Order Complaint No. 291 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 291 of 2025
Dated: 28th March, 2026
Quorum:

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

1. R. Vijaylakshmi,
2. K. Rajesh Kannan,
R/o: Door No. 5-61, Near Church, Shankarpally Main Road,
Mokila Village, Shankarpally Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 501203.
…Complainant
Versus
M/s PVR Developers India Private Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director, Parimi Venkata Ramana,
O/o: Plot No. 122, 3rd Floor, Survey No. 66/3,
Prashanthi Hills Colony, Raidurgam, Khajahuda Road,
Hyderabad, Telangana - 500008.
…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant mentioned herein above came up for
hearing before this Authority in the presence of the Complainant in person, and Counsel for
Respondent M/s Prodigium Law Chambers, Rep by S.K. Patil Advocates & Associates, and
upon hearing the submissions of both 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 “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 on 24.02.2024, the Complainants booked a residential flat in a

project known as “PVR Kshetra”, situated at Shankarpally, being developed by M/s. PVR
Page 1 of 17

---

It is submitted that based on the assurances and representations made by the developer

regarding timely construction and delivery of the flat, the Complainant paid a total sum of
₹44,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-Four Lakhs only) towards the cost of the flat. It is stated that the
said amount constitutes approximately 70% of the total sale consideration and that the
payments were made in good faith with the expectation that the developer would adhere to the
project timeline and commitments.
5.

It is further submitted that from March 2024 onwards, the construction activities at the

project site came to a complete halt. Despite stoppage of work at site, the developer allegedly
continued to collect monthly payments from the Complainant by making repeated assurances
that construction would resume shortly. According to the Complainant, follow-up attempts
were met with vague assurances with no real progress on the ground.
6.

It is submitted that the Complainants made several attempts to meet the Managing

Director of the developer company. It is stated that the Customer Relationship Manager (CRM)
avoided facilitating any direct communication with the Managing Director and remained the
sole point of contact and the responses gradually became irregular and were largely confined
to WhatsApp communications.
7.

The Complainants have stated that most of the original staff associated with the project

have since left the company and that the identity and accessibility of the Managing Director
remain unclear. It is further submitted that from March, the official websites of the developer
became inaccessible and that the phone numbers earlier provided for communication are no
longer reachable.
8.

It is submitted that the prolonged uncertainty and lack of progress have caused severe

financial hardship and mental distress to the Complainant and his family. The Complainant
states that in the absence of any clarity or response from the developer, he has been left with
no alternative remedy and has therefore approached this Hon’ble Authority seeking appropriate
relief, accountability, and recovery of the amount invested.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
9.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:

Page 2 of 17

---

To kindly terminate the sale agreement and issue a direction to M/s PVR Developers
India Private Limited to refund the amount of ₹44 lakhs paid so far, along with interest
at the rate of 18% as stated by the developer in the sale deed under Point No. 9.2,
Module (iii) immediately.

C. Counter on behalf of Respondent:
10.

At the outset, the Respondent unequivocally and categorically denies each and every

allegation, assertion, inference and imputation made in the Complaint, save and except those
which are specifically admitted herein. Any averment not expressly admitted is denied in toto.
The Complaint is misconceived on facts, untenable in law, procedurally defective and
contractually unfounded.
11.

It is submitted that the relationship between the parties is governed by the Sale

Agreement dated 24.02.2024, which comprehensively stipulates the terms and conditions
relating to consideration, payment milestones, possession timelines and remedies available to
the parties. The total sale consideration agreed for Flat No. 214 is ₹58,13,783/- (Rupees FiftyEight Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-Three only). Out of the said amount, a
sum of ₹44,00,000/- has been paid by the Complainant in accordance with the milestone-linked
payment schedule prescribed under Clause 1.2 and Annexure-C of the Sale Agreement. The
Respondent duly acknowledges receipt of the said amount and submits that no illegal, arbitrary
or additional demands were ever raised beyond what is contractually stipulated.
12.

