. 1-1-704/1, Padma Nagar, Road no.3, Varni road, Nizamabad 503001)

…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 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:

2.

ORDER
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 was submitted that the Complainant had purchased a flat from the Respondent in

the “Vasavi Lake City” project in December 2023. The said purchase was based on

1 of 19

---

It was stated that the Complainant had made one hundred percent payment for the said

flat, and the registration was completed in March 2024. The transaction was entered into with
the belief that the project was progressing on schedule. It was further submitted that the
Complainant had received a personal assurance from Sri Yerram Vijay Kumar that the
handover of the flat would take place by August 2024.
5.

It was contended that despite these assurances, 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 or demonstrating any actual progress.
6.

It was further submitted that as of January 2025, the project was only an estimated

sixty to seventy percent completed, and no significant work had been carried out since that
time. Key aspects such as interior finishing, 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 a completion schedule.
7.

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 by collecting the
full payment upfront and subsequently failing to fulfill its contractual and promised
obligations, the Respondent had clearly breached the governing guidelines. The complaint
was therefore filed to seek urgent intervention, financial compensation, and strict action
against the Respondent for the prolonged delay, which had caused the Complain-ant
significant financial strain, mental stress, and emotional distress.
B. Reliefs Sought
8.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

To direct the Respondent to forthwith complete all pending construction and hand
over immediate possession of the subject flat to the Complainant, the registration for
which was completed in March 2024, within a fixed and enforceable timeframe to be
determined by this Honourable Authority, failing which to impose strict penalties
upon the Respondent.

2 of 19

---

To direct the Respondent to pay interest on the total amount paid by the Complainant,
calculated from the promised date of possession in August 2024 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
suffered as a result of the Respondent's negligence, false promises, and the prolonged
delay in the completion of the project.

C. Counter filed by the Respondent
9.

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.
10.

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.
11.

It was further submitted that the Complainant was allotted apartment No. E. 5302 on

the 3rd Floor of Tower 5, admeasuring 1705 sq. ft., and an undivided share of 48 sq. yds. of
land under the Agreement of Sale. The agreement detailed the carpet area, balcony area,
common area, and the undivided share of land. The total sale consideration was Rs.
77,16,750/- out of which only Rs. 42,25,100/- was paid.
12.

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
in the event of force majeure conditions, during which the allottee was not entitled to claim
any compensation for the delay.

3 of 19

---

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.
14.

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.
15.

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.
16.

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.
17.

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
up to 07.02.2026, and the Respondent gave an undertaking to deliver the apartments within
this extended period.
4 of 19

---

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.
19.

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
20.

It was submitted in response to the preliminary objection regarding maintainability,

that the said objection was baseless, vague, and legally untenable. The complaint had been
filed under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016,
seeking redressal for the inordinate delay. It was stated that the Agreement of Sale dated 20th
January 2024 clearly stipulated the committed date of possession as August 2024, and as
possession had not been granted, the application was legally maintainable.
21.

In response to the contention that the applicant had not availed methods as provided in

the agreement, it was submitted that all relevant evidence, including the Sale Agreement, Sale
Deed, Minutes of Meetings (MOMs), and Form-M, had already been submitted in support of
the claims, and that multiple attempts had been made to establish contact with the builder.
22.

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

submitted that RERA did not mandate the issuance of a legal notice as a precondition.
Moreover, the issue of delay had been repeatedly raised by the Complainant during multiple
in-person meetings organized by the Respondent, making the Respondent well aware of the
grievance.
23.

It was stated that the complainant did not dispute the legality of development rights

but raised grievances on grounds of consistent and unjustified delays post-agreement.
Similarly, it was not disputed that permissions were obtained, but it was submitted that this
did not absolve the respondent of their obligation to deliver possession in a timely manner.
The registration of the project was also not disputed, but it was argued that the timeline of
registration did not justify the failure to meet the possession obligations of August 2024.

5 of 19

---

It was submitted that as per the RERA Act, the Agreement for Sale was the primary

document, which clearly stated the committed date of possession as August 2024.
25.

With regard to the extension of the project's registration, it was submitted that as per

the Agreement of Sale, possession was committed by August 2024, and the Respondent had
exceeded this timeline. It was stated that while construction progress may have been reported
to authorities, actual possession remained undelivered. The reference to the "Schedule of
amenities" was described as irrelevant to the core issue.
26.

It was submitted that the Complainant had paid 100% of the payment, along with

Maintenance for two years, Corpus Fund, and GST in March 2025, and had executed the Sale
Deed and Registration, which further reaffirmed the existence of contractual obligations that
had not been met.
27.

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

7.1 itself stated that timely delivery was the essence of the Agreement, supporting the
Complainant's right to enforce the agreed delivery date. It was submitted that since the
agreement was executed in January 2024, the COVID-19 pandemic could not be cited as a
force majeure condition.
28.

While the interpretation of Clause 7.2 was agreed upon, it was submitted that the

Respondent had not obtained the Occupancy Certificate (OC) nor had any written offer of
possession been made. This, it was argued, made it explicitly clear that the project was not
complete and that the Respondent was in continuing breach of Clause 7.1. It was further
contended that Clause 9 of the Agreement, which defined events of default by the promoter,
was squarely applicable and reinforced the Complainant's entitlement to relief.
29.

The Respondent's allegation that the complaint had been filed with an ulterior motive

was denied in toto. It was submitted that the Complainant had approached the Hon'ble
Authority with clean hands, placing all material facts and documents on record. The vague
and unsubstantiated allegation of 'material suppression' was described as an attempt to deflect
attention from their own breach of contractual and statutory obligations.
30.

