Order Complaint No. 200 of 2025​

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 200 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

Adabala Satya Sai Krishna
R/o: GF-3, Mahalakshmi Enclave,
Near Akshara Concept School, Isukhathota,
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530022
…Complainant
Versus
M/s. Vasavi Realtor LLP,
Rep by its Designated Partner, Yerram Vijay Kumar,
Vasavi Corporate,
H.No.8-2-703/7/1 and 8-2-703/7/1/A,
4th Floor, Vasavi Corporate Building, Amrutha Valley Apartments,
Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500034
…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in presence of Complainant and the Respondent; upon pursuing the material on
record and on hearing arguments of both the parties and having stood over for consideration
till this day, the following order is passed:
ORDER
2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Section 31 of the Real

Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) read with
Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against the Respondents.
A. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the Complainant, are as follows:
3.

The Complainant states that he approached the Respondent’s project “Vasavi Lake City

East” located at Hafeezpet, Hyderabad, based on advertisements and information available on
the Respondent’s website. The Respondent assured that the project would be completed by
August 2024 along with all promised amenities. Trusting these assurances and considering the
Page 1 of 23

---

It is submitted that after making timely payments up to 70% of the flat cost, the

Complainant executed an Agreement of Sale in April 2022. However, the Respondent
subsequently informed that Flat No. E3902 was not available as it was an “owner’s flat” and
instead asked the Complainant to choose from available units. Left with limited options since
the project was already about 70% complete, the Complainant agreed to take Flat No. E051009
admeasuring 1650 sq.ft. The Complainant continued to make payments as demanded, and till
date has paid a total of Rs. 79,50,345/- through cheques and RTGS, without any delay.
5.

The Complainant was assured possession by August 2024 with a grace period of six

months. However, despite frequent follow-ups and site visits by his father, it was observed that
progress remained slow and the project is still only about 70% complete. Essential works such
as lifts, landscaping, electrical works and bathroom fittings remain pending. The Respondent
verbally promised handover by Dusshera/Diwali 2024 but subsequently revised the dates. A
Minutes of Meeting dated 08.09.2024 records the Respondent’s promise to adhere to the
revised schedule and pay compensation as per RERA guidelines for delay.
6.

The Complainant states that the Respondent had promised to provide monthly updates,

but no updates were issued after July 2024. In January 2025, the Respondent released a progress
update showing negligible work done in six months and further extended the possession date
to June 2025, without committing to a definite timeline for completion of amenities.
7.

It is submitted that the delay has caused significant hardship. The Complainant has had

to bear rental expenses in addition to payments already made, while his father has had to travel
frequently from Visakhapatnam to monitor progress. The Complainant further states that the
continued delay and lack of compensation have caused mental stress and financial burden, and
that the Respondent’s conduct shows lack of commitment to honour the Agreement of Sale and
the compensation assurances made in meetings.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
8.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

To direct the Respondent to hand over possession of the flat by the end of June 2025
along with the promised amenities, without compromising on the quality.

Page 2 of 23

---

To direct the Respondent to pay interest at the RERA prescribed rate on the sum of Rs.
79,50,345/- already paid, calculated from the committed possession date under the
Agreement of Sale until the date of actual possession.

iii.

To direct the Respondent to pay compensation for the delay, including reimbursement
of rent paid for accommodation at the Complainant’s rental property at Madeenaguda
and travel expenses incurred by the Complainant’s father.

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 multistoried apartments were obtained on 07.02.2020. The project consists of six towers (cellars +
ground + 14 upper floors), and a clubhouse (stilt + 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 21.02.2021, and was allotted an apartment No. E.51009 on the 10th Floor
of Tower 5, admeasuring 1650 sq. ft., along with parking, for a total consideration of
Rs.88,30,000/-. The Agreement of Sale sets out the carpet area, balcony/veranda area, common
area, and undivided share of land. The Complainant has paid Rs.79,50,345/- towards the sale
consideration, while the balance amount remains payable in accordance with the agreed
payment schedule.
11.

