Order Complaint No. 243 of 2025​

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 243/2025/TG RERA
Dated: 30th December 2025
Quorum:

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

Mrs. Sowmya Jaldu W/o Kopparapu Sai Koteswar Rao
(R/o # 301. Block-B, Sri Rama palace,
Raghavendra Colony, Kondapur,
Hyderabad-500084.)

…Complainant
Versus
M/s. Vasavi Realtor LLP,
(Rep by its Designated Partner, Vijay Kumar Yerram & Kandey Ramesh,
Vasavi Corporate,
H.No.8-2-703/7/1 and 8-2-703/7/1/A,
4th Floor, Vasavi Corporate Building, Amrutha Valley Apartments,
Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500034)

…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on
11.07.2025 before this Authority in the presence of the Complainant in person and Respondents
Counsels Sri D Madhav Rao and M.K.Joy Raj; upon pursuing the material on record and on
hearing arguments of the both the parties and having stood over for consideration till this day,
the following order is passed:
ORDER
2.

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

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

It was submitted that the Complainant had purchased a flat in the “Vasavi Lake City”

project in January 2021. The said purchase was made based on representations in
advertisements and personal interactions with the Respondent's marketing team.
1 of 19

---

It was stated that an initial payment of twenty percent was made, and an Agreement of

Sale was subsequently executed in August 2021. Pursuant to the terms of the said agreement,
it was stipulated that the flat would be handed over by August 2023.
5.

It was contended that despite these assurances, the project had been subject to

unjustified delays and, as of April 2025, remained incomplete. It was alleged that the
Respondent had continuously postponed the handover date, providing vague reasons and false
assurances without communicating a clear timeline.
6.

It was further submitted that the Complainant had paid eighty percent of the total sale

consideration. The prolonged delay had left the Complainant in a state of uncertainty and
caused significant financial distress.
7.

It was stated that as of January 2025, the project was only an estimated sixty to seventy

percent complete, with no major work having been carried out since that time. Key aspects
such as interior finishing, common amenities, and supporting infrastructure remained
unfinished. It was alleged that the Respondent had failed to provide a clear roadmap for
completion.
8.

It was submitted that the continued delay in possession constituted a serious violation

of the provisions of the RERA Act. The complaint was therefore filed to seek urgent
intervention, financial compensation, and strict action against the Respondent for the prolonged
delay and lack of accountability, which had caused the Complainant significant financial strain,
mental stress, and emotional distress.
B. Reliefs Sought
9.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

To direct the Respondent to forthwith complete all pending construction and hand over
immediate possession of the subject flat to the Complain-ant, within a fixed and
enforceable timeframe to be determined by this Honourable Authority, failing which to
impose strict penalties upon the Respondent.

ii.

To direct the Respondent to pay interest on the total amount paid by the Complainant,
calculated from the promised date of possession in August 2023 until the actual date of
handover, at the rate prescribed under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016.

iii.

To direct the Respondent to pay adequate compensation to the Complainant for the
severe mental anguish, financial strain, and disruption to personal and professional
2 of 19

---

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

law or on facts and was liable to be dismissed. The Respondent contended that the Complainant
had failed to follow the remedies available under the Agreement for Sale for the resolution of
disputes before approaching this Hon’ble Authority. It was further submitted that no prior legal
notice was issued before the filing of the complaint, which rendered the application defective.
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 was further submitted that the Complainant was allotted apartment No. W. 51111 on

the 11th Floor of Tower 5, admeasuring 1920 sq. ft., and an undivided share of 51 sq. yds. of
land under the Agreement of Sale. The agreement detailed the carpet area, balcony area,
common area, and the undivided share of land. The total sale consideration was Rs.
1,19,92,800/- out of which the Complainant paid Rs. 25,18,488/-.
13.

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

to hand over possession of the apartment on or before 31.08.2023, with a grace period of six
months. The said clause explicitly stated that the period of completion would stand extended
in the event of force majeure conditions, during which the allottee was not entitled to claim any
compensation for the delay.
14.

