Order Complaint No. 259 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 259 of 2025
2nd April 2026
Quorum:

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

Cloudsan Infrastructure LLP
(Rep .by its Authorised Signatory Mrs. Meghna Agarwal
D/o Raghu Raj, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Business,
Corporate office at:Villa No. 1046, Krinss Villa,
Nanakramguda, Rangareddy Telangana – 500089)

… Complainant

Versus
M/s. Atluri Developers Private Limited
(Represented by its Managing Director Atluri Sreecharan
S/o Atluri Balaprasad, Aged About 42 years,
Occ: Business, Plot No 1-2-524/3/C/105,
Sagar View Complex Liberty,
Domalguda, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500029)

… Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant came up for hearing before this Authority in
the presence of the learned counsel for the Complainant, Smt. Aruna Kumari, and the learned
counsel for the Respondent, Sri. Drupad Sawgan. Upon pursuing the material available on record,
hearing the submissions advanced by both parties, and the matter having been reserved for
consideration, the following Order is passed:
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 “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) as against the
Respondent in accordance with law.

1 of 15

---

The Complainant respectfully submits that the Respondent Company is a private limited

company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The Respondent is engaged in the real estate
business. The Respondent Company entered into a registered DAGPA dated 14.02.2020 bearing
Document No. 2792/2020 with the landowners, in respect of land admeasuring 4140 square yards
(3680 square yards after road widening) in Plot No. 1-118/1/B/E/1 in Survey No. 13, situated at
Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for the purpose of construction
of a multi-storied commercial complex named “ATLURI ASCEND”.
4.

As per the terms of the DAGPA, the Respondent Company was obligated to obtain building

approval from GHMC, secure all necessary statutory approvals, and complete construction of the
Project with all approved amenities and facilities, in consideration of a 40% share in the built-up
area. In partial discharge of these obligations, the Respondent Company obtained initial building
plan approval vide Permit No. 1/C20/07312/2020 dated 07.07.2020 for construction of 4 cellars, a
stilt floor, and 3 upper floors. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent Company
thereafter submitted revised proposals expanding the Project to 5 cellars, a ground floor, and 9
upper floors, and obtained a revised building permit bearing No. 4486/GHMC/SLP/2022-BP. As
per the said revised permit, the Project comprises a net built-up area of 11,461.57 square meters
(1,23,372.33 square feet) and a net parking area of 8,724.20 square meters (93,907.28 square feet)
on a net land area of 3,021.24 square meters (3,613.40 square yards), being the extent remaining
after deduction of land surrendered for road widening.
5.

The Complainant submits that, pursuant to a Supplementary Agreement registered as

Document No. 16421/2022 dated 24.09.2022, the Land Owners and the Respondent Company
revised the sharing ratio of the built-up area and allocated 40% of the built-up area along with
proportionate undivided share of land to the Land Owners (Land Owner’s Share) and 60% of the
built-up area along with proportionate undivided share of land to the Respondent Company
(Developer Share). The Complainant further submits that, under the said arrangement, the builtup area in the ground floor, first floor, eighth floor, and ninth floor was allocated to the Land
Owners, while the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh floors were allocated to the
Respondent Company.

2 of 15

---

The Complainant further stated that the Respondent Company, along with the Land Owners,

offered to sell, and the Complainant agreed to purchase, commercial space on the seventh floor of
the Project admeasuring a total built-up area of 15,026 square feet, comprising a prorated common
area of 30% i.e., 4,507.80 square feet and a carpet area of 10,750.40 square feet, together with a
proportionate undivided share of land admeasuring 334 square yards out of 4,104 square yards in
Survey No. 13, situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, under GHMC
Serilingampally Circle, Rangareddy District, Telangana (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject
Property” for a total consideration of Rs. 6,14,26,288/- under an Agreement to Sell dated
03.02.2021, on mutually agreed terms including completion timeline, handover, and delay
compensation.
7.

