Order Complaint No. 287 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 287 of 2024
Dated: 12th February, 2026
Quorum:

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

Sangeeta Singh,
R/o: 8-3-230/B/10, Tulip Arcade,
Jubilee Hills, Road No. 10,
Hyderabad, Telangana - 500045

…Complainant
Versus

1. M/s Provident Housing Limited,
O/o: Puravankara Limited, PVNR Express Highway,
Pillar No. 293, Shivrampally, Rajendra Nagar,
Hyderabad, Telangana - 500030
2. Maddi Seeta Devi,
R/o: Chirala Road, Chilakaluripeta, Guntur District

…Respondents

The present matter filed by the Complainant mentioned herein above came up for hearing
before this Authority in the presence of Counsel for Complainant Mr. G. Naresh Kumar, and
Counsel for Respondent No.1 Hari Om Legal and upon hearing the submissions of the parties,
this Authority proceeds to pass the following 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 “Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against the Respondents.
A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of land in

Sy. Nos. 129 and 131 situated at Katedhan Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
The said land was given for development to the Respondent No.1 under an Agreement for Salecum-Construction for the purpose of construction of apartments/towers in the name and style of
“Kenworth”, located at PVNR Express Highway, Pillar No. 293, Shivrampally, Rajendranagar,
Hyderabad.
Page 1 of 13

---

It is submitted that Respondent No.1 is the real estate developer, and the Complainant

came to know about the sale of flats in the said project through online advertisements. Based on
the confirmation of allotment dated 12.11.2023, followed by an email dated 25.11.2023, the
Complainant was informed of the details.
5.

It is submitted that when the Complainant contacted the Respondent company, the

Marketing Executive explained the details of the flats, and after due negotiations, the
Complainant agreed to purchase Flat No. 212 in her own name and Flat No. 209 in the name of
her son, both in Tower No. 13 of the project “Kenworth”, PVNR Express Highway, Pillar No.
293, Shivrampally, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. The Complainant paid an amount of ₹2,00,000/towards booking of the flat, after which the Respondent’s Assistant Manager Sales, Mr. Anvesh
Kota, sent an email dated 25.11.2023 giving the price details for Flat No. Kenworth/T13/0212
(3BHK Grand, 1222 sq. ft.) for an agreement value of ₹82,42,309/-, handover charges of
₹4,49,307/-, plus 7.5% registration on agreement value, acknowledging receipt of the booking
amount of ₹2,00,000/-. The Complainant confirmed the purchase of the said flat accordingly.
6.

It is further submitted that the Complainant issued undated cheques bearing Nos. 533386

for ₹30,00,000/-, 533388 for ₹30,00,000/-, and 533389 for ₹13,50,000/-, all dated 28.11.2023
and drawn on Axis Bank. The Respondent is stated to have orally assured that possession of the
flat would be delivered by January 2024. The Respondent No.2 handed over Flat No. 209 to the
Complainant’s son on 23.12.2023, and hence the Complainant assumed that Flat No. 212 would
also be handed over shortly. However, the same was not delivered.
7.

It is submitted that the Complainant paid an amount of ₹2,00,000/- on 12.11.2023 towards

booking of the flat, ₹11,20,000/- on 20.11.2023 towards part payment of the flat, ₹15,000/- on
03.01.2024 towards the cost of interiors, ₹3,60,829/- on 19.01.2024 towards interior expenditure,
and ₹2,25,554/- on 27.02.2024 towards cost of interiors.
8.

It is submitted that the Respondent No.1 sent an email dated 04.05.2024 to the

Complainant proposing a swap between Flat No. 408 and Flat No. 212 in Tower 13, for which
the Complainant agreed. Again, the Respondent sent another email dated 13.05.2024, offering
Flat No. 405 instead of Flat No. 408. Subsequently, the Respondent sent an email dated
12.06.2024 stating that they would refund ₹13,20,000/- towards cancellation of the flat, without
assigning any reason.
9.

