Order Complaint No. 227 of 2025​

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 227 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

Satyasasi Kiran Srighakolapu
R/o 11-13-1292, Plot 9/3, Vasavi Colony, Road No. 2,
Near Asthalakshmi Temple, RK Puram, Hyderabad - 500035.
…Complainant
Versus
M/s. Vasavi Realtor LLP,
Rep by its Designated Partner, Vijay Kumar Yerram & Kanday Ramesh,
Vasavi Corporate,
H.No.8-2-703/1 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 final hearing on
11.07.2025 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 is submitted that the Complainant purchased a flat bearing No. E2506, in the project

“Vasavi Lake City”, East Wing in January 2024, based on the advertisements, personal
interactions with the marketing team, and the website information of the Respondent, which
highlighted the project as a well-planned and timely development. The purchase was made with
the expectation that the Respondent would deliver the flat within the promised timeframe.
Page 1 of 20

---

It is stated that as per the agreed terms, the Complainant made 100% of the payment

towards the flat, believing that the project was on track. The builder, Sri Yerram Vijay Kumar,
had personally assured that the handover would take place by August 2024.
5.

It is contended that despite these assurances, the project faced repeated and unjustified

delays and, as of February 2025, remained incomplete. The Respondent allegedly postponed
the handover dates on multiple occasions, provided vague reasons, and failed to communicate
a clear and firm timeline. Having already paid the full amount, the Complainant stated that this
delay caused uncertainty and financial distress, significantly impacting plans and investments.
6.

It is further submitted that as of January 2025, the project was only 60% to 70%

completed, with no major work carried out thereafter. Key aspects such as interior finishing,
common amenities, and supporting infrastructure remained incomplete. Despite multiple
follow-ups, the Respondent allegedly failed to provide any roadmap or completion schedule,
leaving the Complainant and other homebuyers frustrated and anxious. It is further submitted
that the lack of visible progress and absence of proper communication have further raised
doubts whether the Respondent is genuinely committed to complete the project. The
Complainant also submits that a false promotion has been run on Eenadu Newspaper stating
that possession starts from March 2025.
7.

The Complainant alleged that the continued delay in possession constitutes a violation

of the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, as the Respondent failed to deliver the project
within the stipulated timeline without valid justification. By collecting 100% payment upfront
and failing to fulfil contractual obligations, the Respondent has allegedly breached the statutory
requirements. The Complainant stated that the delay has caused financial strain, mental stress,
and emotional distress, and therefore sought intervention of this Authority for urgent directions,
financial compensation, and strict action against the Respondent.
B. Relief(s) 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. Seeking immediate action to ensure that the remaining work is
completed within a fixed and enforceable timeframe.

Page 2 of 20

---

To direct the Respondent to pay interest on the total amount paid by the Complainant
from the promised possession date of August 2024 until the actual date of handover
along with interest at the prescribed rate under RERA for the entire delay period.

iii.

To direct the Respondent to pay compensation for the undue stress, inconvenience, and
financial losses incurred as a result of the prolonged delay.

C. Counter filed by the Respondent:
8.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the complaint is not maintainable either in law

or on facts and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the complainant has not followed
the remedies available under the Agreement for Sale for resolution of disputes before
approaching this Hon’ble Authority. Further, no prior legal notice was issued before filing this
complaint, which itself renders the application defective and not maintainable.
9.

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

rights from the landowners under registered documents, covering 34,704.37 sq. yds. While
requisite land conversion permissions and building permissions for construction of multistoried apartments were obtained on 07.02.2020. The project consists of six towers (4 cellars
+ ground + 14 upper floors), Tower No. 4, 5, and 6 (3 Cellars + ground + 14 upper floors) and
a clubhouse (stilt + ground + five upper floors). The project was duly registered with this
Authority vide Registration No. P02500001821 dated 20.03.2020.
10.

It is further submitted that the Complainant was allotted an apartment (Semi Finished)

in the project and was allotted an apartment No. E.2506 on the 5th Floor of Tower 2,
admeasuring 1650 sq. ft., along with two car parking with an undivided share of land
admeasuring 41.70 Sq.Yds. for a total consideration of Rs. 41,25,000/-, agreed under the sale
deed. The agreement provides for schedule apartment which deals with area Schedule B in the
plan. Schedule C provides the terms and conditions of the payment accepted by the parties. It
is submitted that the Complainant is still in due to pay the GST charges, Corpus Fund and
Advance Maintenance to the Respondent.
11.