It is submitted that as per Clause 7 of the Agreement, the Respondent was obligated to

hand over possession of the flat and common areas by 31.08.2024, 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

Page 3 of 23

---

It is submitted that the complainants have not come before this Hon’ble Authority with

clean facts but with an ulterior motive to make unlawful gain and that there has been material
suppression of facts of the case with regard to the claim and the relief sought therein.
13.

It is further stated that COVID-19 is a force majeure event duly recognized under law,

and hence the timelines stood extended. The Respondent contended that the COVID-19
pandemic, subsequent lockdowns, and migration of labourers had severely impacted
construction work. The Respondent further relies on the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020, whereby the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022
was excluded for the purposes of computation of limitation across various statutes. It is
contended that the extension of time for completion of the project was not only factually
justified but also recognised in law.
14.

In addition to COVID-19, the Respondent submits that unforeseen site conditions such

as rocky terrain requiring manual excavation further delayed the project. Owing to restrictions
on blasting due to the residential nature of the surrounding locality, excavation could only be
done manually, which compounded the delay. These challenges were communicated to all
allottees through regular updates and meetings.
15.

The Respondent also submits that certain third-party disputes adversely impacted the

project timelines. These include cases such as RERA Case No. 190/2020, W.P. Nos.
2694/2021, 13898/2022, 33433/2023, W.A. No. 584/2023, SLP Nos. 9694–9695/2023, and
W.P. No. 26301/2024, some of which are still pending. While most have been resolved, their
pendency at various points of time hindered the smooth progress of the project.
16.

It is contended that the project has been executed strictly in accordance with approved

plans and specifications, and any clerical or typographical errors in the Agreement of Sale
cannot be construed to create liability. It is the case of the Respondent that more than 90% of
the project construction is completed and the project is presently in its final finishing stage. An
extension of registration has already been granted by this Authority till 07.02.2026, within
which period the Respondent undertakes to deliver possession of the apartments to all allottees.

Page 4 of 23

---

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.

It is submitted that the Respondent’s reply is characterized by vague excuses,

misleading statements, and repeated attempts to deflect responsibility for the inordinate delay
in handing over possession of the subject flat. The core issue remains that despite execution of
an Agreement of Sale dated 21.10.2023, wherein the Respondent unequivocally committed to
deliver possession by 31.08.2024, the Respondent has failed to honour the said commitment.
19.

It is further submitted that the justifications given by the Respondent, namely the

COVID-19 pandemic, invocation of force majeure, pendency of third-party proceedings, and
internal inefficiencies, do not legally justify the delay in the present context, particularly in
light of the fact that the Complainant’s tower has been structurally complete for over 18
months.
20.

It is stated that the Complainant has paid 90% of the total consideration and has

complied with all obligations under Schedule C of the Agreement of Sale. The false claims of
payment default, post-facto extensions, and unverifiable meeting notes cannot override the
statutory entitlements of the Complainants under Section 18(1) of the RERA Act. It is further
submitted that the mental agony, logistical hardship, and financial burden placed on the
Complainant, and his family are real and substantiated. Therefore, the Complainant seeks only
what is fair and lawful, namely monthly interest for the delayed period as mandated under the
Act, and such further reliefs as this Hon’ble Authority may deem just and proper.
21.

The Complainants then proceed with a point-wise rebuttal to the Respondent’s Counter.

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
Page 5 of 23

---

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.
23.

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.
24.

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.
25.

It is submitted that the Respondent’s emphasis on the booking date of 21.02.2021 is

legally irrelevant. Under the RERA framework and standard contractual norms, the Agreement
of Sale dated 21.10.2023, is the only binding document. It is further submitted that the
Complainant has duly paid ₹79,50,345/- towards the consideration value in line with ScheduleC 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.

Page 6 of 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.
27.

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 one year, 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.
28.

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 fully
acknowledged the payment of ₹79,50,345/-, as correctly reflected under Clause 1.11 of the
Agreement of Sale. It is submitted that there is no default in payment by the complainant, the
balance consideration is linked to possession milestones and is payable at the time of handover.
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.
29.

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 21.10.2023, 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 formal
invocation of force majeure, timely notice, or mitigation efforts. The delay is therefore
unjustified, and the Respondent is fully liable.

