Order Complaint No. 275 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 275 of 2024
Dated: 30th May, 2025
Corum:

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

1.Eluri Venkata Pavan kumar
Flat No.201, Deetya’s Elegance
Plot No. A-20, SBH Colony
Saidabad, Telangana-500059
2.Eluri Krishna Priya
Flat No.201, Deetya’s Elegance
Plot No. A-20, SBH Colony
Saidabad, Telangana-500059

…Complainant(s)
Versus

Sai Deetya Developers, Rep. by Venkatesh Vuppala
H. No. 1-10-160/A, 2nd floor
SML Ashok Nagar, Street No. 7
Hyderabad-500020

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainants herein came up for hearing on 30.01.2025
before this Authority in the presence of Complainants in person and none appeared on behalf
of the Respondent despite service of notice, and therefore he was set ex-parte, and after hearing
the Complainant, this Authority passes the following 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 “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 Respondent.
A. Brief Facts of the Case:
3.

The complainants submitted that the builder collected the first advance payment of Rs.

25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs Only) in June 2022 towards semi-finished flat bearing
no. D-201 in 2nd floor of “Deetya’s Elegance”, stating that he was in the process of obtaining
RERA registration for the project. To support his claim, the builder shared a document
1

---

The complainant further submitted that the land on which the project is being

constructed measures approximately 662 square meters and comprises a total of 10 units. In
accordance with the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the GHMC
building permit conditions, any project on a land parcel exceeding 500 square meters or
comprising more than 8 units is mandatorily required to be registered under RERA. As per
Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, it is mandatory to
register a project with RERA if the area of land proposed to be developed exceeds 500 square
meters or the number of apartments exceeds eight, inclusive of all phases. Despite this clear
mandate, the builder failed to register the project, and no valid justification has been provided
for this non-compliance.
5.

The complainant also submitted that, as per the agreement, payments were to be made

in a phase-wise manner based on the progress of construction. However, in the midst of the
project, the builder began harassing the complainant and other buyers to pay the entire
remaining amount by December 2022, regardless of the stage of construction. Additionally, the
builder pressured the complainant to execute the registration of the property by September
2022. Under duress and repeated coercion, the complainant paid a total of INR 1.32 crores,
relying on the builder’s promises that the handover for interior work would be done by March
2023, and the full project, along with all promised amenities, would be completed by June
2023. However, it is important to note that the Agreement of Sale mentions December 2023 as
the project completion date, highlighting inconsistencies in the builder's commitments and
actions.
6.

The complainant submitted that in August 2024, the builder circulated a letter from

GHMC indicating a deviation in the approved plan by approximately 120 square yards. As per
the GHMC communication, a penalty of INR 34.93 lakhs was imposed on the builder to
regularize the deviation. Despite this, the builder has failed to make the payment as of 25th
September 2024. This non-payment poses further risks to the legality and regularization of the
building and reflects the builder’s negligent and non-compliant approach.

2

---

Further, the complainant submitted that the builder is presently making attempts to

construct an unauthorized 6th floor without obtaining the necessary approvals from the relevant
authorities. This action is in clear violation of building norms and planning permissions and
may endanger the structural safety and regulatory standing of the entire project. The
complainant urges the concerned authorities to immediately investigate and intervene to
prevent any further illegal construction.
8.

The complainant also submitted that several parts of the project remain incomplete,

severely affecting the readiness and usability of the property. Specifically, the flats on the west
side lack essential fittings such as windows, doors, and electrical wiring. Moreover, crucial
infrastructure such as the lift, generator, staircase railing, designated parking, external painting,
Occupancy Certificate (OC), water supply, and individual electricity meters are yet to be
provided. These deficiencies have delayed possession and created undue hardship for the
complainant and other homebuyers.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
9.

Aggrieved by the acts of the Respondent, the Complainants pray for the following:
I. Completion of the project immediately along with Parking allocation to all the flats
along with all the amenities.
II. Builder to be penalized as this projected was supposed to be RERA registered as
no.of.flats are 10 and the land area is 662 Sq meters. Please note that he has done
similar delays in other projects as well. Please note the builder has shared the RERA
application for this project and later avoided registration which is a clear Fraud.
III. Builder should not build 6th floor as he shared us the project plan and GHMC
approval only for Stilt plus 5 floors only.

C. Points for consideration:
10.

Upon due deliberation of the pleadings, contentions, and documents placed on record

by the Complainants, the following issues arise for consideration before this Authority:
I. Whether the Respondent has violated Sections 3 and 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016, by failing to register the project titled “Deetya’s
Elegance” with this Authority? If so, whether the Respondent is liable to be penalized
for such violation?
3

---

This Authority has carefully examined the pleadings, documents, and submissions on

record. It is noted that due notice of the proceedings was duly issued and served upon the
Respondent, with acknowledgments placed on record. In addition, this Authority ensured
compliance with principles of natural justice by directing personal service of notice. The
Respondent had appeared on the first date of hearing, whereupon this Authority directed him
to file a detailed written submission in response to the allegations made by the Complainants.
However, despite the opportunity granted, the Respondent failed to file any written submission
and remained absent on subsequent date of hearings without any justification. In view of the
Respondent’s non-compliance with the directions of this Authority and continued absence
thereafter, he was proceeded against ex parte. The matter has accordingly been adjudicated
based on the pleadings, documents, and submissions available on record from the
Complainants.
11.

