Order Complaint No. 213 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 213 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. Shri. Majeti Jeevan Kumar
2. Smt. Majeti Naga Sandhya Devi
R/o #1-4/2-7A, Hemadri Chalapathi Rao Street,
Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada,
Krishna AP-520012
…Complainant
Versus
M/s. Vasavi Realtor LLP,
Rep by its Designated Partner, Vijay Kumar Yerram,
Vasavi Corporate,
H.No.8-2-703/7/1 and 8-2-703/7/1/A,
4th Floor, Vasavi Corporate Building, Amrutha Valley Apartments,
Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500034
…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in presence of Complainant and the Respondent; upon pursuing the material on
record and on hearing arguments of both the parties and having stood over for consideration
till this day, the following order is passed:
ORDER
2.

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

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

It was submitted that the Complainants, Jeevan Sriram Majeti and Naga Sandhya Devi

Majeti, entered into an Agreement of Sale with the Respondent, M/s. Vasavi Realtors LLP, on

Page 1 of 19

---

The Complainants stated that, as per the agreed terms, they have paid 90% of the total

sale consideration. It was further submitted that the Agreement of Sale stipulated the date of
possession to be on or before August 2024. The expectation of timely delivery was based on
the Respondent's extensive promotions, assurances from its sales personnel, and information
conveyed through monthly reports and meetings.
5.

It was contended that despite these assurances and the Complainants fulfilling their

payment obligations, the project has faced significant and unjustified delays. As of February
2025, the project remains incomplete. The Complainants alleged that the Respondent has
repeatedly postponed the handover date, offered vague reasons for the delay, and failed to
communicate a clear and firm timeline, thereby leaving the Complainants in a state of
uncertainty and financial distress.
6.

The Complainants submitted that as of January 2025, the project was only 60% to 70%

complete, with no major construction work having been carried out since that time. Key
components such as interior finishing, common amenities, and supporting infrastructure are yet
to be completed. It was further alleged that the Respondent ran a misleading promotion in the
Eenadu Newspaper, falsely claiming that possession would commence in March 2025.
7.

The Complainants contended that the continued delay in handing over possession

constitutes a serious violation of the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. By collecting 90%
of the payment and failing to adhere to the contractual timeline, the Respondent has allegedly
breached its statutory obligations, causing the Complainants financial strain and severe mental
distress. It was also stated that the Complainants have followed up with the Promoter on
numerous occasions, including formal meetings on September 8th, 2024, and November 23rd,
2024, for which signed Minutes of Meetings are on record.
B. Reliefs Sought
8.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

To direct the Respondent to complete the construction and hand over possession of the
flat at the earliest, and to ensure all remaining work is completed within a fixed and
enforceable timeframe, failing which strict penalties may be imposed.

Page 2 of 19

---

To direct the Respondent to pay interest to the Complainant on the total amount paid,
calculated at the rate prescribed under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016, from the
promised possession date of August 2024 until the actual date of handover.

iii.

To direct the Respondent to pay adequate compensation for the severe mental distress,
financial strain, and other losses incurred by the Complainant as a result of the
prolonged delay, including the reimbursement of rent paid during the said period.

C. Counter filed by the Respondent
9.

The Respondent in the Counter contended at the outset that the complaint is not

maintainable either in law or on the facts and is liable to be dismissed. It was submitted that
the Complainant has not exhausted the dispute resolution methods provided within the
Agreement of Sale before approaching this Authority. Furthermore, it was argued that the
complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the Complainant failed to issue a
mandatory legal notice prior to filing the present action.
10.

The Respondent submitted that it lawfully obtained the rights to develop the project

"LAKE CITY-EAST" on a total land area of 34,704.37 sq. yds. after receiving the requisite
permissions, including building permission dated 02.07.2020. The project was subsequently
registered with the Authority under Registration No. PO2500001821 on 03.20.2020.
11.

It was stated that the Complainant was allotted apartment number E.050609 on the 6th

floor of Tower 5, with a total consideration of Rs. 60,66,500/-, as stipulated in the Agreement
of Sale. The Respondent acknowledged the terms of the agreement but contended that certain
clerical errors, such as an unrealistic possession date of 08.31.2023 for a project of this
magnitude, should not be exploited.
12.

The primary contention of the Respondent was that any delay in the project falls

squarely under the force majeure clause of the agreement. It was argued that the project
sanction on 02.07.2020 was immediately followed by the declaration of the COVID-19
pandemic and the subsequent nationwide lockdown in March 2020. This unforeseen event, it
was submitted, constituted a public health emergency of international concern, leading to a
complete shutdown of all activities.
13.

