Order Complaint No. 202 of 2025​

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 202 of 2025
Dated: 30th December 2025
Quorum:

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

1. Mr. Sobhanbabu Kolakaluri
2. Mrs Mulpuri Swathi, w/o Sobhanbabu Kolakaluri
R/o flat no 202, Savi Vykuntam Classic,
Shilpa Avenue Colony,
Hydernagar, Hyderabad-500049
…Complainant
Versus
M/s. Vasavi Realtor LLP,
Rep by its Designated Partner, Vijay Kumar Yerram & Kandey Ramesh,
Vasavi Corporate,
H.No.8-2-703/7/1 and 8-2-703/7/1/A,
4th Floor, Vasavi Corporate Building, Amrutha Valley Apartments,
Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500034
…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in presence of Complainant and the Respondent; upon pursuing the material on
record and on hearing arguments of both the parties and having stood over for consideration
till this day, the following order is passed:
ORDER
2.

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

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

It was submitted that the Complainant had entered into an Agreement for Sale with the

Respondent, Vasavi Realtors, in April 2022 for the purchase of Flat No. 31306 in Tower 3 of

Page 1 of 19

---

It was stated that as per the terms of the said Agreement of Sale, the stipulated date for

the handover of possession of the flat was August 2024. It was contended that as of February
2025, possession had not been delivered, constituting a delay of seven months, and the
Respondent had failed to provide a certain date for the future handover.
3.

It was further submitted that the Respondent had repeatedly postponed the committed

handover date. It was alleged that after an initial assurance for February 2025, the date was
pushed to March 2025, and subsequently to June 2025. The Complainant contended that even
the latest timeline appeared unrealistic given the quantum of pending work.
4.

It was alleged that since September 2023, there had been a lack of significant progress

in construction over a period of approximately one and a half years, with only minor works
such as door, window, and tile installation being carried out.
5.

It was submitted that numerous works remained incomplete within the building. These

included the installation of bathroom fixtures, windows, doors, service lifts, and staircase
railings. Furthermore, electrical switchboards and water connections had not been completed,
and both external and internal painting works were pending.
6.

It was also contended that the common amenities, including the clubhouse, garden, and

children's play area, remained incomplete, and the parking ramps and parking areas were still
under construction. The Complainant raised concerns regarding the quality of work, citing
issues such as gaps between windows and walls, narrowly constructed doors, and water leakage
on several floors. It was further stated that the Respondent was not installing the kitchen
platform, the cost of which was included in the sale consideration, and no information
regarding reimbursement for the same had been provided.
B. Reliefs Sought
7.

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

Page 2 of 19

---

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.
9.

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.
10.

It was further submitted that the Complainant was allotted apartment No. E. 031306 on

the 13th Floor of Tower 3, admeasuring 1650 sq. ft., and an undivided share of 46 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.
1,20,34,500/- out of which complainant paid Rs. 25,27,245/-.
11.

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.
Page 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.
13.

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.
14.

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.
15.

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.
16.

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.

Page 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.
18.

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
19.

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 in handing over possession. It was stated that the Agreement
of Sale dated 22nd April 2022 clearly stipulated the committed date of possession as August
2024, and as possession had not been granted by the date of filing the complaint on 15th March
2025, the application was legally maintainable under Section 31 read with Sections 18(1) and
19(4) of the Act.
20.

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 Minutes of Meetings
(MOMs) and Form M, had already been submitted in support of the claims, and that all possible
means to establish contact with the builder had been exhausted.
21.

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

submitted that the Complainant had repeatedly contacted the Builder for possession, and each
time a new deadline was given without proper explanation. It was further submitted that under
the RERA Act, a prior legal notice was not a mandatory requirement.
22.

It was submitted that obtaining development rights, permissions for construction, and

RERA registration were the prerequisite and complete responsibility of the Respondent.
Similarly, it was submitted that the allotment of the apartment and payment of the booking
amount were prerequisites for both the Complainant and the Respondent to enter into an
Agreement of Sale.

Page 5 of 19

---

It was argued that the Authority needed to consider the date of the Agreement of Sale,

which was on 31st May 2022, a date much later than the COVID-19 pandemic, making any
related extension inapplicable to the Complainant's case. It was further submitted that the
builder had never proactively communicated delays or progress and had failed to meet even
the revised project schedules that were shared only after multiple follow-ups.
24.

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

force majeure event was only COVID-19, this did not apply to the Complainant as the
agreement was executed well after the pandemic. It was submitted that the delay in construction
had happened from the end of 2023 onwards, a period when COVID was not in effect. This, it
was contended, could be confirmed by the fact that no demand letter was issued for over a year
after October 2023, indicating that progress had almost stalled.
25.