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

clean hands but with an ulterior motive for unlawful gain, and that there had been a material
suppression of facts. While the existence of the Agreement of Sale was not in dispute, the
Respondent averred that the Complainant made false claims despite being aware of the
contractual terms and circumstances.
15.

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

COVID-19 pandemic, which was a force majeure event recognized under law. It was submitted
that following the declaration of a public health emergency in January 2020, a nationwide
3 of 19

---

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

Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, whereby the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was
excluded for the purposes of computing limitation across all statutes. It was contended that this
legally recognized the extraordinary circumstances and justified the extension of timelines for
project completion.
17.

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

other unforeseen factors. It was stated that the project site contained rocky terrain which, due
to its location in a residential vicinity, could not be excavated using explosives. The consequent
need for manual rock-breaking compounded the construction delays. Furthermore, the project
was adversely impacted by third-party disputes, including several legal proceedings filed
against the project, such as RERA Case No. 190/2020, W.P. No. 2694/2021, and W.P. No.
26301/2024, which hindered its smooth progress. These challenges were communicated to the
customers in periodic meetings.
18.

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

such as an incorrect possession date mentioned in one instance, could not be exploited to create
liability, especially when the magnitude of the project made such a timeline practically
impossible. The Respondent asserted that the project was over 90% complete and in the final
finishing stages. An extension for the project registration had been granted by this Authority
up to 07.02.2026, and the Respondent gave an undertaking to deliver the apartments within this
extended period.
19.

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

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

4 of 19

---

The Respondent concluded that the complaint was preposterous and without

foundation. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed and the Respondent be allowed to
complete the project and deliver possession to all allottees as per the extended timeline.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant
21.

It was submitted in response to the preliminary objection on maintainability, that the

said objection was vague, unsupported, and legally untenable. The complaint had been filed
under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which explicitly
granted an aggrieved allottee the right to seek redressal. It was stated that the Agreement of
Sale dated 16th November 2021 clearly committed to handing over possession by 31st August
2023, and as the flat had not been delivered, the complaint was fully maintainable.
22.

The contention that the Complainant had not availed methods as provided in the

agreement was described as legally unfounded and entirely unsustainable. It was submitted that
under Section 31 of the Act, an aggrieved allottee had a statutory and independent right to
approach the Hon'ble Authority, and the existence of any private dispute mechanism did not
oust the jurisdiction of the Authority. It was further stated that the Complainant had attempted
to engage with the Respondent, but these efforts were met with avoidance, non-responsiveness,
and stonewalling.
23.

The objection regarding the non-issuance of a legal notice was described as legally

misconceived and procedurally irrelevant, as there was no such requirement under Section 31
of the Act.
24.

It was stated that the Respondent's development rights and the permissions obtained for

construction were not in dispute; the issue lay in the Respondent's failure to deliver possession
on time as per contractual obligations.
25.

It was submitted that while the project was registered with RERA, the Respondent had

grossly failed to comply with the obligations that accompanied such registration, particularly
those relating to timely possession and transparency. The Respondent's conduct postregistration showed a clear disregard for the regulations.
26.

It was submitted that the Respondent's reference to the booking date was legally

immaterial, and the apartment number was incorrectly mentioned, the correct number being
W31310. The rights and obligations were governed solely by the Agreement of Sale dated 18th
August 2021, which committed to possession by 31st August 2023. The Complainant had duly
paid a sum of ₹1,00,73,952/- towards the consideration.
5 of 19

---

The Respondent's reliance on a RERA extension was described as legally flawed and

misleading. It was submitted that the possession date as agreed between the parties, 31st August
2023, must prevail for assessing delay, irrespective of any regulatory extensions. The
Respondent's conduct, in now citing a delivery date of February 2026, rendered the contract
meaningless.
28.