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

hand over possession of the flat and common areas, subject to extension in the event of force
majeure. The Agreement itself clearly records that timely delivery is the essence of the contract
but also recognises that the period of completion shall stand extended to the extent of delay
Page 3 of 20

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4 of 20

---

With regard to the claims for interest and compensation, the Respondent submits that

in view of the force majeure conditions, no such relief is available to the Complainant under
law. Section 6 of the Act specifically contemplates force majeure events such as natural
calamities and other circumstances beyond the control of the promoter. The Respondent
submits that the COVID-19 pandemic, together with the extraordinary circumstances outlined
above, clearly falls within the scope of force majeure.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant:
18.

It is submitted that the Respondent’s reply is characterized by ambiguous averments,

misleading representations, and a persistent attempt to obfuscate and deflect responsibility for
the inordinate delay in handing over possession of the subject flat. The core issue remains that
despite the Respondent unequivocally committed to deliver possession by 31.08.2024, the
Respondent has failed to honour the said commitment.
19.

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

COVID-19 pandemic, invocation of force majeure, pendency of third-party proceedings, and
internal inefficiencies, do not legally justify the delay in the present context, particularly in
light of the fact that the Complainant’s tower (Tower 2) has been structurally complete for over
12 months.
20.

It is stated that the Complainants have paid the total consideration and has complied

with all obligations under Schedule B of the plan. It is further submitted that the mental agony,
logistical hardship, and financial burden placed on the Complainants and their family are real
and substantiated. Therefore, the Complainants seek only what is fair and lawful, namely
monthly interest for the delayed period as mandated under the Act, and such further reliefs as
this Hon’ble Authority may deem just and proper.
21.

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

The Complainant clarifies that the dispute is not about the Respondent’s development rights
but about the failure to deliver possession within the agreed timeline. Despite repeated visits
and communications, the Respondent avoided giving a definite delivery date and kept
arbitrarily changing timelines. Minutes of meetings and Form M have been submitted as
Page 5 of 20

---

It is submitted that while approvals and registration are acknowledged, they do not

absolve the Respondent from the legal obligation of timely execution and handover. Having
permissions does not discharge the responsibility of delivering possession within the
committed timeline. It is further submitted that the Respondent has grossly failed to abide by
the obligations accompanying RERA registration. Instead of honouring the timelines declared
at the time of registration, the Respondent has offered vague and contradictory explanations
for delay, failed to transparently update project status, and has not disclosed realistic possession
timelines.
23.

It is submitted that under the RERA framework and standard contractual norms, the

Agreement of Sale dated 09.01.2024, is the only binding document that governs the rights,
obligations, and timelines agreed between the parties, including the crucial possession
commitment of 31.08.2024.
24.

The Complainants submits that the Respondent’s reliance on the RERA registration

extension while disregarding the binding commitment under the Agreement of Sale is legally
untenable. The possession date of 31.08.2023, as expressly agreed in the Agreement of Sale,
must prevail for assessing delay, irrespective of any subsequent extensions granted by the
Hon’ble Authority. Submitting progress updates or securing regulatory extensions does not
absolve the Respondent from its contractual obligations.
25.

It is submitted that Section 19(2) of the Act clearly entitles the allottee to claim

possession of the apartment in accordance with the Agreement of Sale, while Section 19(1)
mandates that the promoter keep the allottee informed of progress with full transparency. In
this case, the Respondent delayed the project by nearly two years, offering only shifting verbal
assurances, and now seeks to defer possession to February 2026, rendering the agreement
meaningless if such conduct were permitted. This constitutes breach of trust and circumvention
of RERA’s buyer-protection framework.

Page 6 of 20

---

It is submitted that the Complainant’s Registration/ Agreement of Sale was executed

on 09.01.2024, after both the first and second waves of Covid-19 and well after the nation had
emerged from full lockdown. The Respondent, with full knowledge of circumstances,
nevertheless committed to hand over possession by August 2024. Therefore, they cannot now
retroactively invoke force majeure to evade contractual liability.
27.

The Complainant submits that the Registration/Agreement of Sale was duly executed

on 09.01.2024, at a time when the RERA completion date stood as February 2025.
Subsequently, the Respondent sought an additional extension up to February 2026 before the
Authority. In light of this, the Complainant is entitled to compensation from the original RERA
completion date of February 2025, i.e., from 31.08.2024 after the expiry of the six-month grace
period.
28.