In response to the clause regarding the procedure for taking possession, it was submitted

that the expectation was for a full Occupancy Certificate only after the completion of the entire
project with all amenities as per the timeline, and therefore, it was not an appropriate point to
discuss at that stage.
26.

The baseless, vague, and defamatory allegations made by the Respondent were

categorically denied and strongly objected to. It was submitted that the Complainant had made
full disclosure of all material facts and that the delay was inordinate and wholly unjustified.
The Respondent's assertion was described as a contemptuous and derogatory attempt to malign
the Complainant's genuine and lawful grievance.
27.

It was reiterated that the force majeure claim based on COVID-19 was inapplicable as

the agreement was executed after the pandemic, and the construction delay occurred from late
2023 onwards, which was confirmed by the lack of demand letters for over a year after October
2023.
28.

It was submitted that the delay had been cumulative and that after each discussion, the

scheduled date of possession had been updated three to four times after the original date of
August 2024 had already lapsed.
29.

It was argued that the builder could not claim a "clerical mistake" as an excuse for the

date specified in the Agreement of Sale. It was submitted that the actual Agreement of Sale
stated a handover by August 2024 and that the Respondent was incorrectly making false
statements about the agreement date being August 2023 to mislead the Hon'ble Authority.

Page 6 of 19

---

It was submitted that sufficient proof had been provided showing how the builder had

violated four different promised possession dates: August 2023, February 2024, February 2025,
and June 2025, and that this evidence had been supported with the Form M application.
31.

It was submitted that the Complainant had not been proactively and officially informed

about third-party disputes. It was only when the Complainant came to know about them that
the information was shared. It was argued that it was the promoter's responsibility to resolve
these cases and hand over the property as per the committed date.
32.

It was submitted that the Complainant had never received any proactive communication

about project delays that was duly acknowledged and signed. A challenge was made for the
developer to produce any such document before the Hon'ble RERA court.
33.

It was submitted that as all proofs had been provided showing how the builder had

missed committed handover dates, the decision on interest should be left to the RERA court as
per Section 18 of the RERA Act. It was noted that the delay was more than a year, and 90% of
the payment, amounting to ₹1,12,72,603/-, had been made.
34.

It was submitted that as all proofs had been provided, the decision on compensation

should be left to the RERA court. It was noted that Form 'N' for compensation would be filed
as per the directions of RERA officials and that claims for mental agony and harassment had
already been submitted in the initial filing with Form M.
35.

The RERA extension until February 2026 was fully denied. It was argued that the

promoter was legally obligated to pay interest and compensation as per RERA rules. It was
submitted that all dues would be paid as soon as the builder completed the entire project, but
before that, the builder was required to pay the interest and compensation. It was contended
that the builder was unlawfully forcing payment of 100% of the amount before project
completion.
36.

It was stated that the reason of COVID was irrelevant and not applicable as the

agreement of sale was from April 2022. It was reiterated that the delay happened from the end
of 2023 onwards. Regarding the rocky site, it was argued that it was the builder's responsibility
to deal with this and honour the date in the agreement.
37.

It was submitted that whenever a demand letter was issued, the Complainant had

completed their responsibility by disbursing the requested amount before the due date. It was
argued that the entire burden of project delivery lay with the builder, irrespective of the reasons
for the delay, and that the builder had not fulfilled their responsibilities.
Page 7 of 19

---

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 No. 1:
39.

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.
40.

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:
“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.”
41.

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

Page 8 of 19

---

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.
43.

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
Appellate Tribunal established under Section 43 of the Real Estate Act, is empowered
to determine. Hence, in view of the binding dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.
Ayyaswamy (supra), the matters/disputes, which the Authorities under the Real Estate
Act are empowered to decide, are non-arbitrable, notwithstanding an Arbitration
Agreement between the parties to such matters, which, to a large extent, are similar to
the disputes falling for resolution under the Consumer Act. 56. Consequently, we
unhesitatingly reject the arguments on behalf of the Builder and hold that an
Arbitration Clause in the afore-stated kind of Agreements between the Complainants
and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora,
notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.”*

Page 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."
45.

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

invoking remedies. Such a clause is directory at best, and cannot override or defeat the statutory
right of the Complainant to approach this Authority under the RE(R&D) Act. Accordingly, this
Authority has no hesitation in holding that the Complainant is well within its rights to approach
this forum without being first compelled to pursue an amicable settlement under the
Agreement. The objection of the Respondent as to maintainability is therefore rejected.

Point No. 2:
46.

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

delay in handing over possession of the subject flat, despite timely payments of approximately
90% of the total sale consideration, causing significant financial and emotional distress.
It is the case of the Complainant that the Agreement of Sale dated 22.04.2022 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
Page 10 of 19

---

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.
48.