Page 7 of 23

---

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.
31.

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 one year, 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.
32.

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

prolonged delay is untenable. The Agreement of Sale was executed on 21.10.2023, 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.
33.

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
Agreement of Sale 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.
34.

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

also misplaced. The Complainant’s unit in Tower 5 of the East Wing was structurally complete
more than 18 months ago, yet no further progress was made. Delays post-completion cannot
be explained by labour shortages. No documentary evidence has been produced to show timely
communication of such impediments.

Page 8 of 23

---

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 formal
schedule for handover has been given. Updates, if any, were provided only after repeated
follow-ups by the Complainant, not proactively. The Respondent’s conduct reflects negligence
and lack of urgency, not force majeure.
36.

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.
37.

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.
38.

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.
39.

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. It is not sufficient for the Respondent to merely claim good
faith or effort, when the undeniable fact is that contractual obligations have been breached and
such breach has caused direct personal and financial hardship to the Complainant, all of which
have been clearly set out in Form M placed before this Hon’ble Authority. The claim for

Page 9 of 23

---

Being an NRI, the Complainant has endured mental agony, anxiety, and stress caused

solely by the Respondent’s negligence and unreliability after investing a significant portion of
hard-earned income into this home. The Complainant was compelled to travel to India multiple
times since 2023 to meet the CRM and personally verify the project’s progress. His father, aged
over 60 years, was forced to undertake repeated visits to the site, travelling over 700 kilometres
each time, due to the Respondent’s failure to provide reliable updates. The Complainant is also
uncertain whether the TDS amounts deducted and paid to the Respondent have been reported
to the Income Tax Department, and lives under the risk of potential penalties, adding another
layer of financial stress. In addition, the Complainant’s brother was compelled to extend the
rental at Hema Durga Pride, incurring increased rent and unplanned financial strain.
41.

These hardships are not speculative but specific, measurable, and substantiated, as

already detailed in Form M. The Complainant has also made clear that he will pursue
compensation through Form N as provided under the RERA framework. In these
circumstances, the dismissive attitude of the Respondent toward the documented suffering of
the Complainant and his family deserves to be rejected.
42.

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 ₹79,50,345/–, 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.
43.

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.
44.

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,

Page 10 of 23

---

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

of Sale dated 21.10.2023 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.
D. Points for Consideration
46.

Upon a careful perusal of the record and the submissions advanced by both parties, oral

as well as written, this Authority is of the view that the following issues arise for determination
in the present complaint:
1. Whether the present complaint is maintainable before this Authority?
2. Whether the Complainants are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
E. Observations of the Authority:
Point 1:
47.

The Respondent has raised an objection as to the maintainability of the present

complaint on the ground that the Complainants failed to first resort to the contractual dispute
resolution mechanism envisaged in the Agreement of Sale, namely an amicable settlement by
mutual discussion, prior to approaching this Authority. The Authority finds this objection
untenable for the following reasons:
48.

The Authority finds this objection untenable for the following reasons: The relevant

Dispute Resolution clause in the Agreement of Sale is reproduced below for ready reference:

Page 11 of 23

---

It is clear from the above that the clause only requires the parties to attempt an amicable

settlement by mutual discussion. Such a clause is at best directory and cannot oust or restrict
the statutory jurisdiction of this Authority. Section 79 of the RE(R&D) Act expressly bars the
jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of any matter which this Authority, the Adjudicating
Officer, or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. Likewise, Section 88 clarifies
that the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws.
Thus, the intention of the legislature is that remedies under this beneficial legislation must
remain open to allottees, irrespective of any private clause for amicable settlement.
50.

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.
51.

In National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy (2012) 2 SCC 506, the

Supreme Court held that remedies under special statutes are in addition to, and not in derogation
of, other remedies. For ready reference, the relevant extract is reproduced below:
*“49. Support to the above view is also lent by Section 79 of the recently enacted Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short "the Real Estate Act").
Section 79 of the said Act reads as follows:- ‘79. Bar of jurisdiction - No civil court
shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter
which the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered
by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or
other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power
conferred by or under this Act.’ It can thus, be seen that the said provision expressly
ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of any matter which the Real Estate
Regulatory Authority, established under Subsection (1) of Section 20 or the
Adjudicating Officer, appointed under Subsection (1) of Section 71, or the Real Estate
Page 12 of 23

---

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."
53.

