Order Complaint No. 297 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 297 of 2024
1st December 2025
Quorum:

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

Smt. T. Usha Rani
H.No.48-579/1, Ground Floor,
Ganesh Nagar, Near Ramalayam,
Chintal, Quthbullapur Mandal,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District,
Hyderabad, Telangana-500054.

… Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Tulasi Constructions
C/o Green Metro Infratech & Projects Pvt. Ltd.
H.No.8-2-293/82/A/787, Plot No.787,
3rd Floor, Apurupa Turbo, Road No.36,
Near Croma, SBI Colony, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad, Telangana-500033

2. M/s. Bhuvanteza Infra Project Pvt. Ltd.,
Flat No.201, Second Floor, Lumbini Amrutha
(Chambers, Nagarjuna Circle,
Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500082

3. M/s. Green Metro Infratech and Projects Pvt. Ltd
C/o-M/S Green Metro Infratech & Projects Pvt Ltd
H.No. 8-2-293/82/A/787, 3rd Floor Apurupa Turbo,
Road No.36, Near Croma, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad-500033

… Respondents
The present Complaint came up for hearing on 09.09.2025 before this Authority.
The Complainant was present in person, and Sri S. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel for
Respondent No.1, and Sri G. Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, were
present. Respondent No.3 was present in person and upon hearing the submissions advanced
by both sides and having reserved the matter for orders, this Authority now proceeds to pass
the present 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”)
1

---

The Complainant stated that she is filing the present complaint against Mr. Boddu

Ashok, Director of M/s Tulasi Constructions (Respondent No.1) and Mr. Chekka
Subrahmanyam, Director of Respondent No.2 (for their fraudulent acts and deceptive conduct
which caused her financial loss. The Complainant submitted that M/s Tulasi Constructions
launched a residential project under the name “Tulasi Lake Front” situated at Suraram,
Quthbullapur mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and appointed M/s Bhuvanateza Infra
Projects Pvt. Ltd. as the Sales and Marketing agency to promote and sell the flats in the said
project.
4.

The Complainant had booked a Flat No. 203 on the 2nd Floor, 4th Block in the said

project through the channel partner M/s Bhuvanateza Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., and paid the total
sale consideration amount of ₹16,50,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only). The
Complainant stated that she has been waiting for the registration of the said flat for more than
three years, but despite full payment, the Respondents failed to execute and register the Sale
Deed in her favour.
5.

After payment of the total sale consideration, the Complainant was issued an Agreement

of Sale by Respondent No.2, duly signed and authorized by its Director, Mr. Chekka
Subrahmanyam. However, due to internal financial disputes between respondent No.1 and 2,
the registration of the flat has been indefinitely delayed, causing severe hardship to the
Complainant.
6.

The Complainant submitted that when she approached the Respondent No.1 and 2 for

completion of the registration, instead of cooperating, they started threatening and intimidating
her. The Complainant stated that such actions clearly demonstrate malafide intent and
constitute gross deficiency in service, breach of trust, and fraudulent misrepresentation on the
part of the Respondents.
7.

The Complainant therefore prayed this Hon’ble Authority to take the cognizance of the

fraudulent and deceitful acts committed by Respondent No.1 and 2 and direct a detailed

2

---

In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the Complainant has prayed

for the following relief:
a. To direct the Respondents to register the Sale Deed in respect of Flat No. 203, 2nd Floor,
Block No. 4, at Tulasi Lake Front project, Suraram as per the agreement (or) return the
total sale consideration amount of ₹16,50,000/- along with interest and penalties.
C. Counter filed by Respondent No.1
9.

The Respondent No.1 stated that the adverse averments made in the complaint are

specifically denied as false and baseless. The Complainant may be put to strict proof thereof.
As per the own version of the Complainant, the alleged part sale consideration of ₹16,50,000/was paid to the Respondent No.2 and not to this Respondent. Even the alleged Agreement of
Sale dated 09.01.2021 said to have been executed in favour of the Complainant in respect of
Flat No.203, 2nd Floor, Block No.4, at “Tulasi Lake Front”, Suraram was entered into with the
Respondent No.2 and not with this Respondent No.1. Hence, the Complainant has no locus
standi to file the present complaint before this Hon’ble Authority against this Respondent No.1,
she being a total stranger to this Respondent company.
10.

