Order Complaint No. 242 of 2025​

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 242 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

Lingamallu Pradeep Kumar
R/o H.No. 121, Flat No. B1-203, Block B1,
Sri Hemadurga Towers, Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500049
…Complainant
Versus
M/s. Vasavi Realtor LLP,
Rep by its Designated Partner, Yerram Vijay Kumar,
Vasavi Corporate,
H.No.8-2-703/7/1 and 8-2-703/7/1/A,
4th Floor, Vasavi Corporate Building, Amrutha Valley Apartments,
Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500034
…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in presence of Complainant and the Respondent; upon pursuing the material on
record and on hearing arguments of both the parties and having stood over for consideration
till this day, the following order is passed:
ORDER
2.

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

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

The Complainant booked a flat bearing No. 31306 in West Tower–3 of “Vasavi Lake

City” (RERA No. P02500001819) on 16.01.2021, based on advertisements, interactions with
the marketing team and information on the Respondent’s website. The project was presented
as a well-planned and timely development.

Page 1 of 19

---

It is submitted that the Complainant made 80% of the payment of the flat cost

(excluding taxes, corpus and maintenance fund) within 40 days of booking, and the remaining
20% was agreed to be paid at time of possession. An Agreement of Sale was executed on
12.03.2021. The builder, Yerram Vijay Kumar personally assured the Complainant that
possession would be handed over by August 2023, with the possibility of earlier delivery. It is
also stated that the flat from 31201 to 31101 has been changed from the booking date to the
agreement of sale date.
5.

The Complainant submits that despite repeated assurances, the project has been delayed

and as of March 2025 remains incomplete. The Respondent has postponed the handover date
on several occasions, without providing a definite timeline. The Complainant, having already
paid 80% of the cost, has been left in a state of uncertainty and financial distress.
6.

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

and for the past 18 months no major work has been carried out. Interior finishing, common
amenities and supporting infrastructure remain pending. Despite repeated follow-ups, the
Respondent has not provided a clear completion schedule.
7.

The Complainant states that the delay constitutes violation of RERA provisions.

Payments were collected within time, but the Respondent has failed to deliver possession
within the committed period. The delay has caused financial strain, mental stress and emotional
hardship.
8.

It is also submitted that the Respondent changed the plan by altering the layout of the

attached toilet in one bedroom and the common toilets, without informing the Complainant.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
9.

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, within a fixed and enforceable timeframe, failing which strict
penalties be imposed.

ii.

To direct the Respondent to pay interest on the total amount paid by the Complainant
from the promised possession date of August 2023 until the actual date of handover
along with interest at the prescribed rate under RERA for the entire delay period.

Page 2 of 19

---

To direct the Respondent to pay compensation for the emotional and financial hardships
suffered due to the Respondent’s negligence, false promises and lack of transparency.

iv.

To instruct the Respondent adhere to the plan and construct accordingly.

C. Counter filed by the Respondent:
10.

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.
11.

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

rights from the landowners under registered documents, covering 43,298.17 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 seven towers (cellars
+ ground + 14 upper floors) and a clubhouse (stilt + five upper floors). The project was duly
registered with this Authority vide Registration No. P02500001819 dated 20.03.2020.
12.

It is further submitted that the Complainant was allotted an apartment in the project

vide booking dated 12.02.2021, and was allotted an apartment No. W.31306 on the 13th Floor
of Tower 3, admeasuring 1905 sq. ft., along with parking, for a total consideration of
Rs.99,91,650/-. The Agreement of Sale sets out the carpet area, balcony/veranda area, common
area, and undivided share of land. The Complainant has paid Rs.83,82,000/- towards the sale
consideration, while the balance amount remains payable in accordance with the agreed
payment schedule.
13.

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

hand over possession of the flat and common areas by 31.08.2023, 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 caused by force majeure conditions, during which period the allottee is not
entitled to claim compensation.

Page 3 of 19

---

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.
14.

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.
15.

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.
16.

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.
17.

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.
Communications have also been issued to purchasers for payment of balance amounts, as
completion is nearing.

Page 4 of 19

---

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:
19.

The Complainant submits that the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability

of the complaint is baseless, vague, and legally untenable. This complaint has been filed under
the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, seeking redressal for the inordinate delay in handing
over possession of the allotted flat in project RERA No. P02500001819. The Agreement of
Sale dated 12.03.2021 clearly stipulates the committed date of possession as 31.08.2023.
However, as of the date of filing this complaint on 13.05.2025, possession has not been granted,
and the project is less than 70% complete. The Hon’ble Telangana RERA has jurisdiction under
Section 31 read with Sections 18(1) and 19(4) of the Act to entertain such complaints by
allottees in case of delay. Therefore, the application is legally maintainable and within the
scope of RERA, and the objection raised deserves to be rejected outright.
20.

The contention that the Complainant has not availed of remedies under the agreement

prior to filing the complaint is denied. The Complainant has already placed on record all
relevant evidence, including minutes of meetings and Form M, which clearly demonstrate
repeated attempts to establish contact with the builder and resolve the matter. The further claim
that the complaint is not maintainable due to the absence of a legal notice is equally untenable.
The Complainant had repeatedly contacted the Respondent regarding possession, only to be
met with new deadlines and no explanation. Moreover, under RERA, issuing a legal notice is
not a prerequisite for filing a complaint.
21.