The Complainant fully acknowledged the payment of the booking amount of

₹25,18,488/-. However, it was submitted that the Respondent's attempt to divert the discussion
toward specifications was unrelated to the core issue of delay in possession.
29.

It was submitted that the Respondent had selectively cited clauses while ignoring their

binding obligation to deliver possession on or before 31st August 2023. The Respondent had
far exceeded even the six-month grace period. The repeated reference to force majeure was
described as legally untenable and factually inapplicable, as the Agreement was executed in
November 2021, after the major COVID-19 lockdowns. It was noted that sales representatives
had actively promised even earlier possession. It was argued that a force-majeure clause could
not override the statutory right granted to allottees under Section 18(1) of the RERA Act.
30.

The Respondent's selective quoting of Clause 7.2 was stated to be misleading and

premature, as the condition precedent of obtaining an occupancy certificate (OC) had not been
met. It was submitted that Clause 9, which dealt with promoter defaults, was fully applicable
and must be enforced.
31.

The Complainant categorically denied the baseless, vague, and defamatory allegations

of acting with an "ulterior motive." It was submitted that the Complainant had made full and
honest disclosure of all relevant facts, including proof of payments totalling ₹1,00,73,952/-,
whereas the Respondent had failed to meet their contractual obligations.
32.

While the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was acknowledged, it was submitted that

the Respondent's reliance on it was misleading, as the Agreement for Sale was executed on
18th August 2021, with full knowledge of the circumstances. The delay from 2023 to 2025
could not be blamed on the pandemic and was instead a result of mismanagement and
inefficiency.

6 of 19

---

It was submitted that the legal extensions cited by the Respondent pertained only to

statutory limitation periods for initiating legal proceedings and had no bearing whatsoever on
a real estate developer's contractual obligations under the RERA Act.
34.

The attempt to attribute the delay to labour migration was stated as not being applicable

to the facts, as the Complainant's unit in Tower 3 had been structurally completed more than
24 months prior, and the subsequent delay reflected a lack of intent and mismanagement on the
part of the builder.
35.

The Respondent's statement regarding "various additional factors" was described as

vague, evasive, and devoid of any factual backing. It was submitted that the claim that
"customers were intimated from time to time" was factually incorrect in the Complainant's
case.
36.

The response by the Respondent, terming the committed possession date in a formally

executed Agreement of Sale as a product of "clerical and typographical mistakes," was
described as both self-incriminating and legally indefensible. It was submitted that this was a
dishonest afterthought and reflected a complete abdication of responsibility, or worse, a
misrepresentation from the outset.
37.

The accusation that the Complainant's allegations were factually baseless was described

as an unfounded, derogatory, and blatant diversionary tactic. It was submitted that the
Complainant had provided extensive documentary evidence, while the Respondent's citation
of a RERA registration extension had no bearing on their contractual liability.
38.

It was submitted that while certain legal disputes may have arisen, their mere existence

could not be used as a blanket justification for delay. It was the legal responsibility of the
promoter under Section 11(3)(a) of the RERA Act to ensure the project was free of
encumbrances, and these risks had not been proactively disclosed.
39.

The Complainant challenged the Respondent to produce any formal written

communication that proactively disclosed delays. It was submitted that the pattern of repeatedly
outlining and then dishonouring revised timelines reflected a calculated approach to deflect
pressure.
40.

The Complainant submitted that the claim for interest was a non-negotiable and

unconditional statutory right under Section 18(1) of the Act. The reliance on force majeure due
to COVID-19 was wholly misplaced as the Agreement was signed after the lockdown period.

7 of 19

---

The Respondent's statement regarding compensation was stated to reflect complete

insensitivity to the real and severe consequences faced by the Complainant, which had been
clearly laid out in Form M. Specific hardships were detailed, including the displacement of
aged parents, increased commute times, and mental agony.
42.