After obtaining necessary approvals from the competent authorities, including GHMC

and other local bodies, this Respondent commenced construction of apartments under the name
and style of “Tulasi Lake Front”, Suraram. The Complainant neither entered into any sale
agreement nor paid any sale consideration directly to this Respondent No.1 company.
Therefore, there exists no contractual relationship between the Complainant and this
Respondent No.1. The alleged documents and receipts produced by the Complainant are not
binding on this Respondent, as they were executed solely by Respondent No.2, without the
knowledge, consent, or authorization of this Respondent company.
11.

Further, the Respondent No.2, claiming to be the Managing Director of Respondent

No.1, entered into certain agreements with some individuals, including the present
Complainant, and received sale consideration amounts purportedly offering to sell flats of this
Respondent company. The Respondent No.1 categorically submitted that Respondent No.2 was
3

---

The alleged Agreement of Sale dated 09.01.2021 is a fabricated and concocted

document, as the same does not even bear the signature of the Complainant. Therefore, the said
document has no legal sanctity. The Respondent No.1 further submitted that there is no privity
of contract between this Respondent and the Complainant. It is a settled legal principle that
only parties to a contract have enforceable rights and obligations under it, and third parties
cannot sue or be sued based on such contracts. Since there is no contractual nexus, no cause of
action arises against this Respondent. Their project “Tulasi Lake Front” has been duly approved
by GHMC and registered under TG RERA, with validity up to the year 2028. The project is
still under construction and within the permitted period for completion as per RERA
registration conditions. Therefore, any complaint filed prior to the stipulated completion period
is premature and not maintainable.
13.

The allegation of threatening the Complainant by this Respondent is false, baseless, and

invented merely for the purpose of filing this complaint and related criminal proceedings. The
said allegations are a matter of investigation before the appropriate forum. The reliefs sought
by the Complainant, such as direction to register the alleged Flat No.203, payment of interest,
and issuance of Occupancy Certificate, are beyond the jurisdiction and purview of this
Authority, in the absence of any contractual relationship or monetary transaction between the
Complainant and this Respondent. The Respondent No.1 also pointed out that all receipts and
the alleged agreement issued by Respondent No.2 refer to “25th Block,” whereas the relief
claimed in the complaint refers to “4th Block,” which clearly shows inconsistency and
contradiction in the pleadings and prayer of the Complainant.
14.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the present complaint filed by the

Complainant against this Respondent No.1 is false, frivolous, and vexatious. The complaint is
liable to be dismissed in limine, as no cause of action arises against this Respondent. Hence,
this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to consider this counter, drop all further proceedings

4

---

The Respondent No.2 represented by its Mr. Chekka Subrahmanyam submitted that

the grievance raised by the Complainant does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Authority, as the Respondent No.2 is an independent marketing agent who procures plots or
flats from various developers through Agreements of Sale and subsequently sells them to
prospective purchasers. The Respondent No.2 further submitted that there exists no written or
oral contract or Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between this Respondent and
Respondent No.1 in respect of the project “Tulsi Lake Front”. Hence, Respondent No.1 is not
liable in any manner towards the Complainant’s claims, and consequently, the complaint is
misconceived and not maintainable.
16.

The Respondent No.2 stated that he is not a “Real Estate Agent” as defined under the

provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and has not been
registered with TG RERA as an agent of Respondent No.1 under Section 4 of the said Act.
Therefore, the present complaint is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Authority, as no
legal or contractual nexus exists between this Respondent and Respondent No.1 under the
purview of the Act.
17.

Further, submitted that he entered into an Agreement of Sale with the Complainant and

received the total sale consideration of ₹16,50,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand
only). There was no written or oral agreement or MoU with Respondent No.1 authorizing him
to execute any such transaction. The Respondent No.2 stated that he had intended to act as an
independent marketing intermediary to facilitate a transaction between Respondent No.1 and
the Complainant, but Respondent No.1 did not grant any consent, authorization, or permission
for the said negotiation.
18.