The Complainant submits that, as per Clause 2 of the Agreement to Sell, the Respondent

Company unequivocally agreed to complete the construction of the Project within a period of 24
months from the date of GHMC approval, granted vide Permit No. 1/C20/07312/2020 dated
07.07.2020. The Complainant further submits that the Agreement also contemplated a grace period
of 12 months, comprising a general extension of 6 months and an additional 6 months on account
of the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the Respondent Company was contractually bound to
hand over possession of the Subject Property to the Complainant in a fit-for-occupancy condition,
together with the Completion Certificate, on or before 30.06.2023.
8.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent Company executed a registered Sale Deed

bearing Document No. 20426/2022 dated 08.12.2022 upon receipt of total consideration of Rs.
6,32,57,712/-, conveying ownership of the subject property along with specified parking spaces
and undivided share of land. Despite receipt of full consideration, the Respondent Company failed
to hand over possession of the subject property by 30.06.2023, resulting in delay from 01.07.2023
onwards. As per Clause 6 of the Agreement, the Respondent Company is liable to pay notional
rent at Rs. 35/- per sq. ft. per month from 01.07.2023 till delivery of possession with completion
certificate, which obligation remains unfulfilled.
9.

Pursuant to the Agreement to Sell, the Respondent Company executed and registered a Sale

Deed bearing Document No. 20426/2022 dated 08.12.2022 in favour of the Complainant in respect
of the Subject Property, upon receipt of the total sale consideration of Rs. 6,32,57,712/-, and by
virtue thereof, the Complainant acquired absolute ownership over the Subject Property situated on
3 of 15

---

Accordingly, the Respondent Company, through its Executive Assistant Manager, issued an

email dated 16.04.2024 stating that several additional amenities including LED signage, business
centre, conference room, kids’ crèche, medical room, kitchen, service staff dining, locker room,
garbage chute, RO drinking water, staff/driver toilets, and laundry room were being incorporated
into the Project, while expressly admitting that such amenities were not part of the original
specifications and that the same would impact both the cost and timeline of the Project. Instead of
completing the Project as per agreed terms, adopted a coercive approach by issuing a letter on
stamp paper falsely stating that the Complainant had consented to revised building plans involving
the addition of an “environment deck” and “two TDR floors” to the originally approved structure,
and attempted to compel the Complainant to execute a no-objection declaration, which was
unequivocally refused.
4 of 15

---

The Complainant further stated that the Respondent without prior intimation or consent,

applied for approval of revised plans before GHMC vide application dated 12.07.2024, which
resulted in a shortfall intimation dated 06.09.2024, and thereafter again sought consent from the
Complainant vide email dated 16.09.2024, thereby demonstrating a clear attempt to circumvent
statutory requirements through coercion. It also issued a detailed letter dated 20.09.2024 reiterating
the binding terms of the Agreement to Sell and the registered Sale Deed, specifically highlighting
the failure of the Respondent Company to deliver possession and to pay notional rent, while
expressly refusing to grant consent for any revised plans, to which the Respondent Company
responded vide letter dated 08.11.2024 with baseless and unsubstantiated claims regarding alleged
revised timelines without any supporting material.
14. The unjustifiably relied upon the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext for delay despite lapse of
more than three years since lifting of restrictions, and has further issued arbitrary and illegal
demands vide letters dated 06.01.2025 and 07.02.2025 seeking payment of Rs. 37,54,692/- towards
corpus and maintenance, while unilaterally extending the possession date to 31.03.2025, and also
issued an email dated 06.02.2025 demanding an additional sum of Rs. 1,75,21,896/- towards
unapproved amenities.
15.