This Authority, having proceeded to adjudicate the matter ex parte in accordance with

law, now turns to the core substantive issues starting with the Respondent’s failure to secure
mandatory registration of the project “Deetya’s Elegance” under the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016. Section 3(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 categorically prohibits
any promoter from advertising, marketing, booking, selling, or offering for sale any plot,
apartment, or building in a real estate project without prior registration of the project with the
Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Registration is not a mere procedural formality it is the
foundational safeguard that ensures that a project is being developed in compliance with
approved plans, that funds collected from allottees are protected, and that promoters are held
accountable under a transparent regulatory framework. Further, Section 4 lays down the
essential documents and declarations that must accompany an application for registration,
including title documents, sanctioned plans, and timelines for project completion. The statutory
scheme is designed to ensure that only those projects that meet minimum legal and technical
standards are permitted to enter the market. Any attempt to circumvent these requirements
strikes at the very object and purpose of the RE(R&D) Act and invites strict scrutiny and penal
consequences. It is in this legal context that the conduct of the Respondent must be evaluated.

4

---

On the question of registration of the project “Deetya’s Elegance” with this Authority,

it is noted that while the Respondent submitted an application seeking registration under
Section 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, the same was found to be incomplete and deficient in
essential particulars. Upon preliminary scrutiny, this Authority issued a communication
requiring the Respondent to explain why penal action should not be initiated under Section 59
for having advertised, marketed, sold units, and collected substantial sums from allottees
without securing valid registration of the project. Despite the query, the Respondent chose not
to furnish any response or rectify the deficiencies. In view of this non-compliance, the
Authority treated the application as defective and was not processed further for grant of
registration.
13.

Significantly, the record reveals that the Respondent misrepresented the status of the

project to the Complainants by asserting that the process of registration was underway and even
went so far as to share what was purported to be an application form for RERA registration.
This was done despite the Respondent’s failure to comply with the mandatory procedural and
documentary requirements necessary for obtaining registration under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
This misrepresentation induced reliance by the Complainants and facilitated the collection of
substantial payments, thereby defeating the very purpose of the statutory safeguards envisioned
under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Such conduct amounts to a
deliberate evasion of the statutory framework and squarely attracts the penal consequences
envisaged under Section 59(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, which provides that any promoter
who contravenes Section 3 shall be liable to a penalty extending up to ten percent of the
estimated cost of the project, as determined by the Authority. Hence, Point I answers in
affirmative.
14.

The documentary record reveals that the Complainants and the Respondent executed

an Agreement of Sale dated 30.08.2022 in respect of Flat No. D-201 in the project “Deetya’s
Elegance.” The original consideration of ₹66,00,000/- was subsequently revised to
₹1,40,00,000/- by mutual consent, with the Complainants having paid ₹1,32,00,000/- towards
the total sale price. A registered Sale Deed dated 29.09.2022 for Flat no. 201 in 2nd floor of
“Deetya’s Elegance” having built up area of 2300 sqft. Along with two car parking in stilt floor,
records the original amount as having been paid in full. This level of financial commitment
indicates the bona fide of the Complainants and places a corresponding legal obligation upon
the Respondent to ensure lawful and timely completion of the project.

5

---

Clause 18 of the Agreement of Sale stipulates that possession would be delivered

within 15 months from the date of the first payment, with an additional grace period of 3
months. As the first payment was made on 17.06.2022, the deadline for handover, exclusive of
grace period, expired in September 2023. Despite lapse of over 19 months beyond this deadline,
possession remains undelivered. Such delay, absent any cogent explanation or justification,
constitutes a serious breach of contractual obligations. Moreover, the approved GHMC
Building Permit (2693/GHMC/CHR/2022-BP) dated 08.08.2022 sanctions construction on a
plot of 662.61 square meters, restricted to stilt plus five floors. These facts point not merely to
a failure in performance but to a broader disregard for both contractual commitments and
regulatory compliance.
16.

Before assessing entitlement to relief, it is essential to determine the applicability of

the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to the present project. Section 3(1) of
the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 mandates that no promoter shall market, sell, or offer for sale any unit
in a real estate project without obtaining registration, unless such project qualifies for
exemption under Section 3(2). The present project, having a land area in excess of 500 square
meters and comprising 10 residential units, does not qualify for any such exemption.
Accordingly, registration under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 was mandatory.
17.