In view of the non-granting of permission by Respondent No.1, he had expressed

willingness to amicably settle the issue with the Complainant. However, the Respondent No.2
has been implicated in a criminal case, registered as FIR No.47/2024 by the CCS Police,
Hyderabad, along with certain other related matters. The Respondent No.2 submitted that
during the course of the said criminal proceedings, the investigating agency has seized all his
documents, assets, and bank accounts, thereby rendering him incapable of settling the amounts
5

---

Furthermore, the Respondent No.2 submitted that the relief sought by the Complainant

is beyond the purview of this Hon’ble Authority, as there exists no privity of contract between
Respondent No.1 and this Respondent No.2, nor between the Complainant and Respondent
No.1 through this Respondent. The entire subject matter pertains to criminal allegations which
were already under investigation in FIR No.47/2024 by CCS Police, Hyderabad, and hence
falls within the jurisdiction of the criminal court.
20.

Therefore, the Respondent No.2 submitted that in view of the foregoing facts and

circumstances, this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to take note of this counter, drop all
further proceedings, and dismiss the complaint as false, frivolous, and not maintainable under
law, and pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Authority may deem fit and proper
in the interest of justice and equity.
E. Rejoinder by the Complainant to the counter filed by Respondent No.1:
21.

The Complainant submitted that she reiterates the averments made in her main complaint

and specifically denies all allegations made in the counters filed by the Respondents except
where expressly admitted herein. The Complainant denies the contention that the complaint is
premature or not maintainable and submits that the Respondent’s version is self-serving, devoid
of any substantiating evidence, and contrary to the material facts on record.
22.

The Complainant submits that Respondent No.2 has marketed the project “Tulasi Lake

Front” showing the brochure depicting “Tulasi Constructions” and Respondent No.1 and 1 as
the promoter and developer. Both Respondents jointly promoted the said project and conducted
customer meetings confirming their collaboration. Relying upon their representations, the
Complainant agreed to purchase Flat No.203, 2nd Floor, Block-4, admeasuring 620 sq. ft., for
a total sale consideration of ₹16,50,000/- and paid the same to Respondent No.2 under an
Agreement of Sale dated 09.01.2021, both Respondents failed to execute the registration till
date. “Tulasi Constructions” is a sister concern of Respondent No.3, and that Respondent No.2
acted as its agent in marketing and executing transactions on its behalf, which is evident upon
lifting the corporate veil.

6

---

Moreover, the lands bearing Survey Nos. 96, 97, and 98 situated at Suraram Village

were developed by Respondent No.3, which obtained GHMC and RERA permissions for the
layout. “Tulasi Constructions,” being a subsidiary/sister concern, subsequently obtained
permissions for construction of apartments and appointed Respondent No.2 as its marketing
agent. Therefore, Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable for the acts and omissions
committed in the course of business. It is further submitted that Respondent No.1, as the
principal developer and promoter, is vicariously liable for the representations and actions of
Respondent No.2 under the principle of vicarious liability. The Respondent No.2’s
representative has also admitted before this Authority that a financial dispute exists between
Respondents 1 and 2 and that they intend to resolve the same and complete registrations in
favour of the respective customers.
24.

The Complainant submits that several sale deeds have already been executed by

Respondent No.1 in favour of other allottees in the same project marketed by Respondent No.2,
which clearly establishes their joint involvement and privity. Hence, Respondent No.1 cannot
evade responsibility by contending non-existence of contractual relationship. The plea that the
project completion period extends up to year 2028 under TG RERA does not absolve the
Respondents from performing the contractual obligation of registering the flat for which the
Complainant has paid the full sale consideration. The continuous failure to honour the
Agreement of Sale and deliver the flat constitutes a cause of action, warranting intervention of
this Authority.
25.