The Respondent has further relied upon Clause 7.1 of the Sale Agreement, which

provides that possession shall be handed over by January 2025 with an additional grace period
of six months. Accordingly, the permissible contractual possession period extends up to
31.07.2025. It is the specific contention of the Respondent that the complaint was filed on
26.04.2025, during the subsistence of the grace period, and therefore, as on the date of filing
of the complaint, no breach of obligation had occurred. The Respondent has contended that the
allegation of delay is false and misleading.
13.

With regard to the reliefs sought by the Complainant, the Respondent has denied the

same. It is submitted that there exists no cause for termination of the Sale Agreement.
According to the Respondent, as per Clause 7.1 of the Agreement, time for delivery of
possession subsists till July 2025 and the Complainant has prematurely approached this
Authority without waiting for the contractual period to lapse.

Page 3 of 17

---

It is further contended that the Complainant has not adhered to Clause 34 of the Sale

Agreement, which mandates resolution of disputes through mutual discussion prior to
approaching any legal forum. According to the Respondent, no such discussion was initiated
and no opportunity was given to the Respondent to resolve the grievance amicably. The
Respondent has contended that the prayer for refund of ₹44,00,000/- along with interest at 18%
per annum is wholly unjustified, as there is no breach on its part, no invocation of the
termination process as per Clause 9.2(ii), and no force majeure or justified cause for withdrawal
under Clause 7.5 of the Sale Agreement.
15.

The Respondent has stated that the project is under active construction, that brickwork

has been completed and plastering work is underway. It is asserted that the Respondent has
invested substantial resources and is committed to timely delivery of the project. Photographs
evidencing the progress of construction have been filed along with the counter.
16.

The Respondent has further submitted that it has at all times operated with valid title,

permissions and statutory approvals, including TG RERA registration bearing No.
P02400003147 and sanctioned building plans issued by HMDA. It is stated that these facts are
duly documented and remain uncontroverted. The Respondent has relied upon Clauses 6 and 8
of the Sale Agreement to contend that all legal and regulatory prerequisites have been satisfied.
It is further asserted that there are no encumbrances, litigation issues or jurisdictional barriers
obstructing completion of the project or delivery of possession. Copies of the RERA
Registration Certificate and HMDA approval letter showing their validity periods have been
filed.
17.

With regard to the allegations of lack of communication, the Respondent has denied the

same and has stated that any temporary disruption in Customer Relationship Management
services and digital platforms occurred due to operational restructuring and upgrades, which
have since been resolved. It is submitted that a dedicated CRM team and help desk are currently
functional and addressing customer queries. The Respondent has asserted that it has never
disengaged from or evaded communication with any allottee and that reasonable efforts have
always been made to provide project updates.
18.

In respect of the prayer seeking interim directions restraining the movement or presence

of the Managing Director within Hyderabad, the Respondent has contended that such relief is
extraordinary, legally unsustainable and factually baseless. It is stated that the Managing
Director resides within the jurisdiction, attends proceedings as directed and has not avoided or
Page 4 of 17

---

The Respondent has asserted that no case of abandonment, fraudulent conduct or refusal

to deliver possession has been made out. It is reiterated that the contractual deadline expires
only in July 2025. The Respondent has contended that the reliefs sought are disproportionate,
unsupported by evidence and contrary to the mutually agreed contractual terms.
20.

By way of additional submissions, the Respondent has stated that the project

registration is valid up to 25.11.2025 and that the sanctioned building plan issued by HMDA is
valid up to April 2027. It is further stated that while force majeure is not being invoked at this
stage, the Respondent reserves the right to do so in accordance with law if circumstances
beyond its control arise. It is also contended that the Complainant has failed to follow the
dispute resolution process under Clauses 9.1, 9.2 and 34 of the Sale Agreement and has not
issued any termination notice as required.
21.

The Respondent has alleged that the present complaint appears to be an attempt to exit

the project prematurely without adhering to contractual obligations. It is asserted that the
Respondent has neither abandoned the project nor misappropriated funds and remains
committed to delivering possession within the agreed timeframe.
22.