It is submitted that the Complainant, vide reply email dated 12.06.2024, did not accept

the refund offer and called upon Respondent No.1 to execute the sale deed as agreed in respect
Page 2 of 13

---

It is submitted that Respondent No.1 is acting fraudulently by delaying and evading the

performance of its obligations under the agreement on one pretext or another. The Complainant,
being ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, submits that the Respondent has failed
to honour its commitments.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
11.
i.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
Direct the 1st Respondent–Builder to pay the interest amount on ₹86,00,000/-, as the
Complainant has paid till 28.11.2023, and from January 2024 onwards pay the interest
amount, since the 1st Respondent has delayed the delivery of the flat on one pretext or
another, despite having orally assured that possession would be handed over in January
2024, in respect of Flat No. 212, Tower No. 13, “Kenworth”, PVNR Express Highway,
Pillar No. 293, Shivrampally, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.

ii.

Direct the 1st Respondent–Builder to deliver possession of Flat No. 212, Tower No. 13,
“Kenworth”, PVNR Express Highway, Pillar No. 293, Shivrampally, Rajendranagar,
Hyderabad, and to execute sale deed in favour of the Complainant.

iii.

Direct the 1st Respondent to draw the amounts given by the Complainant vide undated
cheques bearing No. 533386 for ₹30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only), No. 533388
for ₹30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only), and No. 533389 for ₹13,50,000/- (Rupees
Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), all dated 28.11.2023 and drawn on Axis Bank,
Boring Road, Patna (Bihar), and thereafter hand over the said flat to the Complainant
forthwith.

iv.

Grant costs of the proceedings for the loss sustained by the Complainant, and also for
harassment, mental agony, and cost of the proceedings.

v.

Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Authority may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
Page 3 of 13

---

At the outset, it is submitted that the present Complaint is not maintainable either in law

or on facts and is therefore liable to be dismissed in limine. The Respondent submits that the
project in question, namely “Provident Kenworth”, is not registered under the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Under the statutory scheme of the Act, the jurisdiction
of this Hon’ble Authority is confined to matters concerning projects that are duly registered under
RERA. Since the present project is not so registered, this Hon’ble Authority lacks jurisdiction to
entertain or adjudicate any disputes related to the said project. Accordingly, the Complaint is
unsustainable and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
13.

It is submitted that Section 3(1) of the Act provides that no promoter shall advertise,

market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite persons to purchase any apartment or building in any
real estate project without registering the project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority
established under the Act. The said provision is subject to the rules framed by the respective State
Government for its implementation. The State of Telangana, through its G.O.Ms.No.202 dated
31.07.2017, published in the Telangana Gazette on 04.08.2017, notified the Telangana Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, which govern the scope and applicability of
the Act within the State.
14.

Subsequently, this Hon’ble Authority, through Circular No.607/2025/TGRERA dated

04.03.2025, amended the Telangana RERA Rules and substituted the definition of “Ongoing
Project” under Rule 2(1)(j) to mean a project where development is going on and for which the
Occupancy Certificate or Completion Certificate from the competent authority has not been
issued as on the date of commencement of the Act. It is contended that the combined reading of
Section 3 of the Act and the Rules provides clarity on the interpretation and understanding of the
term “ongoing project”.
15.

It is submitted that in the case of Boinpally Srinivas Rao & Others vs. State of Telangana

& Others, W.P. No. 4098 of 2025, decided on 23.06.2025, the petitioners challenged the
jurisdiction of RERA on the ground that the project approvals were prior to 01.01.2017. The
Hon’ble High Court considered the submissions in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it was
held that the Act has retroactive applicability and applies to ongoing projects and future projects
that require registration, whereas projects already completed or having received completion
certificates prior to commencement of the Act do not fall within its purview. In the said case,
Page 4 of 13

---

By contrast, in the present case of “Provident Kenworth,” the entire development of the

project, including Tower No. 13, was fully completed, and an Occupancy Certificate for the said
tower was issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 01.09.2023, well before
the filing of this Complaint. Since the project had achieved full completion and the Occupancy
Certificate had been duly granted, it cannot be treated as an “ongoing project,” and this Hon’ble
Authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present Complaint.
17.