In view of the above, the Complainant submits that both Respondents are jointly and

severally obligated to register Flat No.203, 2nd Floor, Block-4, in favour of the Complainant.
The Respondent No.1, being the principal promoter, is legally accountable for all acts of its
agent, Respondent No.2, and cannot escape liability under the guise of internal disputes.
Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to direct the
Respondents to register the said flat in favour of the Complainant and to grant such other reliefs
as this Hon’ble Authority may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
F.
26.

I.A. No. 68 of 2025
The Complainant, Smt. T. Ushas Rani, filed the present I.A application seeking

permission to amend the cause title of the main complaint by adding M/s. Green Metro
Infratech and Projects Pvt. Ltd. as Respondent No.3, being the developer/promoter of the
project “Tulasi Lake Front,” situated at Suraram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal7

---

Based on the above facts and circumstances, the following questions arise before this

Authority for determination:
I.

Whether the Complaint is maintainable under the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act,
2016?

II.

Whether Respondent No.1 is liable for the actions of Respondent No.2?

III.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as sought in the Complaint?

H. Observations of the Authority:
Point I
28.

Upon careful perusal of the documents placed on record and after considering the

submissions of both parties, it emerges that the Complainant paid the entire sale consideration
of Rs. 16,50,000/- and accordingly entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 09.01.2021 for
purchase of Flat No. 203, 2nd Floor, Block No. 4 in the project titled “Tulasi Lake Front.” At
the time of execution of the said Agreement of Sale, Respondent No.2 acted in the capacity of
the vendor.
29.

It is observed that the Respondent No.2 initially offered to the Complainant a 1 BHK

unit admeasuring 620 sq. ft., situated in Block No. 25, including common amenities.
Subsequently, as per the submissions of the Complainant, upon being informed that no 1 BHK
units were available, Respondent No.2 (M/s. Bhuvanteza Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.) offered an
alternative unit namely the 2 BHK Flat No. 203 in Block No. 4 of the same project. However,
no document, such as a supplementary agreement, allotment letter, or booking confirmation,
has been placed on record by the Complainant to substantiate the alleged transfer of allotment
from Block 25 to Block 4. This remains a material deficiency in evidence, and the same shall
be considered in the subsequent findings.
8

---

Both Respondents have raised objections regarding maintainability of the present

complaint. Respondent No.1 asserts that (i) there is no privity of contract between him and the
Complainant, and (ii) the registration of the project is valid up to 2028, and therefore the
complaint being filed prior to the expected date of possession is premature. Respondent No.2
contends that as he is not a registered real estate agent under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, the
complaint against him is not maintainable.
31.

Turning first to the objection raised by Respondent No.1, the contention is that the

Complainant has no locus standi since no contract exists between them. However, the project
“Tulasi Lake Front” is a registered real estate project before this Authority, wherein Respondent
No.1 is the Promoter. Once a project is registered and is being advertised, marketed, or offered
for sale to the general public, it cannot be assumed that the Promoter is uninformed or
disconnected from activities undertaken for the purpose of attracting allottees.
32.

This Authority has previously dealt with comparable circumstances. In Complaint No.

32 of 2024 & batch, concerning the project “Tulasi Bhagyanagar”, Respondent No.2 was found
to have acted as a marketing agent on behalf of Respondent No.2, executing agreements,
collecting consideration, and facilitating sales. The Authority held both Respondents jointly
and severally liable notwithstanding absence of a formal written agreement defining their interse relationship.
33.

Although the present facts pertain to a different project, this Authority notes a pattern

of conduct wherein Respondent No.2 facilitates sales for projects promoted by Respondent
No.1. Whether such facilitation is established in the present matter will be examined in
subsequent paragraphs; however, given that:
(a) the project belongs to Respondent No.1,
(b) it is registered before this Authority, and
(c) the Complainant alleges allotment and payment under said project,
this Authority cannot accept Respondent No.1’s contention that the Complainant is a
“stranger” to him. The objection is therefore untenable.
34.

