Order Complaint No. 204 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 204/2025/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

1. Mr. Amrit Pattanayak
2. Mrs. Seema Mantri
(Flat 301, Sri Rams Ganga Apartment,
Raghavendra Colony, Kondapur,
Towards the end of Seasons Swimming Pool Lane,
Hyderabad, Telangana – 500084)

…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:
ORDER
2.

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

Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “RE(R&D)
Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “TG RE(R&D) Rules”) seeking appropriate
relief(s) against the Respondents.

1 of 19

---

It was submitted that the Complainant had booked an apartment in the project “Vasavi

Lake City” on 4th August 2020 and subsequently entered into an Agreement of Sale with the
Respondent, Vasavi Realtors, in November 2022. The agreement pertained to the purchase of
Flat No. 1107 in Tower 3 of the East Wing, a project registered under RERA No.
P02500001821.
4.

It was stated that pursuant to the terms of the said Agreement of Sale, the stipulated

date for the handover of possession of the flat was on or before August 2024. It was further
submitted that the Complainant had made all payments in a timely manner as per the
demands raised by the Respondent.
5.

It was contended that as of March 2025, possession of the flat had not been delivered,

constituting a delay of seven months past the agreed-upon date. It was alleged that the
Respondent had repeatedly postponed the handover date without providing clear assurances.
6.

It was further submitted that after a meeting in September 2024, the Respondent had

provided a written commitment that the flats would be handed over for interior works on 14th
February 2025. This date was subsequently revised to 7th March 2025, and as per a later
Minutes of Meeting, was further pushed to June 2025. The Complainant stated that responses
from the Respondent's representatives regarding these timelines were discouraging and noncommittal.
7.

It was alleged that there had been minimal progress in construction at the site since

September 2023. The Complainant also submitted that upon communication with other flat
owners, it was understood that the Respondent had provided different possession dates in the
Agreement of Sale documents to different owners within the same tower.
8.

It was submitted that a significant amount of work remained incomplete in the

building. This included the installation of bathroom fixtures, windows, doors, service lifts,
and staircase railings. Electrical and water connections were yet to be completed, and both
internal and external painting was pending. It was also stated that common amenities, parking
facilities, and the provisioning of essential services like electricity and water had not yet
commenced.
9.

It was further contended that there were concerns regarding the quality of the work.

Additionally, it was stated that the kitchen platform, the cost of which was included in the

2 of 19

---

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
To direct the Respondent to conduct a comprehensive structural and quality audit of
the building and the Complainant's specific flat by a certified independent agency to
ensure that the structural integrity and quality have not been compromised, and to
rectify any and all defects found therein before handing over possession at the earliest.

ii.

To direct the Respondent to pay interest on the total amounts paid by the
Complainant, calculated from the promised date of possession until the actual date of
handover, at the rate prescribed under the Act, as compensation for the severe
financial hardship and loss incurred by the Complainant due to the simultaneous
payment of loan EMIs and house rent.

iii.

To direct the Respondent to reimburse the Complainant for the full cost of installing a
kitchen platform of a standard and size comparable to that stipulated in the Agreement
for Sale, as the Respondent has failed to provide the said amenity despite having
charged for it.

C. Counter filed by the Respondent
11.

It was submitted by the Respondent that the complaint was not maintainable either in

law or on facts and was liable to be dismissed. The Respondent contended that the
Complainant had failed to follow the remedies available under the Agreement for Sale for the
resolution of disputes before approaching this Hon’ble Authority. It was further submitted
that no prior legal notice was issued before the filing of the complaint, which rendered the
application defective.
12.

It was submitted that the project, “Lake City-East,” was developed lawfully after the

Respondent obtained rights from the landowners under registered documents, covering a total
land area of 34,704.37 sq. yds. The requisite permissions for land conversion and for the
construction of multi-storied residential apartments were obtained on 07.02.2020. The
project, consisting of multiple towers and a clubhouse, was duly registered with this
Authority vide Registration No. P02500001821 dated 20.03.2020.

3 of 19

---

It was further submitted that the Complainant was allotted apartment No. E. 031107

on the 11th 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.
84,41,000/- out of which the Complainant paid Rs. 44,31,621/-.
14.

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

to hand over possession of the apartment on or before 31.08.2024, with a grace period of six
months. The said clause explicitly stated that the period of completion would stand extended
in the event of force majeure conditions, during which the allottee was not entitled to claim
any compensation for the delay.
15.

It was contended that the Complainant had not approached this Hon’ble Authority

with clean hands but with an ulterior motive for unlawful gain, and that there had been a
material suppression of facts. While the existence of the Agreement of Sale was not in
dispute, the Respondent averred that the Complainant made false claims despite being aware
of the contractual terms and circumstances.
16.

The Respondent stated that the project timelines were severely impacted by the

COVID-19 pandemic, which was a force majeure event recognized under law. It was
submitted that following the declaration of a public health emergency in January 2020, a
nationwide lockdown was imposed in India from March 2020. This event led to a mass
migration of the labour force, which was critical to the construction industry in Hyderabad,
thereby causing a significant and unavoidable delay in the project work. All allottees were
kept informed of these developments.
17.

The Respondent further relied on the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo

Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, whereby the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022
was excluded for the purposes of computing limitation across all statutes. It was contended
that this legally recognized the extraordinary circumstances and justified the extension of
timelines for project completion.
18.

In addition to the pandemic, the Respondent submitted that the project was delayed by

other unforeseen factors. It was stated that the project site contained rocky terrain which, due
to its location in a residential vicinity, could not be excavated using explosives. The
consequent need for manual rock-breaking compounded the construction delays.
Furthermore, the project was adversely impacted by third-party disputes, including several
4 of 19

---

It was contended that any clerical or typographical errors in the Agreement of Sale,

such as an incorrect possession date mentioned in one instance, could not be exploited to
create liability, especially when the magnitude of the project made such a timeline practically
impossible. The Respondent asserted that the project was over 90% complete and in the final
finishing stages. An extension for the project registration had been granted by this Authority
up to 07.02.2026, and the Respondent gave an undertaking to deliver the apartments within
this extended period.
20.