Without prejudice to the above submissions, and in the interest of transparency and

cooperation with this Authority, the Respondent has sought reasonable extension of time to
deliver possession, considering administrative delays, seasonal interruptions and manpower
availability. The Respondent has undertaken to continue updating all stakeholders, including
this Authority, on the progress of the project.
23.

In view of the above submissions, the Respondent prays that this Hon’ble Authority

may be pleased to dismiss the Complaint as premature, contractually untenable and devoid of
cause; reject the Complainant’s demand for refund and interest, as no default has occurred;
take on record that the Respondent is within permissible timelines under the Sale Agreement
and registration; grant reasonable extension of time for delivery of possession, if deemed fit;
accept the supporting documents evidencing ongoing construction and bona fides; and pass
such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Authority may deem fit.

Page 5 of 17

---

The Complainants have categorically and unequivocally denied each and every

allegation, assertion, inference and contention raised therein, except those which are
specifically admitted. The Complainants contend that the Counter Reply contains factual
inaccuracies and legally unsustainable submissions and reflects an attempt by the Respondent
to avoid contractual responsibilities and accountability for the delay and deficiency in service.
It is asserted that the Respondent has deliberately suppressed material facts which are central
to the present dispute and necessary for a proper appreciation of the Respondent’s conduct.
25.

The Complainants reiterate that, as stated in the original complaint dated 26.04.2025,

construction activities at the project site came to a complete halt from March 2024 onwards
and that no meaningful work was carried out thereafter. It is submitted that the project remained
abandoned for a prolonged period extending from March 2024 till June 2025, covering more
than fourteen months, including the contractual possession deadline of January 2025 and a
substantial portion of the grace period claimed by the Respondent. The Complainants submit
that during this entire period, despite repeated assurances, the Respondent failed to resume
construction or demonstrate any tangible progress at the site.
26.

It is further submitted that during the said period of prolonged inaction, the Respondent

continued to raise and collect monthly payments from the Complainants until June 2025, on
the basis of repeated assurances that construction would resume shortly. According to the
Complainants, repeated follow-ups and requests for updates were met only with vague and
non-committal responses, without any concrete timeline or action on the ground. The
Complainants assert that the complaint was not filed on account of routine construction delay
but was necessitated by the Respondent’s complete abandonment of the project at a critical
stage, despite having already collected ₹44,00,000/-, which constitutes nearly seventy-five
percent of the total consideration.
27.

In support of these contentions, the Complainants have relied upon various email

communications and WhatsApp messages placed on record. It is stated that an email dated
16.09.2024 sent by the Respondent itself confirms that construction would commence only by
30.09.2024, thereby acknowledging that no work was undertaken for several months after
March 2024. The Complainants further rely on an email dated 20.12.2024 from the
Respondent’s CRM Manager referring to initiation of refund discussions, which according to
the Complainants amounts to a tacit acknowledgment of prolonged non-performance. It is also
Page 6 of 17

---

The Complainants further submit that even after the first hearing before this Authority

on 15.07.2025, the Respondent’s representative contacted the Complainants requesting
withdrawal of the complaint in exchange for verbal assurances of completing construction
within one year. It is stated that the Complainants declined the said request due to the prolonged
inaction and absence of any credible or binding commitment, and the same was communicated
by email dated 20.07.2025, which was acknowledged by the Respondent on 22.07.2025.
According to the Complainants, this sequence further demonstrates that informal assurances
could not be relied upon and that continuation of the legal proceedings was justified.
29.

With regard to the Respondent’s contention that the complaint is premature on the

ground that a six-month grace period was available under the Agreement for Sale, the
Complainants submit that Clause 7.1 of the Agreement does not grant an automatic or
unconditional extension. It is asserted that the grace period is expressly linked to Force Majeure
conditions, which must be genuine, documented and communicated. The Complainants submit
that no Force Majeure event was ever invoked, notified or substantiated by the Respondent,
either under the Agreement or otherwise. It is further submitted that the Respondent’s own
admission that there was no Force Majeure negates its claim for extension of time and renders
the plea of prematurity untenable.
30.