The Respondent has delayed the Project by more than 550 days beyond the agreed timeline,

and despite issuance of a legal notice demanding payment of notional rent and compensation, has
failed to respond, thereby compelling the Complainant to incur substantial rental expenses for
alternate premises, and that such conduct, including unilateral alterations, coercion, unlawful
demands, and failure to deliver possession, constitutes a clear breach of contractual obligations
and violation of statutory provisions including Section 14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016, while reserving the right to file additional material in support of the
present claim.
Relief(s) Sought:
16.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
a. To direct the Respondent Company to pay the notional rent that the Complainant is
rightfully entitled to, from 01.07.2023 onwards on the total built up area of 15,497 sqft

5 of 15

---

The Respondent submits that the Complainant entered into an Agreement of Sell dated

03.02.2021 for purchase of a seventh-floor commercial unit admeasuring 15,026 sq. ft. with
proportionate undivided share of land for Rs. 6,14,26,288/-, which was subsequently superseded
by a duly registered Sale Deed dated 08.12.2022 executed voluntarily by the Complainant without
protest. The Sale Deed dated 08.12.2022, being the final and binding document, governs the
relationship between the parties, wherein the Complainant was allotted property with revised land
extent after road widening for a total consideration of Rs. 6,32,57,712/-, and all prior terms of the
Agreement to Sell, including timelines and delay clauses, stand extinguished.
19. Moreover, it obtained a revised building permit dated 08.12.2022 permitting construction of
5 basements, ground floor, and 9 upper floors, valid till 08.12.2028, and secured RERA registration
bearing No. P02400005519 dated 14.12.2022 valid till 30.06.2027, thereby being well within
statutory timelines for completion and delivery of possession. The revised plans and additional
amenities were introduced after obtaining consent of two-thirds of the allottees, and the
Complainant was duly informed through emails and public notice but failed to object, thereby
acquiescing and being estopped from challenging the same at this stage.
6 of 15

---

The Respondent submits that additional amenities including business facilities and support

infrastructure were proposed in view of market conditions, and proportionate charges at Rs. 1,000/per sq. ft. were sought; however, the Complainant failed to respond or participate despite multiple
communications and opportunities.
21.

The Respondent further stated that demands towards corpus fund and maintenance charges

were raised strictly in accordance with the Sale Deed and DAGPA, and the Complainant did not
deny liability but only disputed rates, thereby acknowledging the obligation to pay the same.
Subsequent communications dated 06.02.2025, 12.02.2025, and 07.03.2025 were issued seeking
payment of additional amenity charges, but the Complainant failed to comply and instead initiated
the present complaint with baseless allegations.
22. The claim of delay is unfounded, as possession timelines must be governed by the Sale Deed,
RERA registration, and revised building permit, and not the superseded Agreement to Sell, and the
Respondent remains within permissible statutory timelines.
23. Accordingly, the claim for notional rent based on Clause 6 of the Agreement to Sell is legally
untenable as the said clause does not exist in the registered Sale Deed, and the Complainant is
estopped from relying on a superseded document. There has been no misrepresentation, coercion,
or unilateral alteration of terms, and all revised plans and amenities were lawfully undertaken with
requisite approvals and majority consent, with full disclosure to the Complainant.
24. The Respondent further submits that applications for revised permissions and subsequent
shortfall intimations from GHMC are part of standard regulatory procedure and do not indicate
any illegality or deficiency. The Complainant’s allegations regarding coercion, delay, and unlawful
demands are baseless, as all actions were undertaken in accordance with statutory provisions,
contractual terms, and regulatory approvals. The claim for compensation or notional rent is not
maintainable before this Authority, as such adjudication falls within the jurisdiction of the
Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
25.

The Complainant having failed to object to revised plans, accepted the Sale Deed, and

acknowledged certain liabilities, is estopped from raising the present claims, which are belated and
legally unsustainable. The Respondent further submits that all reliefs sought by the Complainant,
including stay on construction, payment of notional rent, and imposition of penalty, are devoid of
7 of 15

---

The complainant submitted that the averments relating to the particulars of the Respondent,

its incorporation, representative capacity, Development Agreement-cum-General Power of
Attorney with landowners, and initial building permissions are matters of record and do not
warrant a detailed reply. However, any inference or insinuation sought to be drawn therefrom
alleging default, misconduct, or wrongdoing on the part of the Complainant is emphatically denied.
Such preliminary assertions cannot, in law or on facts, dilute the substantive rights of the
Complainant or absolve the Respondent of its statutory and contractual obligations arising under
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
27.