The Respondent further submits that it is a company duly incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956, having its principal office at Bangalore, engaged in the business of real
estate development, and has developed several projects such as Provident Sunworth, Provident
Welworth City, Provident Kenworth, and Provident Skyworth, establishing a valuable reputation.
The Complainant voluntarily approached Respondent No. 1 expressing her interest to purchase
Apartment No. 209 in the name of her son and Apartment No. 212 in her own name, both situated
in Tower 13 of the project Provident Kenworth, situated in PVNR Express Highway,
Shivrampally, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. The Complainant paid a booking amount of
₹2,00,000/- on 15.11.2023 and an additional sum of ₹11,20,000/- as part payment of the sale
consideration, both duly acknowledged by the Respondent No.1.
18.

Thereafter, the Complainant duly signed and submitted the Booking Application Form

dated 29.11.2023 for Apartment No. T13–0212, thereby confirming her acceptance of all terms
and conditions prescribed by the Respondent. The total sale consideration for the said unit was
₹82,22,309/-. It is submitted that the said apartment was a mortgaged unit and due to delay in
obtaining the Mortgage Release Deed from GHMC, the Respondent immediately informed the
Complainant and offered an option to swap to other available units, including Apartment No.
PKW-T04-0408, which the Complainant declined on Vastu grounds. In these circumstances, the
Respondent had no option but to cancel the booking and offer a full refund. The Respondent
prepared a refund cheque dated 20.06.2024 for ₹13,20,000/- and informed the Complainant to
collect the same, but she failed to do so.
19.

Subsequently, after obtaining mortgage clearance from GHMC, and in view of the

Complainant’s insistence to proceed with the same unit, the Respondent, in good faith, reinitiated
the booking of Apartment No. T13–0212 at the original price on 27.12.2024, despite market price
escalation. It is submitted that, although the unit in question was cancelled, the refund cheque
Page 5 of 13

---

It is submitted that, pursuant to the offer made by the Respondent No.1, the Complainant

made further payments of ₹43,51,839/- and ₹30,00,000/- on 13.12.2024 towards the sale
consideration, both duly acknowledged by Respondent No.1. Thereafter, on 27.01.2025, the
Respondent issued an email to the Complainant enclosing the draft Sale Deed and detailed breakup of the outstanding amount payable for registration. The Complainant executed the registered
Sale Deed on 29.01.2025, bearing Registration No. 1-1518-961-2025, Document No. 961 of 2025
in Book 1 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Rajendranagar. The Complainant also executed a
Declaration-cum-Undertaking acknowledging receipt of possession of Apartment No. PKW–
T13–0212 (2nd Floor, Tower 13) on 10.02.2025. It is therefore submitted that the allegations
made by the Complainant that Respondent No. 1 failed to execute the Sale Deed or hand over
possession are false, baseless, and devoid of merit. On the contrary, the Complainant has duly
taken possession of the apartment and has derived full benefit from the transaction. The
Respondent denies all allegations of harassment and mental agony and submits that it appears to
be an attempt to extract undue monetary gain through false litigation.
21.

It is submitted that the Complainant had initially paid an amount of Rs. 13,20,000/-

towards booking of Flat No. 212 in Tower No. 13 of the Project. The Respondent states that since
the said unit was under mortgage and there was delay in obtaining mortgage release, Respondent
No. 01, in good faith, offered the Complainant an option to swap the originally booked unit with
an alternative unit. It is stated that the Complainant agreed to the same and, through emails dated
04/05/2024 and 13/05/2024, expressly requested cancellation of the booking of Flat No. 212 and
sought refund of the booking amount of Rs. 13,20,000/-.
22.

It is further submitted that pursuant to the Complainant’s request, Respondent No. 01,

through email dated 12/06/2024, sought the cheque favouring details for issuing the refund
cheque, while also informing that in the absence of such details, the cheque would be issued in
the name of the Complainant by default. On the same day, the Complainant replied expressing
unwillingness to accept the refund and stated her intention to proceed with registration of Flat
Page 6 of 13

---

The Respondent further submits that the present Complaint was filed on 12/11/2024.

Notwithstanding the pendency of the proceedings, the Complainant, after nearly one year from
the last payment made on 29/11/2023, made further payment towards sale consideration on
13/12/2024 and thereafter executed the registered Sale Deed on 29/01/2025 in respect of Flat No.
212. It is stated that there was no delay on the part of Respondent No. 01 in delivering the flat
and, having regard to the sequence of events and the conduct of the Complainant, there exists no
basis for claiming interest on the amounts paid.
24.