The Complainant submits that while certain legal disputes may have arisen, their

existence cannot serve as a blanket justification for delay, particularly when such risks should
have been foreseen and mitigated by the promoter at the outset. Under Section 11(3)(a) of the
RERA Act, it is the promoter’s legal responsibility to ensure that the project is free of
encumbrances and legal risks at the time of launch. If third-party litigation is now being used
as a justification for non-delivery, it reflects a clear lapse in due diligence and risk planning on
the part of the Respondent and cannot be a valid excuse to penalize allottees who have paid
their hard-earned money in good faith.
29.

It is further submitted that no proactive disclosure or formal notice was ever issued to

the Complainant regarding such disputes or their alleged impact on possession timelines, and
any informal references made in hindsight cannot substitute the statutory obligation of
disclosure. A buyer cannot be made to suffer for disputes that the builder failed to resolve in
time, nor can litigation be cited after the fact to extend possession timelines indefinitely.
Accepting such an approach would undermine the very objective of RERA, which was enacted
to safeguard allottees against such unfair practices. Accordingly, these explanations of the
Respondent are nothing but post-facto rationalizations, and the Respondent must be held
accountable for failure to adhere to the agreed delivery schedule and statutory obligations under
the Act.
30.

The Complainant respectfully submits that the relief sought is limited to interest for the

delay in possession and not a refund of the amount already paid. This claim squarely falls

Page 7 of 20

---

The Respondent’s reliance on force majeure on account of COVID-19 is wholly

misplaced, as the period from 2023 to 2025 reflects a post-COVID environment wherein no
extraordinary circumstances existed to justify non-performance. The absence of any significant
progress during this time can only be attributed to inefficiency and disregard for contractual
and statutory obligations on the part of the Respondent.
32.

The Complainant, having already registered for the allotted flat, is not seeking

cancellation or refund but only the rightful statutory interest for the unjustified delay in
handover. This is a statutory entitlement under Section 18(1) of the Act and not a matter of
discretion, and therefore must be granted in full.
33.

The Complainant submits that they are entitled to compensation, having already

furnished all documentary evidence establishing that the Respondent failed to adhere to the
committed handover timelines. It is humbly left to the wisdom of this Hon’ble Authority to
determine the quantum of compensation, as the claims for mental agony and hardship have
already been placed on record. The Complainant continues to bear the burden of home loan
interest and EMIs regularly, while still awaiting delivery of the allotted flat.
E. Points for Consideration:
35.

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?
Point 1:
36.

This Authority has carefully examined the preliminary objection raised by the

Respondent with regard to the maintainability of the present Complaint.

Page 8 of 20

---

At the outset, it is noted that although both parties have made reference to and sought

to rely upon a purported Agreement of Sale, the said Agreement has not been placed on record
before this Authority. In the absence of the said document, this Authority is unable to examine,
rely upon, or render any observation on the specific contractual clauses relied upon by the
Respondent to question the maintainability of the Complaint.
38.

Be that as it may, it is an undisputed and admitted position that a registered Sale Deed

has been executed in favour of the Complainant and that the subject flat stands allotted to the
Complainant by the Respondent. The Respondent has neither denied nor disputed the allotment
of the subject unit to the Complainant. There is also no dispute with respect to the identity of
the unit or the existence of a promoter–allottee relationship between the parties. The project in
question is a registered project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016,
and therefore squarely falls within the jurisdiction of this Authority.
39.

The core grievance raised in the present Complaint pertains to the delay in handing over

possession of the allotted unit and the failure of the Respondent to complete construction and
deliver possession in accordance with the statutory and contractual obligations. Such a
grievance clearly falls within the statutory framework of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016. Section 18 of the said Act expressly provides that where an allottee
does not intend to withdraw from the project, the promoter shall be liable to pay interest for
every month of delay till the handing over of possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.
40.

In the present case, the allotment of the unit is admitted, the Sale Deed has been

executed, and the project is a registered project before this Authority. The relief sought by the
Complainant, namely, completion of the project and handing over of possession along with
statutory interest for delay, squarely falls within the ambit of Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act,
2016.
41.

