Order Complaint No. 311 Of 2021

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.311 OF 2021
28th November 2023
Corum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri LaxmiNarayanaJannu, Hon’ble Member
Sri K. SrinivasaRao, Hon’ble Member

KoduruSuryanaryana

…. Complainant
Versus

Sri NallagopulaSadanandamGoud

…. Respondent

The present matter, bearing Complaint No. 311 of 2021, was heard
before this Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, on 2nd August 2023, 4th October
2023, 19th October 2023 and 7th November 2023. The hearing was conducted
in the presence of complainant present in person and Advocate K Gal Reddy on
behalf of the Respondent.
2.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties,

this Authority hereby issues the following ORDER:
3.

This order is issued to address the complaint filed before this authority

under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as the "RE(R&D) Act"), in conjunction with Rule 34(1) of
the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the "Rules").
4. The complainant contends that the Respondent, identified as the builder and
developer of M/s Soumaya Engineering Technologies Pvt Ltd., obtained a hand
1of 4

loan of Rs.12 lakhs on 15th April 2011 for business purposes. The Respondent
committed

to

repay

Rs.24

lakhs

or

provide

an

apartment

in

SamantanaAmruthaNilyam within two years. Subsequently, additional hand
loans of Rs.2,50,000/- on 12th October 2011 and Rs.1,50,000/- on 8th August
2015 at 2% interest per month were taken for business purposes. The total
outstanding amount, including interest, presently amounts to Rs. 89,38,000/-.
The complaint prays this Authority to direct the Respondent either to register
an apartment as promised or refund the entire amount with interest.
5.

On 2nd August 2023, a hearing took place with the complainant present,

but no representation from the Respondent. Consequently, the matter was
postponed to 4th October 2023, with a fresh notice issued to the Respondent.
On the latter date, both parties were present, and the Respondent requested
time to file a reply.
6.

On the 19th of October 2023, both parties were present and presented

their arguments before this Authority. During this session, the complainant
reiterated the contentions articulated in his original complaint. Conversely, the
Respondent raised a fundamental query regarding the maintainability of the
present matter before this bench.
7.

The Respondent contended that there exists no agreement between the

complainant and the respondent, as alleged by the complainant. Furthermore,
the Respondent asserted that there is no relationship as defined under Section
2(c) (pertaining to agreements), Section 2(d) (pertaining to allottees), and
Section 2(zk) (pertaining to promoters) of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 ("RE(R&D) Act"). The Respondent posited that the
complainant approached this Hon’ble Authority with an intention to harass,
taking undue advantage of purportedly invalid documents, thereby rendering
the complaint liable to dismissal.
8.

Moreover, the Respondent emphasized that the enclosures of the

complaint explicitly state the absence of any contractual agreement between
the parties pertaining to the purchase of any kind of flats or plots. Without
2of 4

admission of the contents of the documents, the Respondent argued that any
violation of the terms and conditions of the alleged agreement dated 15th April
2011 finds remedy elsewhere and not within the purview of this Authority.
9.

The Respondent submitted that the alleged promissory note illustrates

that the transaction in question in 2011 pertains solely to a hand loan and
cannot be construed as a sale consideration. This stands in contrast to the
complainant's assertion that he purchased the property and the respondent
sold the property. Citing the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 15th
April 2011, the Respondent asserted that the Ranga Reddy District Court holds
jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising from the alleged documents.
Consequently, the Respondent contended that this Hon’ble Authority lacks
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for the relief sought by the complainant.
10.

It has been observed that this Authority, under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016,

lacks jurisdiction to address the present dispute, which does not pertain to a
Real Estate Project. The agreement dated 15.04.2011, as per its contents,
pertains to a hand loan, and the Authority's jurisdiction is limited to inter se
disputes between the promoter and allottee. The complainants, in such cases,
should seek recourse with the competent authority.
11.

Therefore, this Authority determines that the present Complainant does

not qualify as an "aggrieved person" under the provisions of the 2016 Act. The
Complainant fails to meet the designated categories outlined in the Act,
encompassing allottee, association of allottees, or voluntary association. The
Complainant, in this instance, has not provided evidentiary support or an
authorization letter demonstrating qualification as an aggrieved person under
Section 31 of the RERD Act. Section 31 is reproduced herein for reference:
31 (1) Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or
the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or
contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations
made thereunder against any promoter allottee or real estate agent, as
the case may be.
3of 4

Explanation. —For the purpose of this sub-section “person” shall include
the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association
registered under any law for the time being in force.
12.

In light of the above, this authority hereby dismisses the complaint filed

on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and refers the parties to pursue their
claims through the appropriate forum. This dismissal is without prejudice to
any rights of the parties.
13.

If aggrieved by this Order, the parties may approach the TS Real Estate

Appellate Tribunal (vide G.O Ms.no.8, dt 11.01.2018, the Telangana State
Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal has been designated as TS Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal to manage the affairs under the Act till the regular Tribunal
is established) within 60 days from the receipt of this Order.

Sd/Sri K. SrinivasaRao, Hon’ble Member
TS RERA

Sd/Sri LaxmiNarayanaJannu, Hon’ble Member
TS RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.)Hon’ble Chairperson
TS RERA

4of 4