The allegations that the complaint is misconceived, devoid of merit, or amounts to abuse

of process are wholly false, baseless, and untenable. The Respondent, being a Promoter/Developer
within the meaning of the Act, is bound by strict statutory duties, and the present proceedings
squarely arise from its non-compliance therewith. The Complainant has approached this Hon’ble
Authority with bona fide intent, placing true and complete facts on record, and has not indulged in
any suppression or misrepresentation. The reckless allegations of “suppressio veri and suggestio
falsi” are denied in toto and are nothing but an attempt to deflect attention from the Respondent’s
own breaches and statutory violations, which remain the central issue for adjudication.
28.

The Respondent has misstated the extent of undivided share of land. As per the Agreement

for Sell, the UDS was 377 square yards, whereas the Respondent has incorrectly reduced it to 334
square yards. This unilateral deviation constitutes a clear breach of contractual terms. The
misrepresentation of material particulars further reflects lack of transparency. Such conduct is
contrary to both contractual obligations and statutory mandates.
29.

The Complainant stated that the Respondent’s assertion regarding “fresh terms” in the Sale

Deed is incorrect. The Sale Deed was executed only as a conveyance instrument pursuant to the
Agreement for Sell. The incorrect depiction of land area and allocation demonstrates inconsistency
8 of 15

---

The Respondent has failed to comply with Section 13(2) of the Act by not executing the

Agreement for Sell in the prescribed statutory format. The Respondent uploaded a compliant
format before the Authority but executed a different agreement with the Complainant. This
constitutes deliberate suppression and misrepresentation. Such conduct attracts penal
consequences under the Act. The Respondent has thereby misled both the Complainant and the
Authority.
31. Further, the alleged consent of two-thirds of allottees for revision of plans is unsubstantiated.
No documentary evidence has been produced to support such claim. The GHMC shortfall notice
itself records deficiency in obtaining requisite consent. Despite this, the Respondent proceeded
with construction activities. This amounts to violation of statutory provisions and unauthorized
development.
32.

Accordingly, the Respondent’s demand for additional charges towards amenities is illegal

and unjustified. The Sale Deed clearly records that the total consideration includes all development
costs and facilities. Having received full consideration, the Respondent cannot seek further
amounts. Such conduct amounts to unjust enrichment. The demand is therefore contrary to
contractual and statutory framework.
33.

The demand for corpus fund and maintenance charges is premature and contrary to the Sale

Deed. Such payments are contingent upon execution of a maintenance agreement and handover of
possession. No such agreement has been executed to date. The Respondent cannot unilaterally
demand payments in deviation of agreed procedure. The Complainant remains willing to comply
strictly in accordance with contract. The Complainant stated that the allegations of default by the
Complainant are false and denied. The demands raised by the Respondent for additional amenities
lack contractual basis. The entire consideration has already been paid by the Complainant. The
Respondent is attempting to shift focus from its own breaches. The Complaint is bona fide and not
frivolous as alleged.

9 of 15

---

The preliminary objections raised by the Respondent are misconceived and untenable. The

Respondent has suppressed material facts and distorted contractual interpretation. The averments
in the Complaint are reiterated and form part of this rejoinder. The Respondent’s defence lacks
legal foundation. The same is liable to be rejected. The Sale Deed does not extinguish obligations
under the Agreement for Sell. The Sale Deed merely evidences transfer of title. Contractual
obligations relating to possession and timelines continue to subsist. The Respondent cannot evade
liability by selective reliance on documents. Both instruments must be read conjointly.
35.

It is submitted that statutory timelines under RERA or building permits do not override

contractual commitments. The Respondent was bound to deliver possession within the agreed
timeline. Failure to do so attracts liability for notional rent. Regulatory approvals do not dilute
contractual obligations. The Respondent’s defence is therefore untenable. The additional amenities
were already contemplated within the project cost. The Respondent’s demand for further payment
amounts to double recovery. No proof of communication or consent has been furnished. Silence
cannot be construed as consent under law. The Respondent has failed to comply with Section 14
of the RE(R&D) Act, requirements.
36.

