Order Complaint No. 259 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No.259 of 2024
12th November 2025
Quorum:

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

Vijayendra Kumar Gade
(Flat No. 410, Block-D, The Nest Apartment,
Near Marrichettu Circle, Manikonda – 500089)

…Complainant
Versus
Aliens Developers Pvt Ltd.
Rep by Mr. Hari Challa & Mr. Venkat Prasanna Challa
(Plot No. 57, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur,
Hyderabad, Telangana – 500018)

…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing before
this Authority in the presence of the learned counsel for Complainant Sri Sharad Singh Thakur,
Neeraj Thakur, and the learned counsel for Respondent Sri M. Ashwin Reddy, V. Sai Teja and
Umesh Mantri and upon hearing submissions made by both parties, and the matter reserved
over for consideration till this date, this Authority passes the present Complaint ORDER:

2.

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

Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 7 of 26 “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. Brief facts of the case:
3.

The Complainant submitted that he had booked a 3BHK flat, bearing No. 522 in Tower

No. 22 at Station No. 4, admeasuring 1792 sq. ft., in the Respondent project for a total
consideration of Rs. 1,01,57,760/-. In furtherance of the said booking, the Complainant paid an
advance amount of Rs. 26,66,411/- to the Respondent developer.

Page 1 of 8

---

The Complainant stated that he made the payment, equivalent to 25% of the total

consideration, in response to the Respondent's payment request letters dated 13.11.2020 and
17.04.2021, respectively.

Details of Payments Made by the Complainant to the Respondent

Sl. No

Date of

Mode of payment

Reference No.

Amount

transaction
1.

18-10-2020

Ria (order no.)

US754576615

Rs. 2,19,376/-

2.

19-10-2020

Online

147119528

Rs. 30,624/-

3.

30-10-2020

Online

172486343

Rs. 2,50,000/-

4.

29-11-2020

Online

245355784

Rs. 5,00,000/-

5.

05-12-2020

Online

379325578

Rs. 5,00,000/-

6.

06-12-2020

Online

146468825

Rs. 5,00,000/-

7.

11-12-2020

Online

311972819

Rs. 5,39,440/-

8.

17-04-2021

Online

222547431

Rs. 1,26,971/-

Total Amount Paid by the Complainant to Respondent: Rs. 26,66,411/-

5.

The Complainant submits that when he visited the site, the basic structural work for the

project had not commenced, and the Respondent failed to respond to any queries. While the
matter stood thus, the Respondent issued a cancellation deed unilaterally, without issuing any
prior notice or assigning any reasons for such cancellation, with a schedule to return the money.
Although the said deed contained a schedule for the refund of the amounts paid, the Respondent
failed to honour that schedule, and the Respondent has not refunded any amount to the
Complainant to date, even after follow-ups. These actions of the Respondent caused losses to
the Complainant.
Payment Schedule for Refund Specified in the Cancellation Deed, dated: 17.04.2022, is as
follows
SL. No.

Payment of the Month

Installment Amount

1.

June-2022

Rs. 1,77,761/-

2.

July-2022

Rs. 1,77,761/-

3.

August-2022

Rs. 1,77,761/Page 2 of 8

---

4.

September- 2022

Rs. 1,77,761/-

5.

October-2022

Rs. 1,77,761/-

6.

November-2022

Rs. 1,77,761/-

7.

December-2022

Rs. 1,77,761/-

8.

January-2023

Rs. 1,77,761/-

9.

February-2023

Rs. 1,77,761/-

10.

March-2023

Rs. 1,77,761/-

11.

April-2023

Rs. 1,77,761/-

12.

May -2023

Rs. 1,77,761/-

13.

June-2023

Rs. 1,77,761/-

14.

July -2023

Rs. 1,77,761/-

15.

August-2023

Rs. 1,77,761/-

Total Amount

Rs. 26,66,411/-

The Complainant submits that despite issuing of legal notice, the Respondent have

failed to repay the refund amount.
B. Reliefs prayed for:
7.

Aggrieved by the actions of the Respondent, the Complainant sought for the following

relief(s):
i.

To refund the principal amount of Rs. Rs. 26,66,411/- to the Respondent.

ii.

To direct the Respondent to pay interest @ 24% interest for the period of 24 months
from the cancellation deed, i.e., equal to Rs. 14,93,190/-

C. Counter on behalf of the Respondents:

8.