The Complainant strongly objected to the Respondent's claim that delivery was now

scheduled for February 2026 and that the Complainant was in arrears. It was asserted that the
Complainant had never agreed to any extension and was not in default, having paid over 80%
of the consideration and was awaiting clarifications to release further payments. The
Respondent's "unconditional undertaking" was stated as not waiving their legal liability for
interest.
43.

The response regarding the Complainant agreeing to the delay was described as another

attempt to deflect responsibility using afterthought excuses. It was stated that the Complainant
never agreed to excuse the delay. The new claim about rocky terrain reflected a lack of due
diligence and was a foreseeable project risk, not force majeure.
44.

The Respondent's statement that the Complainant was not entitled to any relief was

described as a sweeping and baseless denial of liability. It was submitted that the Respondent's
generic claim that the delay was "beyond their control" had been repeatedly refuted.
45.

Finally, it was submitted that the Respondent's characterization of the complaint as

"preposterous" and "false" was unfounded. The Respondent's claimed reputation could not
override the specific facts of the case. It was prayed that the Hon'ble Authority take cognizance
of the material facts, the delay in possession, and the legitimate concerns raised, and pass
appropriate directions.
E. Points for Consideration:
46.

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:
8 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:
48.

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.
49.

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.
50.

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.
51.

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.
52.

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:

9 of 19

---

Similarly, in Aftab Singh &Ors. v. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. &Ors. (Consumer Case No.

701 of 2015, decided on 13.07.2017), it was held that arbitration clauses in builder-buyer
agreements cannot oust the jurisdiction of consumer fora. The said view was later upheld by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512–23513 of 2017. The relevant para
reads:
25. This Court in the series of judgments as noticed above considered the
provisions of Consumer Protection Act, L986 os well as Arbitration Act, 1996
and laid down that complaint under Consumer Protection Act being a special
remedy, despite there being an arbitration agreement the proceedings before
Consumer Forum have to go on and no ercor committed by Consumer Forum
on rejecting the application. There is reason for not interjecting proceedings
under Consumer Protection Act on the strength an arbitration agreement by
Act, 1996. The remedy under Consumer Protection Act is a remedy provided
to a consumer when there is a defect in any goods or services. The complaint
means any allegation in writing made by a complainant has also been
explained in Section 2(c) of the Act. The remedy under the Consumer
10 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: Delay in Possession
55.

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

in handing over of possession of the subject flat.
56.

It is the case of the Complainants that the Agreement of Sale dated 18.08.2021, executed

between the parties, 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 on date. Further, although the project was registered
with TG RERA up to February 2025 and later extended until February 2026, the project remains
incomplete.
57.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has repeatedly given false assurances of

completion, while allottees continue to suffer. The Respondent, conversely, attributes the delay
to the Covid-19 pandemic, claiming force majeure, citing the nationwide lockdown beginning
March 2020, the impact on migrant labour, and consequential delays.
(i) Whether the Covid-19 pandemic, third-party litigations, or rocky site conditions can be
taken as a valid shield by the Respondent in the present case?
58.

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

admittedly executed on 18.08.2021, much after the onset and near subsiding of the Covid-19
pandemic. The Respondent, being fully aware of the prevailing global circumstances,
nevertheless executed the Agreement by specifically assuring completion of the project by
August 2023 with the grace period of 6 months i.e 28.02.2024. Having consciously undertaken
such commitment, the Respondent cannot now, with retrospective justification, rely on Covid11 of 19

---

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

into binding contractual commitments with allottees, he does so with full knowledge of the
risks, constraints, and challenges of the market. At the time of entering into the Agreement of
Sale with the present Complainant, the Respondent was already aware of the Covid-related
disruptions, as well as the Government notifications granting moratoriums for project
completion timelines. Despite this knowledge, the Respondent chose to provide a specific
assurance of delivery by August 2023 with the grace period of 6 months i.e 28.02.2024.
60.

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…".

61.

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.
62.