In view of the above, this Authority finds no merit in the objection raised by the

Respondent regarding maintainability. The Complainant cannot be compelled to first pursue
an amicable settlement or contractual remedies when the grievance raised is statutory in nature
and falls directly within the jurisdiction conferred upon this Authority under the RE(R&D) Act.
42.

Accordingly, the objection as to maintainability raised by the Respondent is hereby

rejected.

Page 9 of 20

---

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 100% of the total
sale consideration, causing significant financial and emotional distress.
44.

It is the case of the Complainant that the Sale Deed for the subject property was

executed on 09.01.2024. It has been observed that an Agreement of Sale dated 28.12.2023 has
been placed on record before this Authority entered into between one Shri. M. Ghouse
Mohuddin, the landowner, and the Complainant herein. Therefore, it is noted that the
Agreement of Sale preceded the execution of the Sale Deed. The Sale Deed was executed on
account of the Complainant purchasing the property from the landowner.
45.

As per the submissions made by the Complainant relying upon the Agreement of Sale,

the stipulated date for handing over possession of the scheduled property was 31.08.2024. The
Respondent, in its Counter Affidavit, has also referred to an Agreement of Sale and certain
clauses therein; however, the Agreement of Sale dated 28.12.2023 placed on record does not
specify any date for delivery of possession. Additionally as per the submissions made by the
Respondent, there is no denial of the Respondent’s obligation to deliver possession of the
scheduled property to the Complainant, and therefore such obligation stands admitted.
46.

In view of the Respondent’s own reliance on an Agreement of Sale to establish the

contractual nexus with the Complainant, the Respondent is deemed to have accepted the
obligations flowing from such Agreement, including the responsibility to hand over possession.
In view of the absence of a specific possession date in the Agreement of Sale dated 28.12.2023,
this Authority is unable to accept 31.08.2024 as the date of possession. Consequently, for the
purpose of determining the interest payable by the Respondent, this Authority shall consider
only the date of execution of the Sale Deed dated 09.01.2024. Accordingly it is noted that the
scheduled property should have been handed over by 09.01.2024. It is pertinent to note that the
Respondent has failed to hand over possession even as of February 2025. Further, although the
project was registered with TG RERA up to February 2025 and later extended until 07.02.2026,
the project remains incomplete, with construction progress stalled at approximately 60-70% as
per the Complainant’s submission, with key aspects such as interior finishing, common
amenities, and supporting infrastructure remaining unfinished. The Complainant submits that

Page 10 of 20

---

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 Sale Deed was executed on

09.01.2024, and the Agreement of Sale is dated 28.12.2023 was well after the onset and initial
impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Having consciously undertaken contractual commitments
as per their own submissions, with full knowledge of the prevailing circumstances, 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.
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 20

---

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 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),
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).

Page 12 of 20

---

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.
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 has been
established by this Authority i.e. 17.08.2024 taking into consideration the date of execution of
the Sale Deed, 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. 41,25,000/- (Rupees Forty One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Only). That, as per the Sale
Deed the Complainant has duly paid the entire sale consideration amount. Further, as has
Page 13 of 20

---

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 100% 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 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.
64.

Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 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.
65.

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

Page 14 of 20

---

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

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

Page 15 of 20

---

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 prevails and the Respondent is
bound by Section 11(4)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. However, in the present Complaint, no
copy of Agreement of Sale has been produced before this Authority and, consequently, no
possession date is available on record. In such circumstances, the only valid ascertainable date
for determining delivery of possession is the date of execution of the Sale Deed. Once the Sale
Deed was executed, the Respondent was under an obligation to hand over possession of the
scheduled property to the Complainant. The Respondent has failed to do so. Accordingly, for
the purposes of assessing delay and computing the interest payable, the date of execution of
the Sale Deed shall be treated as the date on which possession ought to have been delivered.
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
progress of construction and the corresponding default, and not merely based on unilateral
assertions.

Page 16 of 20

---

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 09.01.2024 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
76.

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 20

---

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.
78.

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:
79.

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 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. The date of possession shall be the date of execution of the
Sale Deed.
d. The Respondent is held liable for failure to hand over possession of the subject flat by
the stipulated date i.e., 09.01.2024.
e. The Complainants are entitled to interest at the rate of 10.7% per annum (being SBI
MCLR + 2% as per Rule 15 of the TG RE(R&D) Rules, 2017), computed on the

Page 18 of 20

---

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.
81.

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

82.

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
83.

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 20

---

---