It was submitted that while the COVID-19 pandemic was a global emergency, the

Agreement of Sale was executed in January 2024, by which time there was no COVID-19.
Therefore, it could not be cited as an unforeseeable force majeure event. Similarly, the labor
disruptions of early 2020 did not justify a delay for a contract entered into in January 2024.

6 of 19

---

The Respondents' vague reference to 'various additional factors' was described as

wholly unspecific and unsupported by evidence. It was submitted that no formal written
notices or revised possession timelines had been provided. It was also noted that during
multiple meetings, the Respondents themselves had cited funding constraints and legal issues
as the primary reasons for the delay.
32.

The Complainant strongly denied the Respondent's assertion that the possession date

of 31st August 2024 was a "clerical or typo mistake." It was submitted that this date appeared
multiple times in the contract and was consistent with the Respondent's commitment. It was
pointed out that the Sale Deed and registration were executed in March 2024, agreeing to
possession by August 2024, and that the Respondent had executed multiple agreements with
the same timeline during this period, which further defeated the "error" claim.
33.

The claim that the complaint was baseless or malicious was categorically denied. It

was argued that while the Respondent may have secured an extension of RERA registration,
this did not alter or override their contractual commitment to the Complainant.
34.

It was submitted that the complainant was not a party to any of the third-party

disputes and that no attempt had been made by the respondent to communicate this
proactively at any stage.
35.

It was acknowledged that the Respondent had communicated updates during certain

meetings. However, it was argued that informal updates or phased assurances could not
override the express contractual commitment made in the Agreement of Sale. It was
submitted that the relief sought was reasonable, lawful, and proportionate to the delay
suffered.
36.

It was respectfully submitted that the entitlement to interest for delay was not

discretionary, but a statutory right. The denial of interest was unjustified as the Agreement of
Sale was executed in January 2024, at a time when there was no COVID-19 or any other
Force Majeure situation.
37.

It was submitted that the primary relief sought was interest for delay, which was a

statutory right. It was argued that if compensation was also sought, it was based on the real
disruption in planning, finances, and stability for the Complainant, which was not
hypothetical or whimsical.
38.

The Complainant submitted that 100% of the flat payments had been made in March

2024 and the flat was registered, strictly in accordance with the payment schedule. The
7 of 19

---

The Complainant denied having agreed to COVID-19 as a consequence of delay. The

claim of "rocky terrain" was described as a new justification that had not been communicated
previously. It was argued that such geological and technical site assessments were the
developer's responsibility and were expected to be factored into the project plan.
40.

The statement that the Complainant was not entitled to relief was described as a

general denial, unsupported by specific facts. It was submitted that the Respondent had failed
to demonstrate that any force majeure conditions occurred after the execution of the
Agreement of Sale. The Complainant took strong objection to the characterization of the
complaint as "preposterous" or "false." It was submitted that the complaint had been filed in
good faith based on the documented delay in possession. The Respondent's claimed
reputation or efforts could not override contractual and legal obligations. The Complainant
respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Authority direct the Respondent to compensate for the
delay as per applicable law and ensure timely possession.
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:

43.

The relevant Dispute Resolution clause in the Agreement of Sale is reproduced below

for ready reference:
8 of 19

---

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.
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 under Section 43 of the Real Estate Act, is
9 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."
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
10 of 19

---

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 2024,

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

11 of 19

---

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 the Agreement of Sale in 2022 with
specific possession timelines, cannot now seek to retrospectively attribute delays to the
pandemic. Accordingly, this Authority holds that the reliance on Covid-19 as a shield stands
rejected.
(ii) Extension of Registration
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
12 of 19

---

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).
61.
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.
62.

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:

63.

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”
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.
13 of 19

---

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

The Complainants contend that they have paid 100% of the total sale consideration, diligently
and without default. The Respondent, however, avers that only 75% out of total sale
consideration amount has been paid amounting to Rs.45, 25,100/- has been paid. In the
rejoinder, the Complainants have reiterated that 100% of the total consideration, has been
paid. However, the Complainants have not placed on record any payment receipts to
substantiate their claim. At the same time, the Respondent has also not specifically disputed
or produced any contrary documentary evidence to rebut the Complainants’ assertion. In the
absence of such contradictory evidence, this Authority proceeds on the basis that substantial
payments have indeed been made by the Complainants, and accordingly accepts their
averment of having paid 100% of the total consideration for the limited purpose of granting
relief, this Authority proceeds on the basis that substantial payments have indeed been made
by the Complainants, and accordingly accepts their averment of having paid 100% of the
total consideration for the limited purpose of granting relief. The exact quantum shall,
however, be subject to verification of actual payments by the Respondent at the stage of
computation, while effecting payment of interest. Further, the Agreement clearly stipulates
the date of possession as August 2024 with a grace period of six months up to February 2025.
Admittedly, possession has not been delivered.
66.

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 total sale consideration amount 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

14 of 19

---

68.

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.

15 of 19

---

71.

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

16 of 19

---

In the present case, this Authority finds the Respondent in clear breach of both

statutory and contractual obligations. The Complainant is therefore entitled to interest at the
prescribed rate for the entire period of delay, i.e., from 01.03.2025 until the actual date of
handing over possession. As regards claims of compensation, this Authority notes that
jurisdiction for adjudicating compensation lies with the Adjudicating Officer under Section
71 of RE(R&D) Act with Form ‘N’. The Complainant is at liberty to pursue such remedy
separately..
76.

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.

17 of 19

---

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.
82.

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
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.
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

19 of 19

---