The Respondent has sought to rely on the booking date and clerical errors in the

agreement to evade responsibility, which cannot be accepted. The obligations of the
Respondent flow directly from the Agreement of Sale, which clearly commits to a possession
date of August 2023. RERA must consider the agreement date and not the booking date. The
builder has never proactively communicated about the delay or progress, and project schedules
have been shared only after repeated follow-ups, and even those schedules have not been

Page 5 of 19

---

The Respondent’s reliance on force majeure conditions, particularly COVID-19, is

misplaced. The Complainant’s agreement was executed after COVID-19 and hence this plea is
not applicable. Moreover, the delay in construction occurred from late 2023 onwards, long after
restrictions had ceased. This fact is confirmed by the absence of any demand letters after
October 2023 for over a year, indicating that construction had come to a standstill.
23.

The allegations made by the Respondent that the Complainant is acting with ulterior

motives or seeking unlawful gains are strongly denied. The Complainant has placed all material
facts and documents on record, including the AOS, proof of payments, correspondence, and
evidence of repeated delays. The Respondent, on the other hand, has failed to honor multiple
possession dates, including the original deadline of August 2023 and subsequent extensions to
February 2024, February 2025, and June 2025. These repeated failures, despite clear
commitments, establish beyond doubt the breach of contractual and statutory obligations. The
Complainant’s approach to this Hon’ble Authority is a statutory right under RERA and cannot
be termed as mala fide.
24.

The Respondent’s claim that no compensation or interest is payable is also

unsustainable. Section 18 of the RERA Act clearly entitles the Complainant to interest for
delayed possession. The Complainant has already paid more than 80% of the consideration
amount, with no return of possession even two years after the agreed date. It is for this
Authority to determine the entitlement, and sufficient evidence has been submitted to support
the claim. Similarly, the demand for compensation is justified, as the delay has caused
significant financial strain, mental distress, and disruption to the Complainant’s life. The
Complainant has already filed Form M and shall file Form N separately for compensation, as
directed.
25.

The Complainant denies the Respondent’s claim that an extension until February 2026

exempts them from liability. The Complainant is willing to clear all dues upon completion of
the project with all promised amenities, but the Respondent cannot unlawfully demand full
payment while the project remains incomplete.

Page 6 of 19

---

It is further denied that the Complainant has ever received any proactive, acknowledged

communication from the builder regarding delays. No such communication exists signed by
the Complainant, and if the Respondent relies on such documents, they may be directed to
produce them before this Authority. The responsibility for resolving third-party disputes also
lies solely with the builder and cannot be used as an excuse for delay. These disputes were
never proactively disclosed and were shared only after persistent demands from the allottees.
27.

The repeated assertion that COVID-19 and labour issues justify the delay is untenable

when the delay from 2023 onwards cannot be attributed to such causes. The cumulative delay
and repeated shifting of deadlines highlight the Respondent’s failure to adhere to its
commitments. The Complainant has fully complied with obligations, including timely payment
of instalments, while the Respondent has repeatedly failed to honour possession commitments.
The burden of delay lies entirely on the builder, and the Complainant is entitled to interest and
compensation under RERA.
E. Points for Consideration
28.

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:
29.

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:
30.

The Authority finds this objection untenable for the following reasons:

Page 7 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. 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.
32.

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.
33.

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

Supreme Court held that remedies under special statutes are in addition to, and not in derogation
of, other remedies. For ready reference, the relevant extract is reproduced below:
*“49. Support to the above view is also lent by Section 79 of the recently enacted Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short "the Real Estate Act").
Section 79 of the said Act reads as follows:- ‘79. Bar of jurisdiction - No civil court
shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter
which the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered
by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or
other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power
conferred by or under this Act.’ It can thus, be seen that the said provision expressly
ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of any matter which the Real Estate
Regulatory Authority, established under Subsection (1) of Section 20 or the
Adjudicating Officer, appointed under Subsection (1) of Section 71, or the Real Estate
Page 8 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."
35.

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

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

Page 9 of 19

---

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
80% of the total sale consideration, causing significant financial and emotional distress. It is
the case of the Complainant that the Agreement of Sale dated 12.03.2021 clearly stipulated that
possession of the subject flat would be handed over by 31.08.2023, with a grace period of six
months, ending on 28.02.2024. The Respondent has failed to hand over possession even as of
February 2025. Further, although the project was registered with TG RERA up to February
2025 and later extended until 07.02.2026, the project remains incomplete, with construction
progress stalled at approximately 60-70% as per the Complainant’s submission, with key
aspects such as interior finishing, common amenities, and supporting infrastructure remaining
unfinished. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has issued multiple revised handover
schedules without providing valid justification or a clear roadmap for completion.
37.

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.
38.

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

executed on 12.03.2021, 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 2023. 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.
39.

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
Page 10 of 19

---

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…".
41.

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.
42.

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 March 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
43.

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.
44.

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

Page 11 of 19

---

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).
46.

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.
47.

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

possession timelines first to February 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.”

Page 12 of 19

---

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.
49.

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:
50.

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

of Rs. 99,91,650/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Lakh Ninety One Thousand Six Hundred And Fifty
Only). It has been further observed, as per the Agreement of Sale the Complainant has duly
paid an amount of Rs. 83,82,000/- (Rupees Eighty Three Lakh Eighty Two Thousand Only).
Further, the Agreement clearly stipulated possession by 31.08.2023, with a grace period of 6
months to 28.02.2024. Admittedly, possession has not been delivered.
51.

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 60% 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.
52.

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]:

Page 13 of 19

---

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.
54.

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.
55.

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:

Page 14 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."
57.

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."
58.

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
Page 15 of 19

---

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.

60.

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 01.03.2024 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.
61.

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.
62.

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.
63.

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.

Page 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, 2016.
65.

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.
66.

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.
67.

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.
68.

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:
69.

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.

Page 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 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.
71.

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

Page 18 of 19

---

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
73.

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

---