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?
49.

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

executed on 22.04.2022, 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
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.
50.

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.
51.

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:
Page 11 of 19

---

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.
53.

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 April 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
54.

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.
55.

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.”

56.

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

Page 12 of 19

---

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.
58.

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

possession timelines to February 2026 due to the extension taken without consultation or
consent of the Complainants. Such unilateral revisions are impermissible. The Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors. [2017
SCC OnLine Bom 9302], while upholding the constitutional validity of RERA, categorically
observed:
Para 119 “The RERA does not contemplate rewriting of contract between the flat
purchaser and the promoter.”
Para 256 of this Judgment further clarifies that “by giving opportunity to the promoter
to prescribe fresh timeline under Section 4(2)(l)(C), he is not absolved of the liability
under the agreement for sale”
59.

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.
60.

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:

Page 13 of 19

---

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

of Rs. 1,20,34,500/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Lakh Thirty Four Thousand Five Hundred
Only). That, as per the Agreement of Sale the Complainant has paid an amount of Rs.
25,27,245/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Two Hundred And Forty Five
Only). However it is observed that as per the payment receipts placed before this Authority that
a sum of Rs. 1,12,71,603/- (Rupees One Crore Twelve Lakh Seventy One Thousand Six
Hundred And Three Only) has been duly paid by the Complainant herein towards the sale
consideration. Further, the Agreement clearly stipulated possession by 31.08.2024, with a grace
period of 6 months to 28.02.2025. Admittedly, possession has not been delivered.
62.

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 a substantial sum towards the agreed consideration as per their averments. Despite
receiving such substantial sums, the Respondent has failed to honour its contractual
obligations. It is manifest that the Respondent gave false assurances, being fully conscious of
the market situation, yet assuring dates of completion that it had no capacity to honour. More
than one year has elapsed beyond the stipulated date, yet the project is neither complete nor
possession handed over.
63.

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”
64.

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.

Page 14 of 19

---

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.
66.

Now, Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act is categorical:
“(1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an
apartment, plot or building,—
(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may
be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or
(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of
suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other
reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes
to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available,
to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building,
as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf
including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act:
Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project,
he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the
handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.
(2) The promoter shall compensate the allottees in case of any loss caused to
him due to defective title of the land, on which the project is being developed or
has been developed, in the manner as provided under this Act, and the claim for
compensation under this subsection shall not be barred by limitation provided
under any law for the time being in force.
(3) If the promoter fails to discharge any other obligations imposed on him
under this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder or in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale, he shall be liable to pay
such compensation to the allottees, in the manner as provided under this Act.”

67.

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

Page 15 of 19

---

Similarly, in Civil Appeal Nos. 6745-6749 of 2021, M/s Newtech Promoters and

Developers Private Limited vs. State of UP & Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
"Section 18(1) of the Act spells out the consequences if the promoter fails to complete
or is unable to give possession of an 9 of 10 apartment, plot, or building in terms of the
agreement for sale. The allottee/home buyer holds an unqualified right to seek a refund
of the amount with interest as prescribed."
69.

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.
70.

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.

Page 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.
72.

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.
73.

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.
74.

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.
75.

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, 2016.
76.

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.
77.

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

Page 17 of 19

---

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.
79.

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:
80.

In view of the findings and observations recorded hereinabove, this Authority proceeds

to issue the following directions:
a. The preliminary objection raised by the Respondent regarding the maintainability of
the complaint on account of the Dispute Resolution Clause in the Agreement of Sale
stands rejected. The complaint is maintainable before this Authority.
b. The Respondent’s reliance on the Covid-19 pandemic as a ground of force majeure is
held untenable, since the Agreement of Sale was executed after the subsiding of the
pandemic and with full knowledge of the prevailing circumstances.
c. The extension of registration taken by this Respondent cannot dilute the contractual
rights of the Complainant under the Agreement of Sale. The date of possession as
stipulated in the Agreement shall prevail.
d. The Respondent is held liable for failure to hand over possession of the subject flat by
the agreed date i.e., 28.02.2025 (inclusive of grace period).
e. The Complainants are entitled to interest at the rate of 10.70% per annum (being SBI
MCLR + 2% as per Rule 15 of the TG RE(R&D) Rules, 2017), computed on the
amounts actually paid by the Complainants, with effect from 01.03.2025 until actual
handing over of lawful possession. The exact computation shall be subject to
verification of such payments by the Respondent at the stage of effecting payment. The
Page 18 of 19

---

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

pending against this Respondent in the same project, this Authority sternly warns the
Respondent that any further delay, non-compliance, or grievance brought to notice by allottees
shall invite section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act.
82.

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

83.

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
84.

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

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

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

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

Page 19 of 19

---