It is also submitted that during pendency of the proceedings, the Complainant voluntarily

remitted the entire sale consideration, executed the registered Sale Deed dated 29/01/2025, and
subsequently accepted vacant possession of the flat on 10/02/2025. Hence, the Respondent
submits that the reliefs sought in the Complaint have become infructuous and the Complaint
deserves dismissal at the threshold. The Respondent prays that the Complaint be dismissed as
being devoid of merit.
D. Points to be determined:
12.

Based on the facts and circumstances placed before this Authority, the following

questions arise for adjudication:
I.

Whether the present complaint is maintainable before this Authority under Section 31 of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

II.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought? If so, to what extent?

E. Observations of the Authority:
Point I:
13.

The Respondent No.1 has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the

present complaint, contending that this Authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain the same. The
principal contention advanced by Respondent No.1 is that the project in question, namely
“Provident Kenworth”, is not registered under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016, and that the jurisdiction of this Authority extends only to projects registered under the
Act. It is further contended that the entire development of the project, including Tower No.13,
Page 7 of 13

---

The aforesaid contention of the Respondent necessitates an examination of whether the

project was statutorily required to be registered under the RE(R&D) Act and, consequently,
whether this Authority possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint. The record
discloses that the building permission for the project was obtained on 29.12.2015 vide Permit
No. 47286/HO/SZ/Cir-6/2015. The Occupancy Certificates for various towers were obtained on
different dates, namely:
a) Towers 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 17 on 16.09.2020;
b) Towers 1, 4 and 6 on 14.12.2021;
c) Towers 2, 3 and 5 on 29.08.2022; and
d) Towers 12 and 13 lastly on 01.09.2023.
15.

At this stage, it is necessary to refer to Section 3(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, which mandates

registration of all real estate projects prior to advertising, marketing, booking or sale, and further
provides that projects which were ongoing on the date of commencement of the said Act and for
which the Completion Certificate had not been issued are required to be registered within the
prescribed period. A plain and purposive reading of Section 3(1) unequivocally establishes that
the applicability of the RE(R&D) Act is determined not by the date of grant of building
permission, but by the status of completion of the project as on the date of commencement of the
RE(R&D) Act.
16.

Coming to the second limb of the objection, that an Occupancy Certificate for Tower 13

was issued on 01.09.2023 and therefore the project cannot be treated as an ongoing project, the
said contention is also unsustainable.
17.

It is necessary to refer to the plain language of Section 3(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation

and Development) Act, 2016, which reads as follows:
“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
established under this Act:

Page 8 of 13

---

It is, therefore, abundantly clear that any project for which a Completion Certificate or

Occupancy Certificate had not been issued as on the date of commencement of the RE(R&D)
Act is deemed to be an “ongoing project” and squarely falls within the regulatory framework of
this Authority. In the present case, admittedly, no Occupancy Certificate had been issued for
several towers of the project as on the commencement of the RE(R&D) Act, and even thereafter,
Occupancy Certificates were obtained in a phased manner, with the final towers receiving such
certification only on 01.09.2023. The project, therefore, undeniably bore the character of an
ongoing project for the purposes of Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act.
19.

This Authority also takes note of the fact that Rule 2(1)(j) of the Telangana Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, as originally notified under G.O.Ms.No.202 dated
31.07.2017, had defined “ongoing project” in a manner that excluded projects having building
permission prior to 01.01.2017. However, the said definition was inconsistent with the parent
statute. Recognising this inconsistency, the Government of Telangana, vide G.O.Ms.No.60 dated
04.03.2025, amended Rule 2(1)(j) to bring it in conformity with the RE(R&D) Act, defining an
ongoing project as one where development is in progress and for which the Occupancy Certificate
or Completion Certificate had not been issued as on the commencement of the RE(R&D) Act.
20.