The Respondent, Aliens Developers Pvt Ltd, in his counter submits that the complaint

is devoid of any legal basis, as the Complainant has not cited any specific provision or rule of
the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 that has allegedly been violated. Due to this deficiency, the complaint
fails to disclose a prima facie case and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold without a
detailed hearing.
9.

The Respondent further submits that the Complainant has forfeited their status as an

“allottee” under Section 2(d) of the RE(R&D) Act by voluntarily and unilaterally cancelling
Page 3 of 8

---

The Respondent submits that the Complainant has suppressed the material facts of the

case. That the instant complaint is devoid of any cause of action against the Respondent and
hence is liable to be dismissed. That the present case falls under the domain of civil courts.
11.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant visited the flat. That after verifying the

details of the project, proceeded with the booking of the apartment on 18.10.2018 by paying
Rs. 2,19,376/-. That the Complaint filed by the Complainant is premature in nature as the
Respondent has a valid RERA Registration till 14.12.2026. However, the Complainant has
cancelled the flat without assigning any reasons and, in order to extort money from the
Respondent, has filed this false and baseless complaint before this authority, to cause loss to
the Respondent and to the prospective buyers.
12.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant himself initiated the cancellation talks,

and based on the Complainant's suggestion, only the Respondent has issued the cancellation
deed on 17.04.2022 as requested by the Complainant.
13.

The Respondent further submits that in confirmation with the Complainants

cancellation request the Respondent and Complainant mutually agreed for entering into
cancellation deed dated 17.04.2022. That the Respondent agreed to refund total amount without
deducting of 10% of the total sale consideration. That they have already paid 7,00,000/- to the
Complainant towards the refund and furthermore in adherence to the agreed terms to settle the
matter amicably the final payment, will also be provided to the Complainant through a demand
draft.
14.

The Respondent Relied on Maula Bux Vs. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCR 928 and Sirdar

K.B. Ram Chandra Raj Urs Vs. Sarah C. Urs, (2015) 4 SCC 136, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that:
that forfeiture of the amount in case of breach of contract must be reasonable
and if forfeiture is in the nature of penalty, then provisions of Section-74 of
Contract Act, 1872 are attracted and the party so forfeiting must prove actual
damage. After cancellation of allotment, the flat remains with the developer as
Page 4 of 8

---

In conclusion, the Respondent prayed this Hon’ble Authority to dismiss the complaint.

Points for consideration
16.

Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, the following points came up for

consideration before us:
I. Whether the present complaint is maintainable before this Authority?
II. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the Reliefs sought? Ifo so to what
Extent?
E. Observation of the Authority:
17.

Upon perusing the written submissions and documents produced by both parties, this

Authority makes the following observations.
Point-I
18.

The main contention of the Respondent is that the Complainant ceased to be an allottee

upon cancelling the booking voluntarily, and that no specific violation of the RE (R&D) Act,
2016, exists necessary to establish the legal tenability of the complaint, and it is further argued
that the dispute, arising from a cancellation deed, is contractual in nature and should be
adjudicated by a civil court rather than this Authority and in order to determine the
maintainability of the complaint, the status of the complainant as allottee needs to be considered
first.
19.

This Authority has previously dealt with a similar issue involving the same Respondent

in Kolla Lakshmi Kumari vs. M/s Aliens Developers Private Limited (Complaint No. 304 of
2024), wherein the Respondent had advanced an identical argument contending that upon
execution of a cancellation deed, the complainant ceased to be an allottee and thus could not
seek relief under the Act. The Authority, while rejecting the said contention, observed as
follows:
Page 5 of 8

---

In a similar case, the Hon’ble Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in Chandrika

Dinesh Chowatia & Ors. vs. S.R. and Shah Developers (Appeal No. AT00600000005265,
decided on 25.08.2022), wherein the Tribunal held:
“14… In view of the above, we find that the cancellation process appears to
have been initiated but has neither been completed nor attained its finality
for want of non-fulfilment of the condition mentioned therein and also due to
only partial refund. Therefore, contention of the promoter that complainants
are no longer allottees is ex-facie not tenable.”
21.