However, the repeated claims of obtaining consent are unsubstantiated. The Respondent has

failed to produce any credible evidence. Mere assertions cannot substitute statutory compliance.
The conduct reflects an attempt to mislead the Authority. Such claims deserve outright rejection.
37. The Complainant further stated that the Respondent’s denial of notional rent liability is
misconceived. The obligation arises from the Agreement for Sell and subsists notwithstanding
execution of Sale Deed. The Respondent has failed to deliver possession within agreed time. The
contractual clause remains enforceable. The claim is legally sustainable. The claim for notional
rent arises from contractual enforcement. A separate proceeding for compensation has already been
initiated before the Adjudicating Officer. The present relief is limited to enforcement of rights.
Hence, the Authority has jurisdiction.
38.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent has violated statutory provisions and

misrepresented facts. The claim of acting in accordance with law is incorrect. The Respondent’s
conduct demonstrates clear non-compliance. The Complainant’s grievances are legitimate. The
Respondent’s defence is devoid of merit and the Complainant is not bound by arrangements
between landowners and the Respondent. The claim is limited to enforcement of contractual
10 of 15

---

In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that the Respondent be held liable for

breach of contractual and statutory obligations. The Respondent be directed to pay notional rent
as agreed. Penalties under relevant provisions of the Act be imposed for violations. The unlawful
demands and deviations be declared invalid.
E. Points for Consideration:
40.

After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel/parties on record, perusing

the pleadings, documents, rejoinder and the detailed written arguments filed on behalf of the
Complainant, this Authority is of the considered view that the following points arise for
determination in the present Complaint:
I. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? Whether the Respondent has
violated the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016?
F. Observations of the Authority
41.

Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions, pleadings, documentary material placed

on record, and the applicable statutory framework under the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016, this Authority proceeds to examine the reliefs sought by the
Complainant, which are twofold:
a. To direct the Respondent Company to pay the notional rent that the Complainant is
rightfully entitled to, from 01.07.2023 onwards on the total built up area of 15,497 sqft
amounting to Rs. 1,20,96,493 (Rupees One Crore Twenty Lakhs Ninety-Six Thousand
Four Hundred and Ninety-Three), as per the Agreement;
b. To impose a penalty on the Respondent for violating the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act,
specifically for obtaining the revised building permission(s) without the mandatory consent
of the flat owners and for unauthorized deviations from the sanctioned plan, in clear
contravention of Section 14 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
42.

It is not in dispute that the Complainant and the Respondent entered into an Agreement for

Sell dated 03.02.2021, which was subsequently followed by execution of a registered Sale Deed
bearing Document No. 20426/2022 dated 08.12.2022 upon receipt of the entire sale consideration
11 of 15

---

In this regard, this Authority takes note of Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act, 2016, which reads as follows:
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:

44.

The legislative scheme of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 makes it manifest that any monetary

claim sought on account of delay in delivery of possession, including claims styled as notional rent
or loss of rental income, necessarily partakes the character of "compensation" as envisaged under
the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. Such claims are distinct from and independent of any contractual
stipulation, inasmuch as the statute itself confers a remedial right upon the allottee in the event of
delay or failure to deliver possession.
45.

It is an admitted position that the Complainant has already availed the appropriate statutory

remedy by filing a separate application in Form 'N' before the Adjudicating Officer constituted
under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, specifically seeking compensation on account of the delay in
delivery of possession. In view of such invocation of the designated remedy before the competent

12 of 15

---

Having regard to the statutory mandate under Section 71 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, which

vests the power to adjudicate compensation claims in the Adjudicating Officer, this Authority is of
the considered opinion that the claim for notional rent cannot be examined in the present
proceedings. Accordingly, the first relief sought by the Complainant shall stand relegated to and
proceeded with before the Adjudicating Officer in the pending Form 'N' proceedings.
47.