It is a settled principle of law that the provisions of the parent Act shall prevail over

subordinate legislation. Accordingly, the statutory obligation of the Respondent to register the
project under Section 3 of the RE(E&D) Act cannot be negated merely on the basis of the
erstwhile unamended Rule. However, considering the ambiguity that prevailed due to the earlier
definition under Rule 2(1)(j), and taking into account that Occupancy Certificates have now been
obtained for all towers, this Authority, in the peculiar facts of the case, refrains from imposing
penalty under Section 59 of the RE(R&D) Act for non-registration of the project.

Page 9 of 13

---

That said, the existence of such ambiguity cannot be permitted to defeat the rights of

allottees or to oust the jurisdiction of this Authority. The project, having been an ongoing project
within the meaning of Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act at the relevant time, squarely falls within
the jurisdiction of this Authority. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised by Respondent
No.1 is devoid of merit and is hereby rejected.
22.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the present complaint is maintainable and liable to

be adjudicated on merits.
Point No. I is answered accordingly.
Point II
23.

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

on record by both parties. The Complainant submits that she agreed to purchase Flat No. 212 in
Tower–13 of the project “Provident Kenworth” for a total sale consideration of ₹82,42,309/-. It
is her case that she paid ₹2,00,000/- on 12.11.2023 towards booking of the said flat and a further
sum of ₹11,20,000/- on 20.11.2023 towards part sale consideration. The Complainant further
asserts that she had issued three cheques for amounts of ₹30,00,000/-, ₹30,00,000/- and
₹13,50,000/- dated 28.11.2023. It is alleged that the Respondent orally assured delivery of
possession by January 2024, but failed to honour the said assurance and instead attempted to
cancel the booking and refund the amount. On this basis, the Complainant seeks interest on
₹86,00,000/- allegedly paid, delivery of possession, execution of Sale Deed, encashment of
cheques and compensation for harassment and mental agony.
24.

The Respondent, per contra, submits that the Complainant voluntarily booked Flat No.

212 and paid ₹2,00,000/- on 15.11.2023 and subsequently an amount of ₹11,20,000/-, followed
by submission of the Booking Application Form dated 29.11.2023. It is contended that Flat No.
212 was a mortgaged unit and that there was delay in obtaining mortgage clearance from the
competent authority. Alternative flats were offered to the Complainant, which she initially
accepted and subsequently declined. It is further stated that, at the request of the Complainant,
the booking of Flat No. 212 was cancelled and a refund cheque for ₹13,20,000/- dated 20.06.2024
was prepared, which the Complainant refused to accept. The Respondent submits that upon
obtaining mortgage clearance, the booking was re-initiated on 27.12.2024, and that the
Complainant paid ₹43,51,839/- and ₹30,00,000/- on 13.12.2024, followed by execution of a
registered Sale Deed on 29.01.2025. It is thus contended that there was no delay or default and
that the reliefs sought have become infructuous.
Page 10 of 13

---

It is an admitted position that the Complainant had made payments of ₹2,00,000/- and

₹11,20,000/-, aggregating to ₹13,20,000/-, for Flat No. 212. As per the Booking Application
Form placed on record, the payment milestones were clearly stipulated as under:
a) ₹2,00,000/- at the time of submitting booking form (refundable).
b) Within 3 days of issue of allotment letter: 9.9% of agreement value, excluding amounts
already paid.
c) At the time of execution and registration of agreement to sell: 11.1% of agreement value,
excluding amounts already paid.
d) After registration of agreement for sale: Payments as per the payment plan.
26.

However, despite collection of ₹13,20,000/-, it is undisputed that no Agreement for Sale

was executed or registered between the parties at that stage, nor has any such agreement been
placed on record. Thus, the transaction did not progress beyond the booking stage and did not
culminate in the execution of the mandatory Agreement for Sale.
27.

The documentary evidence further reveals a series of email communications between the

parties. An email dated 25.11.2023 from the Respondent confirmed the pricing of Flat No. 212,
which was acknowledged by the Complainant on 27.11.2023. Thereafter, on 04.05.2024, the
Complainant sought cancellation of the booking of Flat No. 212 and requested booking of Flat
No. 408, along with refund of the earlier amount. Subsequently, discussions ensued regarding
substitution with Flat No. 405, which was also accepted by the Complainant in principle.
However, on 12.06.2024, the Respondent informed the Complainant that since mortgage release
for Flat No. 212 was still pending, refund of ₹13,20,000/- would be initiated as per internal
process. The Complainant, on the same day, declined the refund and insisted on execution of Sale
Deed for Flat No. 212. A refund cheque for ₹13,20,000/- was nevertheless prepared, which the
Complainant admittedly refused to accept.
28.