Coming to the objection of Respondent No.2, his submission is that the complaint is

not maintainable because he is not registered as a “real estate agent”. This Authority is
constrained to observe the surprising nonchalance in such a submission, for it entirely
misconceives the scheme of the RE(R&D) Act.
9

---

Section 2(zm) of the RE(R&D) Act defines a “real estate agent” expansively, covering

any person who negotiates, facilitates, or acts on behalf of another in transactions involving
sale of plots/apartments, and receives remuneration for such services. Section 9(1) mandates
that no person shall facilitate the sale or purchase of any part of a registered project without
being duly registered as a real estate agent.
36.

The obligation is thus cast upon the agent to obtain registration, and failure to do so

does not grant immunity from proceedings; rather, it constitutes a statutory violation. For
reference, Section 2(zm) of the RE (R & D) Act, 2016 reads as follows:
“real estate agent” means any person, who negotiates or acts on behalf
of one person in a transaction of transfer of his plot, apartment or
building, as the case may be, in a real estate project, by way of sale, with
another person or transfer of plot, apartment or building, as the case may
be, of any other person to him and receives remuneration or fees or any
other charges for his services whether as a commission or otherwise and
includes a person who introduces, through any medium, prospective
buyers and sellers to each other for negotiation for sale or purchase of
plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, and includes property
dealers, brokers, middlemen by whatever name called;
Section 9(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 further provides that:
(1) No real estate agent shall facilitate the sale or purchase of or act on
behalf of any person to facilitate the sale or purchase of any plot,
apartment or building, as the case may be, in a real estate project or part
of it, being the part of the real estate project registered under section 3,
being sold by the promoter in any planning area, without obtaining
registration under this section.
37.

In his own submissions, Respondent No.2 admits that he functions as an independent

marketing agent, procures plots from companies through agreements of sale, and thereafter
sells these plots to customers. Such conduct, prima facie, goes beyond that of a mere facilitator.
For context section 2(zk) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016;
(v) Any other person who acts himself as a builder, coloniser, contractor,
developer, estate developer or by any other name or claims to be acting
as the holder of a power of attorney from the owner of the land on which
the building or apartment is constructed or plot is developed for sale; or
(vi) such other person who constructs any building or apartment for sale
to the general public.
Explanation -- For the purposes of this clause, where the person who
constructs or converts a building into apartments or develops a plot for
sale and the persons who sells apartments or plots are different persons,
both of them shall be deemed to be the promoters and shall be jointly
10

---

Thus, a person who sells units in a project while projecting it as his own, advertises the

RERA registration as though it pertains to his project, and markets and sells multiple plots even
if he is not the original developer squarely falls within the statutory definition of a ‘Promoter.’
The admitted conduct of Respondent No.2, who purchases and thereafter sells plots/units to
allottees, is nothing but the performance of promoter functions. His acts are, in substance and
effect, those of a Promoter and not of a marketing agent or real estate agent as proclaimed,
thereby bringing him fully within the regulatory fold of the RE(R&D) Act.
39.

In view of the foregoing statutory framework and factual admissions, Respondent No.2

cannot claim that the complaint is not maintainable merely because he is not a registered real
estate agent. His actions bring him squarely within the ambit of RE(R&D) Act. Accordingly,
both objections raised by the Respondents on maintainability are rejected, and the complaint is
held to be maintainable against both Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2.
Point II
40.

Respondent No.1 contends that it neither executed any Agreement of Sale with the

Complainant nor received any portion of the sale consideration, and that no authority oral or
written was ever conferred upon Respondent No.2 to market, book, allot, or register flats in the
“Tulasi Lake Front” project. It is therefore argued that all documents issued by Respondent
No.2 are unilateral, unauthorized, and not binding on Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2, on
the other hand, admits having executed the Agreement of Sale and having issued receipts in his
own name, while also conceding that he had no authorization from Respondent No.1 and acted
solely as an independent marketing agent.
41.

Upon examination of the record, this Authority notes that the Complainant has not

substantiated any material to demonstrate that the transactions with Respondent No.2 were
undertaken on behalf of Respondent No.1. There is no linkage of payments, no trail of funds
received by Respondent No.1, no communication of allotment, and no documentary indication
that Respondent No.2 acted under instructions or authority of Respondent No.1 in case in hand.
Every document relied upon by the Complainant whether receipts, the Agreement of Sale, or
assurances emanates exclusively from Respondent No.2.
42.