With regard to the claims for interest and compensation, the Respondent submitted

that such reliefs were not maintainable in view of the force majeure conditions. It was argued
that the circumstances clearly fell within the definition provided under Section 6 of the Act.
The Respondent maintained that the delay was not due to any deliberate act or default on its
part, and therefore, the Complainant had not established any legal basis for claiming
compensation for mental agony or financial loss.
21.

The Respondent concluded that the complaint was preposterous and without

foundation. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed and the Respondent be allowed to
complete the project and deliver possession to all allottees as per the extended timeline.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant.
22.

It was submitted in response to the preliminary objection 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
November 2022 clearly stipulated the committed date of possession as 31st August 2024, and
as possession had not been granted by the date of filing the complaint on 15th March 2025,
with the project still under construction, the application was legally maintainable under
Section 31 read with Sections 18(1) and 19(4) of the Act.
23.

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

the agreement, it was submitted that all the necessary and sufficient evidence, including
Demand Letters, Minutes of Meetings (MOMs), and Form M, had already been provided in
support of the claim. It was stated that all possible measures to establish contact with the
5 of 19

---

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.
25.

The Respondent's statements regarding development rights, permissions for

construction, RERA registration, the allotment of the apartment, and the payment of the
booking amount were noted as matters of fact to which the Complainant had no objection.
26.

It was argued that the Authority needed to consider the date of the Agreement and not

the booking date. 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.
27.

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 of sale 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.
28.

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. It was also noted that the Builder had been making
false commitments in the MOMs regarding the receipt of the OC without providing any
confirmed documentation on the initiation of the process.
29.

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.
30.

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
6 of 19

---

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.
32.

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

date specified in the Agreement of Sale, especially since the majority of people had the same
date in their agreements.
33.

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

violated three different promised possession dates: August 2024, February 2025, and June
2025, and that this evidence had been supported with the Form M application.
34.

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.
35.

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.
36.

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 Hon'ble
Authority as per Section 18 of the RERA Act. It was noted that the delay was more than one
year, and 90% of the payment had been made.
37.

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

should be left to the Hon'ble Authority. 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.
38.

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

promoter was legally obligated to pay for 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

7 of 19

---

It was stated that the reason of COVID was irrelevant. 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.
40.

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.
E. Points for Consideration:
41.

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:
42.

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.
43.

The Authority finds this objection untenable for the following reasons:

44.

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.

8 of 19

---

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.
46.

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.
47.

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.
48.

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
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 nonarbitrable, 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
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."
50.

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: Delay in Possession
54.

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

delay in handing over of possession of the subject flat.
10 of 19

---

It is the case of the Complainants that the Agreement of Sale dated 25.11.2022,

executed between the parties, clearly stipulated that possession of the subject flat would be
handed over by August 2024, with a grace period of six months, ending on February 2025.
The Respondent has failed to hand over possession even as on date. Further, although the
project was registered with TG RERA up to February 2025 and later extended until February
2026, the project remains incomplete.
56.

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?
57.

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

admittedly executed on 25.11.2022, much after the onset and near subsiding of the Covid-19
pandemic. The Respondent, being fully aware of the prevailing global circumstances,
nevertheless executed the Agreement by specifically assuring completion of the project by
August 2023 with the grace period of 6 months i.e 28.02.2024. 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.
58.

It is a settled principle that once a promoter has chosen to register a project and enter

into binding contractual commitments with allottees, he does so with full knowledge of the
risks, constraints, and challenges of the market. At the time of entering into the Agreement of
Sale with the present Complainant, the Respondent was already aware of the Covid-related
disruptions, as well as the Government notifications granting moratoriums for project
completion timelines. Despite this knowledge, the Respondent chose to provide a specific
assurance of delivery by August 2023.
59.

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

11 of 19

---

60.

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.
61.

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 August 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
62.

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.
63.

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.”

64.

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).
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.
66.

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

possession timelines first to August 2024, and thereafter to February 2026 due to the
extension taken without consultation or consent of the Complainants. Such unilateral
revisions are impermissible. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors
Suburban Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors. [2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9302], while
upholding the constitutional validity of RERA, categorically observed:
Para 119 “The RERA does not contemplate rewriting of contract between the
flat purchaser and the promoter."
Para 256 of this Judgment further clarifies that
“by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh timeline under
Section 4(2)(l)(C), he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for
sale”

67.

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.
68.

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:
69.

The Complainants have duly substantiated payment of a sum of ₹70,90,440/- through

valid payment receipts, out of the total sale consideration of ₹1,03,54,980/-. These payments
have been made diligently and without any default on their part. The Agreement for Sale
clearly stipulates that possession of the unit was to be handed over by August 2024, with a
permissible grace period extending up to February 2025. It is an admitted position that
possession has not been delivered within the stipulated timeline.

13 of 19

---

The Respondent’s contention that 90% work is complete and that the complainants

have paid only partial consideration is wholly unsustainable. The complainants have already
paid approximately 70% of the agreed consideration. 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.
71.

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.

72.

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.
73.

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.
Now, Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act is categorical:

14 of 19

---

74.

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."

75.
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."

15 of 19

---

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.
77.

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.
78.

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..
79.

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.
80.

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.
81.

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
16 of 19

---

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.
83.

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.
84.

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.
86.

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.
87.

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:
88.

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

proceeds to issue the following directions:

17 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

18 of 19

---

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

91.

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
92.

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

---