As the above judicial pronouncements clearly establish that the process of cancellation

attains finality only upon the completion of all conditions stipulated in the cancellation deed,
including refund of the entire amount due. However, as of the date of the Complaint on hand,
in the present case, the Complainant has not received the agreed refund, and therefore, the
cancellation remained incomplete. Consequently, the Complainant continued to retain the
status of an allottee under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
22.

It is well settled that a promoter’s obligations do not terminate merely upon execution

of a cancellation deed; such obligations continue until all terms and conditions, including full
refund of amounts due, are complied with. Failure to discharge these obligations entitles the
allottee to seek redress under the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, before this Authority.
23.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the Complainant continued to be an allottee

within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, and the grievance relates to the
promoter’s failure to fulfil obligations arising from a registered real estate project.
Consequently, this Authority is duly empowered under Sections 31 and 34 of the RE(R&D)
Act, 2016, to adjudicate the matter. In view of the foregoing discussion and precedents, Point
No. I. It is answered in the affirmative, and the present complaint is held to be maintainable
before this Authority.
Page 6 of 8

---

The complainant in the present matter has sought a refund of Rs. 26,66,411/- along with

appropriate interest. As established under Point-I, the complainant continues to hold the status
of an allottee and is therefore entitled to seek appropriate relief before this Authority.
25.

The authority, from the material available on record, takes note that the parties to the

present complaint have entered into a Cancellation Deed stipulating the terms of refund of the
amounts paid. The execution of the said Deed reflects a clear agreement between the parties,
establishing the rights and obligations of both the Complainant and the Respondent in relation
to the cancellation and refund.

26.

As per the said Cancellation Deed, the Respondent undertook to refund ₹26,66,411/- in

fifteen (15) equal monthly instalments of ₹1,77,761/- each, commencing from June 2022 and
ending by August 2023. During the proceedings, it was brought to the notice of this Authority
that the Respondent had not adhered to the agreed-upon schedule, hence the present case.

27.

In the present case, the Respondent, in his counter, has contended that a sum of Rs.

7,00,000/- has been paid and that the remaining amount would be remitted shortly through a
demand draft. However, to substantiate such a claim, the Respondent has not placed on record
any piece of documentary evidence, such as a receipt or any other document establishing
payment and receipt on record. Furthermore, despite executing the cancellation deed, the
Respondent has not produced any evidence of compliance to demonstrate that the refund
stipulated in the cancellation deed has been effected in accordance with the agreed terms.

28.

The conduct on the part of the Respondent, by unjustifiably withholding the refund

amount and causing the Complainant to wait for an indefinite and unreasonable period even
after the cancellation of the allotted flat, this not only demonstrates a disregard for the
contractual and statutory obligations but also runs contrary to the very spirit and objectives of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Act was established primarily
to guarantee accountability, transparency, and the prompt adjudication of disputes arising from
transactions between developers and buyers. By failing to refund the legitimate dues of the
Complainant within a reasonable timeframe, the Respondent has undermined the legislative
intent of safeguarding the interests of homebuyers within the real estate sector. Such inaction,

Page 7 of 8

---

29.

Accordingly, this authority is of considered view that the Complainant is entitled to

refund of the amount paid by him to the Respondent, along with interest at the rate prescribed
under Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, i.e.,
the State Bank of India’s Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2% per annum
(presently 8.75% + 2%), , to be calculated on each instalment amount of ₹1,77,761/- from its
respective due month, commencing from June 2022, till the date of actual realization of the
amount by the Complainant.
30.

In view of the above findings, this Authority is of the considered that the Complainant

is entitled to the relief sought for of refund of the entire sale consideration with interest.
F. Direction of authority
31.

In exercise of the powers conferred upon this Authority under Sections 37 and 38 of

the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and in furtherance of the findings
and conclusions drawn hereinabove, the following directions are hereby issued:
i. The Respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to refund Rs. 26,66,411/- (Twenty-six lakhs
sixty-six thousand four hundred eleven Rupees only) along with interest at the rate of
10.75% per annum (SBI MCLR of 8.75% + 2%), from the date of the Cancellation deed
dated 17.04.2022 till the date of actual refund in accordance with Rule 15 of the
Telangana RE(R&D) Rules, 2017 within 30 (thirty) days from the of date receipt of this
Order.
ii. Respondent is hereby informed that failure to comply with this order shall attract
Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act,2016.
32.

The complaint is disposed of with these directions. There shall be 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 8 of 8

---