In response to the Respondent’s contention that the Complainants failed to adhere to

Clause 34 of the Agreement relating to mutual discussion, the Complainants submit that they
made consistent and bona fide efforts to resolve the issues amicably through repeated emails,
WhatsApp communications and follow-ups, all of which are placed on record. It is asserted
that Clause 34 is directory in nature and does not bar access to this Authority or override
statutory rights under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The
Complainants further submit that, given the prolonged abandonment of the project and absence
of meaningful response, they had no alternative but to seek relief under Section 18(1)(a) of the
Act.
31.

With respect to the Respondent’s submission that construction is actively progressing

and that brickwork and plastering are underway, the Complainants dispute the same and
Page 7 of 17

---

The Complainants further contend that the Respondent’s assertion of commitment to

timely delivery is unsupported by the record. It is stated that possession was contractually due
by January 2025 and that the Respondent is not entitled to claim the grace period in the absence
of Force Majeure. The Complainants submit that the Respondent’s own request for extension
and use of vague expressions such as “at the earliest” reflects inability to commit to any definite
completion timeline, particularly after an unexplained construction halt of more than fourteen
months.
33.

While not disputing that statutory approvals such as RERA registration and sanctioned

plans exist, the Complainants submit that such approvals do not absolve the Respondent from
its contractual obligations or justify prolonged non-performance. It is contended that reliance
on approvals cannot override the factual reality of delay and abandonment, as demonstrated by
the Respondent’s own communications and the condition of the project.
34.

The Complainants also deny the Respondent’s claim that there was no lapse in

communication. It is asserted that the record clearly demonstrates prolonged nonresponsiveness, non-functional websites, unreachable contact numbers and lack of any
effective channel of communication during critical periods. The Complainants state that even
the Respondent’s employees expressed uncertainty and inability to obtain instructions from
management, which further aggravated the Complainants’ distress.
35.

With regard to the interim relief sought concerning the Managing Director, the

Complainants clarify that the same was not intended to impose any personal restraint but was
sought only to ensure accountability and responsiveness in light of prolonged inaccessibility
and uncertainty. It is submitted that the request was made in the backdrop of complete lack of
communication and fear that the Respondent had withdrawn from the project altogether.
36.

The Complainants reiterate that the agreed delivery date of January 2025 was a decisive

factor in their decision to invest and that the prolonged abandonment of the project from March
2024 to June 2025, coupled with lack of communication and transparency, caused severe
mental and financial distress. The Complainants assert that procedural explanations offered by
Page 8 of 17

---

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

questions arise for adjudication:
I.

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

F. Observations of the Authority:
38.

This Authority has carefully examined the pleadings, documents placed on record and

the submissions advanced by the parties. It is not in dispute that the Complainants booked a
residential flat in the project “PVR Kshetra” developed by the Respondent, and that the
relationship between the parties is governed by the Agreement for Sale dated 24.02.2024. The
said project is registered with this Authority bearing Registration No. P02400003147. It is also
an admitted position that the total sale consideration for the subject flat is ₹58,13,783/-. The
Respondent has unequivocally acknowledged receipt of ₹44,00,000/- from the Complainants,
which constitutes a substantial portion of the total consideration. The factum of payment and
the quantum thereof are not in dispute.
39.

The Complainants contend that after booking the flat and making substantial payments,

construction activity at the project site came to a complete halt from March 2024 onwards.
According to the Complainants, despite repeated follow-ups, the Respondent failed to resume
construction and continued to provide vague assurances without any tangible progress on the
ground. The Complainants have further alleged prolonged non-communication, lack of
transparency and uncertainty regarding the completion of the project, which compelled them
to approach this Authority seeking refund under the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act.
40.