In the absence of any documentary nexus, it cannot be construed that Respondent No.1

had privity with the Complainant or that Respondent No.2 acted as his representative in this
11

---

It is further noted that Block 25, from which the initial allotment was allegedly offered,

is not a registered block under the project. The Complainant has also not explained how such
a substantial amount was paid to Respondent No.2, who is neither the registered promoter of
the project nor shown to have authority under Section 4 of the RE(R&D) Act. This Authority
has consistently cautioned allottees to exercise due diligence and to avoid making payments to
third parties unconnected with the registered promoter.
44.

Considering the documents placed on record, it is the considered view of this Authority

that Respondent No.1 cannot be held liable either for refund or for registration of the unit in
favour of the Complainant, as no payment has been made to Respondent No.1, no allotment
has been issued by Respondent No.1, and no contractual or representative relationship between
Respondents No.1 and No.2 has been established in the present case.
45.

Conversely, Respondent No.2, who acted as a promoter, executed the Agreement of

Sale in his own name, described himself therein as the vendor/owner, allotted the unit, assured
the Complainant of such allotment, and collected the entire sale consideration. Having assumed
the role and responsibilities of a promoter for the purpose of this transaction, Respondent No.2
shall be solely responsible for the consequences arising from failure to hand over possession
of the said unit.
Point II is answered accordingly.
Point III
46.

The Complainant seeks refund of the total sale consideration of ₹16,50,000/- along

with interest. The material on record unequivocally establishes that there exists no privity of
contract between the Complainant and Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has consistently
asserted without contradiction that it neither executed any Agreement of Sale with the
Complainant nor received any portion of the sale consideration, nor authorised Respondent
No.2 to market, negotiate, allot, or conclude any transaction concerning Block 25 or Block 4
of the “Tulasi Lake Front” project.
12

---

As already observed, there is a complete absence of contractual nexus, authorization,

or financial involvement linking Respondent No.1 to the questioned transaction. Consequently,
Respondent No.1 cannot be saddled with liability for refund or any consequential relief. The
claim for refund therefore lies exclusively against Respondent No.2, who independently
executed the Agreement of Sale, collected the entire sale consideration, and acted without
lawful authority or registration under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
48.

As per Section 18 further provides that:
“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.”

49.

Attention is drawn to the decision 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."
50.

Respondent No.2, in both his oral and written submissions, has attempted to justify his

actions by claiming that he was under the “impression” that Respondent No.1 would grant
permission to negotiate or conclude transactions. However, he concedes that no such approval
was ever obtained. His submissions are mutually contradictory a) at one stage he denies being
a real estate agent, b) at another he claims to have purchased plots and resold them, c) and
simultaneously he describes himself in the Agreement of Sale as the “vendor,” “agreement
holder,” and “absolute owner.”
Such inconsistent and evasive stand only reinforces the conclusion that Respondent No.2
has indulged in unfair trade practices, misrepresentation, and unauthorized collection of funds.
13

---

This Authority notes that similar violations by Respondent No.2 have been dealt with

earlier. In Complaint No. 264 of 2024, this Authority declared Respondent No.2 a “defaulter.”
The relevant extract reads:
“35… Accordingly, Respondent No.1 is hereby declared to be a “defaulter” both
in its capacity as a “promoter” and as an “agent” within the meaning of Sections
2(zk) and 2(zm) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. As a consequence, the Respondent shall
be prohibited from undertaking, advertising, marketing, booking, selling, or
registering any new real estate project or acting as a real estate agent within the
jurisdiction of this Authority until such time as all existing dues, refunds, interest,
penalties, and regulatory compliances are fully discharged to the satisfaction of
this Authority”
52.

Notably, Block 25, from which Respondent No.2 purported to allot a unit, is not a

registered block under the project. Having no legal right, title, or authority over the said block,
Respondent No.2 could not have allotted any unit therein. Allotting or selling units in an
unregistered project component is a serious violation of the Act. In the present proceedings,
Respondent No.2 has also expressed willingness to settle the relief claimed by the Complainant.
Since the Complainant seeks refund, Respondent No.2 is directed to forthwith honour the
settlement and discharge, without delay, all amounts lawfully due.
53.