The second relief sought by the Complainant pertains to the alleged violation of Section 14

of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, on the ground that the Respondent obtained revised building
permissions without securing the prior written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees as
mandated thereunder.
48.

Before proceeding to examine this contention, this Authority deems it necessary to advert

to a foundational issue that emerges from the record, namely, the point of time at which the
Agreement for Sell was entered into vis-à-vis the status of the project registration under the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
49.

It is an admitted position that the Agreement for Sell between the parties was executed on

03.02.2021, whereas the RERA registration of the project, bearing No. P02400005519, was
obtained only on 14.12.2022. The initial building permit was granted vide Permit No.
1/C20/07312/2020 dated 07.07.2020, and the revised building permit bearing No.
4486/GHMC/SLP/2022-BP was granted on 08.12.2022. The booking of the Subject Property on
the seventh floor and the execution of the Agreement for Sell were thus admittedly carried out
prior to obtaining RERA registration for the Project.
50.

Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 mandates that no promoter shall advertise, market,

book, sell, or offer for sale, or invite persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or
building, as the case may be, in any real estate project or part of it, in any planning area, without
registering the real estate project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The transaction
entered into between the parties on 03.02.2021 constitutes a booking and sale of a commercial unit
prior to the registration of the project, which falls squarely within the ambit of the prohibition
under Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. Such conduct on the part of the Respondent Promoter
13 of 15

---

Therefore, while this Authority records prima facie finding that the act of the Respondent

Promoter in booking and executing the Agreement for Sell dated 03.02.2021, prior to obtaining
registration under the RE(R&D) Act, constitutes a violation of Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act,
2016, it refrains from imposing any penalty in the present proceedings. Nevertheless, having
regard to the statutory mandate and the material available on record, this Authority deems it
appropriate to direct the Secretary, Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, to examine the
said violation and initiate appropriate suo motu proceedings.
53.

Turning now to the specific grievance under Section 14 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, it is

the Complainant's contention that the Respondent applied for and pursued revision of the
sanctioned building plans without obtaining the prior written consent of two-thirds of the allottees
as required under Section 14(2)(ii) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
54.

It is, however, crucial to note that the RERA registration bearing No. P02400005519 was

obtained by the Respondent on 14.12.2022, and the revised building permit bearing No.
4486/GHMC/SLP/2022-BP was also granted on 08.12.2022, both of which predate the RERA
registration. The registered project itself was submitted with and is predicated upon the revised
building plan comprising 5 cellars, ground floor, and 9 upper floors. In other words, at the time the
project was registered under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, the revised sanctioned plan was already the
approved plan forming the basis of registration. The project as registered with TG RERA is,
therefore, the project as per the revised permit and not the originally approved plan.
55.

Section 14(2)(ii) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 mandates that a promoter shall not make any

other alterations or additions in the sanctioned plans, layout plans, and specifications of the
buildings or the common areas within the project without the previous written consent of at least
two-thirds of the allottees. The trigger for the consent requirement under Section 14(2)(ii) is any
alteration or addition made to the sanctioned plan after the project is registered under the RE(R&D)
Act, 2016. Since the revision from the initial permit to the revised building permit bearing No.
4486/GHMC/SLP/2022-BP was already incorporated into and forms the very basis of the RERA
registration of the project, the said revision cannot be assailed as an unauthorized alteration
14 of 15

---

In view of the foregoing observations and findings, this Authority passes the following

directions:
a) The relief sought by the Complainant for payment of notional rent is hereby relegated to
the Adjudicating Officer, where the proceedings in Form ‘N’ are already pending, to be
adjudicated in accordance with law;
b) The Secretary, Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, is hereby directed to examine
the prima facie violation of Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 as recorded hereinabove
and initiate appropriate suo motu proceedings, in accordance with RE(R&D) Act.
c) The Respondent Promoter is directed to strictly adhere to the provisions of Section 14(2)(ii)
of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 in respect of any future alterations or additions to the sanctioned
plans;
57.

With the above observations and directions, the present Complaint stands disposed of. 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

15 of 15

---