Per contra, the Respondent has denied the allegations of stoppage and abandonment

and has contended that the project is under active construction, with brickwork completed and
Page 9 of 17

---

The core dispute between the parties thus centres around the issue of progress of

construction, the alleged stoppage of work from March 2024 onwards, and the Respondent’s
reliance on the contractual possession timeline, including the grace period stipulated under
Clause 7.1 of the Agreement for Sale. While the Respondent asserts that construction is
ongoing, the Complainants maintain that construction activity ceased for a prolonged period
and that the Respondent failed to honour its contractual assurances.
42.

The first objection raised by the Respondent pertains to the alleged non-compliance by

the Complainants with the dispute resolution process under Clause 34 of the Agreement for
Sale dated 24.02.2024.
The relevant Dispute Resolution clause in the Agreement of Sale is reproduced below for
reference:
“34. All or any disputes arising out or touching upon or in relation to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement, including the interpretation and validity of the terms
thereof and the respective rights and obligations of the Parties, shall be settled
amicably by mutual discussion.”
43.

A plain reading of the said clause makes it evident that the clause requires the parties

for an amicable settlement by mutual discussion. Such a clause is at best directory and cannot
oust or restrict the statutory jurisdiction of this Authority.
44.

Section 79 of the RE(R&D) Act expressly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect

of any matter which this Authority, the Adjudicating Officer, or the Appellate Tribunal is
empowered to determine. Likewise, Section 88 clarifies that the provisions of the RE(R&D)
Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws. Thus, the intention of the legislature
is that remedies under this beneficial legislation must remain open to allottees, irrespective of
any private clause for amicable settlement.
45.

Even in cases where agreements contained arbitration clauses (which is not the case

here), the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble NCDRC have consistently held that such
Page 10 of 17

---

In National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy (2012) 2 SCC 506, the

Supreme Court held that remedies under special statutes are in addition to, and not in derogation
of, other remedies. For ready reference, the relevant extract is reproduced below:
“49. Support to the above view is also lent by Section 79 of the recently enacted
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short "the Real Estate
Act").
Section 79 of the said Act reads as follows:‘79. Bar of jurisdiction - No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit
or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Authority or the adjudicating
officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine
and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any
action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this
Act.’ It can thus, be seen that the said provision expressly ousts the jurisdiction of
the Civil Court in respect of any matter which the Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
established under Subsection (1) of Section 20 or the Adjudicating Officer,
appointed under Subsection (1) of Section 71, or the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
established under Section 43 of the Real Estate Act, is empowered to determine.
Hence, in view of the binding dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Ayyaswamy
(supra), the matters/disputes, which the Authorities under the Real Estate Act are
empowered to decide, are non-arbitrable, notwithstanding an Arbitration
Agreement between the parties to such matters, which, to a large extent, are similar
to the disputes falling for resolution under the Consumer Act.
56. Consequently, we unhesitatingly reject the arguments on behalf of the Builder
and hold that an Arbitration Clause in the afore-stated kind of Agreements between
the Complainants and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a
Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the
Arbitration Act.”
47.

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

701 of 2015, decided on 13.07.2017), it was held that arbitration clauses in builder-buyer
agreements cannot oust the jurisdiction of consumer fora. The said view was later upheld by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512–23513 of 2017. The relevant para
reads:
“25. This Court in the series of judgments as noticed above considered the
provisions of Consumer Protection Act, L986 as well as Arbitration Act, 1996 and
laid down that complaint under Consumer Protection Act being a special remedy,
despite there being an arbitration agreement the proceedings before Consumer
Page 11 of 17

---

In the present matter, there is only a clause requiring amicable discussion before

invoking remedies. Such a clause is directory at best, and cannot override or defeat the statutory
right of the Complainant to approach this Authority under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
Accordingly, this Authority has no hesitation in holding that the Complainant is well within its
rights to approach this forum without being first compelled to pursue an amicable settlement
under the Agreement. Accordingly, the objection raised by the Respondent under Clause 34 of
the Agreement of Sale is untenable.
49.