Accordingly, in exercise of powers under Section 18(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, this

Authority holds that Respondent No.2 is liable to refund the entire sale consideration received
from the Complainant, along with interest at the rate of the current highest marginal cost of
lending rate of the State Bank of India (8.75%) plus 2%, aggregating to 10.75% per annum.
Interest shall accrue from the date of execution of the Agreement of Sale, i.e., 09.01.2021, until
the actual date of realization.
54.

Further, Respondent No.2’s actions:
a) allotting a unit in an unregistered block,
b) misrepresenting himself as promoter/owner,
c) collecting amounts without authority, and
d) conducting business in total disregard of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
e) constitute grave violations amounting to unfair trade practices and misrepresentation.

55.

Accordingly, this Authority finds Respondent No.2 in violation of the provisions of the

Act, and hereby directs the Secretary, Telangana RERA, to initiate proceedings for imposition
of penalty under Section 38, read with Section 61 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, with the approval
of the Authority.
14

---

Further, this Authority deems it necessary to caution Respondent No.1. In any registered

real estate project, if any real estate agent, intermediary, or person acting as a de facto promoter
advertises, markets, or represents the project as though it were his own, the registered promoter
cannot remain a passive or silent spectator. Respondent No.1, as the promoter on record, is not
expected to be blindsided or to later contend lack of awareness, absence of authorization, or
non-involvement. This Authority will not countenance a posture of silence or inaction from a
registered promoter when such misleading practices occur in respect of its project. Any failure
on the part of the promoter to take timely protective measures may attract appropriate
regulatory consequences in future cases.
Point No. III is answered accordingly
I. Directions of the Authority:
57.

This Authority, vide the powers vested under Section 37 of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016,

passes the following directions:
i.

The objections raised by Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 regarding
maintainability are rejected. The Authority holds that the present complaint is
maintainable as against both Respondents, in light of the admitted actions of
Respondent No.2 and the overall regulatory framework governing registered projects.

ii.

Based on the material placed on record, the Authority holds that no privity of contract,
authorization, or financial linkage has been established between the Complainant and
Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, therefore, cannot be fastened with liability for
refund or for any allotment-related relief when no payment has been made to him, nor
any allotment or commitment originated from him. However, the Authority issues a
formal caution to Respondent No.1 that, as the registered promoter, he is under a
statutory obligation to exercise vigilance and to take prompt corrective measures in
cases of unauthorized advertising or misrepresentation by third parties. Respondent
No.1 shall not adopt a posture of silence or inaction and is expected to lodge appropriate
complaints and issue public notices wherever necessary to safeguard homebuyers.

iii.

The Respondent No. 2 is further directed to refund the entire amount of ₹16,50,000/(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), along with interest at the rate of 10.75%
per annum (SBI MCLR of 8.75% + 2%), calculated from Agreement of sale dated
09.01.2021 until the date of actual refund. The aforesaid refund, along with accrued
interest, shall be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this order.
15

---

Respondent No.2 is further found to have committed serious violations—
a) allotting a unit in an unregistered block,
b) misrepresenting himself as promoter/owner,
c) collecting money without legal authority, and
d) engaging in unfair trade practices.
Accordingly, the Secretary, Telangana RERA, is directed to initiate proceedings for
imposition of penalty against Respondent No.2 under Section 38 read with Section 61
of the RE(R&D) Act, with approval of the Authority.

v.

The Authority reiterates that allottees shall exercise caution and ensure payments are
made only to the registered promoter or duly authorised entities.

58.

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

in accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
59.

The Complaint is disposed of in lieu of the above directions. No order as to costs.
Sd/-

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sri. K. Srinivasa Rao,

Sri. Laxmi Naryana Jannu,

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),

Hon’ble Member

Hon’ble Member

Hon’ble Chairperson

TG RERA

TG RERA

TG RERA

16

---