The Complainant has alleged an oral assurance of possession by January 2024. However,

this Authority finds that no documentary evidence has been placed on record to substantiate such
assurance. Neither the Booking Form nor the email correspondence reflects any agreed or
committed date of possession.
29.

At this juncture, it is necessary to examine the statutory mandate under Section 13(1) of

the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which clearly stipulates that a promoter
shall not accept more than ten per cent of the cost of the apartment without first entering into a
Page 11 of 13

---

That being said, the material on record indicates that from November 2023 until May

2024, apart from email communications relating to substitution of flats, no further payments were
made by the Complainant, nor was there any insistence on execution of an Agreement for Sale.
The substitution discussions arose primarily due to the Respondent having initially allotted a
mortgaged unit, which admittedly could not be conveyed at that point in time. Thereafter, the
Respondent initiated refund proceedings, which the Complainant declined, expressing continued
interest in purchasing Flat No. 212.
31.

Subsequently, upon obtaining mortgage clearance, the Respondent re-initiated booking

of Flat No. 212 on 27.12.2024, and the Complainant paid ₹43,51,839/- and ₹30,00,000/- on
13.12.2024, followed by execution of the registered Sale Deed on 29.01.2025. A declarationcum-undertaking dated 10.02.2025 placed on record evidences that the Complainant has taken
possession of Flat No. 212. These subsequent transactions clearly demonstrate that the matter
was ultimately resolved through mutual understanding and consent of both parties.
32.

The Complainant seeks interest for alleged delay under Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act.

However, Section 18 becomes applicable only where the promoter fails to hand over possession
in accordance with the terms of the Agreement for Sale or by the date specified therein. In the
present case, no Agreement for Sale existed during the initial booking phase, nor was any date of
possession agreed upon in writing. In the absence of a contractually stipulated date of possession,
the claim for delay cannot be sustained.
33.

Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. vs.

Trevor D’Lima & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3533–3534 of 2017) held that, in cases where no date
is specified, a reasonable period of three years may be considered for completion of construction.
Applying the said principle, the Complainant’s claim of delay from January 2024 is wholly
untenable.
34.

Further, the Complainant seeks interest on the entire sale consideration from January 2024

onwards. The record clearly establishes that the substantial portion of the consideration, namely
₹73,51,839/-, was paid only in December 2024, followed by registration of Sale Deed in January
2025. Interest cannot be claimed retrospectively on amounts that were not even paid at the
relevant point of time. The said claim is therefore legally unsustainable.
Page 12 of 13

---

However, this Authority cannot lose sight of the fact that the Respondent was also at fault

in initially allotting a mortgaged unit to the Complainant, which is contrary to the norms of the
competent authorities. Such conduct is deprecated. Nevertheless, considering the peculiar facts
of the case, the subsequent voluntary completion of the transaction, and the ambiguity
surrounding registration and applicability during the relevant period, this Authority takes a
lenient view and refrains from imposing penalty for violations under Sections 3 and 13 of the
RE(R&D) Act in this specific case alone.
36.

As regards Reliefs (ii) and (iii), namely delivery of possession, execution of Sale Deed,

and direction to encash the undated cheques, the material on record clearly establishes that these
obligations stand fully complied with. The Sale Deed dated 29.01.2025 has been executed and
registered, and possession was acknowledged by the Complainant on 10.02.2025. Therefore,
these reliefs have become infructuous.
37.

With respect to Relief (iv) seeking costs for harassment and mental agony, this Authority

notes that jurisdiction to award compensation lies exclusively with the Adjudicating Officer
under Section 71 of the RE(R&D) Act, upon filing of an application in Form ‘N’. The
Complainant is therefore at liberty to approach the Adjudicating Officer separately for any such
claim.
Point No. II is answered accordingly.
38.

The complaint stands disposed of in the above terms. 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 13 of 13

---