Coming to the issue of progress of construction, the Complainants allege that

construction activity stopped from March 2024 onwards, while the Respondent asserts that
construction is ongoing. Without delving deeply into the merits of these rival factual assertions
at this stage, this Authority notes that the Respondent has failed to upload the quarterly progress
reports as mandated under the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act and the Rules framed
thereunder, despite issuance of show cause notices for the same. Such non-compliance itself
raises serious concerns regarding transparency and disclosure.
50.

Even the photographs placed on record by the Respondent demonstrate that the project

is still under construction and is neither complete nor in a habitable condition. The materials
on record do not indicate that the project has reached a stage where possession of the flat could
be lawfully or practically handed over to the Complainants any soon. The Respondent’s own
request in the counter for reasonable extension of time for delivery of possession further
reinforces the position that the project is not yet complete.
51.

The Respondent has sought to justify the filing of the complaint as premature by relying

upon Clause 7.1 of the Agreement for Sale. The relevant Dispute Resolution clause in the
Agreement of Sale is reproduced below for reference:

Page 12 of 17

---

It is observed that Clause 7.1 stipulates delivery of possession by January 2025, with a

grace period of six months, subject to delays caused by specified Force Majeure events. A
careful reading of Clause 7.1 makes it abundantly clear that the grace period is not an automatic
or unconditional extension but is contingent upon the existence of circumstances beyond the
control of the promoter, such as natural calamities, court stays or government orders.
53.

Significantly, during the relevant period there existed no Force Majeure event, the

Respondent has also categorically stated in its counter that it is not invoking Force Majeure. In
the absence of invocation or substantiation of any Force Majeure event, the Respondent cannot
mechanically rely upon the grace period to defeat the Complainants’ grievance. The contractual
assurance of possession by January 2025, with a conditional grace period, cannot be converted
into an open-ended licence to delay delivery.

Page 13 of 17

---

In the present case, the Respondent assured delivery of possession by January 2025,

subject to a grace period which is not applicable in the absence of Force Majeure. Although the
RERA registration of the project remains valid until 25.11.2025, such registration validity does
not ipso facto alter or override the contractual rights of the allottees. The agreed date of
possession as per the Agreement for Sale remains binding, and unilateral extensions sought by
the promoter cannot be foisted upon the Complainants to their detriment.
55.

It is a settled principle that once a promoter chooses to register a project and enter into

binding contractual commitments, he does so with full knowledge of the attendant risks,
constraints and market realities. At the time of entering into the Agreement for Sale, the
Respondent consciously assured delivery by January 2025 with a conditional grace period.
56.

This Authority aligns with the observations of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in

Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2017 SCC OnLine
Bom 9302], wherein at para 119 it was categorically observed:
"While the proposal is submitted, the Promoter is supposed to be conscious of the
consequences of getting the project registered under RERA. Having sufficient
experience in the open market, the Promoter is expected to have a fair assessment
of the time required for completing the project…".
57.

The above dictum fortifies the principle that the promoter, being structurally at an

advantageous position with respect to project information and market realities, is under a
statutory duty to provide realistic timelines. The framework of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 reinforces this obligation by mandating timely completion and
possession within the period stipulated in the Agreement of Sale.
58.

Coming to the relief under Section 18(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, it is observed that

the Complainants have paid ₹44,00,000/- towards the total sale consideration of ₹58,13,783/-.
The Agreement for Sale unequivocally stipulates delivery of possession by January 2025, with
a conditional grace period which, as discussed above, is not applicable in the present case.
Admittedly, possession has not been delivered within the stipulated period.
59.

The contention of the Respondent that the construction is active and nearing completion

is not substantiated by the material available on record. It is an admitted position that a
substantial portion of the sale consideration, to the extent of nearly seventy-five percent, has
already been received from the allottees. However, despite such receipt, the Respondent has
Page 14 of 17

---

The continued delay, absence of any credible or definitive timeline for completion, and

the persisting incompleteness of the project clearly establish a failure on the part of the
Respondent to discharge its obligations in a time-bound manner. In this regard, it is pertinent
to refer to Section 19(2) of the RE(R&D) Act, which confers upon the allottees a statutory right
to be informed of the stage-wise schedule of completion of the project. The said right is not
illusory but substantive, and mandates transparency and accountability on the part of the
promoter.
61.