In the present matter, there is only a clause requiring amicable discussion before

invoking remedies. Such a clause is directory at best, and cannot override or defeat the statutory
right of the Complainant to approach this Authority under the RE(R&D) Act. Accordingly, this
Authority has no hesitation in holding that the Complainant is well within its rights to approach
Page 13 of 23

---

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

delay in handing over possession of the subject flat, despite timely payments of approximately
90% of the total sale consideration, causing significant financial and emotional distress.
55.

It is the case of the Complainant that the Agreement of Sale dated 21.10.2023 clearly

stipulated that possession of the subject flat would be handed over by 31.08.2024, with a grace
period of six months, ending on 28.02.2025. 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 60-70% 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.
56.

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.
57.

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, thirdparty 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?
58.

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

executed on 21.10.2023, well after the onset and initial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The
Respondent, being fully aware of the prevailing circumstances, nevertheless executed the
Agreement by specifically assuring completion of the project by August 2024. Having
consciously undertaken such commitment, the Respondent cannot now, with retrospective

Page 14 of 23

---

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 2024.
60.

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…".
61.

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.
62.

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 October 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
63.

The Respondent has further contended that, since extensions have been granted by this

Authority, the project timeline now stands extended up to February 2026, and therefore

Page 15 of 23

---

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.”

65.

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).
66.

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.
67.

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

possession timelines to February 2026 due to the extension taken without consultation or
consent of the Complainants. Such unilateral revisions are impermissible. The Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors. [2017

Page 16 of 23

---

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.
69.

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:
70.

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

of Rs. 88,30,000/- (Rupees Eighty Eight Lakh Thirty Thousand Only). That, as per the
Agreement of Sale as well as the submissions made by the Complainant, the Complainant has
paid an amount of Rs.79,50,345/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Lakh Only). However, as per the
payment receipts provided before this Authority only an amount of Rs. 69,50,345/- (Rupees
Sixty Nine Lakh Fifty Thousand Three hundred And Forty Five Only) has been paid by the
Complainant towards the sale consideration. Further, the Agreement of Sale clearly stipulated
possession by 31.08.2024, with a grace period of 6 months to 28.02.2025. Admittedly,
possession has not been delivered.
71.

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 80% of the agreed consideration as per their averments. Despite receiving
such substantial sums, the Respondent has failed to honour its contractual obligations. It is

Page 17 of 23

---

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”
73.

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.
74.

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.
75.

Now, Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act is categorical:
“(1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment,
plot or building,—

Page 18 of 23

---

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

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 3581-359 of 2022, Civil
Appeal Diary No. 9796/2019, M/s Imperia Structures Limited vs. Anil Patni & Others,
wherein it was held:
"In terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter fails to complete or is unable to
give possession of an apartment by the date specified in the agreement, the promoter
would be liable, on demand, to return the amount received in respect of that apartment
if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project. Such a right of the allottee is 'without
prejudice to any other remedy available to him'. This right is unqualified, and if availed,

Page 19 of 23

---

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."
78.

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.
79.

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.
80.

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.

Page 20 of 23

---

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.
82.

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.
83.

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.
84.

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.
85.

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.
86.

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.
87.

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

schedule, the Respondent shall be entitled, under Section 19(6) of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016, to claim interest on such delayed payments in accordance with

Page 21 of 23

---

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:
89.

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 10.7% 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 01.03.2025 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 (60)
days, and shall thereafter continue to pay the accruing interest on a monthly basis, on
or before the 10th day of each succeeding month, until possession is delivered.
f. Insofar as compensation is concerned, the Complainant is at liberty to pursue
appropriate proceedings before the Learned Adjudicating Officer under “Form N”.

Page 22 of 23

---

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

pending against this Respondent in the same project, this Authority sternly warns the
Respondent that any further delay, non-compliance, or grievance brought to notice by allottees
shall invite Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
91.

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

92.

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
93.

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 23 of 23

---