It is further clarified that applicability of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 does not hinge on

whether a project is registered. Section 2(zn) defines a “real estate project” in broad terms, and
Section 2(zk) defines a “promoter” as any person who undertakes such development. These
definitions are sufficient to bring the project within the regulatory domain of this Authority. In
Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2021) SCC
OnLine SC 1044], the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed that the Authority is vested with
jurisdiction to entertain complaints under Sections 12, 14, 18, and 19 even in cases of
unregistered projects, if such registration was otherwise mandated. Therefore, the Respondent
cannot circumvent statutory liability merely by failing to register the project.
18.

The Complainants have alleged that the Respondent is undertaking construction of an

unauthorized sixth floor, in contravention of the GHMC permit which permits construction
only up to stilt plus five floors. It is submitted that no approval has been obtained from the
competent authority for such additional construction, nor has the consent of the allottees been
sought, as required under law. The allegation raises a serious concern with respect to potential
violation of Section 14(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 which mandates that the promoter shall
6

---

As regards delay in possession, Section 18(1)(a) provides that where a promoter fails

to hand over possession in accordance with the terms of the agreement, the allottee shall be
entitled to interest for the period of delay. The Complainants have opted not to withdraw from
the project and instead seek completion and delivery. The Respondent, via letter dated
28.01.2025, has assured the owners of the “Deetya’s Elegance” that possession would be given
by 31.03.2025. Despite this assurance, possession has not been delivered within the stated
timeline. The Respondent is, therefore, liable under Section 18(1)(a) for failure to deliver
possession in accordance with the agreed terms.
20

In light of the cumulative findings herein spanning violations of Sections 3, 4, and 18

it stands established that the Respondent has not only defaulted contractually but also failed in
his legal duties as a promoter. These breaches defeat the very objectives of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which seeks to promote transparency,
accountability, and consumer protection in the real estate sector. Consequently, point No. I&II
for consideration, as framed under Paragraph 10, are answered in the affirmative.
21.

The Authority views the conduct of the Respondent with utmost seriousness and

records its strong disapproval of the Respondent’s repeated and wilful defiance of the statutory
obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Despite having
filed a RERA registration application in the year 2022, the Respondent has consistently failed
to submit the mandatory documentation required for processing the same. This non-compliance
has persisted despite the issuance of a detailed Show Cause Notice and service of personal
notice thereafter.
22.

The Respondent has neither entered appearance before this Authority nor complied

with any of its directions, thereby exhibiting a deliberate and calculated disregard for the rule
of law and the regulatory mandate of this Authority. This pattern of indifference is not isolated.
Multiple complaints have been instituted before this Authority against the Respondent, all of
which disclose similar transgressions namely, failure to register projects, concealment of
material information, and a total abdication of statutory responsibilities.

7

---

In each of these complaints, the Respondent has abstained from participation, has

failed to file replies, and has not presented any defense, thereby demonstrating a continuing
and conscious pattern of non-cooperation and regulatory evasion.
24.

This Authority takes a stern view of such conduct, which undermines the objectives

and sanctity of the RE(R&D) Act. The Authority hereby places on record that it shall consider
this repeated and wilful defiance as an aggravating factor while adjudicating the pending and
future matters concerning the Respondent.
25.

Accordingly, the Secretary, Telangana RERA, is hereby directed to initiate a

comprehensive enquiry into all projects associated with the Respondent, including any
ongoing, completed, or proposed developments. A detailed and fact-based report shall be
submitted to this Authority within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order. The said report
shall specifically examine and comment upon:
(a) the registration status of each project, if any;
(b) compliance with statutory obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016; and
(c) any instances of misrepresentation or violation, particularly under Section 3 of the said
Act.
The Complainants are also advised to extend full cooperation to the Secretary and his team by
furnishing details of any other projects of the Respondent known to them, so as to assist this
Authority in taking such further regulatory and penal action as may be warranted under law.
E. Directions of the Authority:
26.

Based on the facts submitted, evidence on record, and the findings given thereon by

us as discussed herein above, this Authority holds that the complainant is entitled to the relief
as prayed by her, and the same is allowed in his favour, and the Respondent is hereby directed
as follows:
a. The Respondent is hereby directed to complete the construction of the project and
hand over possession of the subject flat, along with the agreed car parking space,
to the Complainant within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this Order.
b. In view of the established violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Respondent is held liable for
penalties under Sections 59 and 60 respectively. Accordingly, the Respondent is
8

---

The Respondent shall comply with all the applicable rules and regulation and complete

the project as per sanctioned plan.
28.

The Respondents are hereby informed that failure to comply with the directions issued

herein shall attract further penal consequences under Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
29.

The complaint is disposed of with these directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sri. K. Srinivasa Rao

Sri. Laxminaryana Jannu

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.)

Hon’ble Member

Hon’ble Member

Hon’ble Chairperson

TG RERA

TG RERA

TG RERA

9

---