The Respondent’s submission that the delay may be condoned on account of a grace

period, and that the complaint is therefore premature, cannot be accepted. Such a contention
cannot be used as a shield to justify prolonged inaction or to defeat the legitimate rights of the
allottees. An allottee cannot be kept uninformed or in uncertainty regarding the progress of
construction and be expected to remain passive. It is further noted that even as on the date of
adjudication, the project remains incomplete, despite the lapse of the extended/grace period.
The position continues unchanged even at the stage of reserving the present complaint for
orders. This persistent non-completion, despite sufficient lapse of time, reinforces the
deficiency in performance on the part of the Respondent. In view of the foregoing, this
Authority finds considerable merit in the submissions advanced by the Complainant.
62.

Under Section 18(1)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, where the promoter fails to complete or

is unable to give possession of an apartment in accordance with the terms of the agreement, the
allottee has an unqualified right to withdraw from the project and seek refund of the amount
paid along with interest. This statutory right is absolute and not subject to the discretion of the
promoter.
63.

Attention is drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal

Nos. 3581-359 of 2022, Civil Appeal Diary No. 9796/2019, M/s Imperia Structures Limited vs.
Anil Patni & Others, wherein it was held:
"In terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter fails to complete or is unable
to give possession of an apartment by the date specified in the agreement, the
promoter would be liable, on demand, to return the amount received in respect of
that apartment if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project. Such a right of
the allottee is 'without prejudice to any other remedy available to him'. This right is
Page 15 of 17

---

Similarly, in Civil Appeal Nos. 6745-6749 of 2021, M/s Newtech Promoters and

Developers Private Limited vs. State of UP & Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
"Section 18(1) of the Act spells out the consequences if the promoter fails to
complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot, or building in terms
of the agreement for sale. The allottee/home buyer holds an unqualified right to
seek a refund of the amount with interest as prescribed."
65.

In the present case, this Authority is of the considered view that the Complainants have

established that despite having paid a substantial portion of the sale consideration, they were
subjected to prolonged uncertainty, lack of clarity and absence of meaningful progress at the
project site. The Respondent’s reliance on the grace period, without invoking or substantiating
any Force Majeure event, does not satisfactorily address the Complainants’ grievance. The
Complainants cannot be expected to wait indefinitely when there is no definite or credible
timeline for completion and delivery of possession.
66.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the Complainants are entitled to withdraw from

the project and seek refund of the amount paid. Though the Complainants have sought refund
of ₹44,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum by placing reliance on Clause
9.2 of the Agreement for Sale, this Authority is required to be guided by the statutory
framework governing the rate of interest under the RE(R&D) Act. Section 18 of the Act read
with Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
mandates that the rate of interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be the State Bank
of India’s Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) plus two percent. The statutory prescription
of interest under the RE(R&D) Act and the Rules has overriding effect and prevails over any
contrary or higher rate stipulated in a private agreement. Consequently, the Complainants’
claim for interest at the rate of 18% per annum cannot be accepted. The Complainants shall
instead be entitled to interest at the rate prescribed under the RE(R&D) Rules, 2017 framed
thereunder, namely SBI’s MCLR plus 2%, calculated from the promised date of possession,
i.e., January 2025, until the date of actual realization.

Page 16 of 17

---

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 is hereby directed to cancel the Agreement of Sale dated 24.02.2024
executed in favour of the Complainants in respect of the subject flat. The Respondent
is further directed to refund the entire amount of ₹44,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-Four
Lakhs only) received from the Complainants, along with interest at the rate of 10.70%
per annum (SBI MCLR of 8.70% + 2%), calculated from the promised date of
possession, i.e., January 2025, until the date of actual realization. The said refund
together with interest shall be paid to the Complainants within a period of thirty (30)
days from the date of receipt of this order.

68.

Failing to comply with the above-said direction by the Respondent shall attract penalty

in accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
69.

The complaint stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/-

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

Page 17 of 17

---