The Respondent elaborated that the lockdown caused a severe crisis, particularly the

mass exodus of the migrant labor force, which formed the core of the construction workforce
in Hyderabad. This dislocation had a cascading and catastrophic effect on the project's timeline,
Page 3 of 19

---

It was further submitted that, in addition to the pandemic, the project faced delays due

to unforeseen on-site conditions, specifically the presence of a large rock mass that required
manual breaking as explosive blasting was not permitted in the residential vicinity. The project
was also affected by third-party litigation, including several writ petitions and other cases,
which, while mostly disposed of, contributed to the delay.
15.

The Respondent denied the allegations of making false claims and asserted that the

Complainant had suppressed material facts. It was contended that the claims for interest and
compensation are not tenable, as the delay was caused by circumstances beyond the
Respondent's control, as defined under the force majeure clause of the agreement and Section
6 of the Act.
16.

Finally, the Respondent submitted that the project's RERA registration has been

lawfully extended by the Authority until 02.07.2026. The Respondent provided an undertaking
to this Authority to complete the project and deliver the constructed flats on or before February
2026, stating that over 90% of the work has been completed and is in its final finishing stages.
Therefore, the Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant
17.

It is submitted by the complainant that the objection raised by the Respondent is vague,

legally unsustainable, and liable to be rejected in limine. The complaint has been validly
instituted under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which
confers a clear statutory right upon any aggrieved allottee to seek redress before this Hon’ble
Authority. The Agreement of Sale dated 17th June 2023 unequivocally records the committed
possession date as 31st August 2024, and till date the unit remains undelivered.
18.

It is submitted by the complainant that the Respondent’s reliance on internal dispute-

resolution mechanisms under the Agreement is wholly misconceived. Section 31 overrides any
private contractual stipulation and expressly empowers the allottee to approach this Hon’ble
Authority for grievances, including delay in possession, breach of contractual obligations, and
deficiency in services. The Complainant and other allottees even attempted to amicably resolve
Page 4 of 19

---

It is submitted by the complainant that repeated attempts to communicate were met with

evasive responses, unavailability of the leadership, and persistent deflection by the CRM team,
creating an endless loop of non-accountability. Such conduct reflects avoidance tactics and
strengthens the maintainability of this complaint.
20.

It is submitted by the complainant that there is no requirement under RERA to issue a

legal notice prior to filing a complaint under Section 31. Any plea raised on that ground is
irrelevant and intended only to delay proceedings.
21.

It is submitted by the complainant that while the Respondent may have obtained

development rights and permissions, these facts do not absolve them of their statutory and
contractual obligation to deliver possession within the agreed timeline. Registration with
RERA is not a shield against non-compliance. On the contrary, RERA registration increases
accountability. The Respondent’s post-registration conduct evidences continued disregard for
Sections 4, 11 and 18 of the Act, including failure to update project status transparently and
failure to adhere to promised schedules.
22.

It is submitted by the complainant that the Agreement of Sale dated 17th June 2023 is

the only binding and enforceable document governing the relationship between the parties. The
Complainant has already paid Rs.57,32,842/-, being over 90% of the total consideration,
strictly as per Schedule C, and remains willing to remit the next instalment upon receiving a
lawful demand letter. The Complainant is not in default of any payment, and the Respondent’s
insinuations to the contrary are false and misleading.
23.

It is submitted by the complainant that any extension secured by the Respondent from

the Authority does not override the contractual possession date of 31st August 2024. Under
Section 19(2) of the Act, the allottee is entitled to possession as per the Agreement for Sale,
not based on unilateral extensions later obtained by the developer.
24.

It is submitted by the complainant that the Respondent’s attempt to divert attention to

specifications or sanctioned plans is irrelevant, as the present complaint concerns delay in
possession, not alteration of specifications. The Respondent has accepted over 90% of the sale
Page 5 of 19

---

It is submitted by the complainant that the Respondent’s reliance on force majeure is

misplaced, baseless, and factually inaccurate. The Agreement was executed in June 2023, after
the COVID-19 situation had normalized nationwide. The Respondent knowingly committed to
the possession date despite full awareness of prior pandemic conditions. They cannot now
retroactively invoke COVID-19 as a defence. Moreover, any claim of force majeure requires
contemporaneous notice, evidence, and mitigation efforts—none of which have been produced.
26.

It is submitted by the complainant that Clause 7.2 relating to possession cannot be

invoked as the Respondent has not obtained or communicated any Occupancy Certificate.
Without obtaining statutory approvals, the Respondent cannot rely on possession-related
clauses to deflect responsibility.
27.