Therefore, the plea of Covid-19 as a force majeure defence in the present case is wholly

untenable. The Respondent, having executed the Agreement of Sale in August 2021 with
specific possession timelines, cannot now seek to retrospectively attribute delays to the
pandemic. Accordingly, this Authority holds that the reliance on Covid-19 as a shield stands
rejected.

(ii) Extension of Registration

12 of 19

---

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.
64.

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.”

65.

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 notifications issued by the 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).
66.

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.
67.

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:

13 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.
69.

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:
70.

As per the receipts submitted by the Complainants, they have paid about ₹88,14,708/-

out of the total sale consideration of ₹1,19,92,800/-, diligently and without default. 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.
71.

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 a year has elapsed beyond the grace period, yet the project is neither
complete nor has possession been handed over.
72.

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
14 of 19

---

73.

Therefore, the contention that the complainant has not paid the total balance is rejected.

A promoter in default cannot compel an allottee to keep paying indefinitely, especially when
no tangible progress exists and timelines are unilaterally extended to cover its own deficiencies.
74.

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.
75.

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:
15 of 19

---

Further, as earlier observed, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors

Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [(2017) SCC Online Bom 9302] clarified that RERA
registration or its extension cannot rewrite the contract between parties. The date assured under
the Agreement of Sale, executed with the allottee’s consent, shall prevail. Thus, the Respondent
is bound by Section 11(4)(a) of the RE(R&D)Act, which mandates adherence to the terms of
the Agreement of Sale.
78.

In the present case, this Authority finds the Respondent in clear breach of both statutory

and contractual obligations. Accordingly, the Complainant is 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. In view of the discrepancy between the amounts stated by the
Complainant and the Respondent, the Respondent is directed to verify the payment receipts
and ascertain the exact quantum paid by the Complainant. Interest shall be calculated and paid
on the amount so established through documentary proof of payments made till date. As regards
claims of compensation, this Authority notes that jurisdiction for adjudicating compensation
lies with the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of RE(R&D) Act with Form ‘N’. The
Complainant is at liberty to pursue such remedy separately.
79.

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
16 of 19

---

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.
81.

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.
82.

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.
83.

The Respondent is hereby directed to complete the project and hand over possession to

the Complainants within the stipulated period. The Authority has also taken note of the
contention of the Respondent that the Complainants did not adhere to the payment schedule,
which was linked to the progress of construction. However, it is observed that the Respondent
has failed to produce any documentary evidence showing that reminder notices or formal
demands were issued to the Complainants in this regard.
84.

It is clarified that 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.
85.

At the same time, the Complainants are equally bound by their statutory obligations

under Section 19(6) and 19(7) of the RE(R&D) Act. Accordingly, the Complainants are
directed to make payment of any balance amount due under the agreed payment schedule, if
17 of 19

---

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., 28.02.2024 (inclusive of grace period).
e. The Complainants are entitled to interest at the rate of 10.70% per annum (being SBI
MCLR + 2% as per Rule 15 of the TG RE(R&D) Rules, 2017), computed on the
amounts paid, with effect from 01.03.2024 until actual handing over of lawful
possession. The Respondent shall pay the arrears accrued up to the date of this Order
within sixty (60) days, and shall thereafter continue to pay the accruing interest on a
monthly basis, on or before the 10th day of each succeeding month, until possession is
delivered.
f. Insofar as compensation is concerned, the Complainant is at liberty to pursue
appropriate proceedings before the Learned Adjudicating Officer under “Form N”.
g. The Respondent is hereby directed to complete the project forthwith and hand over
possession to the Complainants within the statutory timelines.
h. The Complainants are directed to pay the balance consideration strictly in accordance
with the agreed payment schedule. In the event of any default in adhering to such
schedule, the Respondent shall be at liberty to claim interest on the delayed amounts,
as provided under Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017. However, such claim shall be substantiated by valid documentary evidence
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
90.

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

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

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

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

19 of 19

---