It is submitted by the complainant that reckless and defamatory allegations made by the

Respondent—suggesting that the complaint was filed for harassment or ulterior motives—are
categorically denied. Approaching this Hon’ble Authority is a statutory right, and such
statements reveal an attempt to divert attention from the Respondent’s continued nonperformance.
28.

It is submitted by the complainant that the Respondent had full knowledge of all

circumstances, including the pandemic, at the time of promising delivery by 31st August 2024.
The Complainant’s unit in Tower 5 East Wing was structurally completed over 28 months ago,
after which progress came to a standstill despite the Respondent having collected more than
80% of the sale consideration. Such avoidable delay constitutes breach of the Agreement of
Sale and violations of Sections 11 and 18 of the Act.
29.

It is submitted by the complainant that all progress updates from the Respondent were

received only after persistent follow-up. No proactive disclosures were made regarding delays
or revised timelines.
30.

It is submitted by the complainant that detailed documentary evidence has already been

provided, including the Agreement of Sale, payment proofs, Minutes of Meetings,
communication records, shifting verbal promises, absence of any possession notice, and
Page 6 of 19

---

It is submitted by the complainant that the Respondent’s unconditional undertaking to

complete the project by February 2026 does not erase their liability to pay interest for the delay
already accrued from 1st September 2024 onwards. Courts and RERA authorities have
repeatedly held that undertakings do not override statutory obligations under Section 18(1).
32.

It is submitted by the complainant that the claim that the project is in its “final stages”

is contradicted by the absence of finishing works, missing amenities, and non-availability of
the OC. Structural completion alone does not constitute possession readiness under RERA.
33.

It is submitted by the complainant that the promoter’s statutory duty under Section 11

includes ensuring the project is free of encumbrances and keeping allottees informed of project
progress. No such proactive disclosures have been made.
34.

It is submitted by the complainant that there is no consent whatsoever from the

Complainant for any extension beyond August 2024, and no default in payment exists. The
Complainant is merely seeking the rightful statutory remedy of interest/compensation under
Section 18(1) for the Respondent’s unjustified delay, not cancellation or refund.
35.

It is submitted by the complainant that the Respondent’s description of this complaint

as “preposterous” or “false” is unfounded, dismissive, and intended to undermine a legitimate
statutory grievance.
36.

The Complainant therefore prays that this Hon’ble Authority uphold the sanctity of the

Agreement of Sale and enforce the promoter’s liability under Section 18(1) of the RERA Act.
D. Points for Consideration
37.

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?
Page 7 of 19

---

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:
39.

The Authority finds this objection untenable for the following reasons: 43. The relevant

Dispute Resolution clause in the Agreement of Sale is reproduced below for ready reference:
“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.”
40.

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, 2016 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, 2016 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.
41.

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.

Page 8 of 19

---

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.”*
43.

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
Page 9 of 19

---

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:
45.

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.
46.

It is the case of the Complainant that the Agreement of Sale dated 17.06.2023 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 29.02.2025. 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% to 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.

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.
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?
48.

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

on 17.06.2023, 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
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.
49.

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.
50.

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…".

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.
52.

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 June 2023 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
53.

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.
54.

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.”

55.

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),
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, 2016.
57.

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”
58.

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.
59.

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:
60.

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

of Rs. 60,66,500/- (Rupees Sixty Lakh Sixty Six Thousand Five Hundred Only). That, as per
Page 13 of 19

---

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 90% of the agreed consideration as per their averments. Despite receiving
such substantial sums, the Respondent has failed to honour its contractual obligations. It is
manifest that the Respondent gave false assurances, being fully conscious of the market
situation, yet assuring dates of completion that it had no capacity to honour. More than one
year has elapsed beyond the stipulated date, yet the project is neither complete nor possession
handed over.
62.

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”
63.

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. 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.
65.

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.”

Page 15 of 19

---

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."
67.

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."
68.

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, 2016 which mandates adherence to the
terms of the Agreement of Sale.
69.

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

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 (inclusive of grace period) 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.
71.

Accordingly, while the Complainants are entitled to relief under Section 18 of the

RE(R&D) Act, this entitlement is subject to the reciprocal statutory duty of the Complainants
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.
72.

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, 2016.
73.

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.
74.

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.
75.

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. The
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.
77.

The Complainants are, in turn, directed to discharge any balance amounts due under

the agreed payment schedule, if not already paid. Mutual compliance is essential to ensure
timely completion and delivery of the project.
G. Directions of the Authority:
78.

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).

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, 2016.
80.

